Where do you stand with sex, gender and sexuality?

[TomC]

The feminist and queer theorist has really been popping out in me in the last few months! I’ve been reading the book Gender Trouble which discusses ‘compulsory heterosexuality’ as a construction born out of the use of the sexes for the polarisation of our identifiable performative genders. The subordination of woman in these dualised genders serves masculine oppressiveness, as does compulsory heterosexuality. Thrilling!

Essentially I agree. Gender (being the actions we perform that are typically ascribed masculine and feminine) is socially constructed for the purpose of the patriarchy. The world would be a much better place if gender and sexuality were more fluid, and we created a more even playing field.

[Daniel.]

There's only two genders
It's about equality not feminism
and am pro gay obviously

[RileyH]

There's only two genders
It's about equality not feminism
and am pro gay obviously

This pretty much

[Morgan.]

There's only two genders
It's about equality not feminism
and am pro gay obviously

I think I'm on the same lines tbh

Especially with feminism - there's a lot of double standards and the level of equality is out the door. Yes fight for women's rights, but no you don't deserve more rights or uneven rights to men they should be equal.

[Barry.]

I think I'm on the same lines tbh

Especially with feminism - there's a lot of double standards and the level of equality is out the door. Yes fight for women's rights, but no you don't deserve more rights or uneven rights to men they should be equal.

This.

[Twosugars]

used to think there were only two genders, but not so sure now
so I'm open-minded and see how things develop once people are free to adopt gender solution that suits them best
it's only just begun

[montblanc]

there seems to be a lot of ignorance about what feminism truly is (and not saying ignorance in a bad way)

men have and always have had an upper hand in society and in order for that to be “equal” we DO need to focus on women rights even if it may seem like “double standards”

[montblanc]

and FYI a lot of these double standards (not all) that seem to go against men are created by men themselves

[Morgan.]

used to think there were only two genders, but not so sure now
so I'm open-minded and see how things develop once people are free to adopt gender solution that suits them best
it's only just begun

Yeah I forgot to add that people are fine to label themselves to whatever of the 60-odd genders there are but personally I think that male and female (cis or trans) are the only genders.

Everything else seems to be sort of an unnecessary label. Not in the sense that you're silly or wrong for thinking that, but in the sense that it doesn't need a name, you know who you are and are comfortable with that so why put it in a box and label it. And with there being so many - the chances of someone understanding you when you tell them you're a 'Masculine Female-Attracted Hermaphromale' or others of the sort, are limited and just causes more confusion to a society which already has many blurred lines and grey areas.

[Twosugars]

there are people who are genuinely androgynous, a bit of both though


60 odd genders won't survive the test of time, imo, but eventually something of a consensus should emerge

[Morgan.]

there seems to be a lot of ignorance about what feminism truly is (and not saying ignorance in a bad way)

men have and always have had an upper hand in society and in order for that to be “equal” we DO need to focus on women rights even if it may seem like “double standards”

Yes I agree, I meant double standards in a different way. Just as an example - if there was an openly strong-opinioned feminist who believed that all genders should be equal who is then offended when a male asks to split the bill on a date. Yes that may be tradition, but gender pay gap has become a tradition and that's completely wrong so :shrug: As I say just an example and there's many things to consider with that particular one but your probably get my gist anyway?

[Morgan.]

there are people who are genuinely androgynous, a bit of both though


60 odd genders won't survive the test of time, imo, but eventually something of a consensus should emerge

Yes sorry, I meant to include that one. My point was more about the scale of genders presented though, apologies.

[Niamh.]

and FYI a lot of these double standards (not all) that seem to go against men are created by men themselvesTotally agree.

I think gender is a bunch of stereotyping, agree with the OP

[montblanc]

Yes I agree, I meant double standards in a different way. Just as an example - if there was an openly strong-opinioned feminist who believed that all genders should be equal who is then offended when a male asks to split the bill on a date. Yes that may be tradition, but gender pay gap has become a tradition and that's completely wrong so :shrug: As I say just an example and there's many things to consider with that particular one but your probably get my gist anyway?

but a real feminist wouldn’t be bothered about splitting the bill

people ideas of a feminist is not what an actual feminist is and that’s where a lot of the ignorance surrounding feminism and its values are

[thesheriff443]

I think there will be more gender labels to come as humans explore gender.

Just as new words are added to the dictionary.

[Marsh.]

I think some people need to realise there are differences and there will never be 100% even playing field because male and female are different in many ways.

By all means champion equal rights etc but there are some people who truly believe men and women are the same. They're not.

[Morgan.]

but a real feminist wouldn’t be bothered about splitting the bill

people ideas of a feminist is not what an actual feminist is and that’s where a lot of the ignorance surrounding feminism and its values are

Again, just an example.

See I partly agree with you. I think there's a large portion of feminists who are standing up for women, fighting for equal rights and making this world a better place but there are feminists who take it too far and fight more for unbalanced rights. And yes that's a minority, but that group are partly responsible for the clouded view of feminism and it's values.

[Niamh.]

I think some people need to realise there are differences and there will never be 100% even playing field because male and female are different in many ways.

By all means champion equal rights etc but there are some people who truly believe men and women are the same. They're not.Absolutely, which is why we need sex separation in sport etc

[Tom4784]

When it comes to sexuality, I only really believe in four orientations. Straight, gay, bi and asexual. Pansexuality, demisexuality and all the other labels are just other labels for bisexuality without the baggage and plus pansexuality is just patronising to bisexuals by insinuating that bi people are inherently transphobic.

Feminism is equality, overly sensitive men and women who don't love themselves just like to focus on extreme aspects to smear the whole movement.

I believe that gender, like bisexuality has been overly complicated to allow patronising people to feel more special than they actually are. You are either a cisgendered man or woman or a transgender man or woman. For the sake of simplicity, I think that trans people should only be entitled to the benefits of their gender if they are actively transitioning/ have transitioned. If a trans man who has not begun transitioning goes to prison, for example, they'd be in way more danger in a male prison than a female prison and vice versa.

I find things like gender fluidity to be a style choice more than a gender and I don't think it should be recognised as it's own gender. Destroying gender norms is great but that doesn't mean that gender fluidity is a gender in itself.

[Marsh.]

I agree. If gender "norms" and stereotypes are ended then gender fluidity doesn't mean anything.

They like cars AND cooking. Oooh. But if cooking and cars are no longer offensively stereotyped as inherently a male or female interest then how can you be fluid between the two? :think:

Genuinely just confused myself now.

[Niamh.]

I agree. If gender "norms" and stereotypes are ended then gender fluidity doesn't mean anything.

They like cars AND cooking. Oooh. But if cooking and cars are no longer offensively stereotyped as inherently a male or female interest then how can you be fluid between the two? :think:

Genuinely just confused myself now."Gender norms" could just be renamed "personal taste"

[TomC]

I would say that some people in this thread don’t know what feminism is.

And to those who would say ‘there are only two genders’ id ask them to question their very notion of what gender is. Legally, gender typically is equated with sexual anatomy. But what people who identify as ‘genderqueer’ for example are manifesting is an inability to fully con scribe themselves to the gender categories that law and society dictates to us. I’d encourage these people to question, and where possible reject the idea that people should feel restricted in such away.

And wrt the poster who believes in the categorisation of four sexualities.. i obviously disagree as a result. When gender categories lose their meaning, so do sexuality labels, and even before that, sexuality between the two gender norms is a spectrum.

[Liam-]

Two genders, four sexualities, true feminism is great, the rare few ‘feminists’ that just hate men in general, are just as mad as men who see women as second class citizens.

[Niamh.]

I would say that some people in this thread don’t know what feminism is.

And to those who would say ‘there are only two genders’ id ask them to question their very notion of what gender is. Legally, gender typically is equated with sexual anatomy. But what people who identify as ‘genderqueer’ for example are manifesting is an inability to fully con scribe themselves to the gender categories that law and society dictates to us. I’d encourage these people to question, and where possible reject the idea that people should feel restricted in such away.

And wrt the poster who believes in the categorisation of four sexualities.. i obviously disagree as a result. When gender categories lose their meaning, so do sexuality labels, and even before that, sexuality between the two gender norms is a spectrum.I would have always considered gender and sex to mean the same thing, a biological thing based on anatomy but apparently gender and sex are different now? and to me, the new meaning of gender is just a bunch of socially constructed stereotypes

[TomC]

I would have always considered gender and sex to mean the same thing, a biological thing based on anatomy but apparently gender and sex are different now? and to me, the new meaning of gender is just a bunch of socially constructed stereotypes

Yeah those are my beliefs :)

It’s quite an abstract concept, and judging by the responses here perhaps I’m more radical than I thought eek

[Tom4784]

I would say that some people in this thread don’t know what feminism is.

And to those who would say ‘there are only two genders’ id ask them to question their very notion of what gender is. Legally, gender typically is equated with sexual anatomy. But what people who identify as ‘genderqueer’ for example are manifesting is an inability to fully con scribe themselves to the gender categories that law and society dictates to us. I’d encourage these people to question, and where possible reject the idea that people should feel restricted in such away.

And wrt the poster who believes in the categorisation of four sexualities.. i obviously disagree as a result. When gender categories lose their meaning, so do sexuality labels, and even before that, sexuality between the two gender norms is a spectrum.

I don't need to question it. Male or female, cis or trans. That's what it comes down to. Anything else is simply someone that fits into the above that opposes gender norms, good on them for doing so but it's not a gender.

[TomC]

I don't need to question it. Male or female, cis or trans. That's what it comes down to. Anything else is simply someone that fits into the above that opposes gender norms, good on them for doing so but it's not a gender.

I think you’re oversimplifying a little. The male and female genders are not mutually exclusive; there’s so much crossover, and a spectrum between masculinity and femininity, and transgenderism as a result is very complex, and cannot, in my opinion be boiled down to such crude categories; unless you’re referring to legal gender or biological sexual characteristics (which in itself is not black-and-white).

[Tom4784]

I think you’re oversimplifying a little. The male and female genders are not mutually exclusive; there’s so much crossover, and a spectrum between masculinity and femininity, and transgenderism as a result is very complex, and cannot, in my opinion be boiled down to such crude categories; unless you’re referring to legal gender or biological sexual characteristics (which in itself is not black-and-white).

Of course it can be simplified to that extent. You're confusing gender for social constructs for the most part. Just because a man is feminine (but not trans) doesn't mean that he's some other gender. He is simply a feminine cis man.

You're either a man or a woman, cis or trans. Everything else after that is just preferences.

[Marsh.]

"Gender norms" could just be renamed "personal taste"

Oh yeah definitely. But those people who are "gender fluid" what are they basing the "fluidity" on? You have to have two defined opposites to say you are fluid between them.

[Marsh.]

I think you’re oversimplifying a little. The male and female genders are not mutually exclusive; there’s so much crossover, and a spectrum between masculinity and femininity, and transgenderism as a result is very complex, and cannot, in my opinion be boiled down to such crude categories; unless you’re referring to legal gender or biological sexual characteristics (which in itself is not black-and-white).

Or another way of looking at it, you're overcomplicating it.

[Cal.]

Two genders, four sexualities, true feminism is great, the rare few ‘feminists’ that just hate men in general, are just as mad as men who see women as second class citizens.

.

[Niamh.]

Oh yeah definitely. But those people who are "gender fluid" what are they basing the "fluidity" on? You have to have two defined opposites to say you are fluid between them.Yeah exactly and that's not helpful for equality between the sexes imo

[Firewire]

I think you’re oversimplifying a little. The male and female genders are not mutually exclusive; there’s so much crossover, and a spectrum between masculinity and femininity, and transgenderism as a result is very complex, and cannot, in my opinion be boiled down to such crude categories; unless you’re referring to legal gender or biological sexual characteristics (which in itself is not black-and-white).

I understand you’re trying to be woke af but don’t patronise people for expressing their opinion, in a thread you created to cause discussion.

[user104658]

The feminist and queer theorist has really been popping out in me in the last few months! I’ve been reading the book Gender Trouble which discusses ‘compulsory heterosexuality’ as a construction born out of the use of the sexes for the polarisation of our identifiable performative genders. The subordination of woman in these dualised genders serves masculine oppressiveness, as does compulsory heterosexuality. Thrilling!

Essentially I agree. Gender (being the actions we perform that are typically ascribed masculine and feminine) is socially constructed for the purpose of the patriarchy. The world would be a much better place if gender and sexuality were more fluid, and we created a more even playing field.

I don't have time to start going too into depth really but just something to consider for now;

Whilst I do (broadly) agree that gender is a societal construction, it logically cannot have been constructed "for the purpose of the patriarchy", as the very concept of patriarchy requires gender as a precursor. That is to say, "the male" HAS TO predate "the patriarchy", and thus, gender can't be a social norm created to serve the patriarchy. Thus, for me, a patriarchal society is a wide-scale secondary symptom of a gender divide, not your starting point.

[TomC]

Of course it can be simplified to that extent. You're confusing gender for social constructs for the most part. Just because a man is feminine (but not trans) doesn't mean that he's some other gender. He is simply a feminine cis man.

You're either a man or a woman, cis or trans. Everything else after that is just preferences.

The crux of our disagreement I think is in my belief in gender and social constructs as being intimately linked whereas you dinstinguish between then.

Or another way of looking at it, you're overcomplicating it.

I am merely questioning the accepted norms.

I understand you’re trying to be woke af but don’t patronise people for expressing their opinion, in a thread you created to cause discussion.

Wow rude :skull: I’m not trying to be ‘woke af’, I’m merely discursively questioning accepted beliefs. If you have something constructive to say, please share it.

[TomC]

I don't have time to start going too into depth really but just something to consider for now;

Whilst I do (broadly) agree that gender is a societal construction, it logically cannot have been constructed "for the purpose of the patriarchy", as the very concept of patriarchy requires gender as a precursor. That is to say, "the male" HAS TO predate "the patriarchy", and thus, gender can't be a social norm created to serve the patriarchy. Thus, for me, a patriarchal society is a wide-scale secondary symptom of a gender divide, not your starting point.

Sorry I don’t think I articulated that well at all. Patriarchy is an abstract, contest idea anyway, but what I was trying to say is that the binary classification of gender and resulting subordination both is propounded by and enables masculine oppressors.

[user104658]

Sorry I don’t think I articulated that well at all. Patriarchy is an abstract, contest idea anyway, but what I was trying to say is that the binary classification of gender and resulting subordination both is propounded by and enables masculine oppressors.

It does, but to address it you have to consider its origins (I think this is a here a lot of people go wrong; assuming that the origin is necessarily societal or worse, that it "doesn't matter" as though it's possible to change the current status quo without understanding the roots of gender roles.)

[Tom4784]

The crux of our disagreement I think is in my belief in gender and social constructs as being intimately linked whereas you dinstinguish between then.

Gender is something that simply exists, the only thing we aided with is giving people who know they are the opposite sex a chance to transition but gender norms and societal constructs are of our own making.

[Twosugars]

what about someone who is happy with a part transition, say "female to male trans" who gets rid of breasts but keeps vagina, only bc that's what s/he feels this combination reflects them accurately (it could be other way round, a chick with a dick)
and is androgynous in terms of looks and behaviour, and bisexual
where should s/he be placed in the two-gender world?

[TomC]

Gender is something that simply exists, the only thing we aided with is giving people who know they are the opposite sex a chance to transition but gender norms and societal constructs are of our own making.

Gender exists only in the way that society created it. Yes it ‘exists’ but it’s not an indestructible construct. Sex on the other hand does physically exist.

[TomC]

what about someone who is happy with a part transition, say "female to male trans" who gets rid of breasts but keeps vagina, only bc that's what s/he feels this combination reflects them accurately (it could be other way round, a chick with a dick)
and is androgynous in terms of looks and behaviour, and bisexual
where should s/he be placed in the two-gender world?

That’s a very interesting point. What such a person would feel is dysphoria with societal gender but not sexual characteristics. And such a person is a prime example of how problematic binary gender can be.

[armand.kay]

I use to be very firm in my belief that there are only two genders and that people who identify as gender fluid were attention seeking but the more i've looked into it the more I towards the idea that gender is a social construct.

Now sexuality I know is a social construct. Maybe the reason people feel as if a bunch of sexualities are just popping up everyday is because it might just be impossible to try and represent every individuals sexuality in a couple of groups. I'll use myself for example. In the past I've had sexual encounters with and have been attracted to women. i also wouldn't rule out dating a trans man/woman or somebody who's non binary. However I identify as gay because i'm only actively dating cis men atm. Sexuality I've always seen as being on a spectrum but a spider diagram might be more accurate tbh :laugh:

(sorry for any typos I'm a mess today).

[Crimson Dynamo]

I think that when people have a bit too much time to themselves and dont have much else on they start to obsess about stuff like this


Busy people who have things to do tend not to bother tbh

[Redway]

Two sexes, heterosexual and others.

[Alf]

I think that when people have a bit too much time to themselves and dont have much else on they start to obsess about stuff like this


Busy people who have things to do tend not to bother tbhDo you mean tax paying workers just get on with life whilst school/college/University attenders are constantly getting indoctrinated with this bollox?

[TomC]

I use to be very firm in my belief that there are only two genders and that people who identify as gender fluid were attention seeking but the more i've looked into it the more I towards the idea that gender is a social construct.

Now sexuality I know is a social construct. Maybe the reason people feel as if a bunch of sexualities are just popping up everyday is because it might just be impossible to try and represent every individuals sexuality in a couple of groups. I'll use myself for example. In the past I've had sexual encounters with and have been attracted to women. i also wouldn't rule out dating a trans man/woman or somebody who's non binary. However I identify as gay because i'm only actively dating cis men atm. Sexuality I've always seen as being on a spectrum but a spider diagram might be more accurate tbh :laugh:

(sorry for any typos I'm a mess today).

:clap1:

I personally struggle with the somewhat limiting sexuality categories. I am somewhat attracted to the female body (and have been intimate w one or two :skull:) but I am far more attracted to men by a long way and would only get into a homosexual relationship. I don’t think bisexuality and homosexuality as labels do justice to the spectrum.

[TomC]

Do you mean tax paying workers just get on with life whilst school/college/University attenders are constantly getting indoctrinated with this bollox?

None of the info in the OP was indoctrinated into me at university or school, I learned all this independently of my own accord

[Crimson Dynamo]

None of the info in the OP was indoctrinated into me at university or school, I learned all this independently of my own accord

to be fair I doubt you can make that call as you would not know

Its like when people say that advertising does not affect them and then you look in their fridge and hey presto..

[armand.kay]

Do you mean tax paying workers just get on with life whilst school/college/University attenders are constantly getting indoctrinated with this bollox?

what the hell does being a tax payer have to do with it??

[Oliver_W]

what about someone who is happy with a part transition, say "female to male trans" who gets rid of breasts but keeps vagina, only bc that's what s/he feels this combination reflects them accurately (it could be other way round, a chick with a dick)
and is androgynous in terms of looks and behaviour, and bisexual
where should s/he be placed in the two-gender world?
I don't count genitals as part of defining gender - a transwoman will always be biologically male, even if her penis is turned into a surgical wound. But we'd call her a (trans/)woman.
The person in your apocryphal example is a transman who hasn't had bottom surgery.

[Redway]

Edit: never mind.

[Ant.]

4 sexualities (hetero, homo, bi, asexual) AND I wanna say there's only two genders but I'm not too sure on "gender neutral". Like, is it possible to not be comfortable in being either a man or woman's body? I'll never know, but it's something that'll always be in my head when discussing gender

but in the end I don't share my beliefs ever, if someone came to me and said they're "pansexual" or "genderfluid" I'd just nod and let them identify how they choose

[Marsh.]

to be fair I doubt you can make that call as you would not know

Its like when people say that advertising does not affect them and then you look in their fridge and hey presto..

Eh? So people shouldn't own food or they're falling for marketing hype? Hmmm.

[chuff me dizzy]

2 Sexes ...... Male and Female ......... End of

[Greg!]

2 Sexes ...... Male and Female ......... End of

What about intersex people?

[Redway]

What about intersex people?

They’re an obvious exception.

[Ashley.]

It's about equality not feminism

Feminism is about equality. If it's not about equality, it isn't feminism.

People get way too wrapped up in fake feminist theories and take that to mean that's what the entire movement are hoping to achieve. The belief that women should one day be able to 'run the world' and look down on men is backwards nonsense and not feminism at all.

[Ashley.]

Regarding gender... Male and female, of course. But I have no issue with whichever one chooses to identify as, given that hormone production during pregnancy serves as biological evidence for the fluidity of gender. You have biological females born with high levels of testosterone and biological males born with high levels of oestrogen, and therefore may bear male and female characteristics respectively. If one doesn't feel comfortable in the body they were born in, who am I to say that's wrong?

What is starting to worry me is the possibility that claiming one's own gender as being different to that they were born with is becoming "trendy". Because it isn't a decision that should be taken lightly and I fear that may end up being the case. "Perhaps you're male/female" should never be the first piece of advice for someone who is struggling with their identity, either.

[Livia]

There are two genders: male and female. You can be transsexual... but you will still biologically be the gender you were born to. That's not to say you can't live a perfectly happy and fulfilled life... but a transsexual woman is not the same as a born woman. Equal, worth just as much... but different.

[Jack_]

oh god this forum is not ready for Judith Butler. In all the years I've had these discussions I've made a conscious effort not to reference her work

It's her reflections on sexed bodies (and how you cannot understand sex without gender) that I find most interesting, there is an extraordinary passage in Gender Trouble on that that I'll try and find at a later date

If you're interested in queer theory though I'd highly recommend Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick's Epistemology of the Closet (http://shifter-magazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Sedgwick-Eve-Kosofsky-Epistemology-Closet.pdf), it's essential reading for The Gays and will change your life, trust! And obviously you can't understand sexuality without reading Michel Foucault either. Essentially my position/area of interest is no longer "hm, I wonder whether sexuality is innate or nurtured :think:" but rather "the very notion of 'having' a sexual orientation in the first place is in fact the product of discursive formation". I've posted excerpts of these on here before so give me a shout if you want me to expand, it's the 6th January and I cba

I can't believe THIS is my first post in over two weeks :skull: Happy New Year y'all, btw

[TomC]

oh god this forum is not ready for Judith Butler. In all the years I've had these discussions I've made a conscious effort not to reference her work

It's her reflections on sexed bodies (and how you cannot understand sex without gender) that I find most interesting, there is an extraordinary passage in Gender Trouble on that that I'll try and find at a later date

If you're interested in queer theory though I'd highly recommend Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick's Epistemology of the Closet (http://shifter-magazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Sedgwick-Eve-Kosofsky-Epistemology-Closet.pdf), it's essential reading for The Gays and will change your life, trust! And obviously you can't understand sexuality without reading Michel Foucault either. Essentially my position/area of interest is no longer "hm, I wonder whether sexuality is innate or nurtured :think:" but rather "the very notion of 'having' a sexual orientation in the first place is in fact the product of discursive formation". I've posted excerpts of these on here before so give me a shout if you want me to expand, it's the 6th January and I cba

I can't believe THIS is my first post in over two weeks :skull: Happy New Year y'all, btw

finally some common ground for us :p

Gender Trouble I have found extremely challenging... I've just started part 2 and it does seem to be getting better. The first part of the book that made complete sense for me was the end of Part 1 which concluded those ideas.

I will definitely need to look into that book! I've wanted to do a book on queer theory or LGBT history next.