I do think it’s interesting that we consider the relation between gender identity and sexuality. Furthermore, I would like to more deeply understand the extent to which a gender identity can differ from the physiological gender before it becomes a serious concern. ie. How far can one’s mind deviate before it becomes a defining feature above the physiological. Is this possible? Is a compromise possible?
Following from another discussion
But then ought sexuality be decided upon the basis of gender or sex, according to the differentiation you have drawn.
Following from another discussion
My views on gender and identity are somewhat complicated, so this explanation may take awhile:
If we accept that gender and sex are distinct from one another and it is possible for one to be a different gender from one’s sex, we are left wondering what that means in practical terms. Does a man who gender identifies as a woman desire or conform to archetypes of femininity (i.e.: liking pink)? And what does that say of women who don’t conform to those archetypes? I don’t think tomboys, for instance, necesarily gender-identify as male and it would be profoundly unfair to label them as such.
I think what I have the most difficult accepting is the notion of permanence in this context. I have done some role play (albeit unrelated to transgender), but I don’t see myself as being that role when I am not playing. So what then does it mean for an adult male to say “I am a little girl”? Obviously, and there is no way of getting around this, if you are behaving as an adult and doing things that a little girl would not do, you are NOT a little girl. What, therefore, is the extent of the identification? I get that it can go beyond “this is who I wish I was,” but I can’t see how it becomes “this is who I am.”
Further, if a male gender-identifies as female, does that necesarily require her to relenquish claims to masculinity (in all but the physical sense of the word)? I guess what would annoy me is if a biological male were to demand recognition as a female, yet still lay claim to being a male if it suited her (or is it still his?) purposes. That gripe probably has more to do with indecisiveness than it does with gender though.
By and large, this stuff makes very little sense to me. However, because I don’t have any inclination toward transgender, my perspective is going to be somewhat limited and perhaps even flawed. For that reason (and, in keeping with the ‘to each their own’ ethos), I don’t pass any judgment.
Following from another discussion
Well said WingZ. Once again you’ve articulated my thoughts before I could and in a better manner.
Following from another discussion
Even sex isn’t binary, straightforward, or possible to conclusively determine under particular circumstances. From XXY, and XYY triple-chromosome disorders, to XX lab-rats born with penises, XY genetic males born without, and hermaphrodites - the entire thing is much more shades-of-grey than our heuristic thinking has us believe.
Following from another discussion
WingZ - what you described doesn’t just sound indecisive, it sounds like having your cake and eating it.
I feel that after a certain point it may be more useful for someone to make a choice, given how hard it can be to know how to treat people. That said, I suddenly feel awful for saying that people can’t indefinitely sit in the middle.
Following from another discussion
I don’t particularly see why one can’t have their cake and eat it in this case. Personally, I’ve never really felt gender to play an especially significant part in forming my identity, not consciously at least, but it seems to me that there shouldn’t be any rules about how you define yourself and you don’t have to aim to suit anyone’s needs but your own in doing that - it being hard for people to know how to treat you is no reason to align yourself to a side you aren’t entirely comfortable with.
Like I say, I can’t claim to really get how deep-seated and significant gender identity is with some people but gender, masculinity, femininity and such are all just ideas and it seems silly to constrict which ideas fit for a person with something concrete and biological. For me, if you accept a person’s right to define their gender then you have to accept their right to ambivalence as well because we’re talking about the delightfully inexact science of the human psyche here.
Following from another discussion
Hmmm…
Well most of what can be said has been said, I think, so I’ll give my opinion on the “Male lesbian” aspect of this.
Lesbian is an expression of your sexuality. That is, to say, that it is a term reserved for people who are attracted to female people and happen to be outwardly biologically female or, at least, feminine in gender. If you are a “lesbian in play,” then you are not a lesbian. Gender and sexuality are, for the most part, permanent or at least very long-term states. You don’t get to be straight during the day and a lesbian at night. You don’t get to be gender-normal during the day and transgender at night. That is not how it works.
Therefore, one way or the other, “male lesbian” is a nearly insulting misnomer. If you are male, and you are attracted to females, you are heterosexual. If you are female, and you are attracted to females, you are a lesbian/homosexual. Fit this into whether you use gender or sexuality for that definition and it still sticks. If you like to play a submissive girl during tender times with your significant other, whether you are male or female, then LG or Sissy, depending on the type of play, would fit the term more accurately. Some LGs, of course, are also TG, but not all are, I think.
Basically, Lesbian and TG are terms of identity. They are not fetishes or attractions of the moment. LG/Sissy play are not better or worse off for this. It is simply something else entirely.
Note: The preceding is my opinion on the subject and in no way an absolute.
Following from another discussion
I suppose I could look it up, but is there such thing as LBs?
Following from another discussion
chuckle Yeah. Gap in my thinking there, naturally. I even mentioned it elsewhere in my post. D’oh. >_>
Following from another discussion
Or slightly less pleasantly: little boys and little girls. I refer you to that particularly revolting joke…
Following from another discussion
What’s the difference between a biological female as an LG and an AB?
There are males who like to think of themselves as maybe toddler or pre-school age rather than actual babies but we don’t tend to call them LBs as that suggests a focus on the gender when the age is the really attraction doesn’t it? I would have thought that everyone - male and female - would fit under Adult Toddler or Adult Kid or some such. To be an LG suggests an affinity for being female but that surely goes without saying if you are biologically female and it’s the ‘L’ not the ‘G’ that is relevant. It’s different if you’re male because it’s an identifiable predilection outside of your general categorisation, like infantilism in general, and so deserves expression. I’m unclear though as to what separates female LGs and ABs.
Like I say, you can call define yourself however you want. I’m just curious.