The Queernesss Thread

[Allyourbase]

It'll be interesting to see where this new wave of genderqueer-identified folks are when they start getting into their 30's.

Hm, in their thirties you say?

Hi!

That said, I think it is entirely possible for an ingrained trans* identity to get confused with a rejection of imposed societal gender roles. I think this explains why we see so many more young women adopting the genderqueer label than young men-- they are profoundly dissatisfied with how they're told they need to live and behave as women and want more than that. It seems to me that "tomboy" is falling out of fashion for some reason anymore, and it might have something to do with this. Being a tomboy might not be political enough for this new generation of gender nonconforming girls and women anymore, it might not be empowering enough.

At any rate, I think there's a pretty big difference between rejecting what society tells you a man aught to be and rejecting the fact that society thinks you're a man (when you're not) altogether.

Here, I don't think I agree, but that is a personal thing maybe.

What is 'tomboy' anyways? Is it a label to wear proudly? Is it a way to rightfully claim women are not necessarily feminine, nor should they be? Is it a way to cutesyfie and take the political sting out of gender nonconforming female-assigned people?

There's pros and cons to this tendency to ID as genderqueer versus tomboy. I'm tempted to think it does mean those people don't identify as female (not even as tomboy), and that is an important step towards self knowledge and societal breakdown of binary gender labels. But on the other hand, it does mean there are less people who show that when you look and behave in unfeminine ways, that does *not* necessarily mean you are not female. If I'm not mistaken - the prejudice a lot of butch lesbian people (and their partners) have to face.

My personal pet peeve is when people say: 'it's just the role you're unhappy with'. No, it isn't. I don't have to conform to many roles in the first place, and I think I would still not feel 'female' inside if societal roles were entirely different. If men were systematically seen as second class citizens and women ruled the world, I don't think it would make me want to identify as a woman.

Maybe not enough male-born people are identifying as genderqueer?

Oh, and, BG, you mentioned 'queer' - no time for elaborating on this now, but another pet peeve of mine: I don't think the opposite of 'queer' is 'straight'. I've encountered quite some decidedly non-queer gay people, and some really queer straight people. It has more to do with normativity than with sexual orientation, if you ask me.

Okay, I'm all over the place here, and KoPilot's response was really neat and orderly and mine is word salad, so I'll just get something to eat, that would be best for all of us.

 

[Netzach]

Maybe not enough male-born people are identifying as genderqueer?

This, and there are reasons for it. Namely, a lot of people do want to transition in degrees or "change" rather than "change over" and the medical community is a very binary place, traditionally. A lot of people have had to play up the binary in order to
get the services they will need to feel OK with their body, or risk being filed in "not serious" or "just crazy, not TG." The surgical history of M to F is just longer, somewhat, and I think there is a strain of romanticism, especially in T girls over 45 or so about femininity, not always, but often, that flips the "ew male ew, off nasty go away" switches.

Also boys are raised to be really binary in their applications of gender, more than girls I think. Male is more of a 1 or 0 in the cultural imagination than female is.

But yeah, I do think that butch female identity has been a bit lost and open to misinterpretation in the shuffle of things. The upside is that I think a lot of guys, especially queer guys are opening up how masculinity can be "done." And I meet a lot more T girls who have complex and richer formations of gender and less romanticized applications of what their female identity can and should be.

It's just slow to move, I think also because the therapy/med community has often foisted a very specific femme way of being female onto anyone who is questioning their identity - and the experience of FtM people has been less medicalized, I think. As the relationship between medicine and patient changes, often due to activism along other corridors, I think it's also changing in this way.

It sure is and will be interesting.

 

[KoPilot]

Hm, in their thirties you say?

Hi!

I'll be there in a few years too!

Here, I don't think I agree, but that is a personal thing maybe.

Well, whether or not I did a good job of getting my thoughts across, it sounds like we're on the same page from what you wrote below.

What is 'tomboy' anyways? Is it a label to wear proudly? Is it a way to rightfully claim women are not necessarily feminine, nor should they be? Is it a way to cutesyfie and take the political sting out of gender nonconforming female-assigned people?

I have no idea, it might have been at one point but maybe isn't as useful anymore, ???, and probably. :B

There's pros and cons to this tendency to ID as genderqueer versus tomboy. I'm tempted to think it does mean those people don't identify as female (not even as tomboy), and that is an important step towards self knowledge and societal breakdown of binary gender labels. But on the other hand, it does mean there are less people who show that when you look and behave in unfeminine ways, that does *not* necessarily mean you are not female. If I'm not mistaken - the prejudice a lot of butch lesbian people (and their partners) have to face.

Yeah, I feel like there are growing pains going on (or there always are) about what femininity can be and look like and this is just more of trying to figure out where that line is for some people? I guess for some, "genderqueer" doesn't mean "queer gender" but rather "queered gender", as in non-conforming to a degree that they have a hard time reconciling being cis so far out in left field.

While I don't doubt that a lot of these young people will probably discover that they just don't want to deal with roles and stereotypes and that it's OK to do that while IDing as cis, I'm of the mind that there are a lot less cis people than we can currently guess at and that a large minority, or maybe even majority, of people are fluid in some way.

My personal pet peeve is when people say: 'it's just the role you're unhappy with'.

I agree with you here, it's just I like to make mention of it because it was a very serious pit I fell into initially and it took me a number of years to get out of it. "I can't be feminine because that means I'm weak and women are weak and they suck and I think I'm probably actually a gay man and I don't need any girly anythings or people in my life 5ever".

 

[KoPilot]

This, and there are reasons for it. Namely, a lot of people do want to transition in degrees or "change" rather than "change over" and the medical community is a very binary place, traditionally. A lot of people have had to play up the binary in order to
get the services they will need to feel OK with their body, or risk being filed in "not serious" or "just crazy, not TG." The surgical history of M to F is just longer, somewhat, and I think there is a strain of romanticism, especially in T girls over 45 or so about femininity, not always, but often, that flips the "ew male ew, off nasty go away" switches.

Also boys are raised to be really binary in their applications of gender, more than girls I think. Male is more of a 1 or 0 in the cultural imagination than female is.

But yeah, I do think that butch female identity has been a bit lost and open to misinterpretation in the shuffle of things. The upside is that I think a lot of guys, especially queer guys are opening up how masculinity can be "done." And I meet a lot more T girls who have complex and richer formations of gender and less romanticized applications of what their female identity can and should be.

It's just slow to move, I think also because the therapy/med community has often foisted a very specific femme way of being female onto anyone who is questioning their identity - and the experience of FtM people has been less medicalized, I think. As the relationship between medicine and patient changes, often due to activism along other corridors, I think it's also changing in this way.

It sure is and will be interesting.

Reminded me of lots of stuff, Netz, thanks. It's so easy for me to forget how much of a hand medicine plays into the TG world since I haven't gotten surgery (yet) and don't plan on going on any hormones.

Always comes back to what femininity is "supposed" to look like though, it seems. So many more non-op trans guys than trans women, etc.

 

[BrightlyGo]

There's really no answer here, but I'm personally in the latter camp because it just causes less heartache, even though I do feel that identities are capable of being diluted and made less meaningful this way.

That's almost better than a clear answer, very thoughtful.

As for your thoughts regarding straightness, it's commonly thought that no one is 100% monosexual and that everyone is a little fluid. You might be pan, I dunno.

For a while there, when i was younger, that "everyone's all little bit bi" thing really didn't fly. It seemed like you had to 'choose sides,' there was no "LGBT" back then. i'm glad things have changed.

Just looked up 'pansexual,' i'd heard it before, but didn't realize it was distinct from bisexual. Yeah, that kinda fits the same way bi- kinda does, describing my feelings, but leaving me thinking my experiences are too limited to legitimately claim it. Heteroflexible, OTOH, is cute and wishy-washy enough to be a facile answer to the 'orientation' question.

 

[Netzach]

I just go with queer, but oppositionality is more important to me than a giant tally of pussy versus cock.

 

[BrightlyGo]

"oppositionality?"

 

[Netzach]

I made up a postmodern word. In opposition to heteronormative sexuality.

 

[KoPilot]

Just looked up 'pansexual,' i'd heard it before, but didn't realize it was distinct from bisexual.

There's a lot of political and semantic drama? involved in bi vs pan stuff, but as an ace I'm not even going to get near that. It's seriously one of the only lgbtq+ topics that I want nothing to do with. If I can avoid touching a hot stove, I'm going to.

 

[BrightlyGo]

My personal pet peeve is when people say: 'it's just the role you're unhappy with'. No, it isn't. I don't have to conform to many roles in the first place, and I think I would still not feel 'female' inside if societal roles were entirely different. If men were systematically seen as second class citizens and women ruled the world, I don't think it would make me want to identify as a woman.

Funny, i've imagined several such worlds, worlds in which i might feel i belonged. Not that i wouldn't likely be miserable, too, but i wouldn't feel out of place.

Oh, and, BG, you mentioned 'queer' - no time for elaborating on this now, but another pet peeve of mine: I don't think the opposite of 'queer' is 'straight'. I've encountered quite some decidedly non-queer gay people, and some really queer straight people. It has more to do with normativity than with sexual orientation, if you ask me.

i do ask you, you have interesting answers.

Please, do elaborate when you get the chance.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I agree with allyourbase, queer heterosexuals are a thing. Totally oriented towards the opposite sex/gender sexually and romantically, but not... straight.

And there are plenty of same-sex oriented people who are utterly normative. They find this out when they meet up with someone that is the gender they want but not the body they expect to house that gender... That's one way to be queer.

The word "tomboy" was a source of distress for me as a kid. Tomboys were expected to be active, noisy athletic, competitive and I wasn't any of that. But I was not a girl. *shrug*

 

[KoPilot]

The word "tomboy" was a source of distress for me as a kid. Tomboys were expected to be active, noisy athletic, competitive and I wasn't any of that. But I was not a girl. *shrug*

I was competitive, but not athletic or rambunctious. But it really was the only word I had for a very long time.

 

[Keroin]

Thought this anthology might be of interest to some folks here. It's a collection of short spec fiction stories about gender bending, cross-dressing, and shape shifting.

Scheherazade's Facade

One of the members of the spec fiction group I belong to has a story in it, and when I read the description it sounded really interesting. I'll probably download a copy for myself.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I was competitive, but not athletic or rambunctious. But it really was the only word I had for a very long time.

yep. It's a word 'they' gave us. I was so happy to discover that "we" had words for ourselves.


On a related not, I was at a play party the other night-- women only, all women. We have lots of cis women, and lots of trans women and FTM too.The rule is, if you feel comfortable being called "she" for a night, you are welcome.

One woman was asking me about my testosterone, how was it going for me? and we talked about that, and some of the trans women talked about estrogen, and all like that. I asked the one woman if she, too was on T and if she was transitioning, and she said-- "no, actually, I'm a trans woman."
It surprised me-- I think it surprised everyone, including the other trans women. Even after she told me, and I was looking for telltales, she was a totally cis woman, butch-ish and not caring about looking feminine.

 

[Allyourbase]

Ooh, must take time to read up again! Nice.

For now, I just want to drop this here:

A study about bisexuals with some shocking statistics.

And thanks for the anthology, Keroin! Looks interesting.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Thought this anthology might be of interest to some folks here. It's a collection of short spec fiction stories about gender bending, cross-dressing, and shape shifting.

Scheherazade's Facade

One of the members of the spec fiction group I belong to has a story in it, and when I read the description it sounded really interesting. I'll probably download a copy for myself.

bought it! Tanith Lee? Sarah Rees Brennan?
Those two alone are worth the price

 

[Allyourbase]

For now, I just want to drop this here:

A study about bisexuals with some shocking statistics.

Ugh, I am reading the report linked in the article, and it contains gems like this:

"As an example of the extent and depth of biphobia, a study published in the Journal of Sex Research reported that heterosexuals rate bisexuals as a group less favorably than any of a number of groups (including Catholics, lesbians, people with AIDS, and people who are pro-life), except for the category of people who inject illegal drugs."

*shudders*

Okay BrightlyGo: those are NOT queer heterosexuals

 

[BrightlyGo]

A study about bisexuals with some shocking statistics.

i'm usually skeptical of 'shocking statistics.' Are those for 'out' bisexuals or, in general, for instance? How do you count the closeted ones?

Then i go down the line and see how many of them apply to me, personally:

Considered suicide? check
poverty? thanks to the wonderful economy, check
poor health & no health insurance? check
lower income? when i'm lucky enough to work, about half the industry average for my skills & experience - check.

 

[Allyourbase]

i'm usually skeptical of 'shocking statistics.' Are those for 'out' bisexuals or, in general, for instance? How do you count the closeted ones?

Then i go down the line and see how many of them apply to me, personally:

Considered suicide? check
poverty? thanks to the wonderful economy, check
poor health & no health insurance? check
lower income? when i'm lucky enough to work, about half the industry average for my skills & experience - check.

Yeah I still can't really wrap my head around why those numbers are like that, so I decided to read the study.

Also:

I wonder how it is in the Netherlands, I'm tempted to think it's a little better, since we have a different healthcare system here. Everybody's insured, and having insurance actually means something.

 

[BrightlyGo]

Yeah I still can't really wrap my head around why those numbers are like that, so I decided to read the study.

i clicked through and read what was there, it really doesn't illuminate things much. The problem of 'erasure' (lumping B in with G/L) for instance - even when data are being collected, information is being lost.

 

[Dyslexicea]

i'm usually skeptical of 'shocking statistics.' Are those for 'out' bisexuals or, in general, for instance? How do you count the closeted ones?

Then i go down the line and see how many of them apply to me, personally:

Considered suicide? check
poverty? thanks to the wonderful economy, check
poor health & no health insurance? check
lower income? when i'm lucky enough to work, about half the industry average for my skills & experience - check.

Many heteros are going to respond the same way you've responded.

Off topic! What Lindasusan Ulrich in her study, which I fine flawed for many reasons not just as follows, failed to do was to split lesbian and gay data.

Lesbian are for the most part lower income. Why? Because we're women, most are no more educated than the average American. Women who aren't educated end up doing jobs which are traditionally women's jobs and they are vastly underpaid. Not only does it lead to income disparity but also poor health and lack of health care.

Many gays on the other hand are professionals, why I have no idea, nor do I care, and even among those who aren't, many have traditionally men's jobs which pay better. Gay's income is above the average American income.

In my opinion bisexual women are more likely to respond honestly to these types of studies than bisexual men are. Why? Society responds more favorably to bi women than bi men. More women respond, income levels are going to be lower. Suicide rates higher, we women suffer depression at a higher rate than you men do. In America if you are low income you lack health care which leads to poor health. Now making it worse, if you happen to live in many red states, women in those states are even going to have less health care than they previously had.

Adding to all the confusion is how is bisexual defined. Do we define a man who loves to suck cock but doesn't want anything else physically to do with another man, not even kiss, as bisexual? Do we defined a woman who has sex with another woman to please and turn on her man as bisexual? Do we class those who truly are lesbian/gay but choose to not come out and live in a hetero relationship as bisexual, if they'll even admit to being anything other than heterosexual?

In my opinion bisexual invisibility is a matter of choice, bisexual don't come out, they don't tell mom, dad, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, cousins, employers, fellow employees or anyone they aren't involved with. I'm out, I live with another woman, we have children, I'm vocal and I'm discriminated against. It's hard to be discriminated against if no one knows. If she's out but she doesn't claim she's lesbian I don't really think she'll face much discrimination, some yes. If he's out he'll face just as much discrimination as a gay does but not more.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Adding to all the confusion is how is bisexual defined. Do we define a man who loves to suck cock but doesn't want anything else physically to do with another man, not even kiss, as bisexual? Do we defined a woman who has sex with another woman to please and turn on her man as bisexual? Do we class those who truly are lesbian/gay but choose to not come out and live in a hetero relationship as bisexual, if they'll even admit to being anything other than heterosexual?

Yes, Dyslexicea, we can define those people as bisexual. Especially if they themselves define that way.

Likewise, we define the woman who hops in and out of lesbian beds--a lesbian. The woman who breaks up her own same sex relationship and someone else's as well in order to date one of those partners for a while-- she is a lesbian. The labels do not refer to being a good person or doing things the way you think they should be done.

 

[BrightlyGo]

In my opinion bisexual women are more likely to respond honestly to these types of studies than bisexual men are. Why? Society responds more favorably to bi women than bi men. More women respond, income levels are going to be lower. Suicide rates higher, we women suffer depression at a higher rate than you men do.

About three times as many men as women kill themselves.

As with all 'shocking statistics,' that's not as clear as it sounds, either. For instance, there are more reported suicide /attempts/ among women, it's in actual suicide deaths that men outnumber them 3:1. Suicide attempts are sometimes called a 'cry for help,' and society tells men that asking for help is a failure and shameful. Men tend to choose deadly weapons (they're 'manly') which are more likely to result in success, and leave them mangled. Women tend to choose poisons or drug overdoses which will leave their corpses intact, and incidentally have a longer window in which they might be saved.

And, sure, women have higher rates of reported and diagnosed depression (and lots of other things). Men are shamed out of seeking help. They suffer in silence 'til they can't take it anymore and then shoot themselves in the head. That's how great life in this patriarchal society is for them.

Adding to all the confusion is how is bisexual defined.

In the linked study, there was another term, MSMW/WSMW. It defined bi as having the potential for sexual/emotional/romantic relationships with more than just your own gender. The "MW" acronyms meant actually having sex with both men & women. Under that definition, i'm bi, but i'm a MSW, man who has sex with women (one woman, for the last quarter-century, and the balance of my life if i'm lucky and don't out-live her).

The fact that there is no definitive definition makes self-identifying that way difficult and of limited value, too. So it's a lot easier to just sweep it under the run, accept the damage to your self-image, and profess the orientation that matches your current choice of partners.

In my opinion bisexual invisibility is a matter of choice, bisexual don't come out, they don't tell mom, dad, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, cousins, employers, fellow employees or anyone they aren't involved with. I'm out, I live with another woman, we have children, I'm vocal and I'm discriminated against. It's hard to be discriminated against if no one knows.

Many gays & lesbians are going to respond the same way you've responded.

When you or i walk down the street with our respective monogamous female partners, anyone looking 'knows' that you're a lesbian and i'm straight. For you, being 'out' is a matter of directly telling a few people you care about, and then not hiding your relationship with a woman. If you were bi, you could tell people, but when you were out with a woman, people would 'know' you were a lesbian, and when you were out with a man they'd 'know' you were straight - so being out would be a matter of explaining yourself constantly. (And think about how that explanation /sounds/. It sounds like you're dissatisfied with your partner or trawling for threesomes.)

Another questionable thing we tend to do with statistics is look for one explanation for a correlation. Group A makes less money than Group B, it's discrimination. There could be other things going on. The near impossibility of being genuinely 'out' as bi (unless you're poly and go everywhere with your guy on one arm and your gal on the other) puts even those who don't actively hide their orientation in the stressful situation of constantly having their orientation unconsciously challenged by those around them. That hurts your self-image, which hurts your confidence, which can lead to all those correlations - lower pay, poorer health, depression, etc.

Causation could even be reversed, some of those who identify as bi could do so in the process of groping for ways to cope with depression, self-respect issues or other problems. "I'm depressed because I can't get girls to go out with me, I'm such a loser - oh, wait, this guy is interested..."

 

[Stella_Omega]

Group A makes more money because Group A is men. Men STILL make better money in the higher echelons, STILL control the tech industries, and STILL discriminate against women in those industries.

Let's not go there, thank you.

 

[Dyslexicea]

Yes, Dyslexicea, we can define those people as bisexual. Especially if they themselves define that way.

You may be correct but you cannot lump all those people into one study and come up with anything meaningful.

You and I are never going to agree on self labels, I can label myself a duck but it doesn't make me a duck. If you want to label yourself a lesbian you don't do guys. Most of us won't even allow you the label if you still desire men but don't. I'm not one of those but if you occasionally bat for the other team you're not a lesbian.

Likewise, we define the woman who hops in and out of lesbian beds--a lesbian. The woman who breaks up her own same sex relationship and someone else's as well in order to date one of those partners for a while-- she is a lesbian. The labels do not refer to being a good person or doing things the way you think they should be done.

I do not expect anyone to do things the way I think they should be done. I don't much care how others conduct their lives as long as it doesn't negatively affect my own or those I care about. Yes Stella she's a lesbian she doesn't do dick, it has nothing to do with being a good person or how she conducts her life. I'm a lesbian, I don't do dick, I don't desire dick, I don't desire an emotional relationship with a man. Can I have sex with a man, obviously, if I do so and I continue to do so I would not be a lesbian, I'd be bisexual. I find nothing wrong with being bisexual, I've had my share of relationships with bi women but I wasn't looking for a long term relationship.