#gender being a social construct doesn’t mean it’s not real

[king0fcrows]

.

#struggling to reconcile a non-binary view of gender with dualistic spirituality #I think the key is spectrum #I think dualism can be non-binary in the sense of: a spectrum between two things which are NOT mutually exclusive #(binary is mutually exclusive but duality doesn’t have to be mutually exclusive) #I dislike the symbolism as a flat line #INSTEAD I view in my mind the infinity symbol #where gender is not two endpoints but two spheres #(think of a rainbow infinity symbol with warm colors making up one sphere and cool colors making up the other) #and i between the spheres there is a space suspended between both #this all started because I’m contemplating the differences between two archetypes #the mage and the witch #for me PERSONALLY they tend to be gendered #masculine and feminine #but they don’t have to be #I am a woman (or mostly woman adjacent on a spectrum) but I vibe more with the mage than the witch #I think dualism needs to exist because you invalidate peoples gender otherwise #gender being a social construct doesn’t mean it’s not real #if someone says they’re a man you respect that #it someone says they’re a woman you respect that #but just because there is duality doesn’t mean #that duality has to be binary (aka mutually exclusive) #I am speaking into the void might make a real post #out of this rambling on dreamwidth

[genderkoolaid]

(different person than last anon) can you give us like actual scientific papers that "nonhumans" are real and not just ppl that need a lot of psychological help? bc like while gender + sex can be very diverse and change w the individual, species is extremely specific and thats why shit like making crossbreeds is so insanely hard and they usually end up infertile bc the genes arent meant to be combined. n also the only example i can think of of any other species having "i am not the species i was born as" thoughts is that one female monkey that was raised so close w people she thought she was a person and she would refuse to breed w any of her primate species bc of it. you would call that mental illness in that monkey because she cannot be a person in a monkey body, just like someone can't be a dog or angel or horse in a human body, so why do you not consider being "nonhuman" also a mental illness?

can you please explain about alterhumanity? I don’t mean to be negative, I don’t understand… “there are only two sexes” is wrong because biology knowledge we have today actually doesn’t support that. did modern taxonomy find out something similar about humans? that’s very interesting, I don’t know a lot about it! but if you do I’d love to read that research!

So I think "there are only two sexes" isn't the best example; the comparison is more like "people can't change their gender because gender is whats in your pants"

Yes, we can look at chromosomes and hormones and sexual organs, and that stuff is related to gender. But to say "gender/sex is a construct" does not mean "chromosomes/hormones/sex organs don't exist." Its pointing out that our relationship to those things is culturally dependent (I wouldn't say "unnatural" because humans making social constructs is natural).

Similarly, we do divide up species based on reproduction and common ancestors. But "humanity" is also a construct. What it means to be human & who is defined as human can and does change depending on our culture. Not only can some people be excluded from humanity (for example, people of color and neurodivergents), but some people believe they are spiritually nonhuman (whatever that means for them). Some people who have been rejected from humanity identify as alterhuman as a way of saying "you don't want me, then I don't want you" (voidpunk is related to this although not inherently alterhuman). Some people are delusional and identify with alterhumanity as a way of coping with their delusions (and also, yes, you can be self-aware about your delusions). Some people believe in reincarnation or alternate universes or have some other spiritual belief related to being nonhuman. Some people just feel like dogs and enjoy being a dog and it doesn't matter why because they just like it.

Honestly, the monkey does sound like a monkey-version of alterhuman, because (if I can get a little anthropomorphize-y on y'all), it sounds like she did not feel apart of "monkey culture." Obviously we can't know if monkeys have a concept of monkey-hood like we do with humanity, but if they did it would not be hard to imagine how a monkey raised with humans would feel more human than monkey. But regardless... we don't need other species to have alter-species-hood for the same reason we don't need snails to crossdress for trans people to exist. Other animals probably don't have the same complex. abstract social constructs we do.

Why can't someone be a horse in a human body? For the same reason someone can't be a man in a woman's body- because "science says"? Both trans-denial and alterhuman-denial emphasizes biology over sociological investigation, which leads people to just keep shouting "but science!!!!!!!!!!" at people who are more invested in questions of culture and constructs and what it means to be [man/woman/human] in society.

(Also, I'm kind of uncomfortable with how the first ask talks about mental illness. Specifically "person believes harmless weird thing, so they must need Psychological Help for their Wrong Thoughts")

#m. #ask box

[enbycrip]

We’ve seen it everywhere. But it’s incredibly important that this is seen, discussed and accepted in academic discourse for a whole bunch of reasons.

The misogynist idea that AFAB and AMAB bodies are fundamentally very different and that AFAB bodies are fundamentally inferior is putting up a huge fight atm.

It’s not only “gender criticals”, though they are a big part of this and transphobia is one of the big battlegrounds of it. It’s also the anti-choice stuff rolling across the US trying to define any body capable of pregnancy as having its primary function being a vessel for foetuses.

And to do that you need to play up the idea that those bodies are fundamentally very different, and that AFAB bodies are fundamentally “intended” for pregnancy and birth. Enforcing this fake history where AFAB lives were entirely defined by pregnancy, birth and child-rearing is a weapon in that, and exposing it as ideological rather than evidence-based is *incredibly* fucking important.

This *doesn’t* mean that we should stop pointing out the fundamentally ridiculous nature of considering hunting as important as it is painted in popular culture when most studies consider that 80% minimum of “hunter-gatherer” societies’ food is foraged. It’s a fundamentally Victorian construct that considers “hunting is the active, ‘masculine’ work so therefore it must be the *real* work of a society”, no matter how much evidence is found that foraging was far more fundamental to survival.

It is *so* important to keep on emphasising the constructed nature of not only human gender, but gendered structures in human societies.

There is this huge sociopolitical push from “conservative” religious and cultural forces all over the planet rn to push the idea that certain social structures - fundamentally misogynist ones - are somehow “innate”, “inherent” and “natural”.

Hence the push to attack trans people in particular. We put the lie to so many of their cherished myths just by existing. We are living magic - the proof of human fluidity; the living potential for change; the living promise that things Don’t Have To Be This Way.

#anthropology #paleoanthropology #queer #gender is a construct #trans magic #women hunters #social constructs #cw gender critical mention #misogyny #nonbinary #trans #gender #foraging #cw pregnancy mention #cw birth mention

[heartless-aro]

What does it mean to feel romantic attraction?

The reason that it’s so difficult to know whether you’re aro or not isn’t just because it’s hard to verify the lack of something. It’s also, at least in part, because romance is an often vaguely defined social construct. It’s pretty much impossible to pin down an objective definition of romantic attraction without that definition being somewhat circular (“romantic attraction is when you are attracted to someone in a way that makes you want to do romantic things with them”), because the boundaries between romance and non-romantic feelings are indistinct and they twist and overlap in odd ways, so that people don’t always seem to agree where one ends and the other begins.

That isn’t to say that romance doesn’t exist or that there aren’t differences between the experiences of alloromantic and aromantic people, but different people and different cultures understand romance a bit differently, so there isn’t really a clear line that separates “romantic feelings” from “non-romantic feelings.” It’s a bit like how a lot of people (especially questioning trans, non-binary, and genderqueer folks) have trouble knowing if they “feel like a girl/guy/both/neither/etc.” What does being one gender or another feel like? What does romance feel like?

I think one of the hardest things about figuring out whether or not you’re aromantic is that no one else can tell you whether your feelings are romantic or not. You have to decide for yourself whether the concept of romantic attraction feels useful for categorizing your experiences and, if so, to what extent? You have to decide for yourself whether you feel that your experiences align with the normative experiences of alloromantic people. “Aromantic” means that you feel little to no romantic attraction, but how little counts as little? What counts as romantic attraction? These sort of things are so easy to get caught up in if you’re questioning whether or not you’re aromantic, but I think the real question to ask yourself is how much you can relate to alloromantic society? Do you connect to the idea of romantic attraction and experience romantic attraction often enough to feel included in alloromantic society, or do your experiences in relation to romantic attraction make you feel unusual, out of place, othered, or alienated by society at large? Do you relate more to the experiences of alloromantic people, or to the aromantic community?

#aro #aromantic #things i wrote in one sitting without editing or proofreading #questioning #sorry again to people who have sent me asks. i will answer eventually when my brain is feeling less foggy #my post

[swordwithribbon]

the most recent terf claim is that trans people and trans identities are a product of the patriarchy and misogyny. on tiktok, narratives are being spread with thousands of likes that display trans people as evil and pushers of a tyrannical “lie” which is spread to uphold the patriarchy. these cisgender people also deny the existence of trans people and gender identity as a whole, claiming gender is a “lie”, a fiction.

what must be said about this argument is that, yes, gender is something completely built by society, mainly men, and it is pushed onto everyone all over the world. so, terfs and i are actually in agreement: gender has to be abolished. my issue arises, however, when these cisgender- mainly women- push the blame for the construction of gender onto transgender people, when, trust me when i say this, trans people are the largest supporters of gender abolition. do you really think that trans people want to grow up in a world where we are discriminated, killed and harassed for expressing our identity? of course not, and, if gender was not such a widespread concept, we wouldn’t.

but, gender does exist in the sense that society has made it exist. so, unfortunately, it is impossible to live a life without the influence of gender. this in itself means that, as much as terfs hate it, gender identity does exist and will continue to until gender is completely erased from our society (which i don’t believe will happen in anybody’s lifetime today). just because something is a social construct it doesn’t mean that it isn’t still a very real social construct- an issue, yes, but still a real issue.

i’ve seen discussions of femicide in these videos almost insinuating that trans people, especially trans women, are one of the causes. this is so dangerous. what about trans genocide? because in the direction we’re going, we’re not far from it. the point i’m making is that both cis and trans women are in danger, and if you are spreading a harmful narrative you are adding fuel to this transphobic fire. if a trans person could wake up and not be trans, they would. life is hard enough. to abolish gender, which is what these terfs claim is the goal, we need to unite to destroy the patriarchy, not create further divisions. but, truly, these terfs care more about spreading their bigoted rhetoric than female liberation; trans women are not the problem, society is.

#tirf #feminism

[feminist-bitches-only]

My current belief system (always subject to change) in case anyone found my blog and is wondering:

I am not a libfem

- I don’t find centering men in my feminism as empowering (ex: it is a myth that men’s mental health isn’t taken seriously while women’s is. When has women’s mental health ever been taken seriously??? We should be able to label our oppressors as men without being labeled as bigoted generalizers, as any other oppressed group is able to label their oppressors).

- Plastic surgery, makeup, and shaving are absolutely not empowering and I truly don’t believe there is any woman out there who truly deeply believes that these are simply personal choices that you would make regardless of social influence. In fact, certain plastic surgeries being considered as gender-affirming care is extremely misogynistic (ex: if you are on estrogen and grow breasts, but you’re unhappy that they are smaller than you want them to be - that is a symptom of misogyny & insurance should not be covering additional breast implants under gender-affirming care, thus enforcing the idea that something like breast size makes a woman).

- Sex-based oppression is VERY real. Thus, spaces for afab people should exist in addition to spaces for all women because of this & afab imagery is empowering to afab women and should not be shamed or called trans-exclusive - it is for the purpose of empowering afab people. Who are oppressed.

- Gender abolition is the goal. Gender has been constructed for the purpose of oppressing women, and has been clearly show to be used as a tool of oppression against trans people as well. Additionally, considering gender is constructed, it is perfectly valid for some to experience attraction based on sex vs gender.

- Gender-neutral language can sometimes borderline on offensive (but usually not as bad as radfems make it out to be). Additionally a woman’s issue can still affect people who are not women (ex: abortion access IS a woman’s issue [affects women mostly and is an issue of discussion only because it’s used as a tool to oppress women], but also affects trans men/enbies). If you would not say that poverty & underfunded schools are faced by the Black community just because there are also white people who face poverty, do not try to say that calling issues like abortion women’s issues is a problem.

- Misogyny against straight women/cis women/white women/etc. is still misogyny. While intersectionality increases the burden of oppressions, misogyny is still a very VERY real oppression that is often not even labeled - it’s just seen as part of living in this world as a woman (ex: rape, sexual harassment, and stalking are often not considered hate crimes; cunt, bitch, and slut aren’t considered slurs by the general public).

I am not a radfem

- There is literally no reason to misgender or deadname trans people. I cannot ever read posts on this site with purposeful misgendering without believing it is in bad faith (I don’t consider sex-based terminology as misgendering [it is perfectly okay for someone to have female/male biology but identify as a man/woman], but I ascribe to afab/amab terminology since it seems so be more affirming/less dysphoria-triggering to the trans community).

- Trans women are women. Trans men are men. Non-binary people are non-binary. While it is completely fine for you to base your gender off your sex [ex: I am a woman because I am an adult human female], it is not okay to act as if everyone’s gender needs to be determined that way. This is a major flaw of radfem ideology - if gender is a social construct, why would people be forced into a gender identity based on their sex??? Makes no sense.

- Queer is a good, empowering term. Anything can be used as a slur, doesn’t mean people can’t identify with it. I ascribe to the belief that slur reclamation greatly decreases a slur’s power. It is perfectly okay for people to not want to put their sexualities/genders into very neat boxes. Who cares if you could get a more specific understanding of someone’s sexuality with a gay/bi label?? Why is it any of your business to get a specific reading of someone’s sexuality?

- Trying to insinuate that you know someone’s sex based on shit like their facial features is embarrassing as fuck and incredibly misogynistic. I can’t imagine the embarrassment of being anti-patriarchy to only go to a cis woman and claim they’re trans because you think their shoulders are too broad or something lmao. Or, in the case of trans women, claim you know they’re trans because of *insert feature that many cis women also have here.*

My main interest: bringing communication and building relationships between the feminist & trans rights movements. Both of these groups are fighting their own oppression and I genuinely believe that they misunderstand each other’s concerns, goals, and experiences. I think that we are stronger together and as oppressed groups, we are not each other’s enemies. We can work together to stand up to the patriarchy, without dismissing the trans experience, and stand up to the gender binary, without excluding the afab woman experience. But as oppressed groups, we need to listen to each other. Lateral oppression is not, has never been, and never will be cute. ***For this reason, you will not see me tagging posts as “radfems dni” or “tras dni” or any variance of the two. People need to be able to interact and understand each other’s thoughts and concerns to be able to bridge this gap. I will not tolerate bad-faith conversation, however.

#always feel free to ask me questions #or if you disagree with a take of mine I am always down for civil good faith discussion and am very open to changing my mind #feminist #feminism #trans rights

[0olong]

Trans Facts: Introduction

This is a set of resources for countering common myths about trans people, trans rights and trans healthcare, hosted by Resisting Transphobia in Edinburgh.

While committed anti-trans activists are extremely prominent in trans discourse, the bulk of people with worries about these things do not fall into that category. Many people simply have fears because they have been misinformed by politicians, the media and those prominent transphobes. With such people, it is worth correcting them on matters of fact, carefully and gently if you can. That is where this resource comes in: it provides a run-down of most of the common myths, with references where relevant.

Following the preamble, these are the facts in question. While this is a mythbusting resource, it avoids repeating the myths, since on some level that serves to reinforce them.

Sex is not binary.

Gender is a social construct, but that doesn’t mean it’s not real.

This is not a dispute between scientists and trans activists.

Feminism is fully compatible with trans inclusion.

Trans people do more to undermine gender stereotypes than to reinforce them.

Nobody is being silenced for saying sex is biological.

Nobody is taking away hard-won ‘sex-based rights’.

Trans people’s rights are definitely under threat.

The category of ‘woman’ is not being erased.

It is not too easy for kids to access trans healthcare.

Kids are not ‘being transed’.

Puberty blockers are largely reversible, and have been used and tested for decades.

Puberty blockers are not the same thing as cross-sex hormone treatments.

There has never been a gay or queer liberation movement without trans people.

‘Cis’ is not a slur.

‘Detransitioners’ are not being ignored.

There is no evidence for ‘Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria’.

Being transgender is not a kink.

Please share this around - we desperately need more cis allies, in particular, to be equipped to confidently correct their friends and family members who have picked up lies about trans people. We could also do with a lot more people writing to media organisations and regulators to flag up when they are sharing disinformation.

Thanks everyone!

#transgender #trans #transphobia #moral panic #trans facts #trans rights

[max--phillips]

hey! as a fellow queer person, i’ve been intrigued by your stance about sex as a construct. i work at planned parenthood and have a degree in women’s and gender studies, and im interested as to where you’re getting your information because it just isn’t entirely accurate. you’re right about gender being a social construct/existing on a spectrum but sex is definitely not a social construct. the word sex literally just refers to biological characteristics that develop as a result of testosterone or estrogen dominance during the first weeks of development. you’re right about intersex people, but their existence only further proves that sex is real. sex does not equate to gender, and someone’s sex often is different than their gender. but that doesn’t make sex a social construct.

So, you're absolutely correct and I agree with 99.9% of what you've said here. Sex is a real tangible thing that is definable. But let me come at it with some other examples: race is also a social construct. Language is a social construct. The way we define continents is a social construct. When you get down to the nitty gritty of it, pretty much everything is, in some way, a social construct; just because something is physical and definable and true doesn't make it not a social construct.

Humans define everything we experience. And all humans are inherently biased in one way or another, but they are always influenced by the society they live in. That means any definition, no matter how empirical and scientific it is, is biased based on the person who is defining it.

All that's to say: "sex is a social construct" is really shorthand for "the way sex is defined is a social construct." It does not mean that I think that like, vaginas and penises are fake or anything like that. It just means that the way we define sex, the parameters and expectations and all that attached to those definitions, are socially constructed. So no, the physical reality of having a body and that body having the parts that it does is not a social construct, but the concepts of "male" and "female" as we have defined them as a society are. I hope that makes sense, but if you'd like me to try to clarify anything please let me know !! (Edit based on another ask I just got: I do mean clarify anything I said about my thoughts on this, not like, on the topic in general. I’m not an authority on this.)

#tori answers questions #max answers questions #Anonymous

[graphophobiac]

Counting Crows

One for sorrow.

Chest constricting, winding tighter and tighter and tighter. The pain is unbearable. A lump in the throat, tears in the eyes. You cannot breathe, there is no air to fill your lungs. Nothing to grant reprieve.

Two for joy.

The cord snaps, the pressure gone. Your chest rises and falls with frantic breath, calming warm wrapping its arms around your trembling body. Inhale… Exhale… It’s alright now. You are safe.

Three for a girl, four for a boy.

Gender is a funny concept. Far beyond the other social constructs that you can barely understand. Gender is the least of your concerns; boy, girl. You don’t feel like either. Definitely not a boy. Being feminine is nice, but you are not a girl.

Five for silver.

Oddly, you prefer silver to gold, you still get to be on a pedestal with two others, but there is less fanfare, less added expectations of achieving the same next time. With second, silver, there is room to do better, but from the top the only way is down.

Six for gold.

The metal of victory, glistening in the sunlight. Malleable by bare hands, forcing you into the shape those around you want you to be. There is not a single regard to your wants, only expectations, more and more, uncaring if you buckle under the pressure. You must go on. You must win.

Seven for a secret never to be told.

But those jewels were never truly real. Empty congratulations echo in your head. You are not the person they want you to be, that they believe you are. You despise them for it, but can never correct them for fear of being ostracised, alone forever.

Eight for a wish.

You wish to be human, to be allowed to make mistakes. But you are not. You cannot be human. You must be a perfect robot, incapable of failing even the smallest amount. For even the smallest mistake means you are unworthy of any love. Any love you receive is meaningless.

Nine for a kiss.

Their lips press against yours, holding you tight, cradling you like the most precious porcelain ever to be crafted. They love you, they said so. However you cannot help the nagging voice in your head questioning every kind gesture, every act of love, wondering if they mean it or if they do those things because they pity you. It infects your mind. But right now, they are kissing you and holding you, and that’s all that matters.

Ten for a time of joyous bliss.

For a moment, you are free. The loneliness you are so deathly afraid of is the only thing that doesn’t judge you. The darkness, your bed, your clothes. They do not judge you. They allow you to make mistakes. Loneliness is your closest friend and your biggest enemy.

#poetic prose #writing #creative #black crows #prose poetry #prose #poetry #I like crows #crows are nifty lil creature in my opinion

[self-winding]

Recently, I’ve been hearing Rachel Dolezal mentioned again in relation to identity issues.

I’m actually pretty sympathetic to the concept of transracialism, I think she is just a uniquely bad poster child for it because her identity seems so bound up in “political” blackness and the need to feel oppressed. 

But if you accept that race is a social and cultural construct rather than an immutable physical reality which flows out of biological ancestry, the idea that someone’s race can be negotiable and at least partly based on their social/cultural reality, rather than purely on ancestry, seems pretty straightforward.

I don’t remember the dude’s name but I remember reading an article about a musician with Eastern European ancestry who was fairly dark-skinned and had grown up in a predominantly black community.  Even though none of his ancestors were from Africa, he was perceived as black and saw himself as black.  And that’s not even going into mixed-race people who can pass as either/or.  Even more so than sex or gender, racial categories are very fuzzily defined and porous.

I guess (to state the obvious) the more controversial aspects of “transracialism” come in when people whose natural appearance is more stereotypically white start modifying that appearance to look more black, as Dolezal did.  I will admit that this is more viscerally uncomfortable to me than an AMAB person wanting to present in a very feminine way, and of course there’s the association with blackface performances, but gut feelings are just gut feelings.  Every attempted argument I’ve seen for why these things are different takes one of two tactics:

1.  Transmedicalism; “it’s different because being transgender is a diagnosable medical condition, and transracialism is not.  There’s currently no body of research to support the idea.”  The obvious drawback to this is that a lot of trans people also don’t buy into the transmedicalist framework and consider it pretty limiting.  There are large numbers of trans people it excludes.

2.  Authenticity-by-oppression.  Trans women “catch up” to cis women pretty quickly in terms of the types of discrimination they experience, and might even outpace them, whereas a Rachel Dolezal probably doesn’t experience the same degree of discrimination as someone who naturally looks very black.  There are obvious issues with this framing as well, in that it treats the “realness” of someone’s identity as purely defined by oppression.  If trans women stop being oppressed do they stop being “real women”?

So, does this mean I think Dolezal is “valid”?  I mean, there’s plenty about her as a person that I find objectionable.  But just asking, “Is Dolezal ‘really’ black?” implicitly buys into the idea that “black” is an immutable metaphysical category.  Scientifically, it’s not.  Socially and culturally, it is (at the very least) kind of hard to define in any rigid way, so we’re reduced to a kind of “I know it when I see it, and that’s not it” way of thinking, but that way of thinking has plenty of obvious pitfalls.  My brain still has trouble accepting that a tomato is a fruit and that Pluto is not a planet.

If I allow myself to play devil’s advocate to myself:  Yes, I do subscribe to the common sense definition that if you’re going to call yourself black you should have at least a little African ancestry, but how much is “a little”?  I mean, technically we all have African ancestry.  Also I know jack shit about how DNA works, beyond what I learned in my high school biology classes.  All right, so if you’re going to call yourself black, you should be able to pass as black without modifying your appearance too much...but what is “too much”?  Do dreads count, does a perm count, does a tan count?  Well, you can do what you like with your appearance as long as your primary motive isn’t to appear black...but okay, now we’re talking about subjective, wobbly stuff like motive and it’s getting very tricky.

Idk man.

[rincewindsapprentice]

https://at.tumblr.com/rincewindsapprentice/697912204773769216/8m3uaapp40nv

Don’t you mean gender? Gender as in the social constructed part. Culture around sexism and understanding of sex.

Meanwhile the sexes of humans doesn’t swap in and out with prevailing socio economic systems any more than the sex of any other great ape does. We aren’t snails nor are we cultural figments of our own (or any gods’) imaginations.

I do actually mean sex, not gender.

How we have understood sex (as in the biological/physical part) has changed over time and across societies. While you are right in that the sexes of humans don't just swap in and out over time, how we understand, separate, and construct them (often literally) does. While this is still "cultural," what we mean by sex shifts in dramatic ways that has effects beyond just gender roles.

For example, how we define what makes sex has shifted in dramatic ways in just the West. Earlier definitions were based on the system of humors, with men being "warm" while women were "cold," yet how even this system was interpreted also shifted from time and place, especially given the possibility of "warm" women and "cold" men. In the medieval period, social role (what we now understand as gender) was just as important as physiology, sometimes more important. What was the primary importance for determining cases of ambiguous sex was that someone stay in one gender role (ie, that they stay either passive or active; given the social advantage men had, individuals under examination by juries and their families would generally push for them to be men, regardless of their "actual" sex as we would understand it).

How we have interpreted and "dealt" with issues of ambiguous sex (now generally understood as intersexuality) has even shifted. There were understandings of sex in the ancient and medieval periods that conceived of more than just two sexes (considering the ambiguous cases not just as aberrations of the "real" sex, but distinct sexes unto themselves). For those with ambiguous sexual characteristics, courts were the primary tool for determining a "final" gender, with an individual often part of these discussions. It was only later that surgeons and medical professionals asserted their expertise in answering these questions, eventually leading to literal surgeries performed on adults with ambiguous sexual characteristics to "fix" them to a specific sex, and to argue that there were only two sexes with ambiguous cases being aberrations of "real" sex.

Fast forward to the modern period and how we define sex has shifted dramatically, from outward appearance of genitals ("how long is the clitoris/penis?" "is there an opening between the anus and the clitoris/penis?") to gonads (~late 19th, early 20th), to hormones (early 20th, until men were found to have estrogen), to chromosomes (mid-20th until chromosomal differences were discovered), to even differences in the brain structure today. That list is not even exhaustive. (Anne Fausto-Sterling's work is informative here)

With regards to binary sex itself, how it is understood and to what extent it existed has also shifted tremendously. For example, the Mishnah, the codification of Jewish oral laws from 200 CE, outlines four, or up to eight, different categories of sex determined by a wide variety of means. Many early Christians understood sex in a kind of binary+ way, with there being male, female, and a gradation between the two (including an androgyny). Later understandings of binary sex in the West tended to argue that the level of binary division between the sexes itself demonstrated its level of civilization, in very clear racist (or proto-racist) terms. Thus, medieval mappamundi often included depictions of exotic two-sexed individuals (literally split in half). Later scientific racists in the 18th and 19th centuries argued that "savage" people had increasingly blurry divisions between sexes, with some arguing that the "most savage" were composed of completely ambiguous sexes, while Europeans supposedly had clearly and starkly defined binary sexes.

None of this, of course, addresses non-Western views of sex and gender, which vary wildly across societies and time, and it is not really my place to outline them here (in part because I am a white American without situated knowledge of the systems themselves).

As far as goes the idea of the sexes of humans literally swapping, the intervention of surgeons since the 14th century has facilitated that as cases of ambiguous sex were "corrected" through surgical technique. This did, at times, switch someone's sex (and especially gender role) as parts were amputated or closed (or opened and extended). While first performed only on adults, nowadays such surgeries are performed on infants at the point of birth, with even more invasive procedures enabled by findings in endocrinology. This is the realm where intersex activism aims to intervene as the vast majority of these surgeries have and are now used to prevent "social destruction," not improve the life of the individual.

As far as the tags in my post, when the West came to adopt a strictly binary view of sex (there is only "male" and "female," with ambiguous cases aberrations of a "male" or "female") is a matter of often heated debate. Some argue that binary sex emerged with the translation of Arabic texts in the 12th century and the professionalization of surgeons in the 13th and 14th centuries (see Leah DeVun, The Shape of Sex: Nonbinary Gender from Genesis to the Renaissance). Others point to such a surgical invention as late as the 19th century (see Geertje Mak, Doubting Sex: Inscriptions, bodies, and selves in nineteenth-century hermaphrodite case histories). If you throw the name "Thomas Laqueur" into an assemblage of early modern historians or classicists, you'll likely cause a fistfight.

So yes, I do in fact mean sex. It is just as socially (and literally) constructed as gender is.

Further reading:

Anne Fausto-Sterling, Sexing the Body: Gender Politics and the Construction of Sexuality (2000)

Leah DeVun, The Shape of Sex: Nonbinary Gender from Genesis to the Renaissance (2021)

Jules Gill-Peterson, Histories of the Transgender Child (2018)

Kimberly Hamlin, "The "Case of a Bearded Woman": Hypertrichosis and the Construction of Gender in the Age of Darwin," American Quarterly, 63 no 4 (2011)

Thomas Laqueur, Making Sex: Body and Gender from the Greeks to Freud (1990)

Geertje Mak, Doubting Sex: Inscriptions, bodies, and selves in nineteenth-century hermaphrodite case histories (2012)

Marianne Schleicher, "Constructions of Sex and Gender: Attending to Androgynes and "Tumtumin" through Jewish Scriptual Use," Literature and Theology 25 no 4 (2011)

Michael Stolberg, "A Woman Down to Her Bones: The Anatomy of Sexual Difference in the Sixteenth and Early Seventeenth Centuries," Isis 94 no 2 (2003)

#history #asks #this accidentally posted early so I guess it won't show up in tags :) #but yeah this is partly what I study #if any of you want to read any of these #just message me and I can send them! (most likely) #highly suggest Anne Fausto-Sterling's work

[vibesaresimplyatrocious]

Most omegaverse fics ignore real life genders in favor of the fictional ones. Like a few fics I read had all omegas wear traditionally feminine clothing even if they were male or not; this was the norm for omegas. How does society in jumble sale chic look at the relationship between primary(?) & secondary(?) genders (sexes?????) (male/female vs. omega/beta/alpha)

ABO genders determine gender roles. Male/female are aesthetic/appearance designator and are not ignored. 

First off like, disclaimer, gender isnt super real as an objective thing. I think that gender identity is extremely important for individual experiences, but any attempt to try and form objective external criteria for gender isn’t gonna work. I personally ascribe to the social construct theory of what gender is.

That being said, this is gonna discuss broadly how this hyper-role-specific society views gender, not how it is or how I believe it should be.

Gender is inherently more complicated in the ABO world because 1) it’s got way more different kinds of it and 2) it’s severed from how we distinguish gender.

Setting aside entirely whether this is right or true, mainstream society tends to distinguish gender by physical appearance. Female presenting individuals typically have a specific kind of bone structure, shape of their body, curves, breasts, etc. Male presenting individuals tend to be taller, have specific bone structure, broader shoulders, etc etc. We distinguish gender based on those traits. There are a few others—how deep your voice is, etc—but the way our world assumes what the gender identity of the people around us are is through how they look.

That’s a lost cause in the omegaverse, because male/female appearance is severed from how it conceives of gender in a reproductive and gender role sense. What’s important is alpha beta omega. Now, that’s why scent is important—it’s how you are supposed to figure out someone’s gender in this world. So the criteria is basing whether you’re in a “straight” relationship is based on scent and what that means for your secondary gender, not physical appearance.

It also means that straight relationships aren’t, necessarily, ‘hetero’sexual relationships, because there are three genders defining this. “straight” relationships are defined by being alpha/omega, or beta/beta, or alpha/beta/omega (I’ve made the unilateral decision that polyamory is way more accepted and common in this universe and alpha/beta/omega relationships like luke, jess, and claire are pretty common and accepted ). But I decided i didn’t want to change any of the words to have more accurate latin or greek roots, so i just kept the words we have for this. 

So the secondary genders with the ABO universe are perceived as your “role” in relationships and in society. It’s your reproductive capacity. 

However, we know our traditional aesthetic differences--male and female--still exist. And it doesn’t make sense that the ABO world just ignores this. the mere fact that they decided to create and use the names implies that they recognize them as distinct. and i have infinite faith in people’s ability to put other people in boxes. Since male and female are severed from reproduction, as a result, it becomes a visual, aesthetically-defined distinction. 

people can have “types” around male or female. it’s like how some people only date blondes or how leonardo di caprio only dates people under 25. some people only date male or female, but that’s considered an aesthetic preference and doesn’t factor into whether it’s a queer relationship or not. 

That being said, the idea that how we treat male and female being a 1:1 translation onto alpha and omega doesn’t make sense either. 

expectations around appearance would transfer, but I don’t think that the execution of those appearances would. 

Like, women tend to be held to a different standard as to their appearance--whether they wear makeup, whether they put care into their clothing or upkeep, whether they’re physically fit. Men, meanwhile, tend to be commonly held to lower standards in casual settings. makeup isn’t expected, outfits tend to have less elaborate requirements, etc. alternatively, in professional or formal settings, men have very strict standards to confirm to insofar as proper formal wear that women don’t really experience in the same way

Expectations about maintaining appearance would be enforced against omegas and alphas, but it would be unrealistic to think that that’d be executed in the same way that it is against women and men in our world.

Traditionally feminine clothing is based on body type. Yes, it tends to be more provocative (or conservative, depending on how traditional you are), because the “female” person in society tends be treated like a sexual object, but the way that it’s provocative/conservative wouldn’t transfer since reproductive organs have been mostly severed from appearance. Like, traditionally feminine clothing that tends to be more provocative does that by being cut to a female presenting body type. Low cut shirts are meant to show off cleavage. male omegas wouldn’t have cleavage to show off. so, while it makes sense to have more provocative clothing, it would not make sense for it to be traditionally feminine clothing. i think this universe has a wholly distinct  fashion industry than our world. 

Female omegas and male alphas would have fashion industry standards closest to our world. male omegas, however, would have a a wholly unique fashion standard that would be either more provocative or conservative, but would be geared towards flattering their male-presenting body types. in the same way, female alphas would have outfits tailored to their body types that conform to more “male” expectations about how clothing should be. 

Betas tend to be catered to in a much more understated fashion sense. like, they really are the most overlooked of the three secondary genders. personally, i don’t think that betas have the capacity for reproduction? it’s the only thing that makes sense to me in the arbitrary secondary gender capacity. i do think that they serve other socially-perceived  and biologically-dictated roles in relationships and aren’t just like, a bunch of “extras” the way they’re usually treated. but that’s a different conversation. as the abo world is traditionally kind of dismissive of betas, i think that this does extend a little bit to fashion. they have the ability to wear traditionally alpha or omega outfits, but it’s a bit taboo.

so yeah. i don’t think that male and female is a category that does not matter in the abo world, nor do i think that male and female directly translate to alpha and omega. Secondary genders dictate reproductive and gender roles and male and female are aesthetic and visual differences 

#chewing coffee #hand spun silk #jumble sale chic #abo #omegaverse #next chapter is happening at some point my life is just falling to pieces

[kamillia]

Okay, so I have been thinking about this for an hour now and I don’t know how to ask this that doesn’t sound like an troll

But like, if gender ideology is BS and it’s not real, why do a lot think we (guys) are inherently worthless and no point of existence

Like, I soooooorta get it, we are privileged and allow to much shit and harm pass by, and if an radfem killed me, I wouldn’t mind cause I have no self worth

But I’m just not understanding the “institution” thing, because like, if you take two babies form both sexs outside of planet Earth and never teach them about anything about us, I don’t really think the male baby would come out an rapist or anything like that

Coming from an black person, that what I was taught, I thought stuff was this was thought subconsciously, not inherently born with

the reason males are more likely to be violent is because of male socialization first and foremost. There are also other things that may make males more prone to being violent, but since we are human beings with free will it is mostly the cause of male socialization rather than biology. Gender roles ARE real. They are constructs made by the patriarchy to oppress women and keep us under men. Just like trans people and gender ideology exists and no one denies it. However all these ideas are not based on actual fact and biology but rather are tools of oppression. This is why it's important to dismantle the idea of gender and gender roles. Creating more genders or more gender roles or saying that a man who fits into feminine gender roles is a woman doesn't help us dismantle these things, it just builds on them. It instills the idea that to be a woman is to be weak and feminine, and to be a man is to be strong and masculine, and that the act of not aligning yourself with the traditional misogynistic ideas of womanhood must mean you're not a woman at all. A woman isn't a woman because she's girly, or likes putting on makeup or wearing feminine clothes. A woman is a woman simply due to her being born female, which means having xx chromosomes. To say otherwise is to be pushing misogynistic ideas.

[orossii]

i find it frustrating, but i’m not one of those people hyperventilating over the MAGA communism phenomenon. i’m of the opinion that a communist split from the ideological confines of left liberalism (identity politics and post-modernism as opposed to the traditional, economic class-centered left) is an overall positive development that needed to happen. what frustrates me is seeing this oppositional energy, a natural consequence of the contradictions of this new ultra-divisive left liberalism, get redirected toward the brand of highly astroturfed cultural conservatism that was the prevailing ideology of neoconservatism 15 years ago. it’s true that the working class tends to be more conservative, but that doesn’t mean that they’re actually represented by wealthy right wing ideologues like ben shapiro and andrew tate anymore than they are by judith butler or robin diangelo. it’s just as absurd to suggest that we need to emulate their messaging if we’re to reach these people as it is to say that trans rights are the only thing standing bewteen america and fascism. tea party libertarianism, qanon, chan culture, and evangelical christianity are just as astroturfed and populated by delusional middle class lunatics as antifa and the gender ideology movement

the people who follow these movements aren’t innately evil, even if i think their ideological framework of choice is misanthropic and synthetically designed to prevent them from thinking critically about certain things that they’re encouraged to view as ‘leftist propaganda’. in turn, sometimes they’re allowed to make certain observations about how the world works that the equally misanthropic left isn’t, gender ideology and the dangers of porn/prostitution/child sexualization being a huge example as well as the devastating economic consequences of western COVID policy on the working class

the left liberals are currently in the driver’s seat. when the contradictions of right wing cultural conservatism came to a head in the wake of the iraq war the neoconservatives were remarkably flexible in shifting their allegiances to the democratic party, while keeping the republican party warm for when they exhaust their current host once more. they have no ideological convictions outside of the inherent supremacy of their class, so they don’t give a shit what cultural trappings they use to advance their agenda

what american communists should be doing is studying WHY certain aspects of conservative and liberal messaging alike appeal to members of the working class, and advancing a synthesis that speaks to those legitimate concerns. for example, the democratic party capitalizes on real fears of racism and sexism. the republican party capitalizes on real fears of government overreach and de-industrialization. they tell us to pick the fear that scares us the most and then once we do that, we’re exposed to messaging that’s intended to manufacture a personal identity (almost exclusively democrat/leftist or republican/conservative) based on what started as a legitimate concern or value. they force feed us nonsense that makes us hate everyone that falls into the other ideological camp because of the genuinely irrational additional garbage the other is paired with. we defend our own irrationality because we don’t look to reality for our worldview, but the prevailing consensus dictated to us from the top down via our media echo chamber of choice. because of this we end up in a state where the society is polarized between two repulsive extremes of progressivism and traditionalism, both of which cause social instability because culture is not meant to change drastically from decade to decade by forces outside our constructive control nor is it meant to be kept in a state of artificial stagnation and warped nostalgia. both poles keep the working class distracted with these ugly bitter internal struggles while the imperialist ruling class marches on, hijacking whatever pole best suits their interests in the moment and funding them both to ensure their loyalty

the MAGA communists are just another niche for the ruling class to distract us with, they’re not exactly a threat to anything and will fail for the same reason the right-wing populist messaging advanced by the tea party failed. their messaging appeals to some people, but many find it ridiculous and artificial. i think their primary function has been to distract communist consciousness. but i will say this-- i think the conditions that lead to the astroturfing of the MAGA communist movement have huge implications. every time we experience an ideological rupture a new consciousness emerges, and when the communist movement starts disentangling itself from the trappings of right vs. left at the same time the imperialist world order is starting to crumble and give rise to unprecedented economic conditions, we’ll be able to finally take the bull by the horns

#idk who this post is for #talking out loud to myself i guess

[yak-leather-whips]

I just made a really good point in a youtube comment which will surely be lost over there, so I’m gonna bring it over here so the little gay people in my phone can give it the appreciation it deserves:

The reason transgender is a valid identity while transracial is not isn’t because somehow race is more real than gender. They are both social constructs which hinge on how people perceive you. The difference lies in the kind of performance, and the role we play in it.

Gender requires you to actively participate in the performance. Its requirements go beyond simply physical characteristics to include prescriptions for dress, behavior, career ambitions. All of this requires your active participation in order to be upheld, and it incentivizes this by making gender a privilege conferred on those who conform. A gnc cisgender woman can be “degendered” against her will for failing to perform femininity correctly. Likewise, cis men are constantly forced to uphold the performance of masculinity in big and small ways, or else be accused of not being “real men.” Gender is a role which requires certain behaviors, and in order to incentivize this, it confers certain privileges, but only on those who conform to an appropriate degree, punishing those who fail to do so harshly. In doing this, it makes us complicit in a way, but also unintentionally gives us a choice. When you tell someone “conform or be punished,” some subset will go “…I guess be punished.”

On the contrary, there is no lack of performance that gets you out of race. There is no “conform or be punished,” it’s just “be punished.” It’s an arbitrary category, just like gender, but one we are given no direct role in the maintenance of wrt how we are perceived. Rather, race is a category which is entirely externally applied without regard to whether you willingly perform it. “Performing whiteness” (whatever the hell that means) doesn’t get you out of punishment, because race is a performance which requires no participation on your part.

#its the difference between being forced to perform at a shitty club to make the rent #vs being kidnapped and put on display in the fucking zoo #transgender #trans rights #racism #social constructs #queer theory #sociology #i’m kinda rambling here but also i think i’m right

[realshakies]

Gender is a Social Construct; a critique of Professor Dave and transmed talking points (tw transmeds lol)

so I watched a professor Dave’s video today and I felt that some things he said were kinda wrong?? here's the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpGqFUStcxc

In the video he said that gender was “a different phenomenon [than sex]. It is still biological, but it is a neurochemical construct... it is still genetic in basis, but it absolutely is not determined by sex chromosomes... researchers are still working to understand the biological basis of gender identity.” It is strange to me that he would argue that gender is genetic but doesn’t explain how gender is connected to your genes. He just says that researchers are trying to understand it which doesn’t mean that his claim that gender identity is genetic is true or is some fact of reality. 

He later claims that “liberals” are wrong when they say that gender is a social construct, yet he can’t explain how gender is not a social construct. Here is the quote, “...please stop saying gender is a social construct. No it is not. It is a biological construct. Society can’t turn you any more trans anymore than it can turn you gay... [gender] is an incredibly complex neurochemical phenomena.” He claims that gender is this “neurochemical phenomena”, but he can’t even explain what this phenomena is or how it chooses your gender. And he tries to sound more wise by comparing gender and sexuality. Society definitely does determine whether if you are queer or not. Your experience with people as partners can influence what your preferences are. And your experience with a different name and pronouns can influence what your preferences are as well. It’s like choosing that you prefer straight hair over curly hair. No, I do not think that people are born gay or trans because that would suggest that being those things are connected to your genes which does not make since at all!

Your gender is as neurochemical as your own name.

Your gender is your identity. To claim that your gender is some impervious chemical force that dictates your whole being??? I think someone is a little insecure in his masculinity. “If my manhood isn’t a neurochemical reaction causing a instinctive sniff to my armpit every ten minutes... then what is it?” /t

Yeah, gender is a social construct. It’s strange to me that professor Dave of all people wouldn’t get that! Atheists are all the same :( /j

And he didn’t mention non binary people or cultures that had something other than a gender binary

Here's another dumbass cringe bitchass do-your-fucking-research get-your-facts-straight headass quote: “[Gender roles are] a social construct, and [they have] became obsolete immediately upon evolving beyond a hunter-gatherer society. It has only persisted due to deeply rooted misogyny and the desire to treat women as private property.” While the latter is true (that gender roles are rooted in misogyny and whatnot). The former is actually a false retelling of history written by colonizers; colonizers who actually came and enforced their gender roles onto the native people. Hunter gatherer societies were egalitarian and had no gender roles. The colonizers claimed that the natives did follow gender roles in order to make their way of life look natural, more pure, INTENED BY GOD.

Women in hunter-gatherer societies did not have to cover their breasts. Not like they do in your painting.

Gender roles are not natural.

shit i’m getting too worked up by this. i really thought of professor dave as an inspiration. now i think he is dumb. weird man.

I want to debunk other talking points but I feel like what I said already explains my arguments against it. Like how you have to be gender dysphoric to be trans those are the real transgenders. Well I would just say that people can choose to fucking change their name and pronouns and appearance and you shouldn't have a say in that. What is the point of arguing the validity of their identity if we could just call them socks or whatever i dont know lol. what i’m trying to say is that people should be who they want to be without repercussions unless who you are is TW shane dawson.

ok thats it pls debate me i love attention <333 /srs

#transgender #trans pride #transgender pride #transmeds #happy pride 🌈 #mogai #debate #tw transmed #argument #lgbt #gender nonconforming #nonbinary #gender critical #gender accelerationism #queer anarchism #professor dave #gender accelerationist #gender acceleration