![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Interesting
Dec. 19th, 2002 10:40 amThanks, again, for all who have answered my questions. I have found much that I did not expect to encounter, as well as some of what I did suspect was there. In the interests of fairness (read: egocentric solipsism), I'll answer the questions myself.
1. "Man" and "woman" are not at all "natural" categories to me. By contrast, I'd say "male" and "female" are linked in biology (though, as has been pointed out by others, certainly not the only states in human biology), kind of like skin, eye, or hair color, general size, etc. It is my belief/premise that the cultural apparatus of "woman/man" are a collection of attitudes, roles, assumptions, etc. that have been attached over time to the idea of being either an innie or an outie. As has been referenced by others, it's a set of cultural constructs to me that has taken on the trappings of "nature" such that, as fundaments, I don't think are questioned but are assumed as, well, fundaments. "Wo/man" are identities that, having been put on, should be able to be removed, or changed/modified, as needed. Unfortunately, it seems more difficult to move, for me, in this direction because of the stasis I feel contextually by my belief that others see and expect these identities to be assigned and immutable, or even the only options.
2. I don't think they're the only options, but I don't think many other options have names, much less the cultural niche into which to fit, or even be accepted. As I don't see them necessarily defined by biological destiny, of course there would be other options. I'm working furiously on this point.
3.I try like crazy not to assign one of these two roles to myself; when I'm by myself, I think I tend to succeed. Unfortunately, this often falls to pieces when I'm with others. At times, I am absolutely certain that I am being gendered, coercively so, by those with whom I come into contact. Other times, I do the coercion myself, based on an idea of preemption of pain (because I know it's coming, I go ahead and get it out of the way). Obviously, this is less than productive.
4. It's important in that I hate it; I hate the assumptive aspects of binary gender, and yet I can't seem to escape the feeling that, at least in regards to others, I either have the choice to do it to myself, or let them do it, and likely make it suck more.
5. Less and less assumptively. For those to whom I'm close, I define them simply as, well, them. "Fe/male" may be a part of the descriptor, but "wo/man" rarely, ir ever, is these days; I consider that a ton of progress on my part. I think that attitude is seeping into my daily dealings with strangers, even, but it's less than fully implemented yet. My convenient, letting myself off the hook response is that, as I feel (un)fairly certain that most strangers are happy being "wo/man", it's safe to generalize from that. Obviously, I'm rarely let off the hook.
6. Important in that it makes it easier to be lazy and safe in dealing with strangers. That someone might define themselves as one or the other doesnt' matter all that much to me intellectually, save for the nagging bit of rebellion I feel in being confronted with seemingly only two options.
7. As referenced earlier, too much. My assumption of the assignment by others affects what feels like the acceptable range of lattitude in interactions with them. While I know that it's really me making the assignment, it feels like I'm just cutting to the chase and doing it myself, in a way that I know, at least, so there won't be as many unpleasant surprises.
8. Happily, I'm able to say less and less, almost daily.
As always, comments are always welcome.
1. "Man" and "woman" are not at all "natural" categories to me. By contrast, I'd say "male" and "female" are linked in biology (though, as has been pointed out by others, certainly not the only states in human biology), kind of like skin, eye, or hair color, general size, etc. It is my belief/premise that the cultural apparatus of "woman/man" are a collection of attitudes, roles, assumptions, etc. that have been attached over time to the idea of being either an innie or an outie. As has been referenced by others, it's a set of cultural constructs to me that has taken on the trappings of "nature" such that, as fundaments, I don't think are questioned but are assumed as, well, fundaments. "Wo/man" are identities that, having been put on, should be able to be removed, or changed/modified, as needed. Unfortunately, it seems more difficult to move, for me, in this direction because of the stasis I feel contextually by my belief that others see and expect these identities to be assigned and immutable, or even the only options.
2. I don't think they're the only options, but I don't think many other options have names, much less the cultural niche into which to fit, or even be accepted. As I don't see them necessarily defined by biological destiny, of course there would be other options. I'm working furiously on this point.
3.I try like crazy not to assign one of these two roles to myself; when I'm by myself, I think I tend to succeed. Unfortunately, this often falls to pieces when I'm with others. At times, I am absolutely certain that I am being gendered, coercively so, by those with whom I come into contact. Other times, I do the coercion myself, based on an idea of preemption of pain (because I know it's coming, I go ahead and get it out of the way). Obviously, this is less than productive.
4. It's important in that I hate it; I hate the assumptive aspects of binary gender, and yet I can't seem to escape the feeling that, at least in regards to others, I either have the choice to do it to myself, or let them do it, and likely make it suck more.
5. Less and less assumptively. For those to whom I'm close, I define them simply as, well, them. "Fe/male" may be a part of the descriptor, but "wo/man" rarely, ir ever, is these days; I consider that a ton of progress on my part. I think that attitude is seeping into my daily dealings with strangers, even, but it's less than fully implemented yet. My convenient, letting myself off the hook response is that, as I feel (un)fairly certain that most strangers are happy being "wo/man", it's safe to generalize from that. Obviously, I'm rarely let off the hook.
6. Important in that it makes it easier to be lazy and safe in dealing with strangers. That someone might define themselves as one or the other doesnt' matter all that much to me intellectually, save for the nagging bit of rebellion I feel in being confronted with seemingly only two options.
7. As referenced earlier, too much. My assumption of the assignment by others affects what feels like the acceptable range of lattitude in interactions with them. While I know that it's really me making the assignment, it feels like I'm just cutting to the chase and doing it myself, in a way that I know, at least, so there won't be as many unpleasant surprises.
8. Happily, I'm able to say less and less, almost daily.
As always, comments are always welcome.
