Cognisant
Prolific Member
- Local time
- Yesterday 5:40 PM
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2009
- Messages
- 10,564
There seems to be two problems with gender identity, first is the erosion of traditional gender identities that seems to be part of the current extreme left narrative which, paradoxically, is combined with an explosion of possible gender identities and the importance of those gender identities being acknowledged and represented. Personally as I see it gender identity is derived from gender roles, the expectations that society imposes upon us and thus serve as qualifiers of those identities, in other words to be a “man” or a “woman” one must accept the burden of responsibility that comes with that role before they’re entitled to the privilege of that identity. Now if we can understand and define what those responsibilities are we can work out how the non-binary genders fit into this framework and that I think will alleviate (or at least explain) a lot of the issues people have with non-binary gender identities.
Before I continue let me preface this: being male does not make someone a man, being female does not make someone a woman, when I talk about the responsibilities of being a man or woman I am talking about ideals to aspire to, or not, one may not wish to be manly or womanly.
Traditionally the responsibilities of a man are to be strong (both physically and emotionally), to be a provider and a protector. When the call to arms goes out it is the man who answers, when the ship is sinking it’s the men who stand aside while the women and children board the lifeboats, if a woman should ask a man for assistance in a physical matter he is obligated by his pride as a man to offer service (be she in danger or simply has a burden to carry) within reason of course. These are the sort of things that are qualifiers of being a man, to ignore a call to arms is cowardly and a man is not a coward, likewise not to let the women and children go first, and when assistance is asked of a man he can refuse but it is a matter of ego, a man can refuse but he doesn’t want to because despite the responsibilities a man is proud of being a man.
Now not all guys are strong or brave or whatever but that’s not the point, the point is that this is an ideal to aspire to and identify with and that’s what makes a gender identity more than just an arbitrary label, by looking like a man, acting and talking like a man and calling myself a man I am signalling my adherence to the ideals of manhood, that I am bound by the responsibilities of being a man even if those binds are self-imposed. Truth be told I’m not actually very strong or particularly brave and so you could say I’m not much of a man and accordingly that is how society treats me, little is asked of me and I am given little respect, it’s really a “you get out what you put in” sort of deal.
Now I could go over the responsibilities of being a woman but that’s not really necessary for the point I’m trying to make, instead I simply want you to understand that how people feel about gender identities and how people adhere to those gender identities is greatly influenced by the roles of those gender identities and the responsibilities that are inherent to those roles. Put simply if the ship is sinking and the call goes out “women and children first” how does identifying as straight/gay/bi/asexual or one’s position on the masculine/effeminate spectrum affect that? I think for the most part this isn’t an issue, a gay man is still a man, an effeminate gay man is still a man and accordingly they should be afforded the proverbial “man card”, does anyone else watch The Venture Bros? Remember that scene where the Sphinx crew are going to a strip club in their downtime and they invite the flamboyantly gay Shore Leave, not because they expect that he wants to go (he is very gay) but because he is “one of the lads” and it would be wrong not to invite him.
Indeed Shore Leave is a great example of what I’m talking about, he is very gay but most definitely an adherent to the ideals of being a man, it’s not something exclusive to heterosexuality. If the call went out “women and children first” you would expect him to be standing aside with the other men because that’s consistent with his character. I think all but the most extreme right wingers are okay with sharing the “man” gender identity with someone like Shore Leave indeed I think many would be willing to applaud him as an exemplar of a man.
Likewise I don’t think most men have any issue with women who are legitimately manly, I’ll admit there’s a certain degree of feeling emasculated by being in the presence of a woman who is more manly than oneself but there’s no resentment behind that feeling, just a little shame and jealously. A woman need not be gay or identify as a man to be manly or even unattractive, indeed being manly can be an attractive trait for a woman (think of the sort of characters played by Sigourney Weaver) just as emotional intelligence and the ability to be nurturing can be attractive traits in a man. Instead I think where people take issue is when someone declares that their gender identity is opposite to their actual gender because they’re wearing pants or a skirt (whether they’re gay or not simply doesn’t matter).
If someone wants to be called a man but isn’t willing to act the part or only wants to be a fair-weather man then to anyone who values the meaning of being a man (the actual identity of the gender identity as opposed to it just being a meaningless label) these people are detestable. Hence why pansexuals in particular face a lot of hostility and I’ll include myself in that, I’ve entertained the notion, I’ve considered it and I’m still not okay with it, because I think when someone gets to redefine themselves on a whim it detracts from the meaning of having a gender identity at all. However there is an important caveat to this, if someone wants to be androgynous and identify with neither gender identity that’s fine, that doesn’t cause any issues and as I said earlier it’s a “you get out what you put in” sort of thing and if someone wants to be a neither that’s fine, just don’t expect people to pay much respect to your non-identity.
HOWEVER if someone is androgynous and embodies both the ideals of being a man and a woman then that’s worthy of praise and respect, just as a woman who is brave and strong or a man who is emotionally intelligent and nurturing has elevated themselves above being just a man or just a woman someone who is androgynous who takes on the responsibilities of being a man and a woman is something ascendant. Furthermore we could take this into stranger territory, if gender identities are essentially based on the responsibilities of that gender’s role we could create other roles with other responsibilities, indeed this is how identities work in general if you want to identify as something you need to meet the qualifiers or otherwise the identity has no meaning.
Feel free to make up whatever gender identities you want, so long as you give them meaningful qualifiers and don’t expect to receive respect for adhering to that identity unless there’s associated ideals/responsibilities to adhere to.
Now because I'm sure this will be the first thing people will want to talk about I think the traditional womanly ideal is obviously motherly stuff just the manly ideal is fatherly stuff (granted the examples of going to war and going down with the ship are at the most extreme end) so being nurturing and patient and reliable and having the skills (cooking, sewing, first aid) of a traditional matronly figure. Of course that's the traditional ideal (how things were for hundreds of years before technology radically changed everything) now days most people don't darn their socks and nor should they, that would just be silly, and I think adherence to strict gender roles has gone out of fashion, these days it's far more acceptable for a woman to have manly skills and interests and for men to have the same.
Being a good housekeeper and motherly figure (even if one doesn't have children) doesn't seem as glamorous as being the protector and the provider but the thing is there's very little opportunity for guys to be manly these days. I mean I earn a decent wage but not enough that I could be the sole breadwinner for a family, not easily anyway, instead these days it's the norm for both partners to work and contribute more or less equally to the household's finances. Likewise the world isn't a perfectly safe place and I'm a lot more comfortable walking around alone at night than I imagine a woman would be but that's not because I'm too big and tough to mess with, I'm just not of interest to most would be attackers (I don't wear anything worth being mugged for) and if I am mugged it'll probably be at gunpoint at which point how big and tough I supposedly am is completely meaningless.
I think being a man isn't really a point of pride anymore indeed it barely means anything anymore, the only skills that remain manly are those that the vast majority of women simply have no interest in doing and like a lot of men I wonder if I only qualify as being a man because the bar has been brought so low that being male is practically the only qualifier left and even that is debatable.
Before I continue let me preface this: being male does not make someone a man, being female does not make someone a woman, when I talk about the responsibilities of being a man or woman I am talking about ideals to aspire to, or not, one may not wish to be manly or womanly.
Traditionally the responsibilities of a man are to be strong (both physically and emotionally), to be a provider and a protector. When the call to arms goes out it is the man who answers, when the ship is sinking it’s the men who stand aside while the women and children board the lifeboats, if a woman should ask a man for assistance in a physical matter he is obligated by his pride as a man to offer service (be she in danger or simply has a burden to carry) within reason of course. These are the sort of things that are qualifiers of being a man, to ignore a call to arms is cowardly and a man is not a coward, likewise not to let the women and children go first, and when assistance is asked of a man he can refuse but it is a matter of ego, a man can refuse but he doesn’t want to because despite the responsibilities a man is proud of being a man.
Now not all guys are strong or brave or whatever but that’s not the point, the point is that this is an ideal to aspire to and identify with and that’s what makes a gender identity more than just an arbitrary label, by looking like a man, acting and talking like a man and calling myself a man I am signalling my adherence to the ideals of manhood, that I am bound by the responsibilities of being a man even if those binds are self-imposed. Truth be told I’m not actually very strong or particularly brave and so you could say I’m not much of a man and accordingly that is how society treats me, little is asked of me and I am given little respect, it’s really a “you get out what you put in” sort of deal.
Now I could go over the responsibilities of being a woman but that’s not really necessary for the point I’m trying to make, instead I simply want you to understand that how people feel about gender identities and how people adhere to those gender identities is greatly influenced by the roles of those gender identities and the responsibilities that are inherent to those roles. Put simply if the ship is sinking and the call goes out “women and children first” how does identifying as straight/gay/bi/asexual or one’s position on the masculine/effeminate spectrum affect that? I think for the most part this isn’t an issue, a gay man is still a man, an effeminate gay man is still a man and accordingly they should be afforded the proverbial “man card”, does anyone else watch The Venture Bros? Remember that scene where the Sphinx crew are going to a strip club in their downtime and they invite the flamboyantly gay Shore Leave, not because they expect that he wants to go (he is very gay) but because he is “one of the lads” and it would be wrong not to invite him.
Indeed Shore Leave is a great example of what I’m talking about, he is very gay but most definitely an adherent to the ideals of being a man, it’s not something exclusive to heterosexuality. If the call went out “women and children first” you would expect him to be standing aside with the other men because that’s consistent with his character. I think all but the most extreme right wingers are okay with sharing the “man” gender identity with someone like Shore Leave indeed I think many would be willing to applaud him as an exemplar of a man.
Likewise I don’t think most men have any issue with women who are legitimately manly, I’ll admit there’s a certain degree of feeling emasculated by being in the presence of a woman who is more manly than oneself but there’s no resentment behind that feeling, just a little shame and jealously. A woman need not be gay or identify as a man to be manly or even unattractive, indeed being manly can be an attractive trait for a woman (think of the sort of characters played by Sigourney Weaver) just as emotional intelligence and the ability to be nurturing can be attractive traits in a man. Instead I think where people take issue is when someone declares that their gender identity is opposite to their actual gender because they’re wearing pants or a skirt (whether they’re gay or not simply doesn’t matter).
If someone wants to be called a man but isn’t willing to act the part or only wants to be a fair-weather man then to anyone who values the meaning of being a man (the actual identity of the gender identity as opposed to it just being a meaningless label) these people are detestable. Hence why pansexuals in particular face a lot of hostility and I’ll include myself in that, I’ve entertained the notion, I’ve considered it and I’m still not okay with it, because I think when someone gets to redefine themselves on a whim it detracts from the meaning of having a gender identity at all. However there is an important caveat to this, if someone wants to be androgynous and identify with neither gender identity that’s fine, that doesn’t cause any issues and as I said earlier it’s a “you get out what you put in” sort of thing and if someone wants to be a neither that’s fine, just don’t expect people to pay much respect to your non-identity.
HOWEVER if someone is androgynous and embodies both the ideals of being a man and a woman then that’s worthy of praise and respect, just as a woman who is brave and strong or a man who is emotionally intelligent and nurturing has elevated themselves above being just a man or just a woman someone who is androgynous who takes on the responsibilities of being a man and a woman is something ascendant. Furthermore we could take this into stranger territory, if gender identities are essentially based on the responsibilities of that gender’s role we could create other roles with other responsibilities, indeed this is how identities work in general if you want to identify as something you need to meet the qualifiers or otherwise the identity has no meaning.
Feel free to make up whatever gender identities you want, so long as you give them meaningful qualifiers and don’t expect to receive respect for adhering to that identity unless there’s associated ideals/responsibilities to adhere to.
Now because I'm sure this will be the first thing people will want to talk about I think the traditional womanly ideal is obviously motherly stuff just the manly ideal is fatherly stuff (granted the examples of going to war and going down with the ship are at the most extreme end) so being nurturing and patient and reliable and having the skills (cooking, sewing, first aid) of a traditional matronly figure. Of course that's the traditional ideal (how things were for hundreds of years before technology radically changed everything) now days most people don't darn their socks and nor should they, that would just be silly, and I think adherence to strict gender roles has gone out of fashion, these days it's far more acceptable for a woman to have manly skills and interests and for men to have the same.
Being a good housekeeper and motherly figure (even if one doesn't have children) doesn't seem as glamorous as being the protector and the provider but the thing is there's very little opportunity for guys to be manly these days. I mean I earn a decent wage but not enough that I could be the sole breadwinner for a family, not easily anyway, instead these days it's the norm for both partners to work and contribute more or less equally to the household's finances. Likewise the world isn't a perfectly safe place and I'm a lot more comfortable walking around alone at night than I imagine a woman would be but that's not because I'm too big and tough to mess with, I'm just not of interest to most would be attackers (I don't wear anything worth being mugged for) and if I am mugged it'll probably be at gunpoint at which point how big and tough I supposedly am is completely meaningless.
I think being a man isn't really a point of pride anymore indeed it barely means anything anymore, the only skills that remain manly are those that the vast majority of women simply have no interest in doing and like a lot of men I wonder if I only qualify as being a man because the bar has been brought so low that being male is practically the only qualifier left and even that is debatable.