Types on a 'gender spectrum'

[onesteptwostep]

Do you think it's possible to order types by masculine, feminine, effeminate, or er, 'tomboy'? (just realized there isn't a word for masculine females... anyway moving on...)

There are obvious qualitative problems regarding the stratification here, but hey, would it be possible to?

How would it look like hypothetically?

 

[TBerg]

I think psychological functions and gender instincts are different axes.

 

[onesteptwostep]

I think psychological functions and gender instincts are different axes.

!!! Yes I agree with that, I think the functions could also have their own spectrum as well. I think this is one way to graph it, to have functions on one axis and the gender spectrum on another.

 

[Nebulous]

Well I mean female ENTJs tend to be more "masculine" than say, a female ISFJ would be

Not all Ts are necessarily masculine though. There are female Ts who are feminine in a badass way, like some INTJs.

xNFJs are usually pretty feminine

This is just based on people I know though

!!! Idea

Maybe each function could have a different gender depending on the person

Like

Te could be expressed in a feminine way in one person, but a masculine way in another person. And there are probably androgynous or gender neutral ones too

Idk this makes sense to me but it's hard to explain??

 

[Brontosaurie]

ISTP & ESTJ on one extreme, ENFJ & INFP on the other

 

[Brontosaurie]

Idk this makes sense to me but it's hard to explain??

The sublime frustration of brainwankery, so familiar to all MBTI junkies

 

[Nebulous]

Like

A feminine ISTP
I picture some girl w tattoos, her hair back, and cool eyeliner, sitting in a garage with a bunch of mechanical thingies.

And then there would be a masculine ISTP
That dude from Myth Busters comes to mind. Adam? Idk

I don't know any ISTPs irl so this is so stereotypical I'm sorry

Like one type isn't innately masculine or feminine.

I know two siblings who are both ESTJ (they're evil) but one is definitely masculine and the other is more feminine.
Like they both hunt and are into sports and being bossy
But one is super masculine and his sister wears make up and likes looking pretty and all that jazz

Idk

 

[Reluctantly]

I think it would be easier/insightful to talk about feminine/masculine qualities and explain how say feminine Ni would be versus masculine Ni, for example.

Maybe someone could tie it into this

 

[Black Rose]

I am a hetreosexual 28 yearold INTP white male, attracted to anime characters / archetypes. I act more feminine than other males, I have low testosterone. I try to make others feel safe. Carl Jung identified as INTP and cared about his patients well being. Femininity is non judgemental and non aggressive. (Unconditional love) I know some females who are more aggressive than I am. Passivity is what I feel most of the time. I do not project my problems onto others. I just feel mad and sad that people do not care about the real cause of their problems and how to fix them. I listen to people because I want to help them. Feeling listened to makes people less afraid of their own vulnerability. My emotions may feel bad at times but I don't let them take complete control of my actions because my actions do affect others. I do not let them produce a negative outcome. And when I make mistakes I feel bad and try to correct them. Like attracts like, people feel loved through total acceptance. I make people feel that way. Someday I will find that person who totally accepts me.

who I was

Spoiler

who I am

Spoiler

who I am becoming

Spoiler

how I treat others

Spoiler

what I wish to happen

Spoiler

 

[onesteptwostep]

I wish I had an army of INTJs and ENTJs at my disposal so I can research and compile the data :L

 

[onesteptwostep]

I think we could order types by 'frequency of gender' and try to tweek the orderings by seeing whether it makes sense: http://www.intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=22561 (on MBTI-type frequency data).

But I think before even we graph it there needs to be a consensus on what the nature of the axis should be, or whether or not we should have separate graphs for male and females (or possibly even combine them).

So this means one graph could have the X-axis being 'masculine - effeminate' and then the types on the Y-axis. If we place input the data and order the types on the Y-axis to make a clean slope, that would make the 'gender-by-type spectrum'.

If we order the types by percentage of frequency for males, it goes like

ISTJ 16.4%
ESTJ 11.2%
ISTP 8.5%
ISFJ 8.1%
ISFP 7.6%
ESFJ 7.5%
ESFP 6.9%
ENFP 6.4%
ESTP 5.6%
INTP 4.8%
INFP 4.1%
ENTP 4.0%
INTJ 3.3%
ENTJ 2.7%
ENFJ 1.6%
INFJ 1.3%

...which doesn't tell us the entire picture. One thing that doesn't make sense would be the ENTJ male being so low. An ISFP being more masculine than an ENTJ doesn't seem to make sense either.

I wonder if there's MBTI data for gays?

 

[Jennywocky]

I think we could order types by 'frequency of gender' and try to tweek the orderings by seeing whether it makes sense: http://www.intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=22561 (on MBTI-type frequency data).

But I think before even we graph it there needs to be a consensus on what the nature of the axis should be, or whether or not we should have separate graphs for male and females (or possibly even combine them).

So this means one graph could have the X-axis being 'masculine - effeminate' and then the types on the Y-axis. If we place input the data and order the types on the Y-axis to make a clean slope, that would make the 'gender-by-type spectrum'.

If we order the types by percentage of frequency for males, it goes like

ISTJ 16.4%
ESTJ 11.2%
ISTP 8.5%
ISFJ 8.1%
ISFP 7.6%
ESFJ 7.5%
ESFP 6.9%
ENFP 6.4%
ESTP 5.6%
INTP 4.8%
INFP 4.1%
ENTP 4.0%
INTJ 3.3%
ENTJ 2.7%
ENFJ 1.6%
INFJ 1.3%

...which doesn't tell us the entire picture. One thing that doesn't make sense would be the ENTJ male being so low. An ISFP being more masculine than an ENTJ doesn't seem to make sense either.

I wonder if there's MBTI data for gays?

Sorry if this has been done, but don't you have to normalize against the typical frequency of type in a population?

IOW, ENTJ is so low because ENTJ is not typically high in the population either.

... oh fukital if I'm saying something stupid... Multitasking right now and haven't thought through it completely yet.

 

[onesteptwostep]

Sorry if this has been done, but don't you have to normalize against the typical frequency of type in a population?

IOW, ENTJ is so low because ENTJ is not typically high in the population either.

... oh fukital if I'm saying something stupid... Multitasking right now and haven't thought through it completely yet.

No you're definitely right, frequency of type doesn't translate into gender traits. I'm sort of using an 'most males are definitely masculine' premise here.

 

[Sinny91]

Do you think it's possible to order types by masculine, feminine, effeminate, or er, 'tomboy'? (just realized there isn't a word for masculine females... anyway moving on...)

There are obvious qualitative problems regarding the stratification here, but hey, would it be possible to?

How would it look like hypothetically?

I thought 'tomboy' was a word for masculine females?

Actual Athlete, followed by 'Dyke' might be next up on the ladders, haha.

I don't know about MBTI, but they've tried applying this line of thought to Enneagram before.

https://www.enneagraminstitute.com/...-is-spirituality-different-for-men-and-women/

http://www.enneagramdimensions.net/articles\circle_triangle_hexad_pt1.pdf

ENTJ is often associated with Ennea 8. The 'Phallic Narcissist', the most prominent masculine type.

My guy best friend is either INTP or ISTP and he's effeminate.

My other male ISTP friend is very masculine.

A book I was reading, just gonna store it here:
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id...epage&q=enneagram 8 phallic masculine&f=false

 

[PmjPmj]

Apparently I come across as quite masculine, but in reality? I could wake up tomorrow as a female and not give a shit. There would obviously be the slight inconvenience of having to buy new clothes as nothing would fit, but that aside?

We're just awareness housed in meat chariots. It matters not whether your meat chariot is XX or XY, and I'm pretty sure a case could be made for femininity / masculinity being largely constructed societal ideals. I wouldn't know, I'm not a psychologist / sociologist so whatever.

I married an ENTJ woman. She's very 'masculine' in that she takes zero shit, and in spite of standing at only 5ft 4", she has eviscerated blokes taller / wider than me (I'm 6ft 2'). Conversely, some of my closest friends are absolute beasts of men, yet are extremely 'feminine' in their leanings. For example, my INFJ friend loves to make his home comfortable for his wife and child. He's in to scented candles and all sorts of bollocks - yet he's heavily muscled, and if you saw him on the street you'd probably give him a wide berth because he looks pretty badass.

Where am I going with this?

Oh, yes. So, there's a fluidity to it all in my mind. Personally, I couldn't give less of a shit what my biological sex is. It's my meat chariot, is all.

 

[Rooke]

Sorry if this has been done, but don't you have to normalize against the typical frequency of type in a population?

IOW, ENTJ is so low because ENTJ is not typically high in the population either.

... oh fukital if I'm saying something stupid... Multitasking right now and haven't thought through it completely yet.

This is the right track.

What we actually need, in the distribution of gender inside the types, not the type distribution inside the gender.

Given a XXXX type, that is really rare, will be rare both among males and females. For instance, 2% of males and 0,5% of females. But, assuming that male and female population are statistically equivalent, then this XXXX type is composed 75% by males. Wich means this is very masculine type.

This is more accurate, but there is still some problems.

If a female belongs to the XXXX type, she belongs to a masculine type and still behaves differently from 99% percent of males.

 

[Melkor]

I think it would be easier/insightful to talk about feminine/masculine qualities and explain how say feminine Ni would be versus masculine Ni, for example.

Maybe someone could tie it into this

That chart is as vague as it is terrifying.

 

[Rooke]

That chart is as vague as it is terrifying.

I honestly can think about this gender theory better than this gender studies kiddos do. Here's my board. One correction: gender function is actually R^2 -> Z.






Is not that I don't understand their point of view: I really do. I just don't agree with the priori assumption that femininity and masculinity are two independent variables, in other words, that a person can be both very masculine and very feminine.

They are two directions of the same dimension, like north or south, or left and right. In short, for a person to be more masculine, he or she needs to be less feminine. If you're right from origin, you are of male genderm and if you are left of origin, you're of female gender. Best case scenario, you could call someone agender if it's close to the origin.

Now, let's keeping assuming femininity an masculinity are idenpendet...

In my board, I split the grid on 9 regions, and are 5 without names. If someone could split in 16, and we'd have yet 7 more genders to name. This direction os thinking is clearly absurd. The most "fruitiful" alternative is to keep with M, F, Q, A, and that still insane.

 

[xbox]

Im a straight female (or a gay male?) but yeah

 

[Melkor]

I suppose my main problem is that the majority of such theories are formed around the concept that one can be mentally 'male' or 'female'.
In other words that there are personalities which are inherently 'girly' or 'manly', which is kindof silly given the vast varities of personalities found in humans and the irrelevence of gender to them.

Gender is distinct from personality because there is no real correlation between them.

 

[Brontosaurie]

I suppose my main problem is that the majority of such theories are formed around the concept that one can be mentally 'male' or 'female'.
In other words that there are personalities which are inherently 'girly' or 'manly', which is kindof silly given the vast varities of personalities found in humans and the irrelevence of gender to them.

Gender is distinct from personality because there is no real correlation between them.

Variance does not preclude correlation.

 

[Hadoblado]

I suppose my main problem is that the majority of such theories are formed around the concept that one can be mentally 'male' or 'female'.
In other words that there are personalities which are inherently 'girly' or 'manly', which is kindof silly given the vast varities of personalities found in humans and the irrelevence of gender to them.

Gender is distinct from personality because there is no real correlation between them.

I'm pretty sure there is real correlation though. Aren't more T's male than female and vice versa?

I'm not proposing any explanation for why that is, but it seems like the kind of thing you wouldn't want to ignore. Gender doesn't have to be anything to do with your personality, but for most people it is.

And when you say personality, do you mean type or actual personality? Because there are a lot of statistical differences between the way men and women behave within the realm of individual differences and personality.

 

[TheManBeyond]

i was reading this yesterday about precolombian tribes genders:

http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2016/01/23/two-spirits-one-heart-five-genders

 

[Melkor]

Hmm, I don't really know. I wouldn't deny that there is definitely a social expectation of how men/women are supposed to behave, and that could certainly filter into how one wishes to portray themselves. However I've never come across any evidence that I found particualry compelling to suggest that women generally had different personalities from men, or that their brains were 'wired' drastically differently.

As for whether MBTI has an impact? I couldn't really comment, I don't think any data exists in anywhere near large enough quanities to form any conclusions about its relation to gender. Not to mention I find the system shaky and out-dated, with massive variation and little legitimacy in how a person is 'typed'.

Of course, I haven't delved terribly deeply into the subject, and I'm always willing to change my mind. So I'd be very grateful if anyone better informed forwarded some cold hard evidence my way.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Hmm, I don't really know. I wouldn't deny that there is definitely a social expectation of how men/women are supposed to behave, and that could certainly filter into how one wishes to portray themselves. However I've never come across any evidence that I found particualry compelling to suggest that women generally had different personalities from men, or that their brains were 'wired' drastically differently.

As for whether MBTI has an impact? I couldn't really comment, I don't think any data exists in anywhere near large enough quanities to form any conclusions about its relation to gender. Not to mention I find the system shaky and out-dated, with massive variation and little legitimacy in how a person is 'typed'.

Of course, I haven't delved terribly deeply into the subject, and I'm always willing to change my mind. So I'd be very grateful if anyone better informed forwarded some cold hard evidence my way.

Evolution would have to have undergone a strange lapse in order to have missed out on the advantage of differentiating female and male mental propensities. It's easy to underestimate the vast difference in reproductive roles between the sexes in our natural formative habitat. Women would have had to be spending way more time on pregnancy and breastfeeding than we're wont to imagine, and it would've taken a greater toll on their bodies than it does today, both of these factors working to immobilize them and thus decreasing the opportunistic value of developing features like muscular strength and navigational faculties while increasing the value of empathy. Personally i think women are, in general, innately superior listeners and nurturers and i'm quite convinced that many fathers of today are exerting a destructive influence on their children by their ideologically forced excessive domestic presence. Conversely, men are in general innately superior workers, explorers and protectors.

Evolution doesn't care about some lofty ad-hoc notion of fairness and equality. As the sexes differ in size, proportion and strength, why wouldn't they differ somewhat in personality when that's an equally advantageous adaption? Still speaking generally, of course.

We have no reason to simply assume that all personality differences are socially constructed. Such stubborn assumptions may prove inefficient or even flat-out dangerous through their effects on expectations in our societies. Alas, we're in a patriarchal funk of devaluing femininity, which leads women's rights activists to focus on propagating the idea that, in essence, women are just as good at being men as men are, meaning they should be working as much (in the same fields) and spending as little amount of time with their infants - or else it's unfair.

 

[Hadoblado]

Personally i think women are, in general, innately superior listeners and nurturers and i'm quite convinced that many fathers of today are exerting a destructive influence on their children by their ideologically forced excessive domestic presence. Conversely, men are in general innately superior workers, explorers and protectors.

To a meaningful extent? To me it seems that fathers have been artificially removed from the care of their children and they're only just getting the opportunity to return. I only know the one person who I would suggest was doted on too heavily by his (single parent) father. Other than that, I know many, many people that required more of a male role model in their lives. What sort of damage are you talking?

 

[Brontosaurie]

To a meaningful extent? To me it seems that fathers have been artificially removed from the care of their children and they're only just getting the opportunity to return. I only know the one person who I would suggest was doted on too heavily by his (single parent) father. Other than that, I know many, many people that required more of a male role model in their lives. What sort of damage are you talking?

Firstly, i hope it's understood that the part you bolded is speculative and of secondary concern to my overall point, which invokes parsimony.

Many men get emotionally congested, consumed by pride and jealousy, creating an explosivity that's beneficial in the sphere of competition but not in the domestic sphere. It causes them to subconsciously campaign and scheme against the well-being and self-actualization of others around them. Social interaction for them is a matter of formalities and strict symbolism, and anything that ventures outside such rules into freedom will be an affront to their ego. Any outcome that doesn't place them on top will. They crave to be the most valuable, indispensable resource - but genuine exchange starkly exposes the fact that within the domestic sphere, thus is not the case. For children to develop properly, a measure of freedom is critical. Many men simply lack the empathic capacity to inspire freedom of expression and contribute to childrearing, but their big egos keep them from humbly stepping out. They must assert their deeply irrelevant belligerence. The rules tell them that their domestic presence is in order. So it gets toxic. The disease passes through generations. People still protect the egos of dead men.

Did i manage to convey something?

EDIT: Word fix

 

[Hadoblado]

Firstly, i hope it's understood that the part you bolded is speculative and of secondary concern to my overall point, which invokes parsimony.

Many men get emotionally congested, consumed by pride and jealousy, creating an explosivity that's beneficial in the sphere of competition but not in the domestic sphere. It causes them to subconsciously campaign and scheme against the well-being and self-actualization of others around them. Social interaction for them is a matter of formalities and strict symbolism, and anything that ventures outside such rules into freedom will be an affront to their ego. Any outcome that doesn't place them on top will. They crave to be the most valuable, indisposable resource - but genuine exchange starkly exposes the fact that within the domestic sphere, thus is not the case. For children to develop properly, a measure of freedom is critical. Many men simply lack the empathic capacity to inspire freedom of expression and contribute to childrearing, but their big egos keep them from humbly stepping out. They must assert their deeply irrelevant belligerence. The rules tell them that their domestic presence is in order. So it gets toxic. The disease passes through generations. People still protect the egos of dead men.

Did i manage to convey something?

Yeah I have a habit of picking out the secondary content. Sorry.

I guess I figure that men such as you describe aren't the type to be socially pressured into rearing their children more than they otherwise would.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Yeah I have a habit of picking out the secondary content. Sorry.

I guess I figure that men such as you describe aren't the type to be socially pressured into rearing their children more than they otherwise would.

Nah, not that much rearing per se. That's what they fail to even aspire to do. However, they stick around dominating their kin with know-it-all pedantry, subliminally and unknowingly threatening them with the possibility of a breakdown tantrum. They are fragile people and others don't want to see them break, so they obey and appease.

It's in the eyes, the kind of eyes that are simultaneously scary judgmental, and hard to look into because one so easily sees the root fear that can't bear exposure. Every nice gesture of theirs is blatantly forced and sacrificial. Being human drains them and takes them close to the brink of collapse. They need an armor, a chainmail of imaginary absolutes in the concrete realm.

I've met many men like this, young and old.

 

[Cognisant]

Racism only exists if you acknowledge race.

Likewise Sexism (which should be called Genderism) only exists if you acknowledge gender.

Here's the thing it's not wrong to segregate, shame and oppress people because it's racist or sexist, it's wrong because it's wrong.

Furthermore I can't tell what someone's sexuality is by looking at them, I might be able to tell what gender they are but I cannot tell if they're bisexual, pansexual, demisexual, or whatever the heck is popular with the tumblr kids these days. If I can't tell if someone is something without them explicitly telling me am I persecuting them for calling it stupid or are they inviting persecution by telling me something that has absolutely nothing to do with me?

I think some of the most racist and sexist people are those with persecution complexes, they want to be identified, they'll keep pushing boundaries until they find persecution and I think that is stupid.

 

[Hadoblado]

Fair. But just because you don't acknowledge race doesn't mean other people won't. Meaning that, while you fortify yourself against the possibility of your own prejudice, you're turning a blind eye to the existent.

Be a little bit less white for a second. You are hated for the colour of your skin by some. You come from a disadvantaged background and there exists people and institutions that would keep it that way. Others tell you that you have no business claiming concessions for being non-white. Wouldn't it be better for you if, since there are people keeping you down, others tried to mitigate the prejudice arrayed against you by acknowledging your plight?

I'm not saying that there aren't people that take it too far. I just don't think that ignoring the existence of race (even if it is largely a social construct) is as equitable as acknowledging it. Kantian universalism is arguably necessary for an action to be ethical, but it's not sufficient. In practical terms, these issues need to be addressed by the community because otherwise they will only be addressed by extremist elements. There will always be people willing to subjugate others for gain. Just like you can't ignore the existence of guns even if you disagree with their utility on principle, you can't ignore the existence of race, sex, gender, or sexuality as something that is used against people unfairly.

 

[The Gopher]

Do we sacrifice the short term in hopes for a better long term.

 

[Cognisant]

Wouldn't it be better for you if, since there are people keeping you down, others tried to mitigate the prejudice arrayed against you by acknowledging your plight?

No, making racism socially acceptable doesn't solve anything.

Everyone in Australia knows about the plight of Aboriginal Australians and there's plenty of bleeding hearts for them but that does nothing to help them, indeed one of the great atrocities committed against them by white settlers was done out of compassion. There was a popular belief that the "inferior" black race (devastated by introduced diseases, substances, slavery, being forced out of their native reasons and slaughtered whenever they fought back) would die out and so children were taken from their parents to be raised "properly" as orphans in white society.

This sentiment of inferiority persists to this day and worst of all for some its become ingrained in their identity, they believe that living on welfare is the best they can hope for or that they owe it to their heritage to stick to their roots. But they're people, just people like anyone else, of course there are differences but pick any two people and you'll find differences, what I'm saying that there's no difference greater than the fact that they're people just like you and me.

Likewise men and women are different, gay and straight people are different, Chinese and Japanese people are different, but despite everything we're all people and our similarities are greater than out differences. I'm not unaware that differences exist, the existence of colour, gender, nationality etc aren't just beliefs I can ignore but I can choose not to acknowledge them because when we identify ourselves by our differences we are creating segregation and that is a terrible thing despite the best of intentions.

When someone takes pride in being male,
When someone takes pride in being female,
When someone takes pride in their sexuality,
When someone takes pride in their race,
When someone takes pride in their nationality,
When someone takes pride in their religion,
When someone takes pride in their wealth,
etc

- they segregate themselves from those who cannot share in that pride.​

Not acknowledging differences isn't me trying to quarantine myself from something I dislike, it's me keeping myself open to those that push me away and I call the differences they use to shield themselves stupid because they're segregating themselves from their own humanity, I ought to know.

Lol I'm getting preachy

Edit: I just called myself stupid *face palm*

 

[kora]

Personal observation, no data (because it's not possible to get hard statistical data on mbti types, because it is not scientific) but i have not noticed more T men than women, to me the distribution seems pretty equal. I think y'all have biased perception and interpret types through gendered lense

 

[Tannhauser]

MBTI types are inferred, in the first place, from behavioral patterns and not the other way around. Thus the question of whether a type can be, say, effeminate is merely a question of which behaviors are deemed effeminate as per the current taxonomy, and which behaviors are deemed to belong to a certain type.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

http://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...on-of-Gender-Roles-by-Sociotype-by-E-Filatova

silke - 12-17-2013, 07:10 AM Reply
To summarize, in Filatova's perception:

Most to least masculine types:
+3: SLE, LSI, LIE, LSE, SLI | SeTi, TiSe, TeNi, TeSi, SiTe
+2: ESI, LII, SEE | FiSe, TiNe, SeFi
+1: ILE, ESE | NeTi, FeSi
=0: ILI | NiTe
-1: SEI | SiFe
-2: EIE, EII, IEE | FeNi, FiNe, NeFi
-3: IEI | NiFe

Most to least feminine types:
+3: SEI, ESE, IEI, EIE, SEE, EII, IEE | SiFe, FeSi, NiFe, FeNi, SeFi, FiNe, NeFi
+2: ESI | FiSe
+1:
=0: LSI, ILI, LSE, SLI | TiSe, NiTe, TeSi, SiTe
-1: ILE, LII, SLE, LIE | NeTi, TiNe, SeTi, TeNi
-2:
-3:

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/content.php/187-Project-and-Implementation-Groups-by-Gulenko

most masculine types
SLE, SLI, LII, LIE | SeTi, SiTe, TiNe, TeNi

most feminine types
EII, EIE, SEE, SEI | FiNe, FeNi, SeFi, SiFe

intermediary types, masculine to feminine
IEI, IEE, ESE, ESI | NiFe, NeFi, FeSi, FiSe

intermediary types, feminine to masculine
LSE, LSI, ILI, ILE | TeSi, TiSe, NiTe, NeTi

 

[Hadoblado]

@Higs
I just read it somewhere ages ago. I believe the stated split was 60/40 in favour of men for thinking. I can't remember the study as it was a while ago, but it has face validity, and it's what I'd expect. Look at the splits in industry. Wherever human relationships are paramount women are more prevalent. Whenever human relationships are secondary men take over.
- Engineering
- Childcare
- IT
- Psychology
- Teaching

Admittedly I'm generalising from how many people I see in classes at uni. My current clinical psych class has like 5 men out of around 100 students. In childcare I'm the only man in the building. I routinely see IT departments and engineering lectures with zero to two women. If MBTI is legitimate in its role as a tool that pairs a person with a suitable occupation, then it has to take into account these factors too.

 

[Cleopatra Selene II]

Because gender is defined by how you feel in the body in which you were born, cognitive functions do not relate to how someone identifies as a certain gender.

However, cognitive functions do possibly affect how someone may express their gender (often through stereotypes). They are often also associated with certain gender stereotypes.

The environment in which someone is raised also plays a role in how someone expresses their gender.

Here are some examples of people I know.

My dad is an ISFP and is the most emotional/feely person I know. The way his brain works fits more of the stereotypical female traits than I do (I'm a female INTP). However, he was raised to show masculine traits.

My brother is an ISTJ who is very expressive of masculine traits and his brain works in a stereo-typically masculine way. He was never raised with people telling him to be more "manly" like my dad was.

My female cousin is an ENTP. She was raised by a tradition-loving family with a father who treats her like she is a stereotypical girly-girl. She expresses more of the stereotypical female traits but mentally is more like a stereotypical guy.

I am an INTP who is female. I am more like a tomboy though because I express more traits stereotyped as masculine. I hate makeup and I am not soft or delicate. I am more analytical and cold.

My male INTP friend displays both stereotypical masculine traits and stereotypical female traits. He is submissive and caring but is also extremely analytical and aloof.

I personally think that INTPs generally don't care for stereotypical gender roles either. I am into robotics, coding, and outdoor activities. The male INTP I know takes knitting classes (was the only guy there), likes cooking and baking, and gardening.

 

[washti]

Gender identity - two spirit
Gender expression - slightly femme
Biological sex - female
Sexually attracted to - men
Romantically Attracted to - none/both(?)