feminist_101: It seems to me that, within "activist ci

[ max_d ] (

penguingod) wrote in

feminist_101,
@ 2008-04-12 04:25:00

It seems to me that, within "activist circles," homosexuality / gender identity is considered genetic. Homophobes and transphobes seem to dig on the mental illness / trauma-induced socialized perspective.

This may not be the case, but it has occurred to me as such. Do correct if I'm wrong. For the record, I'm purposely generalizing for simplicity.

I could be totally off base here, but I would venture that we are born bisexual, without gender identities; that homosexuality and heterosexuality are equally unnatural socialized conditions. As such, gender identity confusion strikes me as "symptomatic" of the extreme socialization of gender roles starting before we even exit the womb. Confusion regarding gender identity, it seems to me, includes overcompensation in any direction, from the testosterone-addled over-compensator to the pre-op.

I very well could be totally off base here, but this is the 101. I don't think this passes any judgment on individual people, but jives with a basic tenant of third wave (socialization is responsible for most aspects of who we are and what we do).

So, yeah... waiting for the lambasting...

(Post a new comment)

	jocelynxheart 2008-04-12 03:19 pm UTC (link)
	Mmm... I think that your first sentence is a sweeping generalization. I'm sure that some activists do understand homosexuality and gender identity as genetic, but I'm also sure that there are many activists (and others) that also consider the socialization factor, or who feel that at least a part of someone's gender identity or sexual orientation has to do with choice. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	penguingod 2008-04-13 04:59 pm UTC (link)
	Well, yeah. I said as much in the third sentence. =) I'm seeing that. I didn't know for sure, hence my asking. (Reply to this) (Parent)

kathygnome
2008-04-12 03:37 pm UTC (link)

It may be ideologically correct, but there's simply no evidence for it in the real world. We have people who are socialized in every single way in the world who end up trans or gay. It also ignores the extremely wide variation of gender expression among transpeople. I know hardcore butch transwomen and effeminate transmen. The evidence of human behavior in the world indicates that gender identity and gender expression are two different things.

And then there is the evidence in the form of genetic markers that seem to follow, respectively gay or trans people. (Different markers btw.) They're not a "cause" but they do indicate that something is going on beyond socialization.

Also, the language you use is loaded with homophobic and transphobic implications. I realize that may not be your intent, but it is.

I also usually associate that kind of argument with second wave feminism, not third.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

penguingod
2008-04-13 05:08 pm UTC (link)

Are any of those socialized ways free of gender roles or specific sexual behavior? Those two things, so far as I know, are indoctrinated across the world from birth; people in Iran, the U.S., Somalia, and Cambodia are born into a gender binary, heterosexual culture. I'm postulating that such a culture, no matter what the variations, is incongruent with biology. In a culture in which a man that has never felt like the Man he was supposed to be, after years of socialization which have done little fucked his psyche all up, could conceivably decide to no longer be a Man.

I would imagine that gender expression is dependent upon two things: sociological circumstances and gender identity.

I'm sure there was some problematic language in my post. If my experience with feminism and antiracism is in anyway pertinent, I'm wasting my breath, but that's because I don't understand it all that well yet, not because I'm "bothered" in any way. If this were race, you could consider me a privileged white guy trying to figure it out, but still screwing up.

Hmm? I thought one of the fundamental differences between the two was nature vs. nurture; third wave considers gender roles to be socialized, while second considers them biological.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	demonista 2008-04-18 11:57 am UTC (link)
	sorry, have to interject late in the game. second wave isn't essentialist--the "cultural feminism" slur is just that; no feminist calls herslef htat, it was invented by an atifeminist, christina hoff summers, to "dis" radical and other feminists. eg. what you posted is far more in line with 2nd wave than 3rd wave, eg political lesbianism (Reply to this) (Parent)

	cailin_t 2008-04-12 03:44 pm UTC (link)
	" but I would venture that we are born bisexual, " i would suggest that's true only if you are eventually bisexual. i think heterosexuals and homosexuals are born that way as well. it really doesn't make sense for everyone to be born bisexual.. there's no evolutionary benefit to that, so i can't imagine the evolutionary processes that would make that happen. (Reply to this) (Thread)

penguingod
2008-04-13 05:12 pm UTC (link)

At this point in the history of our species, the evolutionary process isn't near so important. Evolution, adaptation, occurs as response to new circumstances. Our primary concern (as a species) isn't procreation anymore. There are plenty of us, and we've got enough prosperity (again, as a species) to indulge in the sciences, arts, philosophy, video games, and pornography.

Your logic doesn't make sense if applied to anything else that comes to mind, could you clarify a bit?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

cailin_t
2008-04-13 06:38 pm UTC (link)

i'm really not sure what you mean. evolution is not a quick thing. it often happens over tens of thousands of years. the, what.. 50 years that have passed since video games and pornography became prevalent are meaningless in human evolutionary terms. we are a product of an environment LONG since past.

i'm an evolutionary biologist, so don't mind my view that evolutionary psychology is the only answer for any and all human behavior. ;)

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	earthstone 2008-04-12 04:04 pm UTC (link)
	some queer activists, and other people, also have this view on sexuality. you are not alone. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	penguingod 2008-04-13 05:12 pm UTC (link)
	Including my unwitting homo/transphobic phrasing? (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	earthstone 2008-04-14 03:05 am UTC (link)
	ha, well. i didnt find anythig you said really offensive, but maybe its because i dont give a shit about uber PC bullshit. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	penguingod 2008-04-14 08:33 am UTC (link)
	I don't consider myself necessarily PC, but in my studies of antiracism, I've found that many harmful ideas and behaviors are perpetuated by a lot of what falls under the "PC fascist" umbrella. I don't get pissed about it, but I make an effort not to perpetuate oppressive socialization or rampant privilege. Just doesn't sit right. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	bestdaywelived 2008-04-12 08:34 pm UTC (link)
	I disagree with your ideas. I think that sexual attraction is a spectrum, as is gender. The idea that orientation/identity are strictly genetic is off, and I think you are a bit misguided thinking that it's widespread in activist circles. I have heard that mental illness/trauma theories. (Reply to this) (Thread)

penguingod
2008-04-13 05:18 pm UTC (link)

I'll give you the attraction as spectrum, but I can't really see gender as a spectrum. As

kathygnome stated above, though I think they're linked, gender identity and gender expression are two different things. In other words, I identify as a male because I have a penis, a beard, and lots of socialized expectations that I don't live up to in my gender expression. Gender expression on a spectrum makes total sense, but saying that gender is a spectrum just doesn't make sense.

I may be misguided in that, hence my asking.

If I recall correctly, the DSM-III officially listed homosexuality as a personality disorder (psychiatrists use the DSM-IV now, and until 2012). I was a little disgusted, but not very surprised, when I found that out.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

baglieg
2008-04-14 08:55 am UTC (link)

Gender identity isn't whether or not you have a penis. That's sex. (Also sex isn't always that simple either.) And the socialised expectations are your gender role, which also does not always match a person's gender identity (for example, trans people who haven't transitioned yet). Sex, gender identity, gender presentation and gender role are all associated and they all tend to interact with each other in various ways but they don't always go together and if you conflate any of them then a bunch of trannies and queers will not fit into your theories.

Gender identity doesn't have to be binary. Different people identify in all sorts of different ways.

Most people identify as either a man or a woman, but those aren't the only ways one can identify. One can identify as "not a man" without necessarily seeing oneself as a woman, or vice versa. Or one could identify as being between genders in various ways. Most trans people identify as either a man or a woman, and that's the whole of it for them. But there are also a few who take their transness to be an integral part of their gender identity, such that they aren't identifying as simply a man or a woman independently of their trans identity. And some others, for example, identify as butches, without necessarily identifying as a man or a woman. Or one could identify as a fag without identifying as a man, potentially making some quality of "fagginess" part of one's gender identity. And so on. There's really no end to the different ways people can identify their gender.

I'm not sure a spectrum is a useful metaphor, since that implies some kind of order to it. But there can be a lot more to gender identity than simply male or female, which is why some people call it a spectrum.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	repairsitself 2008-04-13 02:59 am UTC (link)
	"Confusion regarding gender identity, it seems to me, includes overcompensation in any direction, from the testosterone-addled over-compensator to the pre-op." Can you try to rephrase that? I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. (Reply to this) (Thread)

penguingod
2008-04-13 05:25 pm UTC (link)

A person is born without gender identity. From that moment, they are socialized to be male. Toys that kill each other, toys that build things, physical sports, etc. They're expected to grow up into a Man. Speaking from personal experience, that's some irritating shit. I think it's safe to say that men fail at being Men pretty much always, and as such, have to overcompensate. The means of overcompensation can be [1] lashing out at traits that aren't Manly (in women and men) while posturing as the ultimate in the Male gender role, or [2] going in the complete opposite direction and eschewing all that is the oppressive Male gender role.

Now, when I say oppressive Male gender role, I mean that men get fucked by patriarchy, as well. We're collateral damage, but we're still damaged.

I very well could be wrong about how socialized gender roles and transsexuals interact, but that's why I'm here making an ass out of myself.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	kathygnome 2008-04-13 05:55 pm UTC (link)
	There's a fundamental problem with a theory that virtually everyone it claims to explain rejects. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	penguingod 2008-04-13 06:11 pm UTC (link)
	Virtually all white people reject the concept of systemic racism, the existence of white privilege. The opinions of the people affected by socialization aren't necessarily... well, necessary. I'm not saying that what has occurred to me is true, which is why I'm asking. Thing is, I want to understand, not just be told that I'm wrong. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

baglieg
2008-04-14 10:04 am UTC (link)

When it comes to gender, as a cis man, you are the one with the privilege. You should be aware that discounting the opinions of entire groups of people who do not have that privilege is a very privileged thing to do.

If a white man had a theory about race that most black people hated, I would think maybe he's doing something wrong.
If a cis man had a theory about gender that most trans people hated, I would think maybe he's doing something wrong.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	penguingod 2008-04-18 06:53 am UTC (link)
	I can't really argue with that. Should have thought of that earlier. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	star_lust 2008-05-12 07:04 pm UTC (link)
	What is a cis man? (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	baglieg 2008-05-12 10:17 pm UTC (link)
	Cis is the opposite of trans. (Reply to this) (Parent)

baglieg
2008-04-13 05:27 am UTC (link)

Saying that being gay is inborn is very PC, and a lot of mainstream gay rights campaigners believe it. However amongst more radical queer activists, there is no consensus. Some people say "I was always gay," some people say "I choose to be gay." Arguing about whether the former are constructing their history of gayness or whether the latter are "really" bisexuals is, I think, a bit of a waste of time and energy. The important thing is that we're queer now, and we need rights now, and our enemies can't make the problem go away by telling us to not be gay because we're not gonna.

You are totally off base calling trans people overcompensating and confused. Perhaps you should rethink that unless you really want trans people to hate you.

Edited at 2008-04-13 05:36 am UTC

(Reply to this) (Thread)

penguingod
2008-04-14 08:25 am UTC (link)

I'm kind of here for the purpose of conversation from which to learn. Rethinking is kind of the point. I do appreciate your input, and will definitely put some serious thought into it.

It may not be important whether individuals are such due to one thing or another, but I'm working on a rather large theory that ties in a lot of things; the intersect of physiological, psychological, and sociological, as regards human responses to changing circumstances. Included, is the conclusion that nature and nurture aren't far removed from each other, that socialization on a long enough timeline becomes genetic, as they share a similar engine: the brain. It's focused more on post-left anarchism than anything, but I need to do a lot of research, thought, and stupid things to get all of the kinks worked out.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

baglieg
2008-04-14 09:55 am UTC (link)

Queer101:

People are notoriously perverse, and they have a talent for being different and interpreting things in different ways. And identity is highly subjective and all about interpretation. Every time somebody comes up with a Grand Unifying Theory of how people work that doesn't account for that, there is somebody somewhere whose whole life proves the theory wrong. So that's something you should be aware of as you work on your ideas, otherwise you'll be wrong in ways that all the other gender theorists got over 20 years ago.

Trans101:

Female to male trans people are to be considered men, unless that specific individual tells you they identify otherwise.
Male to female trans people are to be considered women, unless that specific individual tells you they identify otherwise.
You can debate this if you like but be aware that doing so will make you an enemy of trans people, because that's the kind of attitude that gets them discriminated against in their actual real lives every day.

Similarly, calling trans women "confused men" or vice versa is a bit like calling homosexuals "confused heterosexuals", except even more annoying because trans people put up with that shit all the damn time and gays mostly only get it from their churches and mothers these days.

Don't assume that trans is unnatural or abnormal or sick or insane and cis is natural or normal or healthy or sane. Don't think you're better than trans people. Don't think you know what they are better than they do. That is the voice of cis privilege. Cis privilege is real, although as a cis person you may not have noticed it before.

Feminist101:
The way you describe your ideas seems a bit phallocentric. Like seriously, you haven't given any reason for it to apply to only penis-bearers, so why not think about cis women and trans men as well?

(Reply to this) (Parent)

sleepdreamer
2008-04-17 04:33 am UTC (link)

You're off base on quite a few of your theories, but I have to agree with your idea that all humans are born bisexual. Both Carl Jung and Sigmund Freud thought that it was only after a baby was born that they were affected by social restrictions on their sexualities. Also, Kinsey believed that there was a sexuality spectrum, in which very few people were found on the extremes of either end.

(Reply to this)

white_dingo
2008-05-21 10:14 pm UTC (link)

How should we establish the "facts" here? Statistics? Nah, they screw up all the time and, let's face it, who hasn't bullshitted in a a survey now and again?

Genetics is a comforting and interesting idea. It suggests there is no recourse and there is a "natural" (cos mother nature NEVER makes mistakes, right? /sarc ) justification for homosexuality. Teh idea has limited merit.

Socialisation is also a grab bag of assertions. Firstly, that homosexuality is "done" to someone and that it may be incumbent on that individual to make choices and, if they feel it necessary, to apply a "remedy" ie: therapy. Again the merit is limited.

I identify as "gay". I find some women sexually attractive but I'm not the sort of bloke who goes "animalistic" about it. I have had sucessful sexual relations with women BUT I don't identify as bi. It seems I am wired to be "bi" however choose to be "gay".

Why? One reason is that I like fooling my hormones into thinking I'm spreading my genetic information far and wide (plenty of non-reproductive intercourse) without all that messy mucking around with actually having kids. The other main reason is that bi is simply to ponderous to explain to sex-n00bs again and again. I simply can't be bothered. I tell them I'm queer and they run for the hills (oh noes, teh sinnah haz me in hiz sites!!1! OMG!) or they accept me.... Win/win.

I personally consider sexuality a spectrum/continuum idea. We can be what the hell we like if we're prepared to do some "footwork" (including getting rid of revulsion toward the "other") and are curious enough to explore previously uncharted territory.

(Reply to this)

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login or password? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…

About

Help

Get Involved

Legal

Store

LJ Labs