>> |
No. 379210
>>379198
That's all exactly my point. Your making "gender" out to be this invisible homunculus inside the mind that has no definition, the only perceivable effects of which are the expressions (clothes, preferences) that are defined by society.
My question is, WHAT is this "gender" inside the mind? Is it even there at all?
It's like saying that thunder and lightning are something that you can perceive. It's the "expression" of the clouds. Because we are human, we want all things to have meaning or purpose and some kind of genesis. Se we invent invisible gods who live in those clouds, which give rise to the "expression" through their function; they make the lightning. However, it is a fallacy because the clouds happen to make thunder and lightning without needing "something" inside them to produce it.
In my interpretation, expression of all things into reality, whether kinds of movies liked, clothes worn, etc., are merely an emergent property of a complex human mind. This is then slightly modified by societal pressures to conform to an artificial set of rules governing allowed behavior by certain sets of persons.
If all types of behaviors that are assigned to a gender "role" are socially based and not innate, then whether or not a person conforms to them depends not on whether or not this "god in the clouds" or "homunculus in the mind" matches their physical sex, but how much they care about what society wants them to do. One can be a physical woman who wants to not wear women's clothes and yet still "feel like a woman". Conversely, a man can wear those dresses and still "feel like a man". So, then, what are these "feelings"?
So the question still is: how do we define gender, purely innately in the mind? Without some kind of reasonable definition, just saying a person "feels like" their physical sex, or not, is meaningless. If they don't like their physical body, that is something else entirely. Plenty of people do not like their physical body for various reasons and thus modify it in various ways to better suit how they feel.
From what I see, it's all actions, which are related to conformity, not biology. There are many, MANY different roles society wants us to conform to that might be disagreeable, some which are related to physical sex, and some which are not.
(On the note of transsexuals, I fully support that any adult should be allowed to do anything they want to to their own bodies, so long as it doesn't cause harm to others. If a person wants to change to the other sex, let them. If they want to gouge out their eyes with a spoon, let them. If they want to get a tattoo, let them. If they want to commit suicide, let them. As long as they are not temporarily impaired by drugs or alcohol or a stressful life-event, it's fine. I don't think "Oh, you're permanently mentally retarded or psychologically abnormal," is any reason to prevent this. Humans should have free will to control their own selves.)
>that's probably because you're cisgender
I'm gay, so I don't see how I could be. I would also prefer to be a househusband and not have to do "work" — live like what a more traditional woman's role is. But that is probably just because I am very lazy and asocial. I don't necessarily think it's because I want to live in a woman's role. I don't put much stock in those sorts of things, like I said. I do get annoyed when my relatives want me to do certain things like men are supposed to, like screwing lots of chicks and getting a hardworking job and providing for my family, and being firm and dominant, etc. If I really think about it, I don't feel like either a man or a woman, I feel most like a child. Who knows (and who cares) what that would be called. Chronoqueer? I'll be the first to tell you that that's just laughable.
|