mixed_biscuits
_________________________
So someone who's living in a male body might also be living in a female body?
The Feminine Perspective against the Manosphere
- Thread starter ...
- Start date
-
- Tags
- a bunch of trolls trolling each other aesthetic jihad chicks dig guys with money cia lesbian david lesbian do you tongue punch the dirt star? dolezal1977 eating pussy without asking everyone on this board is a troll extraterrestrial bisexual feminist travis bickle justified ancients of noncing lesbian separatism luka's crop top malelesbian: english rp boy toy malethespian mansplaining feminism mr tea confirmed pegging freak mrs tea eaten out 24/7 prevent prevent! sarlacc pit taking the filth the art of trolling the feminonce massive the perils of self-publishing the viper of cunnilingus undisciplined lockerroom pussy eating unimaginable anguish version's throbbing penis
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
Exactly, @malelesbian just wants more behaviours he likes and less he doesn't, which would make the ad campaign even easier to write.
That's for the person themselves to decide whether they live in a male or female body. But no one has said your body can have two sexes at the same time.
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
I thought you said it was up to a wider 'community' when it came to settling socially constructed definitions? Don't you need more than one person for something to be 'social'?
What if the person says they live in a male body but literally every other person acts and talks as if they live in a female body? Are they not 'outvoted' social-constructionwise?
What if the person says at time t that they live in a male body and at time t+1 that they were living in a female body at time t; was their body male or female at time t?
I thought "two-spirit" was more like a third gender rather than the idea that a person has multiple genders at once? Either way, sure, I'll revise my previous statement, no one can have two genders at the same time unless they are two spirit or some other special category.err.. the people who originally lived in the "land of the free" "might have":
Two-spirit - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
True. They also need a community to accept them as male or female.
That just means society has failed them. They have culturally unintelligible identities. People fail to understand who they are. People who communities fail to recognize exist at the margins of society. But they still exist. They're just waiting for people to accept their identities. But their identities are still real.
Having a male or female body isn't just something you can assert. Your identification as a particular sex has to agree with social norms. There are rules for what counts as a man or a woman and if an individual breaks those rules, people will fail to understand them as the gender or sex they identify as.
that's the second time tonight you've spotted posts that I've deleted within seconds of posting
but I also mentioned the I in LGBTQI2S
"intersex"
I've known at least two
and they have to live with the knowledge that they have both male and female components
talk to a midwife, you'll be surprised how many babies are indeterminate at birth
That's a good point, but again, intersex is more like a third category. I was saying you can't have two categories apply to yourself at the same time. So an intersex person would identify as an intersex person rather than identifying as a male and a female at the same time. But yes, I've never denied the existence of intersex people.
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
Stop agreeing with me! This is a terrible look for both our brands.
ghost
Well-known member
Essentialism is a descriptive, not a prescriptive framework. This is a very weird statement to make.
Can you please make an exhaustive list of bad feminine qualities? I can't think of any unfortunately.
This isn't even remotely correct. A key element of Butler's theory is that the gender binary's regulations are normative. For trads, it doesn't even make sense for men to act feminine. Too many feminine men are seen as failed men by mainstream society. Essentialists have to conform to the gender binary. And the gender binary only accepts feminine females and masculine males. So we can't understand any feminine male through the lense of the gender binary. Thus the feminine man subverts the gender binary. So yes, the gender binary does say that men should act masculine. Essentialists have to act according to the gender binary, thus essentialism is both a descriptive and prescriptive framework.
For essentialists, men are understood as always and only masculine. Therefore, essentialism claims men should act masculine. Because otherwise you're defying your essence and going against nature.
Pusilanimity and weak-willedness would be bad feminine qualities.
ghost
Well-known member
This isn't internally coherent—if men are understood as always and only masculine, then it doesn't matter if they "act masculine," because their actions are inherently masculine, regardless of their content.
Essentialism leads intellectually towards the kind of discourse you're describing, but it's not the same thing as it.
I don't understand how you square "the community accepting certain qualities as feminine" is what creates gender with your straightforward assertion that "feminine" has a simple meaning that is Lacanian and that nobody else here will agree with. Isn't it clear that the community is not accepting this quality as feminine?
Your assertion that there are such things as feminine values is also being rejected by this community. It's unclear why you're of the opinion that rejecting opinions held by none present (other than that despicable biscuit troll) is some sort of destabilizing act, rather a recentering of an extinguished ideology.
Essentialists accept that men can act feminine, one just can't understand their behavior in essentialist terms. For essentialists, people who defy gender conventions still exist, but when the essentialist witnesses them he doesn't know what he's seeing. I don't think any essentialist would say that it's literally impossible, on an ontological level, for men to act any way other than masculine. An essentialist would just say that male femininity makes no sense.
When I discuss femininity, I mean feminine culture, not the literal qualities that define a woman. With this in mind, it's fair to say we should just talk about phallic and non-phallic qualities rather than masculine and femininity qualities. My mistake for not clarifying this earlier.
Phallic culture dominates pretty much all communities, whether they accept it or not. Name one community in which phallic and non-phallic culture is equally represented. Name one community in which non-phallic culture is better represented than phallic culture. The phallus is not a gender quality. It is a system of representation. And on this system, everything non-phallic is marginalized. Truly non-phallic women are not recognized by society. Women are expected to always serve male desires. In this way, most women are phallic. Can you even name a women in mainstream culture who doesn't cater to the male gaze? The point I'm trying to make is that there is a second representation-system alternative to the phallus, a second system that does more to help women. In short, the feminine (or if you prefer, non-phallic) experience is not well-represented in our mainstream culture, and I want to change that, so we can approach gender-equal representation. Do you really want to deny that feminine, non-phallic culture exists and is underrepresented? If there is no feminine culture, how do we even do feminism?
ghost
Well-known member
the internet—where the men are men, the women are men, and the children are FBI agents
But again, the phallus is not a gender category, so phallic qualities do not define women as men.
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
This talk of reality, rules and things that can be unilaterally asserted to be true...it all sounds very essentialist!
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
Mumsnet