fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2807 ]

[ SECRET POST #2807 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2807 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 033 secrets from Secret Submission Post #401.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 - random photo of a pizza place ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I also dislike this arc, if only because it's way too preachy, but I don't see how it's OOC for Tedd. It's been pretty clear for years that there's more than just a sexual thrill involved in all his experimentation with gender-bending. Having him acknowledge that he's not 100% "male" is a natural next step for him.

Pretty much this. If it were Elliot or Justin acting this way, then the OP might have had a point, but with Tedd. Yeah that is Just Tedd being Tedd, albeit a more mature version of hir. I'm kinda glad we've seen the back of the creeper Tedd, you read the older strips and they are painful not just because of the art, but Tedd was a creep in them.

I need someone to explain to me what it means "to be male" or "to be female" because that's the only way I can understand how you can be varying percentages of either.

The way you frame that question just makes it far too obvious you are trying to start some sexuality or gender-identification wank. 3/10: be more subtle.

If that's the way you see it, OK, but it's an honest question.

That's exactly why "genderqueer" stuff is such bullshit: there IS no one singular way to be male or female. Most people are an amalgam of qualities typically associated with both AND THAT'S NORMAL.

The idea that there are certain qualities or behaviors that "belong" to a particular gender is incredibly sexist.

Yep. And the irony is that so many who lavish love and praise over the genderqueer label are soooo quick to demonize demisexual as a label. And then they proceed to make virtually the same argument you just made.

I kinda agree tbh. I don't know if I'd say it's sexist specifically, but it definitely feels retroactive.

Edited 2014-09-10 04:55 (UTC)

So people are just not allowed to identify as a different gender than their bits tell you they are, or have any need to question it in any way, or understand themselves in a way you disapprove of?

Okay, then. Didn't get the memo where you get to decide for other people and tell them their feelings are bullshit. Must make a note. Asshole.

what exactly is the purpose of it beyond wanting to be a special snowflake who isn't like the other girls/boys?

you can be female and present or behave in a masculine manner. you can be male and present or behave in a feminine manner. that doesn't make you not female or not male. there is no such thing as traits/behavior/presentation/likes/etc. that is inherently male or female. there are things that are coded as traditionally masculine or traditionally feminine, but that does not make them inherently either. a guy baking cookies is masculine because he is a guy doing it. he does not suddenly become female just because he happens to enjoy a thing that is traditionally coded as feminine.

the people above have it right, it's sexist and regressive to act as if there are certain qualities that make one male or female and if you exhibit qualities from the other category then you're no longer allowed to identify as one or the other.

Okay, so if a guy wears a dress, it automatically becomes masculine, even though the vast majority of society associates that particular article of clothing as very strongly feminine? Pretty sure most would consider him effeminate. I'm also quite certain that many butch lesbians, while identifying as female, wouldn't appreciate the insinuation that wearing men's clothing is magically feminine because of the body beneath it. In this case, it's meant to convey masculinity. Sure, it's nice to think everything is equal and people can do/wear whatever they want (which they can!), but, you know, some people actually do want to convey a certain gender presentation that disappears if things automatically become masculine/feminine when based solely on physicality. Erasing this form of gender expression for "all-inclusivity" isn't cool.

tl;dr: some of this is actually conditional -- please don't paint it with a broad brush in the name of all-inclusiviness and progressism.

You're conflating gender presentation with gender identity, which I think is exactly what that anon was saying is a bad thing. Taking their example, a man who likes baking cookies is not somehow less of a man for engaging in an activity that is typically associated with women. Those butch lesbians are not less female because they like to present and express themselves in a masculine fashion.

It's the idea that certain behaviors have arbitrarily been designated as "masculine" or "feminine" and that engaging in those behaviors somehow diminishes how a person actually identifies.

Of course people can be a different gender than their bits. That was transgendered is. But outside of intersex (or whatever the appropriate term is these days), if you're wandering around going "I'm only the gender that matches/doesn't match my sex *part of the time* you're a snowflake moron.

(reply from suspended user)

AYRT The phrase "genderqueer bullshit" was a bit of clue. Your surprise in turn surprises me - there was nothing offensive or prescriptive in that to you? Huh. Likewise the constant reference to special snowflakes. It's condescending, demeaning and disrespectful.

Not about me, I'm cis (and not particularly gendercomforming). Someone who loves someone I love is genderqueer and I have enough respect for them not to tell them their feelings and experiences are invalid.

(reply from suspended user)

Exactly. It's the idea of needing a special label to say "I have traits and interests that are both masculine and feminine" when in fact that is the case for the vast majority of people out there. There are very, very few people who conform to their gender stereotype 100%.

Trying to separate yourself with said special label just further reinforces the sexist notion that there is a right way to be a girl/boy and that if you don't fit neatly into that little box, you aren't normal. But what's actually normal is NOT fitting completely into one box or the other.

But they literally said 'all that "genderqueer" stuff is bullshit'? How is that not trying to shame other people for how they identify?

And yes, it's true that there are a lot of different ways to be male or female, but that doesn't mean everyone fits into those two boxes regardless.

Just to try and explain how it feels for me... the last several years, I've had some very difficult feelings of disassociation with the entire concept of being female. I don't like the parts of my body that are considered female, and although I like a lot of things that are generally thought of as feminine, whenever I wear dresses or jewelry it feels like a costume. But I also don't really want to be a man. I don't want to be biologically male, I don't have many stereotypically masculine interests... but at the same time, the more I try to think of myself as a girl the more it doesn't fit, like trying to walk around in a shoe half a size too small.

tl;dr, Gender is just weird and messy, and saying that everyone should be fine as either 'male' or 'female' because everything gender non-comforing is normal for cis people to do to is a pretty simplistic view of the subject.

(reply from suspended user)

Um, I don't think you understood what I said at all, but maybe I didn't explain it well enough? I'm not saying that I dislike feminine things or wearing dresses and that's why I don't think of myself as female. I'm saying that even though I do like those things, it has nothing to do with whether or not I identify as female. I could fit every single stereotype there is for women, but it won't change the fact that I don't think of myself as one.

People who don't think of themselves as male or female can also be as feminine or masculine as they want. Saying that everyone who doesn't conform to gender norms shouldn't think of themselves as anything but 'male' or 'female' just because the boxes, as you put them, can be as big as they want doesn't matter. It's the boxes themselves and the idea that there can only be two that's the real issue for people who are genderqueer.

(reply from suspended user)

as a cis woman who has always been towards the more masculine end of the spectrum (and in fact had people outright question if i was "really a woman" because of it, thank you. the idea of "genderqueer" existing as something that's outside of the existing spectrum of gender presentation is extremely harmful to both trans and cis people because it leads to attitudes exactly like the ones held by the people who questioned my femaleness - the idea that there is a single acceptable way to "do gender" and that if you don't meet it, then you aren't normal or aren't really the gender you say you are.

not only that, but the concept of gender being a "feeling" or something changeable makes light of the very real struggles that trans people face in regards to their sex and gender. ("can't you just be a tomboy?" or the exact same shit i got about being too masculine to be a "real woman")

i think it's very telling that i have literally never, ever seen a man identify as "genderqueer." it's always women, usually with a side of "i'm not like those other girls" that one of the anons up above mentioned. i can't help but think that a lot of it stems from (conscious or subconscious) self-loathing where being female or feminine in any way is seen as a bad thing, so they try to disassociate from everything that is considered female. i think this is where a lot of the current trend of trans fetishism comes from too.

it's ridiculous and it really needs to stop.

I've seen guys identify as genderqueer, but it's usually been from areas with a lot of men are awful radfem rhetoric. :/

In theory, bigender makes sense to me, but it's too illy defined for me to make any sense of it. Like you said pretty much everyone isn't 100% masculine or feminine. Agender, however, has never made any sense to me.

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2014-09-11 05:52 (UTC) - Expand

You're right, I did mention those things, but I very plainly said that I don't have very many stereotypically masculine interests and lean more towards liking feminine things, so your entire argument has nothing to do with me. I also explained having feelings of physical dysphoria, but I guess that's just not important?

In any case, the idea that 'male' and 'female' are the only genders is not a universal belief anyway. In the past there have been several cultures that acknowledged people who did not identify with either category too, and even today across the world there are people who identify as neither and are actively campaigning to be acknowledged. It's not a new thing that only teenagers on the internet are making up for themselves.

Your comparison to the Kinsey scale is more accurate than you'd think. After all, the Kinsey scale too is simplistic, as it still assumes that there is an extreme of 'heterosexuality' and 'homosexuality' and everything else is a spectrum of bisexuality between the two, ignoring people who are asexual or pansexual.

(reply from suspended user)

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2014-09-11 19:07 (UTC) - Expand

But... people being an amalgam of different qualities, rather than simply "male" or "female", is what makes genderqueer the only identity that makes sense.

If there are no differences between men and woman other than physical, there's no point in identifying asone as ospposed to another. There are also differences between peoeple's heights, but nobody makes it a point to identify as tall, or short.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only