| Author |
Topic:
An Open Conversation on Gender Roles and Identity
|
Princess_Tina
Registered:
May '01
|
Date Posted:
4/25 11:57pm
Subject:
RE: An Open Conversation on Gender Roles and Identity
- Date Edited:
4/25 11:58pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Princess_Tina
|
Lowbacca_1977 posted:
As I said, 'to protect one specific form of expression'. It is the selectiveness that is absurd, before we even get to the nature of gov't.
Seems perfectly sensible to protect any group or category that is frequently the target of discrimination.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Lowbacca_1977
Title: Senate Moderator
Registered:
Jun '06
|
Date Posted:
4/26 12:26am
Subject:
RE: An Open Conversation on Gender Roles and Identity
|
|
How do you, in this context, define 'expression'?
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Princess_Tina
Registered:
May '01
|
Date Posted:
4/26 12:33am
Subject:
RE: An Open Conversation on Gender Roles and Identity
- Date Edited:
4/26 12:37am (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Princess_Tina
|
Lowbacca_1977 posted:
How do you, in this context, define 'expression'?
According to the Human Rights Commission of the City and County of San Francisco:
2. DEFINITION OF GENDER IDENTITY
Chapters 12A, 12B, and 12C of the San Francisco Administrative Code and Article 33 of the San Francisco Police Code define "Gender Identity" as "a person’s various individual attributes as they are understood to be masculine and/or feminine." * Gender Identity therefore includes discrimination based upon an individual’s self-asserted gender identity and/or gender expression whether or not different from that traditionally associated with the person’s actual or perceived sex as assigned at birth.
[*12A.3(a); 12B.1(c); 12C.2; 33]
http://www.sfgov.org/site/sfhumanrights_page.asp?id=6274
And I still don't see what is absurd about protecting people who are very frequently discriminated against... whether it is because of gender expression, gender identity, and/or sexual orientation. It's about basic human rights.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Lowbacca_1977
Title: Senate Moderator
Registered:
Jun '06
|
Date Posted:
4/26 12:42am
Subject:
RE: An Open Conversation on Gender Roles and Identity
|
How, in this context, do you define 'expression'?
Just the word 'expression'.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Princess_Tina
Registered:
May '01
|
Date Posted:
4/26 12:46am
Subject:
RE: An Open Conversation on Gender Roles and Identity
- Date Edited:
4/26 12:49am (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Princess_Tina
|
Lowbacca_1977 posted:
How, in this context, do you define 'expression'?
Just the word 'expression'.
I think the concept of gender expression is self-explanatory. Don't you? How do you express your gender identity in your every day life?
Here is one that I think should be fairly clear and concise:
Gender expression is everything we do that communicates our sex/gender to others: clothing, hair styles, mannerisms, way of speaking, roles we take in interactions, etc. This communication may be purposeful or accidental. It could also be called social gender because it relates to interactions between people. Trappings of one gender or the other may be forced on us as children or by dress codes at school or work. Gender expression is a continuum, with feminine at one end and masculine at the other. In between are gender expressions that are androgynous (neither masculine nor feminine) and those that combine elements of the two (sometimes called gender bending). Gender expression can vary for an individual from day to day or in different situations, but most people can identify a range on the scale where they feel the most comfortable. Some people are comfortable with a wider range of gender expression than others.
http://www.gendersanity.com/diagram.shtml
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Lowbacca_1977
Title: Senate Moderator
Registered:
Jun '06
|
Date Posted:
4/26 2:15am
Subject:
RE: An Open Conversation on Gender Roles and Identity
|
|
OK, you don't really feel like giving the definition just of expression... but based somewhat off that quote, then yes, I think it is absurd to try to pick just one element of expression to 'protect'.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jabbadabbado
Title: Senate Floor Moderator
Registered:
Mar '99
|
Date Posted:
4/26 4:52am
Subject:
RE: An Open Conversation on Gender Roles and Identity
|
I think that in modern times the issue of genetic survival is almost irrelevant.
To the tribe, maybe, but not to the individual. Yes, the tribe functions if some people choose not to breed. Although most of us using the internet and posting on this forum live in an advanced globalized industrialized society, the architecture of our brains doesn't necessarily "know" that.
There are MANY ways to contribute to society and future generations that don't involve direct dealings with children. Medical research, promoting peace, helping to reduce poverty, designing more fuel-efficient cars... the list goes on and on.
Again, humans are designed for solving problems of dominance. Specialization/division of labor in an advanced society is a result of this process.
Gender expression is everything we do that communicates our sex/gender to others
Exactly. At least I know you agree with me now that gender expression implies an act of communication which by definition implies an audience. The act of gender expression is communicative behavior designed (overtly or not) to signal *something* to *someone.*
-----signature-----
Malthusian Doomsday Quack
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Princess_Tina
Registered:
May '01
|
Date Posted:
4/26 7:19am
Subject:
RE: An Open Conversation on Gender Roles and Identity
- Date Edited:
4/26 7:34am (3 edits total)
Edited By:
Princess_Tina
|
Lowbacca_1977 posted:
OK, you don't really feel like giving the definition just of expression... but based somewhat off that quote, then yes, I think it is absurd to try to pick just one element of expression to 'protect'.
You aren't "picking one element of expression" to protect. You're protecting against the kinds of discrimination that occur most often. It would be absurd not to try to prevent the kinds of discrimination that are most common in society. Anti-discrimination laws and ordinances are usually a response to a problem, they are the way in which a civilized society can attempt to prevent the kinds of discrimination that have historically been a problem. So it sounds like you refuse to recognize that these kinds of measures are there in response to the fact that there is a real need to protect people from acts of discrimination.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
ShrunkenJedi
Registered:
Apr '03
|
Date Posted:
4/26 7:37am
Subject:
RE: An Open Conversation on Gender Roles and Identity
|
I may have skipped out on this for a bit, but I'm glad it's gotten rolling, nice conversation here 
Jabbadabbado, I think that what you're saying in your last post could be addressed somewhat in what Tina said about diversity within gender expression, including not breeding but taking care of relatives' children, being a benefit sometimes in our genetic past-- the sisters with hands full, or one of them able to take on a defender/hunter role; a brother willing to take care of nieces and nephews. This is similar to some arguments about the propensity towards altruism. You don't always need to maximize your own ability to breed to have a positive impact on your genetic line.
Also, while I agree that there hasn't been time for extensive change, I would be surprised if humans haven't changed at least a little bit genetically in more recent times, and certainly we have *very much* societally -- because gender expression is a social signal, it will change as society changes. As has been pointed out, current society is fairly accepting of women with androgynous gender expression and women taking traditionally male roles; I would wager that a woman with a high-status job with a pixie haircut and jeans and a t-shirt would find more suitors than a very feminine woman who wanted to be a homemaker and have many kids.
-----signature-----
Native Bostonian: I was rooting for the Red Sox before it was cool Fanficcer and Fanartist-- check the profile! My New Drabbles and Viggies: http://boards.theforce.net/the_saga/b10476/28153417/
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Princess_Tina
Registered:
May '01
|
Date Posted:
4/26 8:32am
Subject:
RE: An Open Conversation on Gender Roles and Identity
|
ShrunkenJedi posted:
As has been pointed out, current society is fairly accepting of women with androgynous gender expression and women taking traditionally male roles
I'd say we're still a long ways off from basic gender equality -- let alone allowing people to freely express their sense of gender in any imaginable way without facing potential discrimination and possibly even hate crimes in our society.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
ShrunkenJedi
Registered:
Apr '03
|
Date Posted:
4/26 8:38am
Subject:
RE: An Open Conversation on Gender Roles and Identity
|
Well, sure. I was talking relatively 
-----signature-----
Native Bostonian: I was rooting for the Red Sox before it was cool Fanficcer and Fanartist-- check the profile! My New Drabbles and Viggies: http://boards.theforce.net/the_saga/b10476/28153417/
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Princess_Tina
Registered:
May '01
|
Date Posted:
4/26 8:44am
Subject:
RE: An Open Conversation on Gender Roles and Identity
|
ShrunkenJedi posted:
Well, sure. I was talking relatively
Point taken
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jabbadabbado
Title: Senate Floor Moderator
Registered:
Mar '99
|
Date Posted:
4/26 10:24am
Subject:
RE: An Open Conversation on Gender Roles and Identity
|
This is similar to some arguments about the propensity towards altruism. You don't always need to maximize your own ability to breed to have a positive impact on your genetic line.
Absolutely. Evolutionary psychology is interested in concepts like reciprocal altruism as an adaptive behavior that leads to increased inclusive fitness
-----signature-----
Malthusian Doomsday Quack
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Eleventh_Guard
Registered:
Dec '05
|
Date Posted:
4/26 10:47am
Subject:
RE: An Open Conversation on Gender Roles and Identity
|
ShrunkenJedi posted:
As has been pointed out, current society is fairly accepting of women with androgynous gender expression and women taking traditionally male roles; I would wager that a woman with a high-status job with a pixie haircut and jeans and a t-shirt would find more suitors than a very feminine woman who wanted to be a homemaker and have many kids.
Depends on the subdivision of society, as well. In some groups the latter would be preferred, but overall this is probably pretty accurate for the West.
The problem comes in that female-bodied persons being more masculine in behavior/appearance is only acceptable to a certain point. Women's jeans and a T-shirt and short hair are fine. But if she's in men's jeans (the cut IS visibly different most of the time), binds her chest to look flat, and has her hair ultra-short and in a style popular among young men - and let's say her name is Danielle and she willfully goes by Dan - a lot of people are going to be unhappy with that, even hostile. Society used to put women in a small box; now they've replaced that with a much bigger box. But stepping outside of it is still a good way to make people mad. It's OK to adopt "tomboyish" traits or appearance details as long as they're still noticeably feminine.
Gender roles are so prevalent even in modern society that people don't know how to react when faced with someone that they can't easily categorize as a boy or a girl. Just because it's less obvious doesn't mean it's not there. People aren't as likely to tell a girl she can't be a scientist or tell a boy he can't be a nurse, but many still have wildly different expectations of people's behavior and presentations based on what sex they are, and if they can't tell because the cues are mixed or weak, they don't know what to do.
-----signature-----
A conversation on Dathomir:
Welk: My daughter did that... I am blameless. I'm not even armed.
Jacen: And you just let her do whatever she wants?
Welk: You're new here, aren't you?
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Princess_Tina
Registered:
May '01
|
Date Posted:
4/26 11:01am
Subject:
RE: An Open Conversation on Gender Roles and Identity
|
Eleventh_Guard posted:
Gender roles are so prevalent even in modern society that people don't know how to react when faced with someone that they can't easily categorize as a boy or a girl. Just because it's less obvious doesn't mean it's not there. People aren't as likely to tell a girl she can't be a scientist or tell a boy he can't be a nurse, but many still have wildly different expectations of people's behavior and presentations based on what sex they are, and if they can't tell because the cues are mixed or weak, they don't know what to do.
I think you're absolutely right; personally, I think that anything that is quite outside the stereotypical gender roles in many cases can also bring up people's insecurities (which may explain why they sometimes react with hostility). And it's not like even in the lesbian community, there aren't sometimes strong reactions against self-identified "bois", just as an example. (I won't even go into what it's like when lesbians are critical of FTMs because they feel they're only doing it for the sake of acquiring male privilege or something).
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
