I adopted the feminist (then called "women's lib") perspective on confining "gender roles" many decades ago, and I continue to hold the view (partially modified by the science which has emerged since then, which supports there being some degree of inbuilt proclivities associated with biological sex)
I adopted the feminist (then called "women's lib") perspective on confining "gender roles" many decades ago, and I continue to hold the view (partially modified by the science which has emerged since then, which supports there being some degree of inbuilt proclivities associated with biological sex)
Today, there is the concept of "gender identity", which is quite different; thus the different name.
If we accept that "gender roles" and "gender identity" are different, then there is only one "camp", and we can all understand both terms.
It seems to me the only sense in which there might be "two camps" is if people want to fight about the unqualified single word "gender" and whether that should mean "gender role" or "gender identity". That seems to be to an unfruitful and unnecessary dispute; just use the unambiguous two-word terms instead. (And of course, some would add "gender expression", etc).
Caveat 1: This is in terms of using language to communicate with each other. I acknowledge that some people may accurately understand what's meant by the term "gender identity" and yet believe that gender identity isn't a real thing, just like understanding what a "ghost" or a "soul" means without needing to agree on the reality of same.
Caveat 2: There is some confusion when one delves more deeply into what a "gender identity" consists of. It's often described as something sorta-biological or sorta-like the kind of soul or mind being incarnated in a body, which would transcend culture. But in the cross sex trans identification, it seems to manifest as wanting society to perceive one as fitting into the culture-specific gender roles or stereotypes associated with the other sex. So if the local culture associates dangly earrings with the female biological sex, a cross sex trans person would want to follow that stereotype in order to be perceived as having the culturally specific "gender identity" typical of biological females. In other words, when we get down to details, there is some interplay of gender identity and gender roles. But this is an entirely unnavigable mess, if we use "gender" alone to mean both/either "gender identity" and "gender roles".
Yes. I'm pretty much the same type of feminist. I am a woman. But my gender doesn't necessarily define me. I have built a self and a life that I like, not one that confines itself to a gender role per se. I am outspoken and have a big, commanding voice, for instance - both stereotypical male qualities. But, I am unapologetic about it even though I do take some arrows for it. I recognize that I could earn more social capital if I confined myself to my gender role (soft-spoken, demure) but my spirit doesn't feel comfortable doing that. So, I do me and ignore the loss of perks and social capital. Women's lib efforts definitely helped me here.
Thomas Sowell is correct when he asserts that life is a series of trade-offs.
Sorry for the only tangentially related take here, but every time it is repeated that women are soft-spoken or demure, even during the not-so-distant time when most were home-makers, I am also reminded of countless stories and also my own observation of women that were very sure and vocal of what they wanted, and often their husbands simply complied. I just don't think women were ever uniformly cowed, despite uneven economic and educational opportunities. Once upon a time, good men highly valued their women to the point of conceding many points of real decisions and power. I just don't buy this whole 'little lady' narrative that is just assumed of our not-so-distant past. From whence rose the lionesses of today? Their lioness mothers of course and their fathers who believed in them. The stereotype is tired and was never really true for many, many women.
I think the idea of the sweet demure damsel was patriarchy's wishful thinking and a projection. The complex reality of women as a real human being (especially the sexual side) is just too threatening an idea, so we hang onto the myth. I think your observations are correct. Remember that children's rhyme about girls being made of sugar, spice an all things nice, and boys made of snails and puppy dog's tails? Little boys are the sweetest, most trusting people on earth, while little girls are ready to run the world by age 7. We all know it and see it in our real lives but the myth is obviously too valuable to let go of, but it's probably well past time we did.
That hit home. I felt bad for my son who has an older sister as I could not possibly be as close to him as I was with her. I was wrong. He was/is sweeter. To this day many years later, we cannot part ways without him expressing his love many times.
Passion guided by reason: 'If we accept that "gender roles" and "gender identity" are different, then there is only one "camp", and we can all understand both terms.'
Agreed, of course. Perhaps everyone associated with The Commentary would agree. But that's a tall order for most of the "we" in that sentence! Because that's everyone else LOL. And the confusion persists with every usage of that catch-all word "gender"...
For example, on the very application that I personally send out to potential council members for a government council I oversee, there is a question "What is your gender? (check what best describes your current gender identity):" with Male, Female, Trans Female, Trans Male, Genderqueer/Gender non-binary, Not Listed, and Decline to State as answers. This very question - approved by the council itself and therefore I have no ability to update it - conflates the word "gender" with gender identity.
When gender is used to mean gender identity on a regular basis, then folks who use gender to mean gender norms will constantly have to define how they are using the word gender. And vice versa.
I adopted the feminist (then called "women's lib") perspective on confining "gender roles" many decades ago, and I continue to hold the view (partially modified by the science which has emerged since then, which supports there being some degree of inbuilt proclivities associated with biological sex)
Today, there is the concept of "gender identity", which is quite different; thus the different name.
If we accept that "gender roles" and "gender identity" are different, then there is only one "camp", and we can all understand both terms.
It seems to me the only sense in which there might be "two camps" is if people want to fight about the unqualified single word "gender" and whether that should mean "gender role" or "gender identity". That seems to be to an unfruitful and unnecessary dispute; just use the unambiguous two-word terms instead. (And of course, some would add "gender expression", etc).
Caveat 1: This is in terms of using language to communicate with each other. I acknowledge that some people may accurately understand what's meant by the term "gender identity" and yet believe that gender identity isn't a real thing, just like understanding what a "ghost" or a "soul" means without needing to agree on the reality of same.
Caveat 2: There is some confusion when one delves more deeply into what a "gender identity" consists of. It's often described as something sorta-biological or sorta-like the kind of soul or mind being incarnated in a body, which would transcend culture. But in the cross sex trans identification, it seems to manifest as wanting society to perceive one as fitting into the culture-specific gender roles or stereotypes associated with the other sex. So if the local culture associates dangly earrings with the female biological sex, a cross sex trans person would want to follow that stereotype in order to be perceived as having the culturally specific "gender identity" typical of biological females. In other words, when we get down to details, there is some interplay of gender identity and gender roles. But this is an entirely unnavigable mess, if we use "gender" alone to mean both/either "gender identity" and "gender roles".
Yes. I'm pretty much the same type of feminist. I am a woman. But my gender doesn't necessarily define me. I have built a self and a life that I like, not one that confines itself to a gender role per se. I am outspoken and have a big, commanding voice, for instance - both stereotypical male qualities. But, I am unapologetic about it even though I do take some arrows for it. I recognize that I could earn more social capital if I confined myself to my gender role (soft-spoken, demure) but my spirit doesn't feel comfortable doing that. So, I do me and ignore the loss of perks and social capital. Women's lib efforts definitely helped me here.
Thomas Sowell is correct when he asserts that life is a series of trade-offs.
Sorry for the only tangentially related take here, but every time it is repeated that women are soft-spoken or demure, even during the not-so-distant time when most were home-makers, I am also reminded of countless stories and also my own observation of women that were very sure and vocal of what they wanted, and often their husbands simply complied. I just don't think women were ever uniformly cowed, despite uneven economic and educational opportunities. Once upon a time, good men highly valued their women to the point of conceding many points of real decisions and power. I just don't buy this whole 'little lady' narrative that is just assumed of our not-so-distant past. From whence rose the lionesses of today? Their lioness mothers of course and their fathers who believed in them. The stereotype is tired and was never really true for many, many women.
I think the idea of the sweet demure damsel was patriarchy's wishful thinking and a projection. The complex reality of women as a real human being (especially the sexual side) is just too threatening an idea, so we hang onto the myth. I think your observations are correct. Remember that children's rhyme about girls being made of sugar, spice an all things nice, and boys made of snails and puppy dog's tails? Little boys are the sweetest, most trusting people on earth, while little girls are ready to run the world by age 7. We all know it and see it in our real lives but the myth is obviously too valuable to let go of, but it's probably well past time we did.
That hit home. I felt bad for my son who has an older sister as I could not possibly be as close to him as I was with her. I was wrong. He was/is sweeter. To this day many years later, we cannot part ways without him expressing his love many times.
That's so lovely.
Of course context matters. In the world I grew up in, being outspoken was cause for loss of social capital and/or censure. YMMV.
Passion guided by reason: 'If we accept that "gender roles" and "gender identity" are different, then there is only one "camp", and we can all understand both terms.'
Agreed, of course. Perhaps everyone associated with The Commentary would agree. But that's a tall order for most of the "we" in that sentence! Because that's everyone else LOL. And the confusion persists with every usage of that catch-all word "gender"...
For example, on the very application that I personally send out to potential council members for a government council I oversee, there is a question "What is your gender? (check what best describes your current gender identity):" with Male, Female, Trans Female, Trans Male, Genderqueer/Gender non-binary, Not Listed, and Decline to State as answers. This very question - approved by the council itself and therefore I have no ability to update it - conflates the word "gender" with gender identity.
When gender is used to mean gender identity on a regular basis, then folks who use gender to mean gender norms will constantly have to define how they are using the word gender. And vice versa.