What is the point of the gender spectrum, genderqueer, non-binary, etc as a whole?
This won't be controversial in the least.
If Gender Identity and Gender Expression is a 'spectrum', that means everyone is non-binary by default which would make the entire label of non-binary rather redundant. The focus from what I have seen of being non-binary is just to not be cisgender, to come across as misunderstood or politically oppressed in an attempt to seem complex or interesting, as I said from my personal experience.
Additionally if Gender Identity and Gender Expression is a 'spectrum' that means the two extremes are masculinity [majority associates this with aggression, dominance and strength] and femininity [majority associates this with passivity, submission and weakness] meaning everyone is non-binary again as nobody will ever be absolutely masculine or absolutely feminine showcasing traits associated from both making 'Gender Identities' like agender or pangender completely moot. You can't represent every expect if there is a spectrum [pangender] as masculinity/femininity are complete opposites of each other and you can't just not fall on the spectrum at all [agender] it would make the spectrum redundant.
How can cisgender or Trans which are binary terms exist if Gender Identity and Gender Expression is indeed a spectrum, that doesn't make sense. If Gender Identity and Gender Expression is a spectrum that counters the experiences of Transgender/Transsexual individuals specifically the need to transition.
- 1 year agoFavorite Answer
[I'm not a good source for those subjects, and I usually stay away as I feel that I deeply can't relate or understand some of it.]
I think the gender expression you're referencing (as a spectrum of traits) is different to the cognitive structure that'd be referenced in gender dysphoria (a structure seeking sex and/or gender conformism).
The firsts are attempts at giving a good idea over what gender expression means in terms of either self reflection or in terms of developing an image of your self in relations to societal trends.
If you make self identification and such important parts of the formula, you get more possibilities.
If you label different types of mixes of traits, or if you consider more sex-based cultural identities/roles, you may see where you fit in best (referring to cultures having 3+ roles).
Feminine traits and masculine traits will vary through time and between people; if you make gender only about those, then perhaps there is not much to say, but I'd consider adding the intensity of adherence or compatibility for a trait in the equation. If someone can't clearly relate enough to either, or feel a need to avoid both, then agender and such could exist in terminology if you want.
I'm not accustomed to all the nomenclature and web of concepts.
*Edit: As for the non-binary thing, it'd be more within these parameters. Identification, propensity for different traits and maybe variability could influence them in using the label.
The second is a stronger type of need for identifying as either. The need would indicate a deeper gender.
I feel utterly helpless when trying to imagine that type of gender identity (from the ways it has been described to me) and thus stay out of the equation. I've had the impression that it's like a type of connotation (associative state of ideas, emotions, intensity, etc) that I might not possess at all (like sexual connotations would differ from emotional ones).
Furthermore I am excluded from every type of relational or similar gender related practices ever since when it'd have been relevant to my development. If ever a gender identity (in relations to gender expression and the spectrum) would've had a seed, it has been crushed before growing in any parts of my dissimulated frightened senses of identity.
- Anonymous1 year ago
"What is the point of the gender spectrum, genderqueer, non-binary, etc as a whole?"
They acknowledge the natural diversity within our species.
Society and culture want to enforce a strict binary to control people, but by doing so they force people to behave in certain ways. In Western societies those strict standards have been under attack for 50 years. Now people are much freer to be and act themselves. Compare that to some countries in the Middle East. It's incredibly stifling, and unhealthy, how the culture there demands conformity.
So from my perspective it's about freedom.
The traditionalists would say this will lead to chaos, but that's not true.
It's not true because remember the double Bell curve I posted last night?
MOST people still identify with the peaks in the graph.
But for some reason segments of our society FEAR diversity and change. In the USA radical evangelicals want society to go back to those strict standards. They are in essence the American Taliban. They want to control us all. They want to set the standards the rest of us must adhere to and that's, to a large degree, why they exist at all. Because for whatever reason a minority of people also don't like to think for themselves, but want others to do the thinking and tell them how to act and believe. They don't believe in individual freedom, they believe in conformity and if you look that's who Trump's base is.
So that's the real battle going on right now, individual freedom vs. strict social conformity.
Not sure if any of this answers your question, but it's the best I can do after just rolling out of bed.
- Anonymous1 year ago
The whole point of having a spectrum - a wide open field - is to show that people can exist on many parts of the spectrum and have individual characteristics. What you seem to be doing is narrowing everything down and taking away variations. That doesn’t work. No everyone is not non binary by default.