selenay: (thinking)
[personal profile] selenay
Read this article this morning thanks to the lovely Fahre and I've been happy-flailing and thinky ever since.

It's not often that a mainstream news site does a thing on gender, gender expression, and related stuff that's actually *good*.

I was particularly delighted to see the discussion of the separation between sex (biology) and gender and how that relates to the idea of gender being on a spectrum. The idea that everyone is either 100% female or 100% male just...doesn't really resonate with me. Or at least, I know too many people who don't fit into that binary system for it to be the right way to think of gender.

Gender as a spectrum with some people right at either end but a lot of people somewhere along the scale? That makes far more sense to me.

The article also touches on the idea of orientation being on a spectrum (Kinsey scale anyone?) which is something that I've been struggling through for years.

As a teen, I thought I was bisexual. Except all the stuff I was reading said "bisexuals are just confused, you're gay or you're straight" and I got all confused.

From my early twenties on, I classed myself as definitely 100% lesbian. Except that doesn't quite fit either.

Now that I'm into my thirties and giving fewer fucks about what other people think of me, I think "bisexual but maybe 80% of my crushes/loves/relationships are women" probably fits best. So, on the girl preferring side of bi but not far enough towards exclusive girl love to be 100% lesbian. Mostly lesbian? Partially bi? Not really easily labelled at all?

As for gender, I'd classify myself as mostly female. Mostly. That works.

Date: 2013-03-18 06:19 pm (UTC)
executrix: (new souls)
From: [personal profile] executrix
I think that the term "bisexual" exists for all of the situations between "100% heterosexual" and "100% homosexual"--so "80% same-sex attracted" certainly fits in there.

And I also think that it's bad when society imposes biological determination on people--i.e., "being female" = "timid, silly, unintellectual, cowardly" or even "likes to wear pink frilly clothes." Because it's possible for someone to decide that her way of being female includes comfortable shoes and weightlifting. Or that her way of being female includes lifting weights *while* wearing frilly pink clothes.

Dissatisfaction with social codes of femininity is not the same thing as being trans*. There's a difference between "My body has female biological markers and doesn't match my inner self, which is male" (or vice versa) and "People who tell me I'm Doing It Rong about being a woman/being a man can go sit on a tack."

Date: 2013-03-18 07:40 pm (UTC)
emmzzi: (Default)
From: [personal profile] emmzzi
Similar views on scales but "don't have crushes these days." Which is what I feel compelled to put out there as there is still a single = hook me up expectation.

Sounds like you are a lot more comfortable with yourself :)

Date: 2013-03-19 02:51 pm (UTC)
bouldergirl: (Default)
From: [personal profile] bouldergirl
People are too hung up on labeling people or making people fit into a single defined label. No one fits into labels for everything and honestly if they did, the world and people would be mighty boring.

I'm glad you're you and that you're happy with what that means. That's more then most people can say so kudos to you.

Profile

selenay: (Default)
selenay

December 2025

S M T W T F S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930 31   

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Feb. 6th, 2026 07:51 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios