I’m just leafing through a new textbook I received today on LGBTQ psychology. Fascinating. I’m not studying this (at least not right now) but obviously it is of interest to me. (For those who don’t know, I am an MTF TG, or in lay terms: I am male-to-female transgendered.)
Although I’ve not engaged with all this too much, simply applied my rather minuscule knowledge of history, culture, religion, and my own experience, it seems that my conclusions are not that far off the scale. I always had this suspicion.
The binary sex and gender concept in existence in the Western world of today does seem to be an exclusive or largely exclusive Western concept. The reason is obvious: Judaeo-Christian or Islamic, meaning Old Testament based theology. Makes me certainly feel better.
Why does it make me feel better? Well, I was raised with a Christian concept of things, one that I have discarded, theology-wise, but that doesn’t explain “me”. Had it turned out that, theology-notwithstanding, a binary gender concept was universal, meaning all-humanity-including, then indeed I would have wondered what the f**k is wrong with me. But that is not the case. Rather the opposite. The binary gender concept is an overhaul of everything else that came before and that not yet touched, originating in a sense-making, poetic story of origins accepted by the major and most powerful religions who then simply applied their theology to life.
I’m not trying to make a statement here or open a big debate, although that might be nice, especially if you disagree… I’m just leafing through things and doing some thinking.
Being, most likely understandably so, a rather private person, I have become more and more outgoing as I begin to evermore notice the trash I once believed and which really “keeps people in check”. Very sickening.
Well, simply a note / post, whatever you’d like to call it on “my issues”. - And I’m aware they don’t concern most people, but posting something here at least gives you some good feedback. Feedback I’m very thankful for by the way.
Peace.
Interesting post, Michelle. I’ve never thought about the binary aspect of social conventions about sexuality, but now that you raise it I realize that this is not an either/or concept; there are shades of gray. I think you’re right, Western religion is largely responsible for societal attitudes about transgender people.
Just a thought. Have you studied much philosophy?
Hi Darron, … thank you for your response.
Have I studied much philosophy? If that is meant “institutionally”, then no, utterly no. I am a current undergraduate as I picked up school again just now, having conducted a rather good life with a simple GED beforehand. Have I engaged philosophy for long? Yes. Ever since I can think. I very much enjoy the thoughts of others, their ideas, their philosophies. I am a total fan of Nietzsche and Paracelsus. But I do have my own thoughts mostly. I follow no one.
My “gender theory”, originally, is purely my own construct; I knew nothing of transgender theory when I started it, I simply tried to understand and make sense of things; religion, curiously, being very helpful.
It’s quite an elaborate idea I have there. Not sure if “society” is ready for it, as it is rather “radical” and utterly anti-patriarchal.
Let me not babble here. Thank you for the response.
Peace.
Michelle
It does appear that subconscious sexual drive (no matter which orientation) does color the day to day relationships among most people. But with some it’s relatively short-lived. As we get to know the person our hidden sexual component fades, and we deal with the person based on his/her human characteristics.
However, unless one has the goal of having a sexual relationship with the person, I cannot understand why anyone would be interested at all in the other person’s sexual ideas, behavior, or identity.
It seems to me that most of the gender different behaviors included in the various religions and societies have far less to do with the sexuality component and almost all to do with a vehicle for exerting dominance.
Occam
It does appear that subconscious sexual drive (no matter which orientation) does color the day to day relationships among most people. But with some it's relatively short-lived. As we get to know the person our hidden sexual component fades, and we deal with the person based on his/her human characteristics. However, unless one has the goal of having a sexual relationship with the person, I cannot understand why anyone would be interested at all in the other person's sexual ideas, behavior, or identity. It seems to me that most of the gender different behaviors included in the various religions and societies have far less to do with the sexuality component and almost all to do with a vehicle for exerting dominance. OccamHello Occam, and thank you. I agree, exerting dominance is certainly the origin of patriarchy, which ancient remnants can be beautifully observed in the madness of certain Islamic countries, bordering on silliness if it weren't so serious. Well, not bordering on it, simply being silly, and dead-serious. The moment sexuality is put into the mix everything gets blurry. What difference does it make who marries who or who perceives as who? It really makes no difference at all. We're just people. I have yet to meet a gay person slobbering all over an unsuspectant heterosexual and trying to seduce them into their "devilish desires". But that's how it's made out to be, at least sometimes, mostly by religious people. And why religion is so obsessed with what people do in private is a mystery to me. (Not really, but it's a freaky hallmark.) I'm not interested in converting anyone to my viewpoint, (although that might not entirely hold true when it comes to philosophy), but remaining a convert to established viewpoints is really the backbone of society. Good or bad remains the subject of a free-thinking society.
I'm not interested in converting anyone to my viewpoint, (although that might not entirely hold true when it comes to philosophy), but remaining a convert to established viewpoints is really the backbone of society. Good or bad remains the subject of a free-thinking society.Really enjoy your posts Michelle. I think religion is designed to stick to a viewpoint and convert others while philosophy is designed to constantly seek a viewpoint that matches reality and concern itself too much with those are interested. It doesn't always occur that way, but basically that's how I see it. A philosophy that describes reality should provide us with some guidelines for values that help with that backbone of society you mention. Religion seems to have a problem with the philosophy that we should be constantly asking questions. I've always been interested in history before monotheism, but have found it hard to find good references. Most start with some general statements about nomadic cultures then get right into conquering and power struggles. That's not the fault of historians, there isn't much documentation on daily living. Keep us informed of the books you're reading.
I'm not interested in converting anyone to my viewpoint, (although that might not entirely hold true when it comes to philosophy), but remaining a convert to established viewpoints is really the backbone of society. Good or bad remains the subject of a free-thinking society.Really enjoy your posts Michelle. I think religion is designed to stick to a viewpoint and convert others while philosophy is designed to constantly seek a viewpoint that matches reality and concern itself too much with those are interested. It doesn't always occur that way, but basically that's how I see it. A philosophy that describes reality should provide us with some guidelines for values that help with that backbone of society you mention. Religion seems to have a problem with the philosophy that we should be constantly asking questions. I've always been interested in history before monotheism, but have found it hard to find good references. Most start with some general statements about nomadic cultures then get right into conquering and power struggles. That's not the fault of historians, there isn't much documentation on daily living. Keep us informed of the books you're reading. Hello Lausten, Thank you. I didn't think my posts were all that good; after all, they don't really concern most people, and I'm simply writing some thoughts sometimes on a lonely evening. To me, the thing with certain religion is not the doctrines, i.e. teachings. Everybody adheres to doctrines of some kind. It's the "dogmas", the once-and-for-all-settled. Science knows no dogmas. And that is sometimes a hard thing to get across. Religious "dogmatists" equate science with their own reasoning and find it faulty... and that is correct, except for the premise. Philosophy, to me, is a way of life, not a system, and much less a laid back wondering. Philosophy seeks truth, or beauty, or both... but it never stops. The "guidelines" it develops are probably better than those of religion, although I would never disregard "ancient wisdom". History before monotheism... that's an interesting point. It "seems" unaccessible, just by the way it's worded, but it really isn't. Egypt, Greece, Rome, India, China, Japan... no idea about Africa or the Americas here, but all these cultures lived and flourished quite well before and without monotheism, be it by whatever gods or powers they envisioned. My books? I'm surrounded by books, some of which I never touched. About 1000 is not an understatement. I live in a "trashy library".... never mind how I get my nails done :) I'm very inventive... :) But just to smell them books gets me high :) In regard to monotheism and its precursors, the best book, I think, is Karen Armstrong's A History of God. Very easy read, very broad, just very good in everything. Karen Armstrong in general is really great. She has that "gift"... making complicated things very easy. Monotheism is a late evolution of human theology. Well, late is relative, but just as certain philosophies of economy now "get stuck" because they applied and apply well, so monotheism "got stuck" because it applied and applies well. Anyway... gotta go to bed. Terribly stressful day. Peace.
n the Western world of today does seem to be an exclusive or largely exclusive Western concept. The reason is obvious: Judaeo-Christian or Islamic, meaning Old Testament based theology. Makes me certainly feel better.Does that mean that you are aware of non-Western cultures that conceive of gender in a different way?
There was an interesting episode on the TV show, BONES, a few years ago. They had called in a Japanese forensic anthropologist. It turned out that it was a young person of indeterminate gender. The comment was that there is a group in Japan who work very hard to be gender free. I know nothing more about that, but it might be fun to research.
Occam
n the Western world of today does seem to be an exclusive or largely exclusive Western concept. The reason is obvious: Judaeo-Christian or Islamic, meaning Old Testament based theology. Makes me certainly feel better.Does that mean that you are aware of non-Western cultures that conceive of gender in a different way? Hi Rupert, ... thank you for the reply! Yes, most certainly, in answer to your question. The most obvious "three-sexed" society is Thailand. You have men, women, and the katoey (meaning "others"), which are sometimes referred to as ladyboys. - I've never been to Thailand or flown in their airlines, but they are flight attendants as well, not simply a "sub-culture" as Westerners would think of it. Some Native-American tribes refer to their "other-gendered" as two-spirits, possessing both male and female spirits in one person. They are usually revered in a spiritual sense, or simply take up "the opposite" societal role. In India you have the Hijra, which is a very low caste, but accepted as being a reality nonetheless. I'm not very versed in all this, I simply started "looking around" trying to make sense of things and myself. A nice book, can't find it right now, is "Evolution's Rainbow". Can't remember the lady that wrote it but she's a (transgendered) professor at some West Coast university... although that book is about biology, not really on human sexuality, but it is meant as a point in that setting. That human beings are "binary" as it comes to sex is pretty obvious, gender, however, is a very different thing. "Gender identity" is probably as varied as there are people. It's subjective, yet influenced by society and the "roles" that need to be played. Interesting concept I think. Thanks & ... Peace.
There was an interesting episode on the TV show, BONES, a few years ago. They had called in a Japanese forensic anthropologist. It turned out that it was a young person of indeterminate gender. The comment was that there is a group in Japan who work very hard to be gender free. I know nothing more about that, but it might be fun to research. OccamHi Occam! ... That sounds interesting. Never heard about that. Gender-free? Hmm... very interesting. I think I should check that out. Peace.
Michelle, when you say that this aspect of Western culture has its roots in the three major monotheistic religions, that makes me wonder, what about Ancient Greece, do you have any idea whether they took a binary approach to gender? Our cultural heritage is quite strongly influenced by Ancient Greece as well.
I think you need to make a distinction between gender and sexuality. As far as gender goes things do seem to be binary independent of religion or culture. By that I mean, and strictly talking about humans, the female carries the baby, the male doesn’t and that’s that. And given that, natures imposes certain limitations on females. The Big 3 religions of course have taken advantage of this and institutionalized the “limitations”. But as society advances (some at least) we realize the limitations can definitely be overcome or avoided. So nowadays you see women who choose not to have children, choose not to “stay in their place” etc. AND society is advanced enough to allow it, for example, to take a completely modern example, having technology that allows women to work from home.
Sexuality OTOH is totally different. That as far as I know is pretty fluid.
Either way, I do think we’re headed in the right direction. 
Michelle, when you say that this aspect of Western culture has its roots in the three major monotheistic religions, that makes me wonder, what about Ancient Greece, do you have any idea whether they took a binary approach to gender? Our cultural heritage is quite strongly influenced by Ancient Greece as well.Hmmm... you might have a point there. Let me put it like this: I don't believe in God (although I do have a "mystical streak", but that's for another debate), and hence I don't believe that the biblical creation story, for example, is of divine origin, meaning it originated with people who apparently had this binary gender concept. Not all peoples or cultures do. I'm not aware that the Greeks had any place for "other genders" so yes, possibly Western civilization would have ended up the way it is without the religious component, simply by its Greek influence alone. (The Romans, however, which gave us the concept of Law, did have a certain cult dedicated to the goddess Cybill, or something like that, which was tended to by priestesses which had to have been born male.) What my point really was is that the often used charge, at least here in the U.S., that "God intended this or that..." is simply baseless. Cultural norms differ, and they have every right to, but if a culture seeks to base its norms on reason, nature, a humanist ethics, etc., then in that case the binary gender concept is simply not true, meaning it does not correspond to reality.
I think you need to make a distinction between gender and sexuality. As far as gender goes things do seem to be binary independent of religion or culture. By that I mean, and strictly talking about humans, the female carries the baby, the male doesn't and that's that. And given that, natures imposes certain limitations on females. The Big 3 religions of course have taken advantage of this and institutionalized the "limitations". But as society advances (some at least) we realize the limitations can definitely be overcome or avoided. So nowadays you see women who choose not to have children, choose not to "stay in their place" etc. AND society is advanced enough to allow it, for example, to take a completely modern example, having technology that allows women to work from home. Sexuality OTOH is totally different. That as far as I know is pretty fluid. Either way, I do think we're headed in the right direction. :)Hi Cuthbert, thanks... Let's add one more word: sex, which you call gender. There's sex, gender, and sexuality. Sex is biologically determined (or not, given intersexed persons, which are born with both male and female genitalia or ambiguous genitalia, leaving the physician or parents to decide which sex they want the child to have). Gender, at least how it is used in the trans or queer community, is totally subjective. It has to do with the feeling of identity or self-perception. How many genders or gender identities there are, given it's personal and subjective, I doubt can be defined. Although I would think it's a somewhat limited range. Personally, I like to only think of three (but others view it different): female, androgyne, and male, but then, they come in different sexes. Sexuality, as I understand you and as I think of it, is simply sexual attraction or orientation and that, for sure, is probably as varied as gender identity. I think you're right, the distinctions are important so as to not confuse things. And yes, I think the U.S. is going in the right direction as it pertains to these things, as I would say they are human rights (but that might be another matter as we're talking religion here).
Sex, gender, and sexuality. Nice distinction. I have a feeling most folks (in the non-liberal community) would have trouble with those, but no matter. As an aside, if you are active in these issues, I’d stay away from terms like “queer”. It instantly turns even well-meaning folks off. The best thing we can all do is treat LGBT as totally NOT queer, weird, odd, etc. That’s one reason I love the show Modern Family. It just treats the gay couple as trying to make it through the day just like everyone else. And THAT’S how non-enlightened folks can become enlightened, basically by not even realizing it