gender: Re:


Subject: gender: Re:
From: Lindsey (lindsey@mail.utexas.edu)
Date: Wed Sep 15 1999 - 18:03:06 CDT


At 04:02 PM 9/15/99 -0600, anne wrote:
>ok, you say it in a better way chrissy but i still question. if we define
>gender by genitals has been percieved as both at sometime, but if we define
>gender as a representation that constructs a relationship between to
>entities, than why pitch del in the female or male 'kind', putting down his
>own 'kind'.

I dont remember ever generalizing Del. As i see it, Del, generalized the
gender I claim to be a member of (and therefore indirectly, generalized
me). Yet, while you are pouncing on me for doing it, no one pointed out to
Del that he/she did the same thing.

>ok, i can see he generalized,

yes he did.

> but we shouldn't answer one
>generalization with another. i'm still kind of amazed lindsey why you
>didn't say anything. i think female characteristics have more to do with
>those behaviours you might need to pass as a women, to me argumentive
>behaviour could be one of those.

Argumentitive behavior could be a "female characteristic" now who is
generalizing?

> generalizations are never personal
>chrissy, it's not to put you or anybody in person in a kind either, there
>lot's of ways to be, it's fluent, so we should try to find a way to talk
>about gender without using these binaries that don't define well.
>

I agree. Thats what I was questioning in the first place was Del's
generalization. Now Im questioning yours. Do you understand that I was
offended by the generalization not the person?

>
>david wrote:
> In my opinion, Del spread out much but clarified little. I could "see"
>(meaning "observe?") her "pansexuality" just fine. I couldn't understand it,
>though, and that's what I felt compelled to do because of the fact that she
>spoke to us in an academic environment.
>
>what do you mean? why didn't you ask? and why do you call him she?
>
>anne
>
>
>
>
>>Anne,
>I don't think Lindsey’s point is necessarily because she feels uneasy around
>Del because of who he is. I think that she is trying to say that it's kinda
>odd that if any alpha male would have said that about a women, we would be
>all over him and would have been quite offended...at least i know i would
>have. However, because Del used to be a female, it was hard to know how to
>feel because in a way he was talking about his own gender...or something
>like that. And most people don't make it a tendency to put down their own
>"kind" so to speak... So why does he have special permission to make
>assumptions and generalizations about either gender? I think it is a lot of
>these types of generalizations and stereotypes that are keeping the genders
>into such separate categories, which I don’t particularly like because
>although I am female, i fit very few of the characteristics. I don't think I
>or anyone for that matter should have to be thrown into the huge lump of
>the "female characteristics" and have to be seen or treated a certain way
>because of it.
>Just my opinion...
>----chrissy
>
>
>



This archive was generated by hypermail 2a24 : Thu Sep 16 1999 - 23:04:43 CDT