Ok, so I will attempt to summarise what I have read up to now, i'm nearly at the conclusion.
Butler examines Lacan and Freud and according to their theories on sexual identity, she finds that Lacan says the female gender is a kind of melancholy, a loss and this identity starts from the prohibition of incest, from taboo.
Then she turns to Kristeva, who explains there is a difference between 'the semiotic' and the Symbolic Order, which is the 'Paternal Law' and that the maternal instinct or drives expresses itself through poetic language and is necessarily repressed in order for a woman to become a subject that is identified as that gender. So Kristeva posits a continuity between mother and child that then excludes the mother in the name of the Father as the subject enters the Symbolic Order and so the maternal drive is able to subvert this order and law. Butler, using Foucault's view of sexuality as a discourse, disputes Kristeva's 'before the law' as not being before but during the law and the maternal instincts that Kristeva says are before the neccessary repression that causes subjection from continuity, or at least we should use Foucault's critique for this claim.
She then examines Foucalt's History of Sexuality, Foucault presents medical records and a diary of a hermaprodite called 'Herculine' - thsi person commited suicide because the discourse that enforces univocal sex and binary relation gender was too oppressive and it revealed how indeed, both that which is considered maternal or paternal, masculine or feminine is both generated and controlled by the discourse of sexuality, which has a power related to it and which produces the category we know as 'sex', which then comes with all of the legal and juridicial meanings and restrictions.
Then in the part about Monique Wittig, she focuses on 'sex' as the basis for assigning gender identity, which is often reduced merely to genitalia, although Butler questions, as does Wittig, whether or not these distinctions are really neccessary, following in true form from Foucault. There are numerous other factors that may indicate gender, from hormones to germ cells, a few other biological factors that may constitute male or female that make finding what may be called 'the master gene' that produces sex quite ambigious.
Simone De Beauviour said 'One is not born a woman, one becomes a woman' which separates sex from gender and explains gender as something we aquire from the world around us through repeated performance. But Irigaray explains that woman is not 'one', she is 'multiple' and again opens up the void of signification, a kind of emptiness that has ruptures of new meanings. Wittig believes the only reason we still classify males and females the way we do, is because of reproductive sexuality and that this is an outdated binary relation that is a hang up from Christianity. Identity is not a fixed construct and changes over time.
Soput more simply, there is no need to categorise sexes outside of a specific heterosexual politics. Lesbian is not a woman - a woman only exists as a term that stabilises a binary an oppositional relation to a man. A lesbian is no longer defined in those terms and so is outside of the construction of gender.
So that being said, if we take the Nietzsche quote of 'we only see a body with actions and this doesn't inform character', which Butler swaps with gender identity - this dissolution of sex as being the starting point for categorisation becomes redundant - therefore identity, sexual identity, gender identity - does not neccessarily exist, it is contingent. Put another way, sexuality only came into being from a regulating and generative social institution that promoted a relation to heterosexuality. As a result of Butlers genealogy, she leaves behind humanist ways of talking about gender and dislodges man and woman from the center of their experience, she is describing a post-human opening that transcends the limits of identity politics and so feminism now moves into a revaluation of what human means beyond these discourses. She wants to avoid creating a new identity, as an identity comes with regulations and restrictions.
Anyway, that's all for now on these notes.
Re: More on Gender Trouble
Posted: Wed Mar 15, 2017 11:26 pm
by thetrizzard
Ok, so I will attempt to summarise what I have read up to now, i'm nearly at the conclusion.
Butler examines Lacan and Freud and according to their theories on sexual identity, she finds that Lacan says the female gender is a kind of melancholy, a loss and this identity starts from the prohibition of incest, from taboo.
Then she turns to Kristeva, who explains there is a difference between 'the semiotic' and the Symbolic Order, which is the 'Paternal Law' and that the maternal instinct or drives expresses itself through poetic language and is necessarily repressed in order for a woman to become a subject that is identified as that gender. So Kristeva posits a continuity between mother and child that then excludes the mother in the name of the Father as the subject enters the Symbolic Order and so the maternal drive is able to subvert this order and law. Butler, using Foucault's view of sexuality as a discourse, disputes Kristeva's 'before the law' as not being before but during the law and the maternal instincts that Kristeva says are before the neccessary repression that causes subjection from continuity, or at least we should use Foucault's critique for this claim.
She then examines Foucalt's History of Sexuality, Foucault presents medical records and a diary of a hermaprodite called 'Herculine' - thsi person commited suicide because the discourse that enforces univocal sex and binary relation gender was too oppressive and it revealed how indeed, both that which is considered maternal or paternal, masculine or feminine is both generated and controlled by the discourse of sexuality, which has a power related to it and which produces the category we know as 'sex', which then comes with all of the legal and juridicial meanings and restrictions.
Then in the part about Monique Wittig, she focuses on 'sex' as the basis for assigning gender identity, which is often reduced merely to genitalia, although Butler questions, as does Wittig, whether or not these distinctions are really neccessary, following in true form from Foucault. There are numerous other factors that may indicate gender, from hormones to germ cells, a few other biological factors that may constitute male or female that make finding what may be called 'the master gene' that produces sex quite ambigious.
Simone De Beauviour said 'One is not born a woman, one becomes a woman' which separates sex from gender and explains gender as something we aquire from the world around us through repeated performance. But Irigaray explains that woman is not 'one', she is 'multiple' and again opens up the void of signification, a kind of emptiness that has ruptures of new meanings. Wittig believes the only reason we still classify males and females the way we do, is because of reproductive sexuality and that this is an outdated binary relation that is a hang up from Christianity. Identity is not a fixed construct and changes over time.
Soput more simply, there is no need to categorise sexes outside of a specific heterosexual politics. Lesbian is not a woman - a woman only exists as a term that stabilises a binary an oppositional relation to a man. A lesbian is no longer defined in those terms and so is outside of the construction of gender.
So that being said, if we take the Nietzsche quote of 'we only see a body with actions and this doesn't inform character', which Butler swaps with gender identity - this dissolution of sex as being the starting point for categorisation becomes redundant - therefore identity, sexual identity, gender identity - does not neccessarily exist, it is contingent. Put another way, sexuality only came into being from a regulating and generative social institution that promoted a relation to heterosexuality. As a result of Butlers genealogy, she leaves behind humanist ways of talking about gender and dislodges man and woman from the center of their experience, she is describing a post-human opening that transcends the limits of identity politics and so feminism now moves into a revaluation of what human means beyond these discourses. She wants to avoid creating a new identity, as an identity comes with regulations and restrictions.
Anyway, that's all for now on these notes.
She is opening up the future and heralding the arrivant
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Re: More on Gender Trouble
Posted: Thu Mar 16, 2017 6:49 am
by atreestump
Yes, the Derrida book makes more sense since I read Butler.
I started Rosi Braidotti 'The Post Human' yesterday, which is the conversation after Butler.
"
Rafiki was banned by the Kenya Film Classification Board (KFCB) "due to its homosexual theme and clear intent to promote lesbianism in Kenya contrary to the law".[21][22] The Board asked the film director to change the ending, as it was too hopeful and positive. Kahiu refused, which led to the ban of the film.[9] The KFCB warned that anyone found in possession of the film would be in breach of the law in Kenya, where gay sex is punishable by 14 years in jail. The ban raised international outrage by the supporters of LGBT rights.[23][24]
The film's director, Wanuri Kahiu, sued Kenya's government, to allow the film to be screened and become eligible to be submitted as Kenya's entry for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film at the 91st Academy Awards.[25][26] She also sued for projected losses that would arise from the ban.[27] On 21 September 2018, the Kenyan High Court judge, Wilfrida Okwany, temporarily lifted the ban on the film, allowing it to be screened in the country for seven days and meeting the minimum eligibility requirement.[28][29][30][31] Once the ban was lifted, the film played to sold-out crowds at a cinema in Nairobi.[32][33] It raked in millions of shillings during this period.[34] Despite the concession, it was not selected as Kenya's submission in the Foreign Language Film category, with Supa Modo being sent instead.[35][36][32]
"
Added in 4 minutes 35 seconds:
The above articles I posted are on the idea of "Western Democracies" trying to pressure, impose, shame, penalize, and coerce, as well as justify outright violence and mass killing, with ideas that their philosophy or policies are closer to the absolute right and the ideas of other religions or cultures which large swathes of the population and majorities agree with should be disregarded in favor of minority interests. That whatever is in fashion among the European powers and the West is the most correct and up to date, everyone else is backwards and barbaric, and so should be slaughtered or made to suffer until they submit to whatever thing the Europeans have found that the non-Europeans aren't conforming to.
"
Electra was born in Houston, Texas, to a J family.[6] Their father, Paul Gomberg (known as "the Rockstar Realtor" in Houston), is originally from Beverly Hills.[7] Their mother, Paula Fridkin, is an artist and jewelry designer.[8] Electra graduated from School of the Woods, a Montessori high school in Houston,[9] where they were the founder of their high school's philosophy club.[10] They attended Shimer College, a Great Books school in Chicago, Illinois, from 2010 to 2014.[11]
"
"
Electra was born in Houston, Texas, to a Jewish family.[6] Their father, Paul Gomberg (known as "the Rockstar Realtor" in Houston), is originally from Beverly Hills.[7] Their mother, Paula Fridkin, is an artist and jewelry designer.[8] Electra graduated from School of the Woods, a Montessori high school in Houston,[9] where they were the founder of their high school's philosophy club.[10] They attended Shimer College, a Great Books school in Chicago, Illinois, from 2010 to 2014.[11]
"
Added in 1 hour 53 minutes 58 seconds:
Due to language, categories and categorization is limited within the cultures using any particular language, all of which necessarily limit definitions so that they posess parameters which make them useful rather than basically useless by meaning too much or including too much in their meaning.
Homosexuals, specifically males who wish to pursue in sexual acts with other males, appear anecdotally and pseudo-or-semi-scientifically as a mutated, abberant, or variant group among humans who in the latest examples can seem rather similar in their desires and behaviour worldwide. Race is an artificial category and though it has not been popularly proposed or accepted, the gay people could be presented and accepted as a sub-race among the human race, one that is made up of accepting a particular aesthetic while have certain biological interests and uniquely not being able to reproduce in the normal fashion.
and the X-Men, who are mutants, are considered by some to be a symbol of homosexuals.
Due to being part of a minority group with a fringe interest or pursuit, the homosexuals often liken themselves to aliens, "others", and various "outsider" categories.
More than any race or cultural group, each of which seemed to actually very commonly be much more genetically diverse than previously believed, the homosexuals likewise appear to function across the world in, regardless of genetics, more similarly than genetically related people who are far flung and dealing with different cultures or even within the same culture. That may be a kind of homogeneity that comes from being much more artificially constructed as an identity and based on a reaction to widespread norms across cultures.
u/Sweaty_Pause_8982 avatar
Sweaty_Pause_8982
•
2y ago
I'm also a gay man attracted to other men. But I have never been attracted to men exhibiting exaggerated effeminate mannerisms. I like guys. As for whether it is an intrinsic behavior or an adopted behavior, I vote adopted. I've known may guys who went from completely normal behavior, to exaggerated effeminate behavior once they came out (acting...?). Apparently, there must be some gay men who are attracted to men exhibiting effeminate mannerisms. I am not.
2
ViolinistParty4950
•
2y ago
Agree. I'm straight, but have multiple LGBTQ friends in my social circle. One of my good friends from school came out as Gay when we were about 15/16, and prior to 'coming out', he was far less effeminate in mannerisms. Us in his close friends circle knew he was gay, or at least bi, for a couple of years prior to that, but the outwardly / expressively effeminate persona only began once he 'publicly' came out as gay (aka on Facebook, to random people who would ask at school, to his wider family, etc).
Of course, there could be a degree to which he wanted to exhibit those more effeminate mannerisms prior to that, but just didn't feel comfortable doing it, but I think the majority of it is performatives and / or learned (whether its consciously or subconsciously), in accordance with the perception of how gay men are 'supposed' to act.
This shift also occurred, in varying degrees, with other friends and acquaintances I know who came out as gay or bi, in that their behaviour notably changed before and after officially coming out, especially towards people they didn't know (so for example, acting super effeminate with a random person at the bar, or a server at a cafe, to almost tell them without words "I'm gay btw!")
1
[deleted]
•
21d ago
Abracadaniel95
OP •
2y ago
Same. To be honest, if being gay is the biggest part of their identity, then I don't find them particularly interesting on a personal level. Doesn't seem like there's a whole lot of substance there. It's like if someone made their eye color the biggest part of their identity. If the most interesting thing about you is something you didn't choose for yourself, then you must be a dreadfully boring person.
2
u/Digital-Boomer avatar
Digital-Boomer
•
4mo ago
I'm a man who prefers to have sex with passive men. But this is just one single facette of me.
Overall I'm a man who feels masculine and who celebrates his masculinity. I'm open about beingbgay to certain people. Also colleagues, but they respect me, because I don't behave effeminated.
And to be honrst, I really dislike gay men who behave like women. Trans are disgusting.
1
r33c3d
•
1y ago
I think some gay guys are just effeminate by nature. Which is awesome. But it seems to me that most gay men adopt aspects of effeminate behavior in a performative way — especially after coming out or entering into an established gay community. Actually I wouldn’t refer to this behavior as “effeminate”, but more something like “queer”. It’s affected to be surprising, unexpected, individualistic and, quite often, humorous. It’s not consistent behavior; but it changes depending on social context. I would never say this behavior isn’t authentic to the community , but I don’t think it’s completely authentic/organic to the individuals that express it.
I live in Portland OR, which has seen a huge influx of queer people from all around in the last several years. The city’s gay community has become very queered since then, to the point that even traditional masc bars like The Eagle will only have a small minority of patrons that present masculine. It’s been pretty cool for the most part. But as a ‘naturally’? masc gay man, I have noticed a lot more discomfort and hostility from other queers when I’m around. As if the presence of a masc guy is threatening or signals Proud Boy vibes. It’s as if the community truly believes that a gay man who presents masculine (whether he’s aware of it or not) is self-hating and automatically incompatible with more femme people. I’m really happy people are so comfortable being more feminine now. But I wish it didn’t come with the assumption that masc guys are faking it or trying to act ‘superior’.
1
u/Jotokozol avatar
Jotokozol
•
1y ago
Some gay men blend masculinity and femininity, so to me, some of the guys out there are expressing “their version” of masculinity. Like if you work out a decent amount, or have masculine hair/beard but also wear some silly fishnet thing. It’s like just trying to be fun. I’m still working on how or if I want to embrace that side of being gay.
1
u/timhealsallwounds avatar
timhealsallwounds
•
1y ago
In regards to your first sentence - could you identify some traits that gay men or hetero women are born with ("by nature")?
1
u/Jotokozol avatar
Jotokozol
•
1y ago
I agree with the lack of attraction, but I certainly don’t think attraction plays a big role in why people act campy as they come out. It didn’t for me at the time. I can’t even really remember why I did that, but it was like a “more fun” way to be gay.
"
"
The use of increasingly problematic terms such as "no femmes", "no queens", and "masc4masc" on gay dating apps is designed to exclude femme men from certain relationships. While a preference in partner and natural turn-ons or turn-offs is natural and acceptable, many challenge the idea of prejudice against feminine gay men from members of the LGBTQIA+ community. The idea that all gay men must exhibit feminine traits, or that men who exhibit classically feminine expressions are queer, is a growing reason for both closeted gay men and effeminate straight men. Many feel the need to hide their femininity to avoid these clichés and stereotypes.[12]
In a Brazilian study, queer men who harbor negative beliefs about effeminacy suffered from internalized homophobia more often than those who do not view effeminacy as negative. The study divided these self-identifying gay or bisexual men into three groups - those who wanted to be less or more feminine, or were happy where they were. Researchers found the issue to be not with individual tastes or preferences, but rather, the societal constructs surrounding femininity and presented the idea of how the rejection of femininity is tied to the rejection of the gay or queer identities. This study, while widely accepted, did contain blind spots as it only examined Brazilian self-identifying men, as these beliefs may vary between cultures and ethnicities.[13]
"
"
The Limp Wrist and other "gay behaviors"
I do the "limp wrist", but recently my sister pointed out that I never did that before I came out. It was such a small thing, but it's been on my mind a lot for a while. Then I remembered that in Do I Sound Gay? they mention that maybe it's possible that we internalize stereotypes from a very young age that eventually can turn into self-fulfilling prophecies. IIRC Jonathan Van Ness mentions in one episode of Queer Eye that he never had to come out because he has been as flamboyant as he is his whole life.
Do you have any of those stereotypical gay things, like the limp wrist or the voice? Did these things come about before or after coming out? I just find these things so very fascinating.
"
"
What is with the flamboyantly gay?
I am a straight male and I have only a few gay friends, but I always defend gay rights and gay marriage. I have always wondered (and never asked) why so many gay males feel the need to be flamboyant... I can understand being gay, but why does this necessitate being effeminate or speaking with a lisp? Part me thinks that this is just socially learned behavior and they do this because that is their learned perception on how a gay person is supposed to act. But perhaps there is a biological root to this... Anyone able to explain this?
"
"
Scholars have debated the extent to which gender identity and gender-specific behaviors are due to socialization versus biological factors.[5]: 29 [26][27] Social and biological influences are thought to be mutually interacting during development.[5]: 29 [4]: 218–225 Studies of prenatal androgen exposure have provided some evidence that femininity and masculinity are partly biologically determined.[3]: 8–9 [4]: 153–154 Other possible biological influences include evolution, genetics, epigenetics, and hormones (both during development and in adulthood).[5]: 29–31 [3]: 7–13 [4]: 153–154
In 1959, researchers such as John Money and Anke Ehrhardt proposed the prenatal hormone theory. Their research argues that sexual organs bathe the embryo with hormones in the womb, resulting in the birth of an individual with a distinctively male or female brain; this was suggested by some to "predict future behavioral development in a masculine or feminine direction".[28] This theory, however, has been criticized on theoretical and empirical grounds and remains controversial.[29][30] In 2005, scientific research investigating sex differences in psychology showed that gender expectations and stereotype threat affect behavior, and a person's gender identity can develop as early as three years of age.[31] Money also argued that gender identity is formed during a child's first three years.[27]
People who exhibit a combination of both masculine and feminine characteristics are considered androgynous, and feminist philosophers have argued that gender ambiguity may blur gender classification.[32][33] Modern conceptualizations of femininity also rely not just upon social constructions, but upon the individualized choices made by women.[34]
Philosopher Mary Vetterling-Braggin argues that all characteristics associated with femininity arose from early human sexual encounters which were mainly male-forced and female-unwilling, because of male and female anatomical differences.[35][page needed] Others, such as Carole Pateman, Ria Kloppenborg, and Wouter J. Hanegraaff, argue that the definition of femininity is the result of how females must behave in order to maintain a patriarchal social system.[24][36]
In his 1998 book Masculinity and Femininity: the Taboo Dimension of National Cultures, Dutch psychologist and researcher Geert Hofstede wrote that only behaviors directly connected with procreation can, strictly speaking, be described as feminine or masculine, and yet every society worldwide recognizes many additional behaviors as more suitable to females than males, and vice versa. He describes these as relatively arbitrary choices mediated by cultural norms and traditions, identifying "masculinity versus femininity" as one of five basic dimensions in his theory of cultural dimensions. Hofstede describes as feminine behaviors including service, permissiveness, and benevolence, and describes as feminine those countries stressing equality, solidarity, quality of work-life, and the resolution of conflicts by compromise and negotiation.[37][38]
In Carl Jung's school of analytical psychology, the anima and animus are the two primary anthropomorphic archetypes of the unconscious mind. The anima and animus are described by Jung as elements of his theory of the collective unconscious, a domain of the unconscious that transcends the personal psyche. In the unconscious of the male, it finds expression as a feminine inner personality: anima; equivalently, in the unconscious of the female, it is expressed as a masculine inner personality: animus.[39]
"
When adult men imitate their teenage daughters they act like flamboyant gay men, but modern teenage culture is also heavily influenced by gay youth culture which was influenced by gay culture as depicted in various forms of media and gay influencers and entertainment gossip and drama influencers as well as their being involved in the beauty and fashion industry.
A lot of "alt" people are contrarion or at least contrary to expectations and so support things one might not expect based on their appearance or other things they accept or promote, so "traditional values" for example, and things have become a very complicated and difficult to unravel mixture of ideas, often radically disparate and often seemingly incompatible or mutually exclusive, but people manage to smash all those inconsistencies together, and there can be some semblance of a thread which ties their ideas together.
Re: More on Gender Trouble
Posted: Thu Jan 29, 2026 2:02 am
by kFoyauextlH
Amazingly the A.I. seems to be able to pick up on the exact combination: