Gender

Please feel free to use the sidebar to contact me about any issues or confusion the following page may introduce.

Personal "gender"

Genuinely, I don't care enough to think about what gender I may or may not be at any given time, when considering the historical use of and definition of "gender". I have no problem expressing feminine, masculine, or other forms of "gendered" mannerisms. Doing something "as a man" or social related tasks "because I am not female" are phrases that do not make sense to me.

As such, it would be simpler for others and myself if I identify myself with a non-binary gender identity. This has a concrete definition as explained below, instead of . Being evaluated and responded to as a human foremost, instead of being subject to a person's ever-inconsistent interpretation of how masculine or feminine I am, is overall more efficient if I am up front about saying that I am not specifically within the confines of any one gender.

While I generally don't feel the need to pick "a side" when it comes to gender expression or formalities, I tend to end up expressing myself as masculine due to both being genetically of the male sex, and also because gear and clothing intended for males tend to be more practical and durable. Think things like pockets in clothing, and materials being function over form. But I won't restrict myself to masculine habits just because I am physically male, because there is nothing naturally masculine or feminine about a piece of cloth or color.

Pronouns

At one point, I didn't mind whatever pronouns a person used. I really hated them all in reality because they all did the same thing: box me in with traits that don't actually apply to me. So there wasn't really any specific aversion for one over the other.

However, pronouns are the entrypoint of having people direct gender stereotypes towards a person, which is not always an issue for most people! However, the more comfortable a person gets to using "he" or "she" for me, the more comfortable they got associating me with gendered traits, which becomes problematic as they discover traits that don't actually align to the gender they are assigning to me.

So please, I only go by they/them and other neutral descriptors. Stating upforth that I don't match the persona that's dreamed up by anyone's concept of "a man" or "a woman" reduces further conflict. Please keep that in mind; it is only respectful. It is only respectful if I do the same and refer to you to your appropriate pronouns too, no matter if your gender matches your sex or not.

I generally prefer to be introduced to others with my middle name, North, as well.

Definition of gender

Unlike sex, which describes a physical and biological makeup of an organism for the purpose of reproduction, gender is a non-physical trait exclusive to humans, as a byproduct of our societal awareness. Gender is a collection of societally-defined expectations and customs for each sex. For most people, they either match these expectations or they otherwise take no issue with conforming to them. For other people, their character and actions don't match the assumptions and expectations that their society places on them due to their sex. The person afflicted with this often experiences feelings of displacement because they are told that they should be exhibiting a number of traits that they do not naturally possess. This may eventually lead to a dysphoric everyday life experience, depending on the person's willingness to cover their natural traits and conform with societal expectations.

Over time, having to constantly hide themselves or "put on a mask" to avoid beration may become equally as poor of an experience as before.

So some of these people assert that they do not exhibit traits that are normally expected of members of their sex, and may change their name and appearance to match whichever is stereotypical of the group they associate with. In sum, this is the concept of gender dysphoria and transgenderism.

Let me make this simple: Gender is rapidly becoming socially outdated. This isn't a simple opinion, nor a display of being "woke", it is an observable event.

There is a reason pets and babies of either sex do not show any natural preference to the socially defined standards of what is masculine or feminine, such as blue versus pink, racecars versus flowers, cute versus grisly. While non-human animals generally don't later adopt this learned behaviour, humans do.

What exactly do these represent? Masculinity generally is associated with brash, bold, and risky behaviour. The primary sex hormones for males is testosterone, which is a key factor for increased bone and muscle development. These qualities led male humans of millennia-past to naturally excel at tasks that require high strength and physical durability. Tasks such as breadwinning for the tribe were necessary during these times and male humans had an undeniable natural aptitude to do so. It shouldn't come too much as a surprise that when the first societies formed, their members associated males with physical strength and aggression. This classification of traits, roles, and expectations based upon a person's sex is called a gender. To be explicit, a gender is not a physical or observable trait. To be more explicit, many of these roles and traits are no longer required or observed with modern humans, who have the mental capacity for impulse control and unique ability to learn specific desired behavior.

Before we are even born, we are often celebrated for the genitals that we possess as a baby. After we are born, we are adorned with socially masculine and feminine clothing and segregated to play amongst those with similar bodies. Babies are often biased towards one gender extreme before they learn the alphabet. This behaviour being passed down from parents and reinforced during childhood is what strengthens the concept of a gender binary: the idea that there are two extremes that a person needs to adhere to, based on their physical sex.

In the current day, I see this as a self-defeating concept. If gender cannot be used to significantly prejudge someone, or it is not based on objective immutable traits, it doesn't serve a very functional purpose, does it?

If I were to make blind assumptions on someone based on their gender, I would be fueling severe dysphoria for someone else, even if both are cisgender (consistent with society's expectation of a person's sex). If being feminine was to be regal and dainty, then a woman who has been bold and upstanding for her entire life, expressing more masculine traits rather than feminine may not feel that she is, in fact, a woman - even is she knows she is female. This can become a conflict when the very fact that she is female becomes a limiting factor in society, being excluded or prejudged against the mere fact that she is female. This person may relate to her male friends and their experiences more closely than her female friends and their experiences. However, she is told by society that she must assimilate with the rest of the members of her sex, even if it goes against her principles and character. It would have been easier for this person if they were born as a male, because they wouldn't have to limit or seclude their identity because their identity would now be expected of them.

In a perfect world, the concept of being "assigned" a gender doesn't exist at all, and no one's gender is assumed in the first place based off of their sex.

If I were to assume "all women" had a stereotypical trait, but it turned out that any specific cisgender woman didn't, wouldn't that be counter-intuitive and wrong for me to assume that there's something wrong with that woman? In my opinion, many of these problems could be averted if society moves towards a gender-neutral makeup. While not fully eliminated, dysphoria could be lessened from the result of a lesser impact on gender in day-to-day life. People wouldn’t feel out of place due to these often-incorrect assumptions about their character and abilities based on definitions of gender that vary from person to person.

Of course, despite this, there are certain fundamental differences in both sexes, both physically and hormonal. The male gender is associated with aggression, physical strength, and leadership roles due to biological and hormonal catalysts for this behavior naturally existing in the corresponding sex. Historically, this led to males being objectively better equipped fits for related roles, and over time, these competencies became stronger as they continued to be utilised. A natural example of evolution.

An example of accepted sexism would be how a female in marriage traditionally takes the male’s last name, but not the other way around. Unlike wed males, who stay as a mister, a female in marriage becomes a mistress (Mrs.) from former status of “miss”, implying that their value or status changes depending on if they have a token husband or not. There are entire languages which are founded on gendered grammar, where nouns are gendered based on a degree of masculinity or femininity of that noun. And a lot of this ends up being self-contradictory or self-limiting.

What is masculine in America could be highly feminine in Africa. Many of the gender roles that are currently being observed, only continue to do so, due to people feeling as if they need to conform to them as per formality, or what’s expected of them – an inherently societal issue. The influence of biological factors favoring certain sexes over others in certain tasks still undeniably exists, albeit, to an increasingly lesser degree than it has been historically.

The term “feminist” is really terrible, as it implies a catering more towards females and less towards equality for humanity itself, despite the actual goal of the movement. You don’t demand equality for two different subjects while going out of your way to highlight that there is a difference between those subjects. You stop highlighting the differences if you want to bring attention away from them, or acknowledge them on an equal field.

As an example, unless you are tasked with identifying a person or doing anything medical related, refer to a person as “man”, not “[insert race here] man”. Would it not be patronising and counterintuitive to praise someone for a mundane achievement just on the basis of the color of their skin? You would be implying that it is uncommon for a person of that race to achieve this mundane task. That's even more of an insult than insulting the race directly.

• “Oh, that’s impressive… for a [insert race here] guy.”
• “We are so proud that we have had 500 [insert race here] graduates this year!”

What does that achieve? Calling attention to things like this undermines the concept of “equality”; it is implying that the achievement is abnormal compared to the rest of the race. It is therefore inherently prejudicial to assume that other people of that race are incapable or otherwise exemplary of certain achievements.

The work that individuals do ends up being cast to the side and the fact that they are part of a specific group is now what becomes showcased.