Quote:
Originally Posted by EnderD_503
However, if we continue down the train of thought you're expressing here, then it becomes necessary for me to ask you how you define "masculine" and "feminine," if you do not perceive them as related to the two popularly accepted sexes in any way. If you divorce "masculine" from certain characteristics attributes to cissexed males, how, then, do you personally define it?
|
To me they have in them an element of role. The linkage to sexes is secondary to the linkage to a cultural role. Because gender roles have been so rigidly tied to a sexual binary, they are often regarded as synonymous. They don't have to be. As I said, I don't think there will ever be a satisfyingly concrete definition for either masculine or feminine, at least not one that doesn't rely so heavily on outmoded stereotypes as to be irrelevant. I think, for example, that most people recognize that someone can be athletic and still be feminine, or not be athletic and still be masculine. And are there really that many people who would argue that someone feminine cannot also be strong? I would argue that strength and athleticism are not inherently masculine characteristics. They are characteristics that can be expressed by masculine people or feminine people or people who are a combination of the two or who are none of the above. They are simply characteristics. It is how we express our characteristics, the cultural role we embody, that determines whether that expression is masculine, feminine, or something else.
And no, I don't think it is possible to nail down an
exact definition of what constitutes a masculine role versus a feminine role, versus an androgynous role, etc. Because I don't think there is ever going to be precise agreement. That is why I said those words are only ever going to get us in the neighborhood of someone's identity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EnderD_503
But back to the beginning of that last paragraph. On the one hand you're saying that language is ever changing, and on the other hand your saying that limitless labels are useless. And so how, then, are you defining "masculine" and "feminine" if you consider them to have changed from their original meaning? Do you believe that a butch or a femme is able to define their own form of masculinity or femininity? If so, how do you reconcile that with your argument that limitless labels are useless? Does this mean that butches or femmes who define themselves as masculine or feminine can only do so within a certain framework, before they've crossed the "limit"?
|
I don't see a contradiction between saying that language evolves
over time and saying that for a label to have any utility at all it must, at a given time, have some sort of boundaried meaning. If for instance, we were to say that every person on the planet could reasonably identify as a butch because the label is limitless, then someone identifying as butch tells us nothing whatsoever about them.
Certainly there is nothing stopping someone from using a label in a way that is far outside any common usage of the term. But if they do, they won't be able to communicate much of anything about themselves in a way that can be understood by anyone else.