On Maleness, MaleID/Trans Masculinity, Expectations and Being "Less of a Man"

[EnderD_503]

Originally Posted by apocalipstic

I am very interestrd ion knowing ay what point men become Men. Is it when they say they do?

What separates men and women?

Is there a difference?

If men can play on womens teams and have babies...is gender important at all?

I sincerely am asking.

I'm happy you brought this up, apocalipstic! I think the questions you've asked are questions often asked by many in society as well, and sometimes I think they are spawned by fear of an unknown future, or perhaps living in a world where they no longer have a clear use of definitions/categories that have been present for centuries and longer. Or maybe it's just not being able to grasp how we would interact as people. I don't know.

As far as men becoming Men, in my opinion a man is a man when he thinks it. Being born thinking one's gender/sex isn't a choice. It isn't a "today I become male/man," and that's part of the reason I have issues with the term "transition." Thinking myself as male is not a choice I made, nor a choice others have made. I had no more choice in it than a biological male who takes for granted that his brain and body are united.

A person doesn't necessarily just transform into their gender/sex with surgeries and hormone therapy. They always were what they were no matter what he or she underwent to physically change, and that is not dependant on what others think of the person. But it can be painful to see and hear what others think of them as far as their gender/sex. Young trans children don't often question their gender until they are forced to question their gender by society, which usually happens at a young age. When someone is male despite their biologically, they simply are male. They don't become male. I'm not sure if that makes sense. The problem is that society is dependant on the visual, when what identifies him as male when he first begins to be conscious of his sex/gender is psychological.

So in modern society there are two processes of "being": 1)what a person understands/know/considers of themselves, 2)what the rest of society sees/acknowledges/believes. That's where the problems start, imo.

As for what separates men and women, I think that question is becoming more and more complicated. There is always an exception, and the more we learn the more we realise that exception to the rule isn't alone. To me, the only thing that might be said to separate all men (biologically male or otherwise) from all women (again, biologically female or otherwise) is the way the brain interprets itself. Does it inherently understand itself as "she" or "he" or something else entirely? What does it picture when it pictures itself? The mind always knows what it is, but at some point the body catches up (or in some cases it can't due to individual circumstances) and only, then, does the average modern person recognise the individual as they've always understood themselves to be.

Is there a difference? I think people like to create more differences than actually exist. Yes, there are physical/biological differences between those born female and those born male. But man and woman are abstract concepts, imo, unlike claiming someone as biologically/neurologically male or female. And even male and female are becoming abstract as the scope of what humans are capable of technologically continues to change, not to mention as we become more and more aware of the complexity of the human brain and human gender and sexuality. I think the "differences" differ from individual to individual.

As far as your last question, my question is: should gender be important at all? Do we even need to say "gender is important/not important." To some people it is, to others it isn't. I think a big part of the reason why many of us here consider it important is because society often refuses to recognise us as we are.

I know why exploring, writing and speaking about gender is important in the modern age where there is still a lot of discrimination and misunderstanding, and I fully support and participate in that. But should gender, in a better, more ideal future, be important? Why should it be important if/when, in the future, everyone is accepted as they are? Or, I guess what I mean is: does gender have to be important to everyone/society at large? To personalise it: I know myself to be male, inherently (in that I know inherently, not that I am inherently biologically male, since, unfortunately, I wasn't born the way I would have wanted). I think about it a lot today and consider it an important part of my life today, yet when I think about why, the answer largely revolves around the fact that I've spent most of my life not being recognised as male. That is why it became so important. Because I didn't have school programmes telling me about my gender/sex and sexuality in school like most others around me. Because discrimination and misinformation and invisibility still exists in society.

If the world didn't make judgements about us, would we have to spend so much time thinking about the importance of our gender? I don't know, I've never lived in such a world.

Ultimately, the sum of a man/transman/male is not that he has given birth, or impregnated another, or slept with someone of the same/opposite sex/gender, or done whatever it is he's done. It's who he understands and knows himself to be beyond all the additional interests, preferences and actions that have been gendered by human society. Those gendered factors don't make a man a man...if that were enough then every tom boy in the world would be a man/boy because they have traditionally masculine interests, or might not want to give birth, or whatever it is that makes them stereotypically incongruent with what is "female/feminine." But they don't, and they aren't men, at the end of the day, because they don't identify, recognise or understand themselves as such.

Again, hopefully I'm making some sense.

@Bulldog:

Many transmen have said both publicly and privately to me they don't think a man should be playing on a women's team and don't understand why they would want to in the first place. I don't think it has anything to do with them thinking anyone is less of a man at all. To me they are recognizing the privileged aspects of it. I totally get why men would want to play sports with other men. It makes sense to me.

Co-ed sports- I have seen rather dismal results, although I think theoretically it could work. I have seen co-ed softball teams where there are rules on how many women must be on the team and field at one time. The women are stuck in right field and other places less likely to see a lot of action. They play the minimum amount of innings and when the ball is hit their way a man jumps in front of them to catch the ball.

Many transmen may have said this to you. It may make sense to you and others that men would want to play sports with other men and not women. It is still possible for a transman/male id to feel otherwise, even if the majority don't feel that way. I don't think those who don't feel the way the majority do should be judged or shunned from women's teams because they feel differently. They do exist. My question is: if there is a transman (not on T) who prefers to play on female teams rather than male teams (despite that other transmen may not feel the same way), why is it a problem? If he is more comfortable among women than men, why would he be disrespectful of his female teammates? I don't think this disrespect is a rule.

The example of jumping in front of the ball, placing women where they'll see the least amount of action is often based on the premise that women aren't naturally athletically inclined and would miss/not perform properly etc....I don't see why a transguy/male id who was not on T would even do these things if, hormonally, he is on an even playing field with his teammates beyond what innate ability he may or may not have been given, or the product of dedication to practice. Obviously, everyone on a top notch team is dedicated to the sport, so it's not as though there are unwilling participants who don't give it their all.

Someone who is on T is a different issue, imo, since testosterone accelerates the rate of strength/speed/muscle gains, despite that there are female athletes who could match the strength/speed of many male athletes (though often they have to worker harder to get there).