Butch/Femme Dynamic vs "Masculinity" and "Femininity"

[EnderD_503]

First of all, just wanted to say thanks to everyone who replied. There are a few things I want to respond to, and won't respond to others right away as I want to develop my thoughts on those a little more.

Originally Posted by Slater

While it is interesting to look at the etymology of the words masculine or feminine, I don't think we need to feel too strictly constrained by original meanings. Language evolves as society evolves. Our culture is not the same as it was centuries ago so it is no surprise that our language needs to change along with it to reflect new realities and new understandings.

I don't see masculine and feminine as highly precise words and they depend on cultural context (which is going to be frustrating to someone trying to come up with a concrete definition). They get us in the neighborhood but they aren't by themselves going to get us to the very doorstep of someone's identity.

Except that we aren't just talking etymology within a historical context. The words "masculine" and "feminine" have very specific meanings, and especially if we're going to retain words like "man," "woman," "male" and "female" within our language, because they are directly related in modern societies. "Masculine" and "feminine" continue to be defined in the same way they were over 2000 years ago, in so far as they are still understood by the majority as "that which pertains to males/females."

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?

Originally Posted by Slater

Finally, labels that are truly limitless are also labels that are useless. If it can include anything then it tells us nothing.

I don't think it's useless at all, actually. Quite the contrary. If we consider that certain labels related to sexuality and gender identity have been created out of necessity in response to heteronormative society's war on certain sexual acts and "gender" variance, and its creation of words like homosexuality/bisexuality/transsexual in order to define what they considered to be a psychological or moral disease, then the retaking of these labels becomes necessary. But we have to realise that these "diseases" and "characteristics" that they've created for us (that is still present in the DSM in order to "diagnose" certain "gender variant mental illnesses" today), are in many respects contemporary. They aren't fixed. To pretend that they are fixed, or that "all" of X identity possesses such and such a characteristic is unrealistic and inaccurate.

And that's where I see a bit of a contradiction in your post. On the one hand your saying that language is constantly change (which it is, and yet we still retain certain meanings to words, especially those related to areas of life, or perhaps social roles, which have very many similarities over time), and so we cannot define masculine and feminine as the Romans did. This much is true in that we do not entirely consider the same things as "manly" as the Romans did. However, we, as a society, do still consider "masculine" to mean "manly."

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"?

Originally Posted by The_Lady_Snow

If we're talking hook up specific then somehow Femme, Butch, Guy, Girl, Boy Man have to be viewed as equal on the value scale and once again I say this that the binary hetrenormative expectations of what is feminine / masculine are erased it is then that fluidity and non gender confirmation will be accepted. If we're talking dating I have to say it's ridiculously hard to date because a Femme has to be like..

This is something that definitely makes sense to me, and kind of is what I'm starting to get into in this same post in response to Slater. But if that's the case, should we not be reserving the limited binary language related to "masculine" and "feminine" for our interactions with the heteronormative world? Yes, heteronormativity/heterosexism/cissexism still exists in the LGBTQ community, but it's still a community in which we can more easily discard the language we use to communicate with the "outside" world when communicating with one another.

But I agree, these expectations need to be erased before we can truly come into an age of fluidity where these words are no longer needed to communicate with certain portions of the population.

I still think that when communicating with one another, the language of the heternormative binary becomes unnecessary. At least in my opinion.

Originally Posted by AtLastHome

Two-spirit thought on gender has always struck me as a way to explore many of your thoughts and ideas here, Ender. Something that I have learned for myself is that fluidity in gender feels like "home." Fluidity in gender concepts and language, although terribly difficult to find in western thought, is right there in front of us in native cultures. This is true all over the world.

I disagree to some extent. I find, for myself anyways, that the North American Aboriginal concept of Two-Spirit is a bit inadequate for what I'm trying to get at. It still requires a spectrum where masculine lies on one end and feminine on the other. Man and woman/masculine and feminine are still presupposed, but instead of being exclusive to one sex, they meet within one person. But it still requires that duality.

The one area where the Two-Spirit concept has its advantage is that it is rooted in a culture that is largely an oral culture, and where the real history of sex/gender is not as verifiable through that oral tradition as it is in a literary tradition. All we can really do is look to archaeology and mythology.

Whereas what I'm trying to get at is the actual definition of masculinity to those who see it as divorced from its origin as that which pertains to gender role expectations of the cissexed male.

Originally Posted by Daywalker

There are parts of the World that recognize and celebrate 3rd, 4th, and
5th Gendered folks. We could learn a lot in the Western World by studying
this 'phenomenon'; but we seem to be busy sweeping it all under the rug,
viewing it as a 'complication' or Taboo or as something that needs to
remain buried so that our laws, and ways can still function as is.

We can see how far that has gotten us.

I think when we talk about 3rd/4th gender people being celebrated in other non-Western cultures we're being a little romantic. Yes, some cultures, like Thai culture, recognise other sexes and genders than just male/masculine and female/feminine, but their place within that culture is not exactly celebrated or even treated with respect.

But I definitely agree that Western society could learn from Thai/South Asian cultures' recognition of a diversity in sex and gender that are not dependent on the Western accepted "male," female," "feminine" and "masculine." Actually, Germanic society and other northern European societies did have similar concepts before the imposition of Christianity on northern Europeans (and even among the Romans and Greeks). It's unfortunate that 1500 years of Christian rule erased that. Maybe Western culture can reintroduce similar concepts by immersing itself in cultures like those in South Asia, which definitely recognise a pretty huge diversity in sex/gender/sexuality.


Thanks again to everyone who posted. I'm really interested in continuing to hear your ideas on this, so hopefully we can keep this thread going