☆
☆Luna☆
Guest
So, I'm just going to say thank you for such a thoughtful response. It is kinda awesome that you take the time to find scholarly articles just to respond to me. I more or less just respond with the information that is top of mind with a few of my own personal observations thrown in the mix. All the information is a great resource for a deeper understanding of the subject. But, just so you know, you didn't come up as confrontational at all, and I'm 100% with you there on the jargon, that really needs to stop.
The OP originally just means to state that the existing need for to understand sex through gender might be reinforcing heteronormitivity. However, in response to comments, I've been made to describe in further detail the process in which this happens.
To make this point in my expanded response, I introduce the concepts of normalcy, deviancy, the utility of an established normal gender performance which is in binary with sex, and lastly how this normal potentially limits who people choose to have sexual relations with. Hopefully that clarifies the framework of my reasoning, I think it answers a lot of the questions you present.
I bring up a lot of different areas to make my third response, and you definitely address and expand on those points.I am slightly confused by the way you word your questions. Please bear with me, and if my tone comes across as confrontational, I am not deliberately being so.
The OP originally just means to state that the existing need for to understand sex through gender might be reinforcing heteronormitivity. However, in response to comments, I've been made to describe in further detail the process in which this happens.
To make this point in my expanded response, I introduce the concepts of normalcy, deviancy, the utility of an established normal gender performance which is in binary with sex, and lastly how this normal potentially limits who people choose to have sexual relations with. Hopefully that clarifies the framework of my reasoning, I think it answers a lot of the questions you present.
This is absolutely what I'm talking about though. Being able to initiate courtship is extremely important. While there are many people like you who want to work past the limitations of the system, the fact that effort must be put forward to get to the ideal outcome shows the dysfunction. In many cases, people don't even realize that it is something to be worked past, or understand the consequences of continuing on without adapting.Physical attraction may be needed to start courtship, but it is certainly not the most important by far in a relationship - research has shown that we find our partners more beautiful and more endearing over time.
And this question is also fascinating. Gender performance is in some cases done to assert in which way they might be found attractive, but it is also many other roles. All I can really say here is that there is a lot to learn about why people do the gender they do. I don't claim to understand it, I just understand enough to have a discussion. Thank you for bringing this up.Is it gender performing to be physically attractive? If one gender performs as a physically attractive person, then it is possible that there will be negative consequences because the person who is attracted has a clear biological expectation (post-op discussion excluded). However, there are far less extreme cases of gender performance, like stereotypical macho men, effeminate men, tomboys, princesses, etc. where the gender performance really does not affect physical attraction. Therefore, it seems that there is some sort of line drawn when gender performance encroaches on the territory of physical attraction.