The Ethics of Gender (and Identity)
Typically, when we call someone a woman or a man we mean to call out something about the person themselves. This may be their biological sex or it may be their personal sense of self, or something else altogether. For the purposes of this discussion that's not immediately relevant. What matters is that we have this general sense of gender in mind when we consider an alternative:
Instead of understanding gender as a personal attribute, Sally Haslanger has argued that we should understand gender as a social class. In other words, gender becomes an observation about the sort of social position one occupies rather than about the sort of person one is. To say that someone is a woman is not to say that they are female or identify as feminine (or etc). Rather, it is to say that they occupy a certain sort of position in society because of how they are perceived and how this causes them to be treated.
Haslanger specifically identifies a woman as someone who is (1) perceived as female, (2) who is subject to beliefs about their correct social role because of that perception, and (3) who occupies a socially subjugated position as a result of that perception and the contingent beliefs. A man is defined similarly, but in terms of maleness and occupying a privileged position.
I disagree with Haslanger's specific definitions insofar as I think she's too dichotomous in how she thinks about subjugation and privilege. I think there are very relevant ways in which males may be subjugated and females privileged on the basis of perceived sex, and that we need a model that accounts for that. (For instance, the disproportionate loss of custody battles or the expectation to be unemotional.) I have some other concerns, but they're tangential to the immediate discussion.
What I take to be of interest in Haslanger's theory is the larger point that we should think of gender in terms of our beliefs and their impact on our relationships with one another, instead of as something about a person. I think this allows us to think more openly and critically about our ideas of sex and gender, so that we can assess whether our beliefs have the consequences we'd like them to have. Gender ceases to have value in and of itself and is instead understood to have value only insofar as it accomplishes what we want it to.
Once we've done this with gender we can do it with other identity concepts, such as race or class or nationality. I believe this is not only preferable because we are forced to evaluate whether these concepts are accomplishing what we want them to, but because it forces us to either justify or reject any prejudices embedded in our identity concepts. (Full disclosure, I don't think these concepts can be defended and advocate a radical individualism... but that's another discussion!)
Question: Is it more or less ethical to think of gender (or identity broadly) as a personal attribute or a social position? Why?
Reference 1: Haslanger (Primary Source)
Reference 2: Jenkins (Interesting Response)
|
It seems strange that much of the world has decided that gender (or even sex) is completely malleable, while traits such as assertiveness or compassion have somewhat fixed gender associations. We identify courage as a masculine trait, and courageous women as being somewhat manly. Nurturing is a feminine thing to do so nurturing men are somehow other than completely male on an ill-defined supposed spectrum. It’s really absurd. Haslanger specifically identifies a woman as someone who is (1) perceived as female, (2) who is subject to beliefs about their correct social role because of that perception, and (3) who occupies a socially subjugated position as a result of that perception and the contingent beliefs. A man is defined similarly, but in terms of maleness and occupying a privileged position. Queen Victoria, Katherine the Great, and Queen “Bloody” Mary would have all been surprised to find out that they aren’t women according to Haslanger. Haslanger’s #3 is the worst of her stated traits. To be a woman is to necessarily be subjugated, as if she cannot conceive of the stereotype of an domineering mother or in-law. Or maybe she is referring to the kind of societal subjugation that privileges men to be vastly disproportionately murdered, imprisoned, and sent to war. Consider Haslanger’s #1 for a moment. A woman is perceived as female. Does this condition persist when the woman is alone and not currently perceiving herself? Is there some other factor that causes people to perceive her as female? Perhaps some kind of existential physical qualities that do not alter regardless of perception? Perhaps the notion of objectivity in gender is just a step too far... To answer the question, it is more ethical to think of gender as an individual attribute rather than as a social position. Identity (derived from identification) is not up for a vote. It is not a matter of opinion. A thing’s identity is what it is. Accurate categorization helps us orient ourselves to the world around us, which is independent of our opinions, not subject to them. A woman with character traits most often associated with a man is still a woman. She has a character which is relatively unique among women, but she is a woman. The converse is true as well. A person born with a genetic condition that puts them outside of the two sexes, is outside of the two sexes. Whether to adopt one or neither is their prerogative, but they need to be slow to judge those who do not know how to address them. They should be forthright about their condition with any perspective partners. Perspective partners have also have moral obligations concerning the matter A person who is genetically one sex, but feels compelled to undergo chemical and physical synthetic gender transformation, has a hard road ahead of them. They probably shouldn’t take irreversible measures, for their own sake. If that’s what they decide to do, they too need to be forthright about the state of their genetic sex to perspective partners. It IS the perspective partner’s business. People need to be honest and peaceful for society to be a worthwhile endeavor. Claiming that men can be women on a whim, and forcing others to accept it, is neither honest nor peaceful. While I expect that we have arrived at this moment due, in part, to a lack of peace experienced by people with atypical gender issues, that violence is becoming less and less of an issue. It needs to be no issue at all. We don’t get their by lying about identity. It seems strange that much of the world has decided that gender (or even sex) is completely malleable, while traits such as assertiveness or compassion have somewhat fixed gender associations. We identify courage as a masculine trait, and courageous women as being somewhat manly. Nurturing is a feminine thing to do so nurturing men are somehow other than completely male on an ill-defined supposed spectrum. It’s really absurd. That understanding of masculinity and femininity is common today, but isn't significantly more fixed than gender or sex. For instance, crying only became non-masculine around the 17th century in Europe and there are documented historical cases of masculinity and crying being paired together as consistent attributes (e.g. Odysseus in the Iliad, Jesus in the Bible, etc.) Queen Victoria, Katherine the Great, and Queen “Bloody” Mary would have all been surprised to find out that they aren’t women according to Haslanger. Haslanger’s #3 is the worst of her stated traits. To be a woman is to necessarily be subjugated, as if she cannot conceive of the stereotype of an domineering mother or in-law. Or maybe she is referring to the kind of societal subjugation that privileges men to be vastly disproportionately murdered, imprisoned, and sent to war. Haslanger acknowledges that under her definition some people whom we're accustomed to regarding as women would no longer count as women. However, she argues that these aren't really people we're concerned about precisely because they aren't socially subjugated. The function of her definitions is to call out the phenomenon of social inequity that exists due to class-based distinctions like gender (indeed, with the ultimate goal that there will be no women or men). Haslanger's idea of a "socially subordinated/privileged position" entails being subordinated/privileged overall, so I think it can allow for some particular cases of male subordination. However, I think that's insufficient and am inclined to agree with your objection here. The cases you've called attention to seem like cases that we ought really to be concerned with. I don't think this is an insurmountable obstacle for a social class theory approach, although it is a problem for Haslanger's particular theory. Consider Haslanger’s #1 for a moment. A woman is perceived as female. Does this condition persist when the woman is alone and not currently perceiving herself? Is there some other factor that causes people to perceive her as female? Perhaps some kind of existential physical qualities that do not alter regardless of perception? Perhaps the notion of objectivity in gender is just a step too far... Haslanger is concerned with overall social position and experience, so one could still plausibly be a woman so long as one is not generally unperceived. In that event, or in any other case where the criteria aren't satisfied generally, she would say the person in question is not a woman and be fine with that exclusion. No reference to existential physical qualities is needed. To answer the question, it is more ethical to think of gender as an individual attribute rather than as a social position. Identity (derived from identification) is not up for a vote. It is not a matter of opinion. A thing’s identity is what it is. Accurate categorization helps us orient ourselves to the world around us, which is independent of our opinions, not subject to them. There is no immediate reason to suppose that this is a correct or preferable understanding of identity. Semantically, "identity" may be defined as you've suggested but it is also formally defined in terms of individualized character and/or psychological relation. This also does not answer the question, really. That a conception of identity exists does not entail that we should prefer an identitarian conception of something like gender. Mucg of what you go on to discuss later in your post concerns a dispute between two different forms of identitarian personal attribute theory - roughly, biological gender essentialism and psycho-social essentialism. The question I posed concerns the disagreement between identitarian/attributive theory and social class/positional theory. Accurate categorization helps us orient ourselves to the world around us, which is independent of our opinions, not subject to them. Categorization is a way in which we may and often do navigate our seeming material reality, but that does not mean that these categories actually track a material reality. That claim would require further substantiation than you've provided. Moreover, even if we suppose that categorization is generally useful that does not mean that every particular instantiation of categorization is useful. So it also remains to be proved why, exactly, gender categorization is useful. Personally, I do not see how something as generic as gender can be useful in understanding unique individuals. A woman with character traits most often associated with a man is still a woman. She has a character which is relatively unique among women, but she is a woman. The converse is true as well. If a person has character traits most often associated to both men and women then it is unclear why we should regard them as a woman. That determination seems arbitrary at best, and motivated to confirm the existence of precisely what is in question.If the concept of woman (or man) referenced a material reality we would reasonably expect it to be consistent and readily identifiable, but this grey area along with the variance of gender conceptions across time and cultures suggests otherwise. A person born with a genetic condition that puts them outside of the two sexes, is outside of the two sexes. Whether to adopt one or neither is their prerogative, but they need to be slow to judge those who do not know how to address them. They should be forthright about their condition with any perspective partners. Perspective partners have also have moral obligations concerning the matter. & A person who is genetically one sex, but feels compelled to undergo chemical and physical synthetic gender transformation, has a hard road ahead of them. They probably shouldn’t take irreversible measures, for their own sake. If that’s what they decide to do, they too need to be forthright about the state of their genetic sex to perspective partners. It IS the perspective partner’s business. The people you're discussing aren't any less forthright than their counterparts if they do not disclose. Their behavior is identical. The difference is that the unsound presumptions about biological sex and physical expression which the other party holds are demonstrably unsound in these cases. It is not obvious to me why someone should bear a disproportionate burden of declaration as an exclusive consequence of the assumptions other people make. I think it is more coherent and reasonable to expect others to take responsibility for the assumptions they operate upon. People need to be honest and peaceful for society to be a worthwhile endeavor. Claiming that men can be women on a whim, and forcing others to accept it, is neither honest nor peaceful. While I expect that we have arrived at this moment due, in part, to a lack of peace experienced by people with atypical gender issues, that violence is becoming less and less of an issue. It needs to be no issue at all. We don’t get their by lying about identity. Claiming that people are men or women is categorically whimsical, regardless of whether the claim expresses a cisgender or transgender conception of gender. I'm dubious that anyone is being "forced" to accept non-traditional genders. What is evident is the force which has been and continues to be exerted to maintain the traditional gender concepts you're defending. That force has included and still includes the systematic criminalization and pathologization of gender non-conforming people, as well as de facto social discrimination and violence. Suggesting that this persecution and violence is due to the alleged dishonesty and violence of gender non-conforming people is ignorant, at best. It may behoove you to know that when you are discussing gender non-conforming people you are in fact discussing me. I do not believe I have a gender, do not profess one, and do not present myself in conformity with one either; this is an authentic expression of myself as I know myself to be. I will not force anyone to regard me as I regard myself, but I will command the same basic respect my gender conforming counterparts receive. By your reasoning, I am therefore dishonest and responsible for the discrimination I have faced. Frankly, I think that's bullshit. You may of course continue to hold and express beliefs like those you've expressed, but for my part I will certainly reassess how I relate to and engage with you. Do with that knowledge what you will. I’m going to start where you ended as it’s the only part where there may have been actual misunderstanding. I will then return the the areas where you understand and disagree. Suggesting that this persecution and violence is due to the alleged dishonesty and violence of gender non-conforming people is ignorant, at best. This is not what I suggested, or at least not what I intended. We have arrived at this place in history, having these conversations about gender, because of the violence visited upon people with atypical gender issues. I believe this violence is on the decline due to the awareness and voiced support of such people. I know that violence and aggression is not yet at zero, where it should be. I don’t believe we can get it to zero by radical fundamental re-imagining of social constructs, especially not ones that are connected so closely to biological realities. Nor can we alter language in such a way so as to eliminate biological realities. I think I was aware of your atypical nature on this front (though vaguely) when I chose to express my opinion on the matter. It was not meant as an offense. I will continue with this dialogue in the hopes that you do not take personally my words on a matter so personal to you. That may be an unreasonable hope, but it is almost the totality of our relationship. If my outlook negatively affects your view of me, that is unfortunate. Know that my opinion is not reflective of a negative opinion of you. Now on to the substance of our disagreement. she argues that these aren't really people we're concerned about precisely because they aren't socially subjugated. The function of her definitions is to call out the phenomenon of social inequity that exists due to class-based distinctions like gender (indeed, with the ultimate goal that there will be no women or men). She is using an existing term that does not inherently mean “subjugation” to mean just that. Herein lies the issue. We already have words to describe what she is referring to and gender terms are not it. If we were to arrive at a place where there are not women and men as socially constructed, another socially constructed equivalent would arise in its place. Human beings are a category of sexually reproducing mammals. This is a true statement even though not all human beings can sexually reproduce (Similarly, human being are bi-pedal, paraplegics notwithstanding). Mammalian sex differences bring a host of other corresponding differences that will persist in our perception. This is because these differences exist objectively, independent of perception. There are also a host of social constructions around gender that do not rely on independent objective differences. Those constructions are debatable and socially alterable, but they will always arise, though in different forms. Haslanger's idea of a "socially subordinated/privileged position" entails being subordinated/privileged overall The terms we have for those positions are “slave” and “king/queen” (interesting that slave is genderless). We do not have a caste system in the west. Beliefs in western social classes as being subordinate overall are not supportable. This also does not answer the question, really. That a conception of identity exists does not entail that we should prefer an identitarian conception of something like gender. We attempt to categorize the world as accurately as possible. To do so, we must accept that we are imprecise, and categorization is subject to change in light of new, external information. How identify and categorize organs in an organism matters. The associated sex differences that arise from accurate identification is real. As we broaden the perspective, and systems become more complex, identification maintains the greatest amount of accuracy by giving up amounts of precision. Ultimately, particulars are presented that fall outside our broader categories. Our aim should be accuracy, as that is essential to the purpose of categorization, which we rely on to exist in the world. The question I posed concerns the disagreement between identitarian/attributive theory and social class/positional theory. If my position is in opposition to Halsanger’s theory, then that is sufficient to argue against her. If my position is beyond the binary option you presented as acceptable alternatives, then I am surprised if this is problematic. Categorization is a way in which we may and often do navigate our seeming material reality, but that does not mean that these categories actually track a material reality. First, I do not regard information as material. Categorization allows us to navigate the material and immaterial world alike. We only know that our categorizations fail to track reality when we identify an error. That claim would require further substantiation than you've provided. I don’t believe any substantiation that any given identification, whether arising from perception or from logic, will be sufficient for you based on my understanding of your fundamental nihilism. Moreover, even if we suppose that categorization is generally useful that does not mean that every particular instantiation of categorization is useful. That’s true. Here is my argument for why gender identification is useful: As sexually reproducing mammals, procreative ability is an important aspect of fulfillment and meaning seeking in life. The majority of humans develop values and goals derived directly from the the nature of our mammalian biology. Immediate and apparent identification of sexual incompatibility with roughly half the population allows us to navigate the hazardous process of procreation with less peril to our minds and bodies. Other specific gender norms that arise and fall may have varying degrees of utility within their various contexts, but the fundamental situation that gave rise to various sub-categorical norms is imperative the human existence. Procreation is one reason for the importance of identification, but there are others. The various existential differences that arise from biological differences are not mere constructs. Physical ability is not minor matter, especially not where survival becomes an immediate responsibility as it still is in some occupations. It is also imperative that doctors know the biological nature of their patient. I do not see how something as generic as gender can be useful in understanding unique individuals. A person’s intellectual content is the most unique thing about them. Gender is basically irrelevant to such understanding. But there is more to people than understanding each other intellectually. If a person has character traits most often associated to both men and women then it is unclear why we should regard them as a woman. We don’t identify genders by character traits common to both. Bi-pedalism is not genderized. If the concept of woman (or man) referenced a material reality we would reasonably expect it to be consistent and readily identifiable, but this grey area along with the variance of gender conceptions across time and cultures suggests otherwise. The material reality of men and women is consistent, though not 100%. The grey area is at the slim margin. But that’s the nature of existence. The Big Bang theory is not disproved by the existence of one star system moving toward us rather than away. Our limits in knowledge and perception require that we operate on broad, often statistically imperfect categorizations. The best we can to is recognize such imperfections and account for them. It is a mistake to abandon the mostly accurate category for the sake of the margin. (Margin in this sense is statistical and is in no way meant to promote social marginalization). The people you're discussing aren't any less forthright than their counterparts if they do not disclose. Their behavior is identical. The difference is that the unsound presumptions about biological sex and physical expression which the other party holds are demonstrably unsound in these cases. Yes, their assumptions are unsound in these cases, but not in the vast majority of cases. The only way for a person to know that their commonly accurate assumption is unsound is if they receive correct information. But that information is specifically in the hands of a person with whom they are attempting to build a relationship of trust and perhaps romance. There is only one way for everyone to be on the same page. Similarly, it is important for a person who knows themselves to be sterile to disclose this to a perspective life mate prior to forming a life mate bond. It is not obvious to me why someone should bear a disproportionate burden of declaration as an exclusive consequence of the assumptions other people make. I think it is more coherent and reasonable to expect others to take responsibility for the assumptions they operate upon. Given the overwhelming accuracy of such assumptions, the exceedingly rare error is reasonable to make. Such errors can only be avoided when relevant information known to one is made known to both. This personal information is not a relevant concern to most others, but it is to some. Claiming that people are men or women is categorically whimsical. You haven’t demonstrated this at all. I'm dubious that anyone is being "forced" to accept non-traditional genders. A law in Canada concerning the matter is the reason Jordan Peterson became a known figure. Beyond the law itself, there is social pressure targeted at people who misgender, regardless of intent. I don’t believe people who operate this way actually represent a dominant pressure group, but I still regard them as wrong in their approach. It may behoove you to know that when you are discussing gender non-conforming people you are in fact discussing me. I do not believe I have a gender, do not profess one, and do not present myself in conformity with one either; this is an authentic expression of myself as I know myself to be. I will not force anyone to regard me as I regard myself, but I will command the same basic respect my gender conforming counterparts receive. By your reasoning, I am therefore dishonest and responsible for the discrimination I have faced. I believe we are back to where I began this post. I hope that I was able to clear up any misunderstanding, provided there was one. You and I start from diametrically opposed fundamental premises. We find, time and again, that this leads us to opposite conclusions on a wide range of subjects. It should not surprise you that we differ greatly on this matter as well. But you should know that my conclusions do not necessitate any animus on my part. If my conclusions generate discontent on your part, I hope it does not stifle the intellectual discourse we occasionally share. I don’t find violence or discrimination based on gender issues warranted, and I have not intended to promote such. I would be surprised to find out that you are in an intimate relationship with someone who is left unaware of who you are and what that means. If that were the case, I would say that you are in the wrong, for your partner’s sake. But your close personal relationships are not my concern. Neither is your gender or lack thereof. Your input on intellectual matters is. Is it more or less ethical to think of gender (or identity broadly) as a personal attribute or a social position? Why? Hello J: I dunno anyone who'd whack off their wiener just to take a "social position".. I think people who do that, do it for very PERSONAL reasons, and I don't think it's anybody's business. Certainly, unless you can tell me what public harm comes from their decision, it's really NOT a matter for public discussion.. So, my answer to your specific question is, it's NOT unethical to "think" of gender any way you choose.. It IS unethical to DO something about it. In this great country of ours, you're FREE to be whoever you want.. excon This seems more likely a thinly veiled objection to transgender people than a response to the question. Nothing in OP remotely suggests anything pertaining to "whacking off their weiner" as part of a social position. Make a topical response or I will ban you from this discussion. 1
point
As always, you completely use deceptive rhetoric to describe what is going on with Transgender activism. Did you notice the Democrat Party trying to force everyone to allow so called Transgender boys and men into girl sport's? Tell us all how you do not support this while electing the activist Democrats trying to make it happen. Phony! You sit here spewing lunacy of how transgender people simply want to live their lives without affecting others. It is public harm for men to destroy every women's sports, destroying all their sport's records, and making it very hard for real women to win. And you extremists actually try to claim you care about women. Haslanger specifically identifies a woman as someone who is (1) perceived as female, Ok (2) who is subject to beliefs about their correct social role because of that perception, That’s a very broad statement as in the “correct social role” as the goalposts have shifted dramatically with societal changes over the last 50 years or so (3) who occupies a socially subjugated position as a result of that perception and the contingent beliefs. A man is defined similarly, but in terms of maleness and occupying a privileged position. I totally disagree with that statement and I suspect many women would also , it sounds very much like something a militant feminist would say Question: Is it more or less ethical to think of gender (or identity broadly) as a personal attribute or a social position? Why? Gender to me is a personal attribute and not a social position and I would like to hear a detailed description of how it could be a social position as it seems to be a sweeping generalization to me anyway That's a very broad statement as in the "correct social role" as the goalposts have shifted dramatically with societal changes over the last 50 years or so. That is true, however the concern is with the general kind of social role rather than its particular features. The social role is either subordinate or privileged and it is the general attribute which matters for the sake of the concept, rather than the particular goalposts at a given time and place. Haslanger does acknowledge that the definitions won't include all cultures, such as matriarchal cultures, but is only concerned with a working concept for the cultures relevant to herself and her likely readers. The definitions are contextual rather than absolute. I totally disagree with that statement and I suspect many women would also, it sounds very much like something a militant feminist would say. Okay. What is the basis of your disagreement? Gender to me is a personal attribute and not a social position and I would like to hear a detailed description of how it could be a social position as it seems to be a sweeping generalization to me anyway That description is provided in the article which was provided. I'm glad to elaborate upon that, but I need a more specific question or objection to be able to do so. 1
point
Here we have mankind trying to describe the meaning of "woman" when we all know that the word "woman" comes from the Bible. God made a female from the rib of a man, hence the name, WOMB-MAN... WOMAN! The Left has been doing their best to systematically separate any symbol or reference towards Christianity and it's many wonderful affects on the world. The Left has antipathy towards Christianity and does all in it's power to demean and ridicule people of faith. For decades now, the Left has fixated on issues going contrary to Science and God.... Abortion and the plight of LGBTQ activists, otherwise known as the new political correct alphabet. There is a reason why the Left fixates on issues at odds with Christianity. For many decades now, the Left has been in a culture war with Christianity, spotlighting any bad things done in it's name, while ignoring all the good. The Left has gone so far as to deny the science of Biology, pushing unnatural abnormal sexual orientations as being natural alternative sexual orientations. This has nothing to do with tolerance, respecting diversity, etc. It has everything to do with conditioning our children to ignore God's natural order to life. Something as basic as the obvious scientific differences between Man and Woman is now questioned and distorted. Biology teaches us the difference between man and woman. It teaches us the sexual designs of our bodies. The Left's fixation on these alternative sexual orientations stems from this cultural war. They have taken sides with those groups at odds with the natural order to life and death, going so far as to denying a viable baby the right to life. Science says a human life begins at conception. For decades now the Left has been doing their best to systematically separate any symbol or reference towards Christianity and it's many wonderful affects on the world. Ahahaha! 1
point
Gender concepts predate christianity by several millennia, nor would having their origin in christianity demonstrate that this meaning were epistemically correct or ethically preferable. The remainder of your remarks are not topical. This discussion has nothing to do with contemporary progressivism (Haslanger's position is actually at odds with it) nor with LGBTQ issues. You have been cautioned elsewhere to remain topical; failure to do so will result in a ban. 1
point
What the Left is doing with these activist LGBT groups has EVERYTHING to do with so called Gender Identity. We would not even be talking about such lunacy were it not for the Left pushing the LGBT agendas. Have you ever wondered why such a small percent of the population has such control of our Government and media? The Left keeps these fetishes and unnatural sexual orientations in the spot light... all for political purposes. If you can't see what is going on, then please ban me because I hate wasting my time with people trying to explain, justify and embrace the ramblings of people with disorders. When did our Government become a puppet mouth piece for every unnatural sexual fetish out there? Our children are very impressionable and this slippery slope of LGBT activism will destroy our culture. I could not care less how people live their lives. but when they become activists, forcing every State to bow to their extremism, then I will speak out. This type of activism should be no where near our schools or airwaves. Children need to be protected from such activism. I think the definition provided for a social class theory of gender is fairly clear, as far as semantic clarity can go. Is there something specific which you find ambiguous? I also don't think the meaning of the concepts needs to be especially clear for this particular ethical discussion. What is in question is the ethics of how we understand and regard ourselves and others. For example, a personal attribute theory of identity would generally suggest that identity classes like gender are intrinsic to a person and speak to something about a person. Whereas a social class theory of identity would generally suggest that identity classes like gender do not correspond with anything in a person but instead reflect our ideas and preferences towards that person. The sorts of actions that can be justified through each approach are different, which carries ethical implications. Sally Haslanger has argued that we should understand gender as a social class...they occupy a certain sort of position in society because of how they are perceived and how this causes them to be treated. What's the benefit to this? Every part of someone causes them to be treated slightly differently by different people. Funnily enough, I treat masculine women more similarly to how I treat men and feminine men more similarly to how I treat women. Sometimes our treatment of others is inappropriate, but that needs to be negotiated on a one-to-one basis. |
