![pinebark:
fishingboatproceeds:
tyleroakley:
Learn.
I actually found this really helpful.
[Description: Image showing a diagram of a person with the title “Genderbread Person.” The head, heart, and crotch are labeled “gender,” “orientation,” and “sex,” respectively. A bracket surrounds the person, labeled “Expression.” Below, four scales are labeled “Sex,” “Gender,” “Orientation,” and “Expression.” Sex runs from Male to Intersex to Female. Gender runs from Male to Genderqueer to Female. Orientation runs from Female to Bisexual to Male. Expression runs from Masculine to Androgynous to Femenine (sic).]
Thoughts:
1. This is how Trans 101 is usually taught, but I would hope anyone who engages with trans and queer communities for any extended period of time recognizes that this is a tremendous oversimplification, and one that can actually be quite harmful. Sex isn’t located in the genitals any more than it’s located in secondary sex characteristics, hormones, or chromosomes.
2. Placing “Genderqueer” on a spectrum between Male and Female makes Genderqueer into a simple combination of Male and Female genders. Again, this is an oversimplification and one that does not align with many folks’ understandings of genderqueer. That’s not to say that some people might understand it in this way, but to posit genderqueer as everywhere and always a simple “midpoint” on the line from male to female is a bad idea.
3. Spectrums in general aren’t always a great way of thinking about gender or orientation. Placing “male” and “female” at opposite endpoints of a single line reinforces notions of “opposite” genders and renders any identification off that single dimension unintelligible. This is why I prefer notions like the gender galaxy to any kind of spectrum.
Anyway, I recognize that things like this can be useful for folks who have not had much exposure to discussions around gender and sexuality. But my concern is that they become rigid and taken as fact when they are really just models, and not tremendously accurate models at that.](http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lnh8583ZjK1qlhszto1_500.jpg)
Learn.
I actually found this really helpful.
[Description: Image showing a diagram of a person with the title “Genderbread Person.” The head, heart, and crotch are labeled “gender,” “orientation,” and “sex,” respectively. A bracket surrounds the person, labeled “Expression.” Below, four scales are labeled “Sex,” “Gender,” “Orientation,” and “Expression.” Sex runs from Male to Intersex to Female. Gender runs from Male to Genderqueer to Female. Orientation runs from Female to Bisexual to Male. Expression runs from Masculine to Androgynous to Femenine (sic).]
Thoughts:
1. This is how Trans 101 is usually taught, but I would hope anyone who engages with trans and queer communities for any extended period of time recognizes that this is a tremendous oversimplification, and one that can actually be quite harmful. Sex isn’t located in the genitals any more than it’s located in secondary sex characteristics, hormones, or chromosomes.
2. Placing “Genderqueer” on a spectrum between Male and Female makes Genderqueer into a simple combination of Male and Female genders. Again, this is an oversimplification and one that does not align with many folks’ understandings of genderqueer. That’s not to say that some people might understand it in this way, but to posit genderqueer as everywhere and always a simple “midpoint” on the line from male to female is a bad idea.
3. Spectrums in general aren’t always a great way of thinking about gender or orientation. Placing “male” and “female” at opposite endpoints of a single line reinforces notions of “opposite” genders and renders any identification off that single dimension unintelligible. This is why I prefer notions like the gender galaxy to any kind of spectrum.
Anyway, I recognize that things like this can be useful for folks who have not had much exposure to discussions around gender and sexuality. But my concern is that they become rigid and taken as fact when they are really just models, and not tremendously accurate models at that.
