Gendering on women's island
Jun. 10th, 2017 01:19 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
beccaelizabethSo I've been thinking about the bit where a woman raised by women in an all women place finally meets a man and is like oh wow how strange what even is it, with or without the I like this part.
And, like, have you seen women?
Even just afab cis women?
Have you seen all the shapes at the olympics? Because there are many, many shapes. There are short women who are skinny all over, there are tall women who are large all over, there are curves but not necessarily, there are women doing shotput who I feel more superheroes should look like but know they won't because them and the hammer throwers are, like, emphatically not Power Girl shaped, even though their discipline is mostly power.
And even the whole facial hair situation, it's really variable on whatever gender, and now there's shaving, so, depending on culture, unlikely to be relevant.
Basically as long as they've got their underpants on they're just, you know, maybe sort of stocky, not very femme, but not actually entirely novel or surprising.
And the other way around, okay, past a certain point women are more notably new shapes, but men can be soft shapes too, it takes a lot to be a mindblowing new view.
And, like, we're used to society and language categorising everyone as one of two things, so we divide them up at a glance, however rude that is, and however often we're really getting it wrong. But if you live somewhere that just doesn't, you just wouldn't.
Like Leckie's Ancillary books. That's the only time I can remember right now I've seen this done plausibly. Though Bujold's Athos had a go.
Like society is really invested in the idea there are clear and obvious differences between two binary genders, but, you know, no.
... this is one reason monosexuals puzzle me deeply, but it's their thing, I'm not being judgey. I'm just kind of confused at the idea that the attractiveness of biceps or shoulders or muscles all doing stuff together somehow depends on which gender category they're in. Or, like, hands. Hands are awesome. Why are they variably awesome based on plumbing? I can see why personality might put you off, but I really don't get it about gender.
But still.
If man gets washed up on island of women, I figure he's probably just going to get called sister a lot, until he gets assertive about pronouns.
Unless of course she finds out she's fine with that.
And, like, have you seen women?
Even just afab cis women?
Have you seen all the shapes at the olympics? Because there are many, many shapes. There are short women who are skinny all over, there are tall women who are large all over, there are curves but not necessarily, there are women doing shotput who I feel more superheroes should look like but know they won't because them and the hammer throwers are, like, emphatically not Power Girl shaped, even though their discipline is mostly power.
And even the whole facial hair situation, it's really variable on whatever gender, and now there's shaving, so, depending on culture, unlikely to be relevant.
Basically as long as they've got their underpants on they're just, you know, maybe sort of stocky, not very femme, but not actually entirely novel or surprising.
And the other way around, okay, past a certain point women are more notably new shapes, but men can be soft shapes too, it takes a lot to be a mindblowing new view.
And, like, we're used to society and language categorising everyone as one of two things, so we divide them up at a glance, however rude that is, and however often we're really getting it wrong. But if you live somewhere that just doesn't, you just wouldn't.
Like Leckie's Ancillary books. That's the only time I can remember right now I've seen this done plausibly. Though Bujold's Athos had a go.
Like society is really invested in the idea there are clear and obvious differences between two binary genders, but, you know, no.
... this is one reason monosexuals puzzle me deeply, but it's their thing, I'm not being judgey. I'm just kind of confused at the idea that the attractiveness of biceps or shoulders or muscles all doing stuff together somehow depends on which gender category they're in. Or, like, hands. Hands are awesome. Why are they variably awesome based on plumbing? I can see why personality might put you off, but I really don't get it about gender.
But still.
If man gets washed up on island of women, I figure he's probably just going to get called sister a lot, until he gets assertive about pronouns.
Unless of course she finds out she's fine with that.
no subject
Date: 2017-06-11 03:01 pm (UTC)to all of this
(I imagine the one obvious different signal could be breasts? And then the only-lady-islander would be "this person is obviously above age of maturation and stocky enough to have body fat and yet she is flat, how extraordinary". Not "mind blown" extraordinary, just, out of the usual where flat means either young or very thin. And yes, bushier beards than standard even for hairy women, but - well, not mind blowingly different species either way)
no subject
Date: 2017-06-11 04:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-06-11 04:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-06-11 04:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-06-11 04:55 pm (UTC)http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/olympics/36984887