Every once and awhile something good bubbles up from the seething mass known as tumblr. This is a good summary of what sex and gender are and how they interact in our society.
“It seems like on here at tumblr there’s a lot of misinformation going around. people are using sex and gender interchangeably as if they mean the same thing. There’s a lot of unclear information and everything seems rally vague and distorted so the goal of this post is to help clear some of this up.
What are the differences between sex and gender?
The main difference is that sex describes your body’s biological reproductive role. Humans as a species reproduce sexually, as opposed to species which reproduce asexually, such as by budding. In human reproduction, a sperm cell will fertilize an egg cell and cause a pregnancy.
We call people whose biology designated them to be sperm depositors “male” and we call people who are designed by biology to be pregnancy carriers “female”. That is all these terms mean, they reference what role we would play in reproduction if we decided to produce offspring.
Gender on the other hand, is a big mass of controversy. See, unlike biological sex, gender is not innate. We are not born with a gender. Gender is a social construct–that means it only exists as long as society propagates it.
What is gender?
Gender is an oppressive force that dictates to people how they should behave, dress, act, what their role in life is, how to interact with other people, etc.. While specific gender roles and norms vary from culture to culture, in every culture, gender exists to tell people how to live, and it is always oppressive.
Gender is a hierarchy which places males above females. Gendered interaction dictates that women defer to men, that men are taken more seriously, that men are more credible, that men are treated as superior.
In our society, femininity is the gender role forced on to women, and masculinity is the gender role forced on to men. We also label objects and clothes and behaviors as “feminine” or “masculine” based on how these objects are linked to oppressive gender roles.
Why is femininity oppressive?
From the day we are born, female people are forced against our will in to the gender role of femininity. People will immediately begin to judge this tiny human, telling her she is “cute” and “pretty”. Even as she is first learning language and what words mean, she is also learning that it is rewarding to be “pretty” and that she receives praise for it. She will learn this way, since her birth, that her value as a person is determined by her visual appeal to others.
There is much literature written on the oppressive nature of femininity. In short, femininity is how society tells women to behave. Femininity is policing one’s appearance as if we are a visual object, paying rent in beauty just to exist in the world. Femininity is in our meekness, our smallness, how we are trained to put ourselves second and put men especially first, to be accommodating, to accept disrespect from men, to not have boundaries lest we insult men, to put male feelings above our own safety and bodily autonomy.
Femininity is not innate to women. It is something we are taught, something we are forced in to. Women do not naturally behave meekly, we are not born wanting to put make up on our faces.
The idea that gender is innate oppresses women.
Historically, women have been told that femininity, this forced gender role of being innate and subservient and meek and stupid and focused on vanity/appearance, is actually a biological innate part of who we are and is exactly what makes us women.
This idea, that femininity is natural to women, has been used to keep us out of science, to keep us oppressed housewives, because that is all that gender dictates we are good for (remember, gender is a hierarchy which tells you how to live).
Gender is obviously not innate–the existence of feral children, generally cases of extreme negligence, illustrates to us just how gender is something we are taught and not something we are born with. Women are not born with the idea that they must shave their legs and be meek and accommodating to men. This is not natural to us. Gender oppresses us.
Gender is an oppressive belief system and buying in to it continues the oppression of women.
The solution is gender abolition. If we abolish gender, nobody would be told how to live, what to wear, or how to behave. There would be no hierarchy placing males above females. Biological sex would continue to exist, because it is something made by evolution and required for reproduction of our species. But gender, the idea that your biological sex says anything about your personality, would not exist.
Males and females would each be permitted to have any kind of personality.
We would not needlessly assign femininity or masculinity to hobbies or toys or any other objects in order to limit peoples’ interests. Everyone could be free to be who they truly are, without oppressive gender labels telling people how to live.
Abolishing gender is best for everyone involved, and also liberates women from the oppressive system of gender.”
43 comments
August 27, 2015 at 6:07 am
Cindy
Apparently bio sex itself – xx chromosomes – is purely a social construct
http://www.autostraddle.com/its-time-for-people-to-stop-using-the-social-construct-of-biological-sex-to-defend-their-transmisogyny-240284/
LikeLiked by 1 person
August 27, 2015 at 7:35 am
M.M.J. Gregory
It is even more complex than that for trans and gender fluid people. Referring to ‘biological sex’ can be insulting in those circumstances. At this point, we just need to let everyone be who they are and stop worrying so much about labels.
LikeLiked by 1 person
August 27, 2015 at 8:35 am
tildeb
Thanks for this reprint, Arb. I’ve always had some difficulty differentiating the terms and will now use this understanding.
LikeLiked by 1 person
August 27, 2015 at 9:22 am
roughseasinthemed
I agree with tildeb, the confusion between sex and gender is massive. I’m not sure this article explains it well enough although it does a good line in explaining the infliction of femininity on women.
But when we fill in a form that says ‘sex’ M/F, what are we really answering? And why? Some years back, defining people in terms of sex, or describing someone as such, went out of fashion. Gender was the preferred word.
And if both are fluid, then, neither sex nor gender should be relevant. Why is it important?
LikeLiked by 1 person
August 27, 2015 at 9:30 am
tildeb
And if both are fluid, then, neither sex nor gender should be relevant. Why is it important?
A very good point… unless they are used as an important part of an identity, in which case one must then wonder why these fluid aspects are important for selection.
Interesting…
LikeLiked by 1 person
August 27, 2015 at 10:12 am
The Arbourist
@Tildeb
My pleasure. Sometimes useful things do come out of tumblr. :>
LikeLike
August 27, 2015 at 10:33 am
The Arbourist
@RSITM
Susan Brownmiller has a more detailed picture of the effects of femininity – she has an excerpt from her book available here.
A more historical and scholarly resource would be History Matters by Judith M. Bennett
I found both illuminating and worth my time.
A more controversial work is also related by Shelia Jeffreys called Beauty and Misogyny.
LikeLike
August 27, 2015 at 10:44 am
The Arbourist
@MMJ
Yes and no?
People should be able to identify as they please.
However, words do matter and the categories of adult human male and adult human female have to mean specific things, at the very least in terms of medicine and healthcare because men and women have different medical needs/diagnoses.
LikeLike
August 27, 2015 at 10:51 am
The Arbourist
@Cindy
I’m pretty sure biological sex is a useful descriptive term, as it describes, based on the empirical evidence accumulated, the dimorphism present in most of the human population.
LikeLike
August 27, 2015 at 11:26 am
Cindy
Well the transwoman who wrote the article would disagree with your assessment, and probably accuse you of bigotry for saying that biological sexual dimorphism is actually a thing.
Happened to me.
LikeLike
August 27, 2015 at 11:50 am
The Arbourist
@Cindy
Well they are certainly entitled to their opinion. They are not however entitled to their own version of accepted scientific facts.
If being true to what is factually correct, given the best available scientific/medical literature makes one a ‘bigot’, so be it. – Again people are entitled to their opinion, but they are also entitled to be wrong.
I’m sorry you had to go through that. :(
LikeLike
August 28, 2015 at 2:09 pm
VR Kaine
Um, the often-linear-thinking-capitalist-business-guy is a bit confused here ;)
“Gender on the other hand, is a big mass of controversy. See, unlike biological sex, gender is not innate. We are not born with a gender. Gender is a social construct–that means it only exists as long as society propagates it.”
Our sex determines what hormones get pumped through our body and how our body develops, and we have those things from the start – i.e. we’re born with them – and those things would naturally (or at least most often) lead to “male” behaviors making our gender “male”, wouldn’t it? If those body differences and hormones are in us from the beginning, how is gender entirely a choice that is only there if society is there?
So now we get the case of perhaps a male body and a female “gender”. The only way that woman exists is if society is there to tell her it’s allowed to, or keep it there for her? That sounds fucked up.
Also, take the misogynist father trying to mold his daughter into a tomboy or a man-hating mother trying to fully emasculate her clearly male kid. The girl still feels like a girl despite her father’s influences, but nope – she only THINKS she feels like a girl as a result of choice that has only come about because society is saying she’s a girl? Again…
That the author says gender “ONLY” exists as long as society propagates it is what confuses/concerns me here. On the one hand it seems like a loserish attempt to rewrite biology to suit their emotional/social issues on the one hand as well as something that opens up all the bad of the “nature vs. nurture” argument on the other.
——
Arb said “However, words do matter and the categories of adult human male and adult human female have to mean specific things, at the very least in terms of medicine and healthcare because men and women have different medical needs/diagnoses.”
I agree with Arb’s point here. If gender is a matter of choice in the manner stated above, then why not pick our race? Sure, there’s the color of our skin, but isn’t there the “gender” equivalent of that as well, i.e. who we CHOOSE to identify as (so long as society propagates it?)
I choose that idiot loser Rachel Dolezal as an example, and what she did with the NAACP pretending she was black simply because she “self-identified” as such (and subsequently benefited as well).
Arb talks about medicine and healthcare – what about social benefits such as loans, scholarships, grants, etc? Could a white guy suddenly decide to go for a scholarship intended for African-American women? If not, under the argument presented by the author, then why not?
LikeLike
August 28, 2015 at 2:23 pm
VR Kaine
Cindy & Arbourist,
Wow – if you both are being called “bigots” then I must be in that category to the extreme!
It’s really not so bad, though. Come on over! We have tons of iPods and iPads and cars and buildings (and countries and economies) to play with, and apparently some worker-class ‘human beings’ (if that’s what you can call them) in amongst all that which we apparently get to toss around all the time – that can be fun! We also have cookies, too. ;)
What’s perhaps best is that we get put in our group and told not to speak because we don’t deserve to be heard – apparently because we hold different beliefs than they do so that’s why we’re “bigots”! Haha!
Seriously, though, the cookies are are great. :)
LikeLike
August 28, 2015 at 5:17 pm
Cindy
It is possible that while in utero, transgender individuals end up with a brain that doesn’t match their genitals. Strange things can happen during gestation, such that a person with a penis develops a female brain.
Gestation isn’t pure nature, there is also a lot of nurture.
LikeLike
August 28, 2015 at 11:23 pm
VRKaine
“Gestation isn’t pure nature, there is also a lot of nurture.”
That seems to make more sense to me, as opposed to the author’s view that seems to be gender is “only” nurture.
LikeLike
August 29, 2015 at 9:49 am
The Arbourist
@Vern
Essentially the author is saying that gender is a social construct. Depending on the society there is little choice to had once one is sorted into a particular category. Males will receive male the male patterns of socialization and females will get the female socialization routine.
Society does propagate notions of coded gender appropriate behaviour – these notions change with society – consider that pink was exclusively a “male” colour until 1950’s.
Biology isn’t something one can change and thus is not a social construct in itself.
LikeLike
August 29, 2015 at 9:53 am
The Arbourist
@Vern
If one is to fully embrace identity politics, then yes, it would be a possibility, as respecting how one self-identifies takes precedence over how society identifies said individual.
LikeLike
August 29, 2015 at 10:00 am
The Arbourist
@Vern
Not yet over here. But those are the risks that come with being a gender critical feminist. *shrugs*
Not discussing issues and thinking critically about contentious assertions would be the greater intellectual disservice, IMHO.
LikeLike
August 29, 2015 at 10:16 am
The Arbourist
@Cindy
I’m not sure if you’re going down the “brain-sex” route, but if so, know that much of what out there is bunk. There is little to no evidence for ‘male’ or ‘female’ brains.
Please see Cordelia Fine’s book called Delusions of Gender for more on the topic.
LikeLike
August 29, 2015 at 10:26 am
Cindy
Well then why are many trans persons born feeling that they have the wrong body for their mind?
I suspect that it might be a form of body dysmorphia. Like the folks who are wired up such that they feel that their legs dont belong to their bodies, and so on.
And it is possible that various hormonal conditions in utero could be responsible for some people being gay. According to some studies at least.
LikeLike
August 29, 2015 at 11:15 am
The Arbourist
@Cindy
Gender dysphoria is a thing, but does it relate on a 1 to 1 ratio to their supposed ‘brain-sex’?
As of yet, no.
“And it is possible that various hormonal conditions in utero could be responsible for some people being gay.”
Certainly, but again this doesn’t confirm the idea of brain-sex. Only the idea that certain conditions in utero may promote homosexuality; two very different propositions.
LikeLike
August 29, 2015 at 10:52 pm
VR Kaine
“Males will receive male the male patterns of socialization and females will get the female socialization routine.”
Agreed – but would a kid isolated still end up having their choice as to gender? Sorry – just hung up on the author’s “only” deal. Everyone’s saying that society propagates genders – I get it. Question/issue is where the author seems to say gender only happens if society is there to propagate it.
Or am I confusing propagating (carrying forward) with instilling?
I can drop it. :)
LikeLike
August 29, 2015 at 10:56 pm
VR Kaine
You likely saw my attempt to point out the irony of the liberal far left and their “shout downs” – in that I agree with your point. Having an equally dogmatic and ignorant view on the far opposite side of the social/political spectrum doesn’t do anyone any good.
LikeLike
August 29, 2015 at 11:03 pm
VR Kaine
Might be a nice thought, but if a possibility then it would be one of government policies relying solely upon individual honesty which works – um – nowhere else in society, best I can tell.
Allowing self-identification to take precedence over societal identities might sound like a wonderful way to bring perhaps the 1% fringe into the middle, but it would leave a shitload of a mess in the middle and a system welcoming egregious waste and abuse (hey – that sounds just like any other ‘Fair Share Liberal’ policy!! haha!)
Ribbings aside, though, add to that a scarcity of resources and the problem becomes exponentially worse.
Government’s too ignorant, bloated, and ham-fisted and at the same time people in general are too greedy and immoral for that idea to work at a government level. My opinion, but I believe history backs it up as well.
LikeLike
August 29, 2015 at 11:05 pm
VR Kaine
Besides, in “Soul Man”, look what C. Thomas Howell did to Rae Dawn Chong’s character in the movie. You want that on a massive scale? ;)
LikeLike
August 30, 2015 at 7:58 am
The Arbourist
@Vern
It’s all good.
I would hypothesize that an isolated child would have no conception of ‘gender’ and the societal assumptions that go along with our ideas of gender.
I agree “only” statements can be troubling – as most things with human behaviour only rarely can we nail it down to a one to one correlation. How we act in and out of society is a conflux of many factors, both environmental and biological.
LikeLike
August 30, 2015 at 8:26 am
The Arbourist
@Vern
“Having an equally dogmatic and ignorant view on the far opposite side of the social/political spectrum doesn’t do anyone any good.”
Dogmatic views usually are not very helpful when it comes to arguing points on the internet or in meatspace. I think we’d all like to think that the notions we hold are based in fact and therefore correct – sometimes they are, but sometimes they are not – being able to see the weaknesses in ones argument and making allowances for new information allows debate to take place at least in the creative destruction sense (thesis/antithesis if you want go all Hegelian).
What is interesting is the point at which shouting something down could be considered a valid tactic. In terms of societal power and how power in society is structured do ‘shout downs’ from the far left , for example’ really effect the dominant narrative of society? The main drivers of society may have to alter their ways peripherally, but for all intensive purposes the status-quo remains in effect.
Consider the political-correctness phenomena that is often railed against by many commentators on the right. Has political correctness changed the fundamentally racist/sexist nature of our society? Not really, IMHO (see the spate of black killings for existing while being black in society/institutionalized sexism in employment et cetra). What has changed is that saying openly racist/sexist things can result in a great deal of social opprobrium – the inhabitants of the status quo are rightly vexed that they can no longer overtly express themselves in a racist/sexist manner.
Similarly, the dominant neo-liberal paradigm that is currently running the western world may change superficially at periphery; perhaps even enough to allow for vaguely social democratic nations like Canada to trundle along – but the fundamental assumptions remain the same.
I think that effectiveness of far left/left critique is minimal versus the power of the current paradigm. I’m not saying it isn’t necessary or useful, but simply rather limited in terms of scope and effect on the dominant societal narrative. See the current horse and pony show going on in the Democratic primaries in the US. Bernie Sanders will not win the nomination, but is serving as a wonderful sieve for the discontent of people who still believe that the system isn’t a hopelessly corrupt plutocracy and that somehow change can happen from within. Clinton, the firmly established neo-liberal candidate has the backing of the party and will win the nomination.
The clown-car that is the republican side isn’t really an issue in the upcoming election. They are what the democrats will look like in 10 – 15 years – a sadly pathetic public demonstration of fealty to oligarchic, neo-liberal values attempting to masquerade as a palatable entity for the public to vote for.
LikeLike
August 30, 2015 at 12:09 pm
Cindy
@arb
Then what do you think is the cause of gender dysphoria?
And are you aware of the rift within the trans community?
http://www.crossdreamers.com/2013/12/truscum-and-transgender-war-of-words.html
The whole thing is a giant minefield really.
I was accused of being a bigot because I referred to people who could get pregnant as’ female bodied’ (as I had been told to by a well known poster from Pharyngula). Apparently ‘female bodied’ when referring to abortion is deeply upsetting to transwomen and such violence erases them and gets them killed.
LikeLike
August 31, 2015 at 8:47 am
The Arbourist
@Cindy
I’m really not sure. The cause(s) have yet to be concretely discovered – see wikipedia.
Nope.
Agreed.
The commentariat over at Pharyngula is not known for its politeness. Nor are they the arbiters of all the facts. Adult human females have the capacity to get pregnant and only adult human females have this capacity. As the title of the post says – words matter.
Abortion is an issue that is female specific. Being ‘deeply upset’ means very little when compared to the centuries of sexual oppression that women have faced and still must overcome.
LikeLike
August 31, 2015 at 8:52 am
Cindy
@Arb
Thank you for your words of wisdom.
Yeah, I was told that I had no right to be offended because I, as a woman, wasn’t nearly as oppressed as transwomen.
LikeLike
August 31, 2015 at 8:52 am
Cindy
@Arb
Or rather, that I had no right to have hurt feelings, because transwomen suffered more.
LikeLike
August 31, 2015 at 8:58 am
The Arbourist
@Cindy
It sounds like you’ve gotten into a very specific argument with some people over at PZ’s place.
Men have been oppressing women, suppressing their actions and speech, demarking woman’s space for centuries.
Nothing new happening there then, it would seem?
Just sayn’ :(
LikeLike
August 31, 2015 at 9:04 am
Cindy
It wasn’t at Pharyngula. A Pharyngula regular told me to use ‘female bodied’ and then I used the term at Rh Reality Check while trying to be inclusive of trans persons, and a very angry lesbian woman who is married to a transwoman accused me of being transphobic. I explained that a trans ally had told me to use ‘female bodied’ and that my feelings were hurt and she told me that it didin’t matter, because I wasn’t oppressed like her wife.
LikeLike
August 31, 2015 at 9:08 am
The Arbourist
@Cindy
Gotcha.
Others don’t get to tell you how you feel – you would think transactivists would understand that idea particularly well.
LikeLike
August 31, 2015 at 9:47 am
Cindy
@Arb
I read her comments on another blog at Patheos, and she argues that the *only* way for a movement to be successful is for it’s adherents to be abusive. So calling an ally a ‘transphobic fuck’ for using the wrong term is apparently the *only* way that a movement can succeed. A transman, whom I like, disagreed with her. He argued that you can catch more flies with honey. I do think that there are times when we should be angry. I mean, we don’t owe it to bigots be to be polite. I am not always kind to misogynist pro lifers. But, people are people. And when you abuse an ally, their feelings *will* be hurt, and you *will* breed resentment. That’s just how people are. When you intend the best and you are told that you are worthless piece of shit, how else are you going to react? “yes, you are right, I am a worthless piece of shit, I need to try harder”.
She also had the gall to say that Martin Luther King was perceived the same way as her. That her violent angry rhetoric is really no different than MLK back in the 1960s.
LikeLiked by 1 person
August 31, 2015 at 1:38 pm
VRKaine
Wow. Obvious pain aside, it’s interesting to see the lengths some of these knotheads will go to feel significance (i.e. someone calling an ally a ‘transphobic fuck’, for instance). And with the MLK comment? Laughable that anyone would even start to try and compare themselves to such a man, or such a time or cause, with so little accomplishments in their own corner other than amassing a huge pile of narcissism and daddy/mommy issues, perhaps?
Sorry for the burst-in Arb and Cindy. That behavior over there just baffles me.
LikeLike
August 31, 2015 at 1:40 pm
VR Kaine
Thanks, Arb. Appreciate the dialogue.
LikeLike
August 31, 2015 at 2:04 pm
VR Kaine
I get the level of anger or frustration at which all one might want to do is shout somebody down. Lord knows I’ve been there. Argument-wise, though, I agree that it diminishes things and is ultimately ineffective.
“The main drivers of society may have to alter their ways peripherally, but for all intensive purposes the status-quo remains in effect.”
Fine for guys like me who the status quo happens to serve, but bad overall for society I think. And if I could add one more thing, I think an even bigger problem with this shouting down is that it stifles the more rational voices in the room at the same time, whose causes are actually more closer to home and to their heart. These real victims end up becoming “Losers by Association”. Occupy is one example, Black Lives Matter is another. We end up focusing on the extremes and in return, we lose the middle where most everyone actually is. I think the abortion debacle falls under that category, too.
“The clown-car that is the republican side isn’t really an issue in the upcoming election. They are what the democrats will look like in 10 – 15 years – a sadly pathetic public demonstration of fealty to oligarchic, neo-liberal values attempting to masquerade as a palatable entity for the public to vote for.”
Interesting what you’re saying about the Democrats. I really don’t hope that the Republican model is what’s coming for Dems. Instead, I’d prefer to see the Republican side finally wake up and get with modern times as far as positions and PR are concerned, such as the Democrat Party has mastered, and that we start producing better candidates on both sides than worse ones.
I’d love to see Christie, Fiorina, and Rubio duke it out for the primary (not sure of their ‘in the case of rape or incest’ positions, though,
that might negate all that) and then Hillary, O’Malley, and Sanders on the other side. That’s even though I know nothing about O’Malley, I think Hillary is a flat-out liar and manipulator with no honor or purpose being on that stage, and Biden is I think losing his mind, literally.
Either way, this election is going to be a gong-show and let’s just say my popcorn is ready. ;)
LikeLiked by 1 person
September 1, 2015 at 7:02 am
Cindy
On subject..
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/09/testosterone-brain/402967/
LikeLike
November 19, 2015 at 7:17 am
RaFeCa
Reblogged this on RaFeCaMe.
LikeLike
November 19, 2015 at 10:30 am
stchauvinism
Reblogged this on Stop Trans Chauvinism.
LikeLike
November 19, 2015 at 1:06 pm
petuniacat00
This is a good post. And definitely a step in the right direction. With regard to VR Kaine’s comment about hormones causing behavior. Hormones don’t cause behavior. That’s a pop-culture myth. And it’s not true.
First off the claim is only made that sex hormones cause behavior. Most hormones in the body are not sex hormones. One of the most important is called ADH, it participates in regulating water balance in the body. It determines how much pee you make over a period of time.
Then there’s the concept of behavior. It’s a big stretchy stupid concept that is not helpful in understanding things. Yes it’s used in science and it should not be. Behavior includes anything a person does. So things that we do because we are told to. Things that we do of our own free will but that are the normal thing to do in that particular situation like how you go about doing things in the grocery store. Behavior includes bad acts that are either legally or socially condemned. And it includes unusual things an individual has invented, versus following social conventions. Behavior said to be caused by hormones is invariably some particular action that the person making that claim has plucked out of this morass of behaviors/activities that everyone is constantly engaged in. And the particular behavior that they plucked out they have done so because of some set of political or social ideas that they have. So ‘bias’ barely begins to cover it. ‘Male’ versus ‘female’ behavior is exactly one of those plucked things.
The hormones and behavior thing is also circular. Certain things have been labeled masculine and others feminine by our society. There’s not some outside-society place we can go to to find out what TRULY is masculine, etc. There is the stereotype that masculinity includes being violent. Then because testosterone is held to be the masculine hormone it is said to make one violent. Without there at any point being any scientific evidence presented of the testosterone and violence a link. That’s circular reasoning.
Also there’s never been any experiments that show that sex hormones cause behavior. And not just because behavior is not a scientifically usable category. People sally forth and do experiments anyway. And what they discovered is that the ACTIVITY versus the stretchy, confused, plucked ‘behavior’, often lead to increases in the level of testosterone. The same didn’t hold true for estrogen. Because oh yeah testosterone does all this other stuff in the body. To do with vigorous effort. Sort of like adrenaline. Of course adrenaline has lots of myths about it too. The point being experiments that needed to show an increase in testosterone triggered physically vigorous or aggressive activity showed that the activity actually increased the amount of circulating testosterone. Because hormones regulate bio chemical activity in the body. They don’t “cause” behavior. They don’t “cause” anything. The nomenclature in human physiology and biochemistry in fact is “participates in”, not “cause”.
A last word on ‘gender identity’. Gender identity is just a way to medicalize sex roles. It victimizes the people who it convinces to believe in it. In 20 years people will look back on this as another huge psychiatric fail. No one has an inmate gender identity. Human identity is a complex and significant thing. And it is individual. These made up political identities are nothing to do with that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
November 19, 2015 at 3:40 pm
elfkat
Reblogged this on Adventures and Musings of an Arch Druidess.
LikeLike