Quote:
Originally Posted by henry quirk
If he has a penis, is genetically male, then -- despite *self-definition -- he is 'he'.
Yes?
No?
Opinions?
|
According to the usual western gender constructions yes. But it isn't really that simple. Nor has it ever been. Lots of cultures recognise broader understandings of gender (as well as narrower in other cultures) than ours currently does. Some cultures accept a 'third gender'. Some grudgingly, some with hallowed respect. Some cultures with highly regulated gender roles will nontheless allow a widow or single woman to adopt a masculine identity in order to lead their household. Referred to as 'he' and 'him' from that point on.
The more we learn about gender the more it seems that neither biological gender, nor psycho-sexual gender( or indeed cultural understandings of gender) are anywhere near as black and white as we once understood them to be.
All that aside: why not accept someone else's self-definition? They're the only ones who know what life is like on the inside of their own heads.