The debate "Gender fluidity just tries to show masculinity and femininity as a spectrum not categories." was started by
August 3, 2019, 9:04 am.
13 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 3 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Allirix posted 3 arguments, Nemiroff posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
Allirix, Nemiroff, deepika, shaswat_singh, mtbtheboss and 8 visitors agree.
3 visitors disagree.
A spectrum only has two points so I don't know why you think I should be adding extra dimensions. I tried using the analogy of left and right to show how traits tend to be bundled together so it's a valuable heuristic, but it's an oversimplification that is used to hide nuance and common ground. If everyone was just left and right there would be a problem. I don't know what the analogous labels for centrism, neo-liberalism, social democracy, etc would be on a gender spectrum but I'm not saying I should be the one who creates the labels. I'm just saying a more granular gender labelling system will more accurately reflect the continuous nature of the spectrum. Language and identity that better reflects reality has many clear benefits.
And I added a side post to this that "female" and "male" (femininity and masculinity) should not be genders or the names on the scale because it confuses people. But that's another issue to this.
You have not posed a more than two sides scale, though. It's still simply masculine and feminine.
My larger point, though, is how is this useful? What does a scale of gender do to help anything?
I dont think 100% anything exists. ideals like those are ideals we measure ourselves against, but are impractical in reality. we are human, our ideas are nuanced. a 100% ideology would make a person 2D, like a poorly written TV show character.
100% macho would be a slap stick character from a soap opera. same thing for 100% feminine.
More granular and transient*
Boiling it down to male vs female is like boiling politics down to left vs right. Traits and ideas tend to be packaged together, but a single spectrum loses nuance. Where does a women who likes football go? You can be a communist, social democrat, centrist, neo-liberalist, alt-right, libertarian, and so many other political identities. Those terms act as heuristics that expose the nuance of the spectrum, but there's no analogous heuristics on the masculinity vs femininity scale. Why can't there be a heuristic for a woman who exhibits many masculine traits? Imagine if left and right were the only words we had for political identity! Exploring nuance and common ground would be so much harder.
As an example, the wage gap is a result of gender differences but it measures purely biological sex. If sex was replaced with a more granular gender identity that captured nuance in the spectrum it'd be easier to explain why the gap exists. It'd maybe even point out what the optimal balance is.
I used to think ignoring masculinity and femininity was the solution. But that's not pragmatic at all. That stance is just as effective as ignoring race, nationality, culture, or political leaning. We are collectively wired to think about these things and to pretend they don't exist just makes our biases stronger. It feels strange but this is why I love the idea of making identity more granular.
To answer your question: 100% masculinity is exhibiting masculine traits all the time, even when those traits are vices. Here's just a few examples of masculine vs feminine traits:
Strength vs Gentleness
Independence vs Succorance
Assertiveness vs Deference
Competition vs Compassion
Aggressive vs Tactfulness
Dominant vs submissive
Courageous vs Thoughtful
Acting without thinking vs thinking without acting
Clumsy vs graceful
Logical vs outgoing
Protective vs passive
What is 100% masculine and 100% feminine? Assuming that they're opposite sides of the spectrum, there must be a theoretical "most masculine/feminine" to compare to.
Also, putting it into a spectrum, in my opinion, just doesn't work or, at the very least, is not helpful. Where would a woman who enjoys football go? It doesn't matter 'cause she's a woman. What is often considered masculine or feminine are the actions people do (hobbies, interests, etc.) and character traits shouldn't make up one's gender, one's gender is a character trait.