For me the really interesting issue is: 'Where does 'identity' come from?' It clearly comes over a lifetime, if you live it that way, part of it comes from 'inside' and part of it comes from 'outside.'
I have always been heterosexual--treated as male and didn't have a problem with that. Never has it been confusing or in doubt with me. What strikes me on this subject is that what we call 'gender differences' are essentially arbitrary though, i.e., cultural, dependent on the culture we are in. Gender in absolute, literal, actual sense applies to only half of only one chromosome. Other than that, a difference certainly exists but only in custom, in sociocultural terms, as far as I can see--and is therefore ultimately 'arbitrarily.' Any particular element could be taken one way or the other, depending on the standards and definitions being applied, from an external perspective.
It's not clear just what 'chemical' personal factors are connected to the male chromosome. I have generally wondered at the possibility that a transsexual or homosexual is one who tends to take these cultural values as absolute, to take his/her experience in a literal way. I can see that some people tend to understand things from a personal, 'internal' perspective and others from an 'external' or 'public' perspective--what one is to an other or others.
Generally men are taller than women, two to three inches on average. That means basically that only of the men are an inch or so taller than only the women. In voice pitch it's a little bit more pronounced. (Our parrot uses a completely different register when he speaks as I come in as it did before when it is mostly women that he hears.)
We also have the issue of 'ideal' vs. 'actual'--what the 'standard' is versus what the actual would be if it would be measured, either individually or statistically. I don't see 'emotionality' as gender specific to any degree--except in the 'ideal.' I (as a male) have just learned not to talk about feelings in public and to put them into context when I do need to but I never felt the need to deny them to myself. --I did learn eventually to take (feel) them much more fully as I gained the ability to experience my own personal 'identity,' 'personality' more fully and to break down a sort of 'schizophrenic' or bi-modal personality I used between when I was by myself and when I was with others.
Ultimately, I see it 'humanisticly:' that if you are not a full human being, it doesn't matter what you are, you're not there yet and have plenty of work to do just in becoming a person. If you are a human being, that includes both: by definition, in general and in practical terms--'find the things that work for you and the people around you.' --Does having to do the dishes mean you are a woman, having long hair, wearing a skirt? (In the USA in the 50s it did, unequivocally. Now it means you're not helpless around the house, you reject traditional, stuffy American values, are from India or are a proud--if anachronistic--Celtic with a beautiful kilt--a real kilt, women just wouldn't wear, it would look ridiculous!)
In future approaches to this subject it might be nice to have some detail on how this person defines her gender and how she feels it and "To what degree is 'male/female' 'binary' and to what degree is it a continuum?"
(I do understand 'On Being' tends to consider the personal aspect of all these issues. It's not a 'scientific' or research program.)
Thank you--my favorite radio series!
More information about text formats