Gender?

reminds me of this video:

 

Hmmm I would say butch is a gender expression, regardless of how this person identifies, feels.

I'm happy that the video was of help.

 

yep, i would say that crossdressing is something that you'd do now and then - if you always do it, it's just how you express your gender. i mean, to me that is what crossdressing implies. i actually feel like i'm cross-dressing when i wear feminine clothing: not because i am masculine per se (probably more androgynous than anything), but because feminine clothing is not what i usually wear, so the 'cross' comes from going from something i normally wear to something i don't normally wear. butch people express themselves by wearing more traditionally masculine clothes all the time because it's not crossdressing but just their general style (the butch identity tends to be more than just a clothing style though, so this is just one aspect). i wouldn't say "all the time" is a requirement because sometimes it's just not an option (ie some settings force you to dress feminine even if you want, like schools that have uniforms and require girls to wear skirts) but they'd generally feel more comfortable in it.

just a heads up that butch is an identity like any other so be careful not to describe someone as butch if you don't know if they identify as such not to say that you've been doing it but just in case!

I think there might be a lot of male crossdressers because it's more unusual for men to wear women's clothes than for women to wear men's clothes. i mean, with the existence of fashion items like "boyfriend jeans" or whatever, a woman can wear men's clothes and not even have anyone notice they're men's clothes, technically. unisex clothes also tend to be identical cuts to men's clothes so really, in fashion, men's fashion tends to lean a lot closer to unisex. women's fashion on the other hand is further removed from what is considered unisex, so wearing women's clothes as a man seems like a bigger step - and because it is more unusual it can be more appealing for a number of reasons other than just liking it (ie for some people it may feel naughty, or provocative, or just a general statement). That's definitely not true for everyone but i think it definitely contributes. like, a woman who puts on pants and a flannel is not immediately considered to be cross-dressing because it's not really all that unusual to see women wear that. but a man wearing a skirt and a crop top is much more likely to be considered a cross-dresser because people look at those clothes and go "wow! so feminine!"

 

that’s alright - you’re trying to learn, and that’s a great step! and questions are what this forum is for!

butch is an identity with a history in lesbian communities specifically, and while it is used in different ways and no person identifying as butch is identical to someone else who identifies as butch, it is generally used as more than just a style expression. i mean, to say someone dresses in a masculine manner, we could just say “masculine” after all. it generally encompass more than just the way you dress, including mannerisms but also the way one experiences womanhood (if at all, because there are also some non binary people identifying as butch) and gender, and their relation to their sexuality, amongst other things. you don’t look butch - you are butch. the identity has been pulled out of its context a lot though and sometimes people use it as merely synonymous with masculine, even using it to refer to masculine men (which i personally find a big problematic because it’s once again taking an identity that explicitly has nothing to do with men and making it about men) so these things always depend on who is saying it and such.
cross dressing is more about appearance in that particular moment, i suppose. for some people it’s just clothes, for others it may also include physical characteristics (ie drawing facial hair) or it can even expand into drag territory where it becomes a real performance, really embodying a character including their mannerisms and all that. i’m no expert on cross-dressing cultures so anyone who knows better than me, feel free to correct me! and these are just very rough outlines of course, there are no strict boundaries or “rules” that anyone can give you for these things because all of these too are social constructs and their meaning heavily depends on the time and place they’re used in and are ever changing.

 

there is quite a lot of literature about butch/femme identities out there because they are amongst the more consistent aspects of lesbian culture (and widely debated at that) so if you want to learn more about those specifically, i’d recommend diving into some of that and navigating different perspectives (wikipedia can provide a good starting point of some of the better know/influential writers on it). i can only give you a very brief and oversimplified description that definitely doesn’t do it justice, and because it’s not something with a simple definition, it’s generally better to explore different perspectives on it and forming your own sense of what these words mean

 

this varies - some people do actually use butch as a gender, in which case the word is typically more defined by love for woman than by the person’s genders themselves. others strongly identify as woman and butch. it’s important to acknowledge here too that a significant number of lesbians experience a difficult relationship with womanhood too so that’s why the word is used in both these ways. monique witting famously said “lesbians are not women” - and that’s a sentiment that may be even stronger amongst lesbians who are not gender comforting.

i suppose it would be more like growing into being butch? i’d say it’s generally not like being goth or whatever - something that you could just decide to become one day and stop the next. but you could grow into the identity the way you do when you become more comfortable with yourself - like figuring out who you really are.

no. i mean, there are temporary exceptions of course: someone who identifies as butch may have to wear a dress for a certain occasion or whatever because it’s required of them, but a more masculine or androgynous appearance is a part of the butch identity (and feminine for femme) - which is also why butch/femme relations are sometimes (unjustly, in my opinion) been critiqued for “reinforcing heteronormativity”. and yes, femme and butch are two identities that came into existence together, and are often theorized in relation to each other as well, as being two distinct (but not the only! you don’t have to “pick a side” if you’re gay or anything) ways to experience lesbianism. generally calling them “masculine” and “feminine” is also a bit of an oversimplification because many femmes will argue their femininity is very different from a straight woman’s —— particularly because traditional feminity is very much about appealing to men, which obviously is not something lesbians are interested in. for lack of better language that’s probably the clearest descriptor but it’s good to realise that it doesn’t fully encompass the full experience.

mind you, again, i’m going by more traditional ways of defining this, but i don’t mean that in a gatekeepy way (although i will defend the word butch from men and straight women at all cost, because let’s have gay women have ONE thing, y’know? femme has already been appropriatate to just mean “feminine” on so many contexts and it’s just so unnecessary when the word feminine is right there to use and the meaning of femme was so much more than that...) and esp non binary butches may feel a little different about this so don’t consider this like a bible or anything.

 

hey - i feel you i’m from an extremely heteronormative and religious town - no one ever told me being gay was an option, let alone that you could break gender roles in any way. but the beauty about this day and age is that there are a lot of opportunities to learn more and educate yourself if you want to. lesbian history has always been quite political, closely intertwined with feminism (even if they didn’t always see eye to eye) so there is a lot of information out there - but a lot of it is also very controversial or heavily debated because it can be quite radical, which may make it a little hard to navigate sometimes. i dove deep into the literature a couple of years ago and i loved it - but i’m also a very political person, which i understand not everyone is. i do feel like sometimes in “general queer education” (to give it a name) the experiences of gay men are applied to everyone on the lgbt spectrum even though that’s a huge oversimplification that dismisses the reality of gay women as well as trans and bisexual people. so that’s where all the lesbian and gender literature can provide a really nice addition. but! even if that literature is not for you (it’s definitely quite dense and sometimes a little inaccessible if you’re not already very familiar wit it, unfortunately), the internet provides a nice space for learning. so ask questions! all the time! there is nothing more valuable than hearing other people’s experiences and learning from that!

 

I don't have a ton to add to this conversation, but it is fascinating to read. I'm learning so much and finding a lot of things that I can relate to. But one thing I wanted to point out is that I didn't know that butch was really used as a gender, but this is exactly how I've felt for the longest time. I have felt like being butch is (or rather can be) a totally different gender, and how I've internally thought of identifying, but thinking I was misusing the term. I am so happy that I found this, this makes SO much sense to me! Thank you to @tystnad for all the wonderful info you have provided us tonight!

 

Gay people are definitely out of the mainstream gender roles. The mainstream is very much defined by a certain version of heterosexuality.

Butch is somewhere on the border between cis and trans. Some people who appear as butch lesbians are trans men, some are cisgender women who fancy the expression but identify with being female nonetheless, some are non-binary. Some people who appear as butch women transition later. Some don’t. Some transition to a degree, like getting top surgery and nothing more.

 

That is a fair question, so here is another citation from Wittig's essay in which she declares lesbians are not women (called "The Straight Mind"):

There are a number of reasons why gender as complicated for lesbians is brought up much more than for men. First, many of these ideas come from radical lesbians, who did not, at all, concern themselves with men. In a patriarchal society, refusing to talk about men is revolutionary, and many of these women were not at all out to repackage their material in a way that also included men, so they simply just... didn't mention them. Even in less radical circles, the field of gender studies started out being called women's studies, because it was women, womanhood, and the inequality they suffered that was the focus. It only later became gender studies, when things like masculinities also became discussed. It is important to acknowledge that even though a man is gay, he can still be sexist and misogynist - and it is unfortunately the reality that people tend to throw other groups under the bus to achieve their own goals. That can be white people dismissing people of colour's experiences to advance their own privilege, it can be a group of radical feminists excluding trans women from their definition of woman, and it can be gay man forgetting about lesbians when they try to work on acceptance of their sexuality.

The reason I would say this is a much bigger issue for lesbians than for gay men, though, is because of the different ways in which manhood and womanhood are structured. While both are built on heterosexuality, men are generally allowed to be in a more active position whereas women are expected to be more passive. As in, masculinity is about claiming power, about being in control, about being an individual with autonomy over their own life and sexuality. Femininity is constructed as being submissive, about being attractive to men, about wanting men to pursue you. Think about fashion, for example: the way women's fashion is designed, it's very much about appealing to the male gaze, it's about altering the way you look (i.e. through make up) so you're appealing to men. Womanhood is very much defined by its relationship to men - whereas manhood is much less so defined by its relationship to women. So to break with it as a woman is to take a bigger step than to break with it as a man. We also need to recognise that gender relations are very unequal, and the masculinity-femininity spectrum is one that is very closely connected to power hierarchies. Even though these are being redesigned all the time as society progresses, the hierarchy is still very much there (i would personally also argue that the words masculinity and femininity are so soaked in power relations that we can never get rid of the power hierarchy while still using these words, but that's a story for another time). So to not be a woman is not just to step away from gender, but also from a submissive position where men hold the power. This is why some have argued to interpret Wittig's essay as meaning all women should step into the "lesbian" position, not to actually become lesbians, but to reclaim their power outside of the heterosexual hierarchy that is used to oppress them. I feel a bit uncomfortable with that phrasing because "lesbian" means more than just "someone who is not submissive to men" but that's the general idea of the claim they make.

Before any gay men get angry with me for this for not saying this explicitly and start drawing conclusions about men from stuff i say about women: none of this implies gay men cannot struggle with their gender. I am sure there are gay men who do, and I acknowledge that being a more feminine man means you are treated as inferior to more masculine men. But there's still a certain power to be hold, a privilege obtained through maleness, unlike womanhood which is constructed as inferior and so if you start taking away some elements like heterosexuality that keep women entrapped in it, it may all seem very alienating. All I'm saying is: there is more to the "lesbians are not women" claim than just gender differences, it's all about power hierarchies and the two-fold of oppression gay women face by being both homosexual and women.

Also, mind you, lesbian history is very closely connected to feminist history, so there really just is a lot more political stuff that has been said than for gay man. And it's been very radical at times, and not at all controversial, and there's no way I can do it full justice here in a rough summary like this. This is just to give you a more generalized overview, I suppose.
Wittig's statement is controversial. For me reading that sentence for the first time was something that really resonated with me because I have struggled a LOT with gender but could never recognise myself in any trans narratives, and it always made me worry if maybe it was just fake? or i was such a deeply repressed trans person that i couldn't even recognize it and i didn't know how to change that? but this statement, along with much other theorizing about what womanhood means to queer women just... blew my mind. it made everything make sense. i don't necessarily agree with everything she writes in the essay, but for me it really gave me the option to completely reframe gender for myself.
but that is certainly not the case for everyone, and the statement is debated quite a lot within lesbian and feminist circles. Some lesbians actively seek to reclaim womanhood and redefine it, so distancing themselves from it is undesirable. A lot of the problems bring up with the statement are very valid and often show that discussing womanhood using the language and culture that constructed it in the first place is really hard and that even when people more or less feel the same, they do not agree on the way to address it at all. And there's always the discussion of: should we separate ourselves and fight for our rights that way using grander and more radical tools? Or should we change things from the inside, even if we don't know for sure if it's possible? Compare it to the different leftist ideals: some people believe the only way to fix the world is by having a revolution that throws over capitalism, others believe we should manipulate capitalism to achieve a similar end result.