While your opinion of it may differ, I'm pretty sure that your definition of femininity actually conforms to the tumblr crowd's definition. On the numerous continua by which they define themselves, femininity and masculinity (which I believe exists, though it isn't exactly "manliness") exist on a scale separate from gender, sex, and orientation. By separating the concept of femininity from gender (sex?) and its association with women, these people eliminate the conflict between the feminist movement and it's increasingly non-feminine nature.

The issue with this new definition of femininity, as with many things within the tumblr hugbox, is that it is redefining a word in a manner such that it has nothing to do with its original meaning (or the criteria upon which we previously defined something as "feminine"), yet it retains the same usage. While it might not be possible to be born feminine, you can certainly be born with traits, such as a high voice and thin shoulders, that are associated with women and therefore the popular definition of femininity. By separating femininity from female traits, the word essentially becomes useless. If you've ever judged whether a trap/tranny is "passable", you are evaluating how feminine they are i.e. How much they conform to the traits of their chosen gender. The move to redefine femininity by separating it from gender is an attempt by the tumblr crowd to remove a means of criticism. If we can't evaluate femininity on a basis of gender conformity, then trans identities can become self validated ("I'm a girl because I say I am, even though I have a beard and dick!").

It is worrisome that these people seek to control thought by redefining common words to fit their agendas. See for example how x-ism went from something that one actively says or does to something that one perceives, so now people can claim discrimination even if there was no offending action. Perhaps I am straying from the topic, but from my point of view there is so much wrong/irrational about these new movements and seemingly nothing that can be done about it. I don't believe in any of the gender continuum bs et al., and honestly I think that transgendered people are mentally ill, but with the sea change in popular opinion regarding these topics, such discussions are best kept to anonymous imageboards.

Femininity and masculinity seem to have more defined traits in cultures other than the United States. At lest in their languages there is a association given to the objects of masculine or feminine, and so it seems that in these cultures those traits are commonly seen in everyday objects. It's easy to come up with traits that we could define as qualities of a man or a woman, but it's hard to say whether or not any of those are real or born through culture. There could be some physiological differences which lend themselves to traits that have been defined as fem/masc. Every person has a different level of hormones flowing through their body which can go to extremes on either gender. I don't think fem/masc traits would be so easily reduced to hormone levels or anything like that. There are shapes which can be defined as fem/masc and generally I think people can agree on which ones they are. It's not likely all culture which has taught people to think of soft shapes as feminine. But maybe people would choose squares over circles as being feminine, I'm not sure.

This analysis of what defines femininity has a good deal of cognitive dissonance. How is it that you believe that femininity has a set definition but its opposite, masculinity, does not?

I had written out a long effort-post addressing each of your points individually but accidentally closed the tab in a drunken stupor. So I'm sorry about not being more comprehensive.

Femininity is culturally defined in the same way as masculinity. There is usually a division of labor among gender lines, and tasks typically done by women are considered feminine. In our culture think knitting and cooking. In other cultures things such as boat making (Hidatsa), woodworking (Pawnee), or hunting (Mbuti "pygmies") are considered feminine. There are activities that are broadly male, and ones that are broadly female, but there are always exceptions. It's important to understand that.

>>Femininity is very superficial. A feminine girl is feminine because she is cute, not because she is skilled.

This is where everything goes off the rails for me. Masculinity is just as superficial. Think about quintessentially masculine men like Arnold Schwarzenegger. He was a body builder, meaning his job was to look muscular (read: not actually be strong). Both are about appearances and not actual ability.

>>This means that a feminine creature in its passive nature is something to be enjoyed and not something to relate to.
What? How does this follow anything else? How does being passive mean that something is to be enjoyed but not related to?

>> You don't say 'hmm this chess-move was very feminine of you', you say 'this dress you are wearing is very feminine'.
You also don't say that a chess move was masculine. At least you shouldn't. It makes no more sense than calling a move feminine.

I have stated that I don't believe that there is such thing as manliness, that its meaning is virtual.

You also talk about society and it's tasks being divided into feminine and masculine depending on the particular culture. I'd like to opine that this is much more of a common association typea thing, rather than the actual definition. Much like pantyhose being women's clothing, when actually it started out being for men only, yet does that barely tell us anything about what a man or a woman is or was.

Overall your response seems very assumptive of my opinions. It seems it is the person in your head that you argue with, not actually me.

You still haven't adequately given a defense to the idea that masculinity is virtual and femininity is not. Do you have a response to the idea that being good at certain things is considered feminine? I mean your idea was that masculinity was based on ability and femininity on appearance, but in certain fields femininity is based on ability, and masculinity on appearance, which is why I talked about gender roles.

>>Much like pantyhose being women's clothing, when actually it started out being for men only, yet does that barely tell us anything about what a man or a woman is or was.
So you are saying that our definition of femininity has changed over the years even within our own culture? That's interesting since you said that femininity has a set definition even cross culturally.

>>Overall your response seems very assumptive of my opinions. It seems it is the person in your head that you argue with, not actually me.

If you believe that any of my responses were assuming something about you or not responding to what you said, then try and clarify your points, or better yet, defend them. Don't just say "You straw manned" and pretend like that discredits all of what I've said.


If you're looking for a cross-cultural definition of femininity and masculinity (at this point) it must be based on superficiality and not any particular ability (since gender roles vary from culture to culture). The root of the question is what phenotype changes occur when we change an X chromosome to a Y? Physically the Y generally makes a person more muscular and less empathetic. That is fairly well established. If we want more information than that we need a better understanding of the brain first, because if we try and reason our way into it we will end up in the same boat as physical philosophy, with notions that prove to be based on nothing more than our faulty assumptions. You want to establish a standard for femininity, but for something to be a standard it needs to be free of bias. I don't believe any of us are in a position to make such an arbitration.

>>625

>>

>>but in certain fields femininity is based on ability

I'd actually like to hear some examples here.

>>and masculinity on appearance

Here too.

People say things like, 'I always felt like a girl' or 'girls just think differently'. They imply that femininity is some profound aspect of the mind and soul of a woman, and I would simply like to question that.

I already gave one for each.
Bodybuilding - Look muscular (not be able to lift things)- appearance not ability - This is what Arnold is, and he's pretty damn manly for it.

I gave cross cultural parallels [boat making (Hidatsa), woodworking (Pawnee)] for femininity being based on ability, but just so you don't have to step out of your comfort zone: The ability to sew or knit is certainly considered a feminine trait. If someone were to do these things very well that would be considered feminine of them. If you want to say that a lot of high fashion is male, sure, but they're also almost exclusively gay men who don't care that it's considered feminine.

Just because tasks are domestic isn't to say that one doesn't have to have a particular ability to do them.

>>People say things like, 'I always felt like a girl' or 'girls just think differently'.
Those that say they 'always felt like a girl' are mistaken. At least they are not phrasing their feelings correctly. There is no way for a man to actually know what it is to be a girl in the same way that there's no way for a man to know what it is to be any other person. I mean usually they mean to say that they identify more with our culture's female gender roles (that is to say cooking, cleaning, child rearing, being the passive one in relationships, being interested in fashion, etc.). Where I think you go off the rails is when you assume that our culture's definition of femininity is some sort of universal, and take one aspect of femininity (that women often like to look attractive) and try to say that that is the only basis for womanhood.

>>They imply that femininity is some profound aspect of the mind and soul of a woman, and I would simply like to question that.
Being a woman identifies them as much as being a man identifies you. There are a lot of things that define who we are, and each is integral to our person. Do I think that femininity is solely seen in women? Certainly not, there are a lot of feminine men, and a lot of masculine women. If you're using profound to be the opposite of superficial I'd have to disagree with you again. Being a woman is just as important to their character as being masculine is to yours.

>>627
>I mean usually they mean to say that they identify more with our culture's female gender roles (that is to say cooking, cleaning, child rearing, being the passive one in relationships, being interested in fashion, etc.).
Umm I think it's that they identify with women around them. I think it's deeper, I know there's a neurological basis; it's probably something more like their internal picture of themselves being the opposite of their biological gender for some reason. Such an explanation would make sense because it separates what identifies as from sex and orientation. What gender roles a person identifies with don't reflect on self-professed gender. For example I'm a man but I'm really empathetic, I like taking care of kids, and I'm pretty into fashion; yet I never feel I identify as a woman. Somehow being masculine/feminine is a separate thing.

In my experience, the 'femininity' expressed by MtF transexuals and gay men is actually a subtly different sort of state of being to the femininity traditionally possed by those born female. The male feminity, as I will call it, has more of a performative and hypersexual character; it is flamboyant and takes up a lot of social space and as such can be seen as a macsulinised feminity, whereas traditional feminity has undertones of maternality and is born of a much more cyclical mindset- possibly as a result of the cyclical fact of female biology.

I feel as if these two types of feminity have been falsely merged in today's society, to the extent that many biological females have taken on aspects of the male version, and I think recognising this difference will help us much better deal with the different issues affecting the respective groups.

>>705
I feel like I should mention that I am speaking from a position of someone possessing said 'male feminity', for added legitimacy of course