It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Billy Dee Williams and the Concept of "Gender-Fluidity"

page: 1
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 02:25 PM
link   
When Billy Dee Williams "came out as gender-fluid", he received a lot of praise from the media for it. In explaining what he meant by his desire to speak of himself as also a "her", he writes, "And you see I say "himself" and "herself," because I also see myself as feminine as well as masculine. I'm a very soft person. I'm not afraid to show that side of myself."

What's clear in this statement is that Williams identifies 'softness' with femininity, perhaps with Jungian themes in mind of the animus and the anima. Since 'softness' is femininity and the anima, then the converse must be 'roughness' and masculinity, and the animus.

What's surprising, or confusing for me, is the conflation of a psychological category of self-experience with biological identity. As for Williams statement that he has a prototypically 'feminine' part of himself that is soft, and a prototypically masculine part that is rough, I have very little problem with. All Humans are composed of a combination of motivational states that derive from the conditions of our existing, some of which are more basic and general, such as the need to be positively known and experienced by others, the most essential experience of which is to love and be loved. Williams calls this 'feminine', and at an archetypal level of analysis, since we all come into this world as intrinsically vulnerable and needy infants, the intersubjective unity of self and other remains the bedrock of our affective being, and the only thing which can regenerate us when we're feeling weak, sick, and vulnerable. Like in embryogenesis and the gendering of the physical body where feminine sexual organs precede masculinization with testosterone, the emergence of the ego in language grows out of the more symbiotic sensitivities of non-verbal communication between self and other. Between these two components lies a slight asymmetry in favor of the "feminine" elements of intersubjective field effects, which we see reflected in macro form after adolescence in the way males pursue females, and the way a loving pair bond with another relaxes the restless isolation of the egotistical feeling-body.

Reality is indeed complementary - yin and yang, the yielding and animating. Within each of us lies this component, but not in equal measure. I am a male not simply because I identify as one, but because my brain-mind is physiologically and emotionally textured by a masculine physiology. Testosterone and estrogen are hormones with profound influences on the tuning of the nervous system and body, and with those effects, humans naturally converge to culturally established basins of attraction. Gender is therefore not merely a 'cultural' thing, as if culture was somehow disconnected from biological determinants and constraints. Culture is a vague term which oftentimes obscures more than it reveals. To be more explicit, we can call culture those "systems of referents which regulate interpersonal interactions". These referents are already established by the time a human enters the world, and it 'captures' our forms of implicit reflexive and diffuse experience by the intrinsic mirroring properties of our brains which cause us to identify with people who are like us. We are inevitably attracted to similarity, and in this way, culture is those intersubjective forms of knowing which are transmitted simply observing and interacting with others. We incorporate and incarnate the self-states of others as a function of what we are.

So my problem with Billy Dee Williams is this: you can claim you have feminine and masculine dimensions to your personality, and that wouldn't be a problem. But to limit all analysis to merely ones psychological forms of self-experience, and to pretend that nothing has been left out, is to ignore the positive functional value of acknowledging your masculine and feminine gender states.

What is sensitivity? If Billy Dee Williams is sensitive, what is he sensitive to? Is he sensitive to the real - i.e. to what exists in fact? Where does his sensitivities begin and where do they end? I believe Billy Dee Williams is sensitive to people who function and grow with a liberal environment where alienation between humanity and nature is already presupposed. The perennial solution to this alienation is Gnosticism, where instead of alienation being understood as an emergent property of a structural asymmetry between the human brain and the way it knows the world around it, it is essentialized, reified, and concretized into a preexisting reality. Humans are deemed a priori (beforehand) as alien to the world, which necessarily implies that the world is evil, and harmful, and a lie, and that humanity is a team which must band together in opposition against natures harsh amorality. When the media extolls Billy Dee Williams for using a male and female pronoun, one cannot help but suspect a deliberative belief system at play which is essentially Gnostic, which more or less implies, or presupposes, a structural discontinuity between the way our minds (brains) work and the way we link up with the environment around us.

For me, I can't help but wonder why its such a problem for both these facts to be the case: that we, all of us, can have feminine and masculine dimensions to our personalities, and at the same time be specifically limited as individual beings with a singular gender. What is going on here? Why does acknowledging finitude and specification - or the reality of natures naturing - pose such a problem for people? Do we not look strange, that on the outside, we are clearly male or female, or males trying to be females or females trying to be males, and doesn't this inauthenticity necessarily imply a problem for how we understand reality, or more generally, deal with unpalatable truths, truths that appear throughout our experience, in our diets, sleep, relationships, or at the largest scale, in facts such as climate change? Is there not something consonant between our present-day cultural trend to 'transcend' sensuous realities like our physical bodies and the way they structure psychological gender, and the physical world and the way it structures psychological experience? How can we hope to live harmoniously with our environments if we can't even live harmoniously with our physical bodies? How can we hope to prevent an ecological apocalypse if this is what our leaders believe?




posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 02:40 PM
link   
So at the end of the day there is only two biological genders, but there is over 7 billion different personal identities. It seems like with the huge popularity of tattoos to establish a level of uniqueness there are many looking for other ways to continue to expand their uniqueness, and so they are going the direction of gender to do it. To have 58 genders with 200 more most likely round the corner it is stupid, might as well say their are 7 billion+ genders and leave it at that.


edit on 2-12-2019 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 02:41 PM
link   
Sounds like Billy is Bi.



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 03:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Astrocyte

Good on you Billy...you be you...most people really don't care as long as your good people...



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 03:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Astrocyte

There are generally said to be two sexes although even at that we now know there are variations; this is a matter of biology - male and female with a range of variations.

Gender is a socio-cultural construct of what "man" and "woman" or "masculine" or "feminine" mean usually in terms of appearance, grooming, dress, behaviors and to some extent, vocations.

Gender IDENTITY is a personal matter that society should respect to some degree. Taken to its extremes IDENTITY politics is a negative force in our modern world.
edit on 2-12-2019 by Gryphon66 because: Noted.



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 03:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
There are generally said to be two sexes although even at that we now know there are variations; this is a matter of biology - male and female with a range of variations.

No. Just no.

There are two. Anything else is a birth defect, nothing more, nothing less.



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 03:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: spiritualarchitect
Sounds like Billy is Bi.


Sounds like Billy is seeking a few extra minutes of fame and using virtue signaling in a world of retardation and society that bizarrely celebrates mental illness to obtain those extra minutes.



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 03:16 PM
link   
I find it a bit presumptious to say being gentle and loving are just female traits and being rough, is male. I am 100% female but whilst I can be loving and gentle, I can be very angry and nasty and rough if the situation demands.
My husband is loving and gentle and can also be rough and manly when needed. Yet he is 100% male.
As a psychologically rounded female and human I find it very patronising that I should be gentle and lovely otherwise I might be partially male. I mean WTF?

This gender fluidity is rubbish. You are male or female [or ambiguous through birth defects] and then you can have character traits that are whatever you want them to be. You still stay male or female [or intersex].
It used to be called character.



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 03:17 PM
link   
In the old days, people called this "oversexed." I had a writing instructor one day tell the class what his take on male homosexuality was, after having lived in West Hollywood for decades and encountering all kinds of people. He felt that most male homosexuals are basically oversexed, and that their sex drive was such that they didn't want to go through the whole ritual of dinner, dating, etc., before having sex, and they didn't want to just pay for it. So instead, they found other like-minded guys who put a person's gender way lower down on the list than the sex itself, and went at it. No bullcrap, no prolonged and expensive courtship with the implication that marriage could be considered at some point, just wham bam thank you man. Lesbians, he concluded, were more likely than not horribly abused by a male at some point early in their development and decided to avoid men after that.

I'm not sure if he was exactly right, since there does seem to be a genetic component to sexuality. But it was an interesting take on the subject. Maybe Billy D. is like that. "I don't care who I have sex with as long as it's fast and uncomplicated!"
edit on 2-12-2019 by Blue Shift because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 03:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Semantics and definition revisionist nonsense born of an era where some have decided the best way to treat a mental illness is to placate it and demand everyone around join in experiencing the manifestations of those illnesses. There are two genders. A man in a dress is still a man in a dress, no matter how loudly the fool claims to be female, his genes are still XY pairs. When you delve into a world where medical blockers to natural body processes and surgeries are required to fundamentally alter your appearance and make you appear the way you believe you are, then we're simply dealing with mental health issues. It's adults playing high stakes imagination play in public and demanding everyone else also convince themselves that they too can see Snuffalupagus and polka dotted elephants.



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 03:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hecate666
I am 100% female but whilst I can be loving and gentle, I can be very angry and nasty and rough if the situation demands.


That's just your inner Billy Dee trying to come out.



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 03:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Astrocyte

"Soft." Ugh. Stereotypes.

I agree with you to the extent that the human body is a combination of "male" and "female" factors... everything else is perspective, opinion and stereotypes on what a man/woman is or should be. Men and women both naturally express every emotion and trait in accordance with circumstance.

Would anyone call a mama protecting her young "soft"??? Of course not. And yet, is there anything more maternal, and therefore more "feminine", than a mama going psychobitch on someone trying to hurt her young? Of course not!

I am so done with the labels. I don't know which is worse: Those who want to label others or those who want to label themselves.

We're just people -- the same but different.



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 04:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Gryphon66
There are generally said to be two sexes although even at that we now know there are variations; this is a matter of biology - male and female with a range of variations.

No. Just no.

There are two. Anything else is a birth defect, nothing more, nothing less.


Medical science disagrees.

Emphatically.



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 04:09 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Nah.

99% of your post is simply false or merely your opinion.

Science disagrees.
edit on 2-12-2019 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 04:10 PM
link   
This. Basically homie will shag whatever happens to be walking, or even trotting, by at the mo.




a reply to: Blue Shift



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 04:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Nah.

99% of your post is simply false ore merely your opinion. Science disagrees.


Modern scientists, driven by a combination of easily removed public funding grants and political agendas are their own worst enemies. Science has only disagreed within the last decade or so, prior to that the consensus was that there are two genders and gender confusion was a mental illness... then politics got involved and it all went to crap.



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 04:21 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Okay. Again your opinion. You could use the same argument to justify using leeches.

Yet you acknowledge my point. Thanks.



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 04:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

in a world of retardation and society that bizarrely celebrates mental illness to obtain those extra minutes.


So in your opinion Billy Dee Williams is mentally ill?

What doctorate is it you have achieved?

I bet he had more than a few minutes of fame.



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 04:25 PM
link   
I had a transgender person tell me that sexual identity had nothing to do with sex itself. Which made me wonder, what the point was. Is it just that you want to be accepted in a dress instead of a suit? Is it just that you need others to see you in a certain way in order to validate your feelings?

If those who wish to promote this way of life want to be taken seriously, I think they should open up to discussions about it and accept that some people might not see it as "normal". But then, I was fine before Billy had his coming out, and I will probably be just as good now that I know he is gender confused. I hope he finds what he is looking for.



posted on Dec, 2 2019 @ 04:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
You could use the same argument to justify using leeches.


Uh, leeches are still used in medicine. Hirudotherapy is the best way to ensure transplanted and disconnected skin reconnects to the body's circulatory system. You're literally kicking your own argument in the head, Gryph.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join