Where on a spectrum might your gender identity be?

January 14, 2018

 

h/t LilyLilyMaynard

41 Responses to “Where on a spectrum might your gender identity be?”

  1. rheapdx1 Says:

    How nice…

    When were in a slightly more rational society, the word or term ‘spectrum’ meant:

    – the organization that ‘Captain Scarlet’ was a member of [re: Gerry and Sylvia Anderson’s ‘Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons’….and that is the original ‘Supermarionation’ version].

    – the audio or visual limits of human hearing and visual acuity, respectively [as posted, via graph form in such places as the old ‘Stereo Review’ or ‘Popular/Modern Photography’, years back]

    Or

    – the building that the ‘Broad Street Bullies’, I mean the Philadelphia Flyers played in [as if there were not enough reasons for NYC kids to despise Philly].

    Now someone has to fit on an arbitrary scale, created by some ‘adults’ who want to further erase others, as well as to explain away their own creepiness. Let alone indoctrinate those who are too young, or do not have their sense of self set yet. So what if a boy wants to play with dolls/action figures and a girl wants to play with model trains???? Really…so damn what???? It is bad enough, that some of these creeps do this type of thing in business, based on race and earnings and call it a legitimate marketing science.

    More stereotyping by those who do not want stereotyping of themselves……Amazing……simply amazing……Damn…

  2. risko Says:

    Holy fuck why do I have to wear a dress to be female or pants to be a male!!!!!!!!!!! (sorry for potty mouth)

  3. Mary M Says:

    Get in your pigeonhole children. Every time you put on an item of clothing, get out a toy, or play, consider whether what you are doing is masculine or feminine. Discuss it with your friends. Judge them. Ruminate constantly about your gender.
    I can see why this shit is impacting more girls than boys. If you aren’t comfortable with the barbie porn culture that is forced on us all the time, then you might think that the only way out is a sex change.


  4. This is beyond stupid.

  5. Elle-laments Says:

    Ugh, don’t these people have anything to do? Really, this navel gazing is insipid, what a shameful waste of time. Throw on some comfortable, practical clothes and get out and live your life. Not everything needs to be a angst filled self expression.


  6. I find it so sad that in this day and age, human beings are still trying to crush the spirits of children by putting them in gender boxes. How long must it take for them to be released?


  7. My late grandfather, West Virginia sage, would have said:

    “Did somebody actually get paid to draw that thing?”

    First thing that popped in my head.

    (Nowadays, I could also explain to him what tenure means.)


  8. And why does #7 have their arms out? The only difference between 6 and 7 is that #7 has their arms out.

    I have been putting my arms in and out all morning because I am confused if I am a 6 or 7, but I know its one of those.

    I feel more like an arms-out person, so this must make me male–you know, taking up more space. (this MUST be what it means)

    #8’s arms are back in, so I guess they are consolidated in the male category because they are blue… notice #9 is DARK blue.

    Arms, colors… all the important gender markers!

    • GallusMag Says:

      I think the lavender ones are “the gays”.

    • Oak and Ash Says:

      Maybe #7 is simply raising their arms to fully embrace their non-binary/genderqueer identity? I mean, if we’re just making up crap . . .

      Aren’t children as likely as anything else to decide their gender identity is something based on their favorite color? Also, both men and women are shown as thinner toward the more “feminine” ends of their spectrums–must be a coincidence, right, rather than a societal expectation?


    • Maybe 7 has the arms out because they are daintily throwing some lady glitter or feminine confetti.

      By 8, the arms come down because the glitter/confetti ran out, and that moves you over a space, to more manly.

  9. genderskeptics Says:

    Where is the one with a neck? I identify with the neck havers

  10. GILAW Says:

    My aura has always been kind of mauve, a combination of brown and pink, so sort of between 1 and 12. So, either I’m a 13 or a -1 or the spectrum is really one of those circles where the ends connect.

  11. LC Says:

    Only real women wear hats, except for red person who is wearing a baseball cap I think? Why is red person the only one who can wear a cap? I identify as red person, not that I wear hats that much, but I like that red person seems to have more clothing options than everyone else. The ones on the male end can’t even move, they have to keep lifting weights until their arms are slightly thicker than the less manly people- that’s no way to live. Still better than being an emaciated pastel shape in a dress, but I guess at least the female-aligned blobs get their choice of bonnets.

    Whatever. I’m team red blob. Thank God I finally have a name for my gender identity!

  12. southwest88 Says:

    So, hats or really odd hair styling (?) means you are a woman and thicker bodied women are less women than some women? What are little kids going to make of this? It makes no sense at all.

  13. Riffraff Says:

    I want to see the notes for each tier pls

    Side note, there’s this dopey comic circling the Twittersphere “explaining” NB/agender and the artist replied with this:

    so close yet so far

  14. Nonny Says:

    I want to be #3. All I have to do is gain weight and put on a cowboy hat I guess.
    But seriously, this is a “dramatically walk out of class & drop the class by nightfall” moment

  15. Nonny Says:

    Oh shit I just realized one side says “Barbie” and the other side says “G.I. Joe.” It’s even worse than I thought. What happened to “smash the binary” or whatever??


    • @Nonny, Well said, that about sums it up. Barbie vs. G.I. Joe”. And, kids are being sterilized because they don’t fit neatly into the Barbie or G.I. Joe image.

      “I just realized one side says “Barbie” and the other side says “G.I. Joe.”

    • Oak and Ash Says:

      Good lord! Could this just be a clever parody? I really want it to be a parody.

      If this “chart” is serious, who could possibly have been stupid enough to use Barbie and G.I.Joe as the endpoints? It’s a graphic argument for exactly what radical feminists have been saying.


    • The Barbie and G.I. Joe are strangely appropriate, because one of the reasons for increased gender roles in the last 40 years is the relentless marketing of sex-specific toys to kids. Capitalism profits greatly from gender.

  16. Widdershins Says:

    What? Only axis. Where is the ‘y’ and the ‘z’? Where’s the science?
    We must be able to decide our gender in three dimensions. Possibly four or even five. This is discrimination.


  17. I noticed the Mermaids trans sign on the far right.

    I’m a gender abolitionist, and we believe the number of genders should be zero. We need freedom from gender not more gender. The fact some males and females are different doesn’t cause them to magically change their sex, and it doesn’t make them some kind of special “gender”. They are just different males and females. It’s okay to be different.

    When it’s broken down, gender is nothing more than what people used to call sex stereotypes. That is, males act, dress, and behave one way, and females act, dress, and behave in another way. This silly “spectrum” is a perfect example of sexism. Indeed, it’s nothing but sexist. Are 1, 2, and 3, images with long hair in pigtails? It kind of looks like it. Number 6 through 12 look like they have little, if any, hair. Pink dresses and long hair is a sexist stereotypical image of women. There is a slimmer pink image in a dress at the far left, and about in the middle is a red image and a yellow image. The slimmer one on the far left must be super feminine, and the more sturdier bodies are “masculine”. No, nothing sexist about saying “feminine” means slimmer and curvy. Note that on the far left, it’s dresses, and on the far right it’s pants. Women wear dresses and men wear pants. No, nothing sexist about this.

    Is there any limit to how far the special “gender spectrum” can be stretched? There are 7 billion people on earth. Maybe there are 7 billion genders. Every human has at least some characteristics or behaviors that are stereotypically associated with the opposite sex. Not only could there be 7 billion genders, all 7 billion people can change their gender as many times as they desire.

    There is a reason why “gender identity” gets getting crazier all the time. It’s fundamentally an illogical belief system. The last time I checked, there were 30 genders. And, I’m sure they will add some other idiotic term.

    “Gender identity” is nothing more than an irrational political ideology. If it were completely harmless, I would let these delusional people do as they please. The way that “gender identity” has evolved is not harmless. Children are being sterilized, disabled women are being mutilated, and the human rights of women are being violated.

    • GallusMag Says:

      I think #1. is this guy


      • There is unrest in the forest
        There is trouble with the trees
        For the maples want more sunlight
        And the oaks ignore their pleas

        There is trouble with the maples
        And they’re quite convinced they’re right
        They say the oaks are just too lofty
        And they grab up all the light

        But the oaks can’t help their feelings
        If they like the way they’re made
        And they wonder why the maples
        Can’t be happy in their shade?

  18. Charlie Says:

    I find it telling that their “spectrum” has 8 male icons and only 4 female ones. And as at least one of them has to be males expressing themselves as women and therefore should be depicted wearing a dress, the real split is probably 9/3. Soon they’ll all just be males in trousers or dresses…

    And as a former tomboy whose favourite piece of clothing was a pair of red dungarees with 11(!) pockets I despise this sexist idea of women having to wear a dress to be women.

  19. Medi Says:

    Actually, since I never wear dresses, and a lot of my other lesbian friends never wear them either, lesbians could claim to be all the people in pants, with the really weird hair styles going to male to trans. LOL

    • Mary M Says:

      That’s exactly what they’re saying. I saw a Trans woman claiming that Radcliffe Hall the writer was trans. She was a lesbian, and wore men’s clothes, so that meant that she was trans. Also Joan of Arc etc etc.

  20. Rachel Says:

    They’ve put Real Manly Men the colour of poo.
    Is number 7 doing a flappy-forearms Emily Howard lady-walk?

    • Nonny Says:

      Tbqh the colors on the opposite ends of the chart reminded me of the racist ideas that often intersect with sexism: the ultimate in soft, pretty, refined femininity is the pale pink white woman, and the apex of brutish, aggressive (“G.I. Joe”) masculinity is the dark brown (skinned) man. Even if it’s accidental/subconscious on the part of the creepy morons at Mermaid, it’s a pretty ugly flub.

  21. henrika85 Says:

    #5 looks like a middle-heavy old man with a flat cap. Maybe it’s for those that “identify” as a pensioner without having chronologically reached that age?

  22. juno jones Says:

    The thin/fat thing is scary. So being fat or unhourglass in shape makes you less female? How is this shit not promoting eating disorders and anorexia?

    • fmnst Says:

      Agreed. Thank you. And note, there are no truly fat people on the entire spectrum. We are what…non-human? That sounds familiar. We must starve ourselves to get our gender back.
      Yet another reason this is the opposite of anti-oppression politics. This fails big-time at “intersectionality.”

  23. Molly Blythe Says:

    So it’s only women who are depicted as more and more stereotypical and sexualized when they’re further along the “spectrum” of Gender ID. There’s no, for instance, bulging muscles on 10-12, with the muscles getting bulgier and more prominent. There’s no increasingly triangle-shaped upper body (indicative of higher testosterone presence, for the “hormones is magic” school of gender-thought) for the “masculine identity range,” but women of course get a Barbie-fied version of the estrogenic waist:hip ratio when they move further toward the “feminine.”

    Men are clearly just the default human in these images. They should label the two sides of the spectrum “Sexbots” and “Full Humans With Rights And Stuff.” It’d be more honest.

  24. Anemone Says:

    I really wish I were good at making fun of this sort of thing like some of the others here. All I can think of though is that this is really bad science. There is a simple linear spectrum for height and how high or deep your voice is, but none of the other differences that I can think of could be diagrammed like this. There are too many dimensions to personality and body type, for example, to even map in 2D. (This is 1D.)

  25. fmnst Says:

    Could there be any greater proof than this that “transgender”simply means sex stereotypes?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: