Talk:Atypical gender role

Untitled
I have no idea what the subsection on role models is trying to say. It feels like weasel words, but I'm not exactly sure. Secretlondon 01:36, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC) It sometimes happens, or at least it happened in the past in the US, that infants would grow up with no appropriate gender role models in their immediate surroundings. They would then learn the forms of speech, the gestures, etc., of the other gender. When things happen like this, or when people move to a new culture where the signals are different from the ones they learned as a child, there can be problems because people may become upset by "this young woman trying to act like a man," or vice-versa. That's not quite the same problem as the person who is anatomically male but has an experience of self that says "woman," and who tries to adopt a feminine gender role. In the first case the anatomical sex of the individual is congruent to his or to her gender identity, but the person just has the gender role a bit off. It is relatively easy to learn the "right way to do it," and the individual doesn't have any conflict with making gender role conform to gender identity. But the people whose gender identities is not congruent with their anatomical sex may well want to adopt a gender role that is not congruent with their anatomical sex. When other people in their society discover this fact they are frequently subjected to negative reactions. So the article is trying to point out that not all gender roles that do not conform to the norms of a given society in fact indicate an underlying psychological lack of conformance, just a mistaken way of communicating. P0M 20:31, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

winkte
Regarding the section on winkte: I am removing one sentence:
 * It generally refers to someone who is transgender (i.e., male humans who do not conform to the ordinary man's gender role).

This sentence mixes up several levels of analysis. People who do not conform to ordinary gender roles can be doing so for any number of reasons, not just because they experience themselves as having a conflict between their genetalia and their sense of self. I have not seen any discussions by winkte stating that they experience themselves as having a body type that is inappropriate to their sense of masculinity or feminity, and I haven't even seen non-winkte Native Americans making that sort of claim. If there are such claims, they need to be cited. The way the author of Lame Deer, Seeker of Visions explains winkte, they are "backwards" in all regards, not just (and not primarily judging by what he chooses to discuss) in regard to their sexualities. They wear hot clothing in summer time, short sleeves or whatever in wintertime, etc. There is no indication that I have seen that they "want to be a woman." Instead, they have their own particular role in society. They do not, for instance, become the wife of some man. They live in their own dwellings. About the most that Lame Deer says about their sexuality is that teen age boys are discouraged from spending too much time with them.

I need to relocate my copy of John Fire Lame Deer's book and update the article on winkte on that basis. It would be going too far to simply assume that those who are familiar with Western ideas on sexuality have the right take on what a winkte "really is," and that the inheritors of the old Lakota ways like Lame Deer simply didn't know what was really going on. And if there is a modern anthropological or depth psychology "take" on what goes in to making a winkte, then that research should be found and cited. &#37329; (Kim) 03:40, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Sexuality?
This articles seems mostly to focus on sexuality than on gender. Shouldn't there be less talk of gay/lesbian/bi/ and more about 'tomboys' 'sissies' 'cross-dressers''househusbands' 'career women' 'metrosexual' ect. and other terms that may be used to identify someone who doesn't embrace the norm for societal gender roles without regard to homosexuality or bisexuality? GENDER ROLE is not the same as SEXUAL ORIENTATION. (sorry, didn't mean to yell)

Fixed it up.
I strongly agree with the comment about sexuality, so I went and fixed up the page. The previous one was so heteronormative I couldn't stand it. It was very inaccurate. Hopefully the new version will serve it's purpose. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jakku84 (talk • contribs) 07:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

Anonymous comments copied from Talk:Gender variance
The comments below were left on the talk page for Gender variance, but they seem to be referring to this article instead.

This article is totally wrong. It seeks to describe things from a radical 'queer' perspective. Eg, heteronormativity is described "a binary system in which a person's gender identity and gender role should match a person's external genitalia."

This view wrongly sees as heterosexuality as the same as 'Gender Congruent behaviour,' e.g. 'masculinity in males' ... and non-heterosexuality, e.g. sexuality between men as 'Gender Congruent behaviour,' which is akin to femininity in males.

Heteronormativity is about expecting or conditioning or forcing people to be heterosexual.

Also, people of third gender (like Hijra) are described as gender atypical, when in our societies, they have been assigned a valid gender identity (third gender) and Hijras behave typically as per their Gender (which is feminine male). (122.176.198.236 (talk) 12:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC))