<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Shapes, Not Lines</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.myhusbandbetty.com/2007/07/08/circles-not-lines/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.myhusbandbetty.com/2007/07/08/circles-not-lines/</link>
	<description>helen boyd&#039;s journal of gender &#38; trans issues</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Mar 2010 23:16:33 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=abc</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: danatgirl666</title>
		<link>http://www.myhusbandbetty.com/2007/07/08/circles-not-lines/comment-page-1/#comment-32197</link>
		<dc:creator>danatgirl666</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Jul 2007 22:32:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.myhusbandbetty.com/?p=1547#comment-32197</guid>
		<description>In looking back at my own thoughts about the subject, I have often used the imagery of a straight-line gender continuum limited by the male-female bookends, but your post has shown me the error of my ways! Now I&#039;m thinking, off the top of my head, of gender as one big circle with 2 smaller, intersecting circles enclosed within it (crude image: http://danatgirl666.blogspot.com/2007/07/re-envisioning-gender.html). 

The larger, encompassing circle represents the characteristics that make us all human - in other words anything not explicitly thought of as male or female and in the widest sense, &quot;androgyne&quot; or &quot;agendered&quot; or &quot;nongendered&quot; (or any of many other possible labels people wish to use). The circles within this are the traditional but always evolving and interacting definitions of &quot;female&quot; and &quot;male&quot; (or insert whatever gender labels that you want there). These represent the socially dominant physical and cultural understandings of these labels, and of course the shape these definitions take change over time and space (across geographies, cultures, nations, etc.). 

If you feel the need to reject the binary gender model entirely (count me in that group!) place yourself anywhere within the larger circle. If you aren&#039;t comfortable throwing out tradition entirely, put yourelf somewhere within the two smaller circles, or in their intersection. The image I&#039;m conjuring is reminiscent of telophase of cell mitosis (http://project.bio.iastate.edu/imagebank/mitosis.jpg) within an organism (but then again, I am certainly not a biologist so I may be way off here)?!!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In looking back at my own thoughts about the subject, I have often used the imagery of a straight-line gender continuum limited by the male-female bookends, but your post has shown me the error of my ways! Now I&#8217;m thinking, off the top of my head, of gender as one big circle with 2 smaller, intersecting circles enclosed within it (crude image: <a href="http://danatgirl666.blogspot.com/2007/07/re-envisioning-gender.html)" rel="nofollow">http://danatgirl666.blogspot.c.....nder.html)</a>. </p>
<p>The larger, encompassing circle represents the characteristics that make us all human &#8211; in other words anything not explicitly thought of as male or female and in the widest sense, &#8220;androgyne&#8221; or &#8220;agendered&#8221; or &#8220;nongendered&#8221; (or any of many other possible labels people wish to use). The circles within this are the traditional but always evolving and interacting definitions of &#8220;female&#8221; and &#8220;male&#8221; (or insert whatever gender labels that you want there). These represent the socially dominant physical and cultural understandings of these labels, and of course the shape these definitions take change over time and space (across geographies, cultures, nations, etc.). </p>
<p>If you feel the need to reject the binary gender model entirely (count me in that group!) place yourself anywhere within the larger circle. If you aren&#8217;t comfortable throwing out tradition entirely, put yourelf somewhere within the two smaller circles, or in their intersection. The image I&#8217;m conjuring is reminiscent of telophase of cell mitosis (<a href="http://project.bio.iastate.edu/imagebank/mitosis.jpg" rel="nofollow">http://project.bio.iastate.edu.....itosis.jpg</a>) within an organism (but then again, I am certainly not a biologist so I may be way off here)?!!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Why Gender is a Sphere &#171; Wandering Aloud</title>
		<link>http://www.myhusbandbetty.com/2007/07/08/circles-not-lines/comment-page-1/#comment-32194</link>
		<dc:creator>Why Gender is a Sphere &#171; Wandering Aloud</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Jul 2007 15:53:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.myhusbandbetty.com/?p=1547#comment-32194</guid>
		<description>[...] Gender &#8212; Ms. Donna @ 8:03 pm   Over in her blog, Helen comments on the idea that gender has Shapes, Not Lines. The following was originally posted on Sphere, a website and listserv for genderqueer identified [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Gender &#8212; Ms. Donna @ 8:03 pm   Over in her blog, Helen comments on the idea that gender has Shapes, Not Lines. The following was originally posted on Sphere, a website and listserv for genderqueer identified [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Diane Frank</title>
		<link>http://www.myhusbandbetty.com/2007/07/08/circles-not-lines/comment-page-1/#comment-32184</link>
		<dc:creator>Diane Frank</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Jul 2007 21:33:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.myhusbandbetty.com/?p=1547#comment-32184</guid>
		<description>oh...and that manifold?  It&#039;s infinitely differentiable-

Diane</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>oh&#8230;and that manifold?  It&#8217;s infinitely differentiable-</p>
<p>Diane</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Diane Frank</title>
		<link>http://www.myhusbandbetty.com/2007/07/08/circles-not-lines/comment-page-1/#comment-32183</link>
		<dc:creator>Diane Frank</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Jul 2007 19:27:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.myhusbandbetty.com/?p=1547#comment-32183</guid>
		<description>Well, actually it&#039;s a Reimannian manifold in 5 dimensional hyperspace...and that&#039;s about as queer as you can get...well except for 17 dimensional string theory.  But it shows to go you, I just unexpectedly solved a nasty plumbing problem where the least effort route between two points turned out to be a straight line...didn&#039;t need a polar route or a diversion into hyperspace at all!

Diane</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, actually it&#8217;s a Reimannian manifold in 5 dimensional hyperspace&#8230;and that&#8217;s about as queer as you can get&#8230;well except for 17 dimensional string theory.  But it shows to go you, I just unexpectedly solved a nasty plumbing problem where the least effort route between two points turned out to be a straight line&#8230;didn&#8217;t need a polar route or a diversion into hyperspace at all!</p>
<p>Diane</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
