Sex, Gender, and Sexuality: Prescriptions and Possibilities

Nexus7

Well-known member
Hmmm.

I have noticed this new spate of 'Mars/Venus' books (the differing neurologyof the sexes, thatis, not astrology). There may the the odd point here, though I worry that it may be the excuse some people might seek to send us all back to the kitchen.

In a world where in some parts of the world, the veil is compulsory and where women are not even allowed to work (Taliban) and where baby girls are kiled at birth in other parts ofthe world, I do not think there is much room for complacency. Ihappen to think that equlity at the workplace matters and Ihave expereinced discrimination as a woman.

Most often, by other women. I applied for a job in a school once and the reception was negative, negative andnegative, the headmistress did not even want to speak tomeand slammed the door in my face. Despite having two years' expereince, the questions showed no faith at all.

A male friend asked me for the phone no and guess what. As soon as he contacted them, out came the red carpet - 'they had been looking for a man' all along.

And yes, I was absolutely livid. Especially as there is no 'equal opportunities' or much in the way of watchdog bodies for equal rights I could have invoked here in Hungary, unlike with the UK.

I was sent by a new school to a new company just before Christmas and maybe mistakenly, gave alesson about a Victorian surgeon with a long, distinguished career, who'd had a secret. The fact that 'he' in fact had been a woman.

Well, the students concerned seemed to have a bit of a chip, maybe against spoilt rich (ha!) Westerners such as myself, maybe she was picking up on my own Marsy vibe (transit Mars square Mars) - andshe just wenton and on about the fact that a woman's lot meant lower pay, less opportunities, and there was not a thing anyone could do about it here. And in any case, she felt that a woman's place was inthe home, anyway. Perhpas she wanted to shock, but she was qite happy to raise menstuation too when discussing the Victorian surgeon, in case, she shose theworng person to shock.

I was not invited back, but a big 'whatever' to that.

I do think that differences or not, equality matters, that is all.
 

Earth Sign

Well-known member
It's strange that even in these days, long after women's liberation, women are still treated as the lesser sex. Personally, I think some men may be intimidated by women, afraid of women getting ahead of them. Something about their inner sexist that has been drilled into them for centuries. Of course, not all men are like this, I think very few are. But I think it may come out more in the business world where the man is supposed to be, women are coming in on their turf and sometimes end up outdoing them. That's the natural competitive instinct to be better than the lesser sex.

On the subject of sexuality in astrology, even though the wide agreement is that sexuality can't be found in astrology, do you think a fetish can? What I mean is, homosexuality has a function, too, but sexual fetishes are a bit more personal.

Personally, I don't take any books on "Sextrology" seriously, even though at the book store they rival the number of actual astrology books. I may be biased, but I think Sextrology is a gross hybrid out to discredit astrology as some new-age craze. Astrology can help people sexually, of course, but it's personal. You can't write a book and solve everyone's problems.
 
Last edited:
Mod, what motivates the division I think may have to do with what our ego identifies with, do we identify with being a man or women due to a sense of belonging, mars energy does have alot of ego in it, or it could be that we want to protect a system that we think we are already apart of or ahead in.

Jay! I love this point you make about belongingness and inclusivity, and the need to be identified and to also be able to identify others.

Mars energy is interesting as it relates to ego and drive and identification. Mars is exalted in a feminine sign, and dignified in a masculine sign. I always found this interesting, and, to make a HUGE leap from masculine and feminine astrology to men and women as genders, I've noted how women who are deemed capable, in control, effective, practical, and self-sufficient (mars exalted qualities definitely) are so much more aggrandized and played up than men who are the same (mars dignified it seems like here). I mean, the "woman on top" in the business suit and balanced bank book is sort of like this archetypical mythical creature, whereas we just expect the man to be this way.

mod.
 
Last edited:
It's strange that even in these days, long after women's liberation, women are still treated as the lesser sex. Personally, I think some men may be intimidated by women, afraid of women getting ahead of them. Something about their inner sexist that has been drilled into them for centuries. Of course, not all men are like this, I think very few are. But I think it may come out more in the business world where the man is supposed to be, women are coming in on their turf and sometimes end up outdoing them. That's the natural competitive instinct to be better than the lesser sex.

I think people, men and women, are like this a lot of the time, and I wouldn't say it is just in the business world, as capitalism is a fairly new development in terms of human history and the length of womens' oppression. I don't know how disempowered women have felt though, by being the homemakers, the keepers of the private sphere, until the public sphere, namely the place where you make money, a huge thing in a capitalist society, became SUPER important.

Anyway that's not really what youre talking about here but I wanted to say something about it, especially as you mentioned the business world as mens' "turf."

I think what men are afraid of is meaninglessness. How I see it is that the home, family, taking care of your basic needs, are all very important, important to our survival, in fact crucial, and fall under the woman's domain. Her life has immediate purpose, and obvious meaning.

How that manifests in the public world however, whether we live in a tribal community (though it is easier here), an individualistic capitalist one, or something in between, is a bit more difficult. For those who have to find meaning outside of simply surviving, but within the complexity of the world we live in now. In other words, to not be a hunter, be maybe a lawyer, or a reporter, or a teacher, is much more difficult. The meaning you find your life is much more tenuous, and you have to reach harder for something. Your meaning is also always more indirect, and you are often times forced to identify with what you do. So for men who feel they must be the providers for their family, their roles are much more slippery and abstract, which is pretty terrifying and insecure compared to the very concrete roles given to women.

On the subject of sexuality in astrology, even though the wide agreement is that sexuality can't be found in astrology, do you think a fetish can? What I mean is, homosexuality has a function, too, but sexual fetishes are a bit more personal.

Personally, I don't take any books on "Sextrology" seriously, even though at the book store they rival the number of actual astrology books. I may be biased, but I think Sextrology is a gross hybrid out to discredit astrology as some new-age craze. Astrology can help people sexually, of course, but it's personal. You can't write a book and solve everyone's problems.


I agree that homosexuality cannot be found in a chart, but I don't know if everyone on this site is in agreement about that. I think sexuality is a construction, and you can't go looking for it in a chart because it is so super personal. If you are going to look for gay aspects, you have to look for straight ones- which no one does.

I'm curious though why sexual fetishes don't serve a function? Release of drive and experience of wholeness, if only brief, and potentially damaging, still serves a function, no?


mod.
 

Earth Sign

Well-known member
Modcleopatra said:
I'm curious though why sexual fetishes don't serve a function? Release of drive and experience of wholeness, if only brief, and potentially damaging, still serves a function, no?

Sexual fetishes serve a function to the person who has them, of course, but not in society. A fetish is a very personal turn-on for whoever has it, and it's necessary for him the satisfy it or else he won't be comfortable. But that particular fetish has no role in a group. I wonder if it can be found in a chart because it's such a mental need, it's so personal, and it's not a sexuality. I'm not saying it's bad, it's just so individual. I mean, maybe if you can't find a person's attraction to women in his/her chart, but perhaps you can find the kind of woman he/she is attracted to. Just wondering...

I've heard homosexuality serves a function because it's a natural solution to overpopulation. Such as, the youngest child with many older siblings has a higher chance of being born gay, because nature knows how many children the mother has already had. This is only what I've heard, I won't claim to know. :unsure:
 
@Earthsign:

Keeping in par with the nature and values of this thread, going to make a correction to your pronoun usage and remind you to include him AND/OR her. I see now what you mean about sexual fetish as non-functioning in terms of greater society. I suppose I'm critical of evolutionary psychology, which is what you are using here to support your claim. If we go with your argument, art also is "non-functional," as one could argue that art is merely a release of drives inherent to the individual, and even though society may be moved by it and appreciate art, its bare bones function, its necessary purpose, is non-existent.

Homosexuality as a "natural means to population control?" I'm critical of this as well, keeping in line with my critique of evolutionary psychology. Sex as recreation is common to only a few species, one of those being humans. It is part of how we create kinship bonds, how we express ourselves, how we come to conflict resolution, etc. Not to mention how many gay and lesbian couples either adopt, meaning they do not see their bond as antithetical to having children, or choose to have biological children through means of surrogacy or fertilization, not to mention the latest developments in egg-to-egg fertilization.


mod.
 

Earth Sign

Well-known member
Modcleopatra said:
If we go with your argument, art also is "non-functional," as one could argue that art is merely a release of drives inherent to the individual, and even though society may be moved by it and appreciate art, its bare bones function, its necessary purpose, is non-existent.

That's true, art has no necessary purpose, but that doesn't mean it can't be appreciated. But just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so is art. I think art is just one of the things existent in our subjective realities, along with fetishes. Because what is art? What is attractive? It changes person to person and there is no way to define it in objective terms. Beauty is whatever attracts you, whether it is a fetish or an art piece.


Modcleopatra said:
Homosexuality as a "natural means to population control?" I'm critical of this as well, keeping in line with my critique of evolutionary psychology. Sex as recreation is common to only a few species, one of those being humans. It is part of how we create kinship bonds, how we express ourselves, how we come to conflict resolution, etc. Not to mention how many gay and lesbian couples either adopt, meaning they do not see their bond as antithetical to having children, or choose to have biological children through means of surrogacy or fertilization, not to mention the latest developments in egg-to-egg fertilization.

I see what you mean. Though the system may not be functioning in that way, it may only by ebbing the desire to have sex with the opposite gender, an action that nature sees as the only way to procreate. I mean, the desire to have children may not be left behind, but the ability to have them is. Artificial fertilization is not a natural means of reproduction, but we have created it and have gone above nature. The inability to reproduce is no long valid.

This kind of reminds me of what I learned about Scorpio, and how there is a high number of vasectomies and hysterectomies among people with high Scorpio natures. Scorpio is called the Family Survival Dynamic and has a rather great libido, and a great sense of duty and loyalty. The sex factor is supposed to be it's means of keeping the family alive, but it has been reduced to a simple desire to have sex. Nature has given it high ability to have a family, but not the desire. The desire the have sex is supposed to naturally result in children. Not in this day and age, not anymore.

I'll be back later, have to go at the moment. I'm still just thinking out loud. :smile:
 

The_Sundance_Kid

Well-known member
Hi Mod,

I agree mostly with what you said about biological sexuality being a construct as well. I was just a little bit lazy/ and ignorant of the specifics, and so I took a shortcut and posted that link as my two cents of" biological sex isn't as straightforward as we think". Thanks for explaining the science, it's not something I've ever really thought much about to be honest. And the bit about us all being female embryos, but needing a specific hormone at the right time to create the male... I'm sure that's in Jurassic Park! One thing I've never understood was how hormones can create the male if the embryo already has the Y chromosome, but thanks to your message I now know there is a whole overlayer. What percentage of the population have these kinds of sexual ambiguity?

Anyway my main thought is still that it is difficult to ever be free of spin in this topic- it is difficult for a person to know what they really feel about their gender/ sexuality. How much is socially conditioned, how much is a (free) expression of the personality, how much is pre-determined? Any thoughts on this would be appreciated.

Here are some additional random thoughts that verge on pseudo science (but hey this is an astrology forum, so I don't think pseudo science is really seen as negative here.)

I was also reminded of an article I read recently about the potential feminisation of men due to residual chemicals in the environment (specifically water) from industrial processes- chemicals which are creating rivers where all the fish are now female. And something about men who have smaller genitalia as a result- I think this was a projection into the future. (This was an article I read when in a pub so you can see why my memory is not the best.)

I was also reminded of this thread when I encountered the following you tube video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sb9eL3ejXmE

I don't mean to trivialise the thread (my moon is in Gemini) but it did make me think of how we condition our children to associate with a gender- and it also reminded me that we are much more fluid with this than we used to be. Iran has a policy of 'resolving' homosexuality with sex changes, which has me wondering to what extent can (and ought?) sexuality (love/sex etc) be separated from well, sexuality (biological).

Lastly, I was also wondering if, in evolutionary terms, the sociological divide of the sexes is part of the same instinct whereby parents often abandon disabled or mutated children. I know animals do this, and the 'different' offspring dies, as it is the product of some mutation. Now if a child is not 'purely' male or female, I'm a little sceptical as to whether a parent could really identify it straight away, and for the difference to be fundamental enough to trigger the evolved instinct of rejection over the (I think much stronger) evolved instinct of parenthood. But if we add in social conditioning I could see that as a plausible source of many of the feelings that people have. In addition I wanted to suggest that maybe we have evolved to be creatures that accept social conditioning, as we are social animals?
 

JayM

Well-known member
Sun_dance kid I read a similar article as well about how estrogen was leaking into water wells in iraq or somewhere around there, and that was affecting men in an adverse way.

I just thought I would point that out so it didn't alarm all the other guys reading this!:lol:

:wink:
 

Earth Sign

Well-known member
The_Sundance_Kid said:
I was also reminded of an article I read recently about the potential feminisation of men due to residual chemicals in the environment (specifically water) from industrial processes- chemicals which are creating rivers where all the fish are now female. And something about men who have smaller genitalia as a result- I think this was a projection into the future. (This was an article I read when in a pub so you can see why my memory is not the best.)

I heard a similar story about an estrogen-like chemical in plastics. I quickly googled it and found this site.

Though it wasn't mentioned in that article, I heard a big source of that chemical is in the Brita Water Filters. Forgive this comment being off subject, but they've got us between a rock and a hard place with that chemical in plastic water bottles and filters (and probably in water), and fluoride in the water.
 

Pixi

Member
I hope it's okay to join the thread. I've read through all and have some comments I'd like to add. Fascinating topic and discussion!
JayM said:
Also I think that in terms of modern societry "male" and "female" are just concepts with connections to them regarding genitals, secondary sex characteristics, and gender roles, if you could remove theses connections what would the world be like?
I don't have an answer for this, but it is something very worth thinking about and exploring I believe. It seems to me that we might be gradually going towards a sexless society, so the more people debate stuff like this, the more we can protect ourselves and know what to expect.
Ariully said:
Why can't a woman be agressive or why can't a guy be passive? For the longest time I resented being a girl because I thought that my general personality and traits would have been accepted better if I were a guy.
This reminds me of how I went through what is known as being a Tomboy when in the years pre-puberty when obviously there was no sexuality in the equation to complicate things. I shouldn't say 'went through', as if it should be seen as some kind of deviance, it wasn't. It was about being free to explore, or valuing/desiring that freedom.
The_Sundance_Kid said:
As a man, I have quite a feminine brain. I'm not aggressive. I don't have many masculine traits. And many women do not find this attractive. Many people find it strange. But I totally understand where they're coming from. And I'm also curious- why am I the way I am?
I don't really agree with this idea that masculinity is best understood as aggressive vs not being aggressive! To me it makes more sense to see these opposing drives or energies as activity vs passivity. Action chanelled in a healthy way need not be aggressive. There are positive and negative aspects to both extremes.
Modcleopatra said:
Do we want freedom from sex, gender, sexuality?
Maybe freedom in sex, gender, sexuality, as opposed to 'from'? I'm not sure I understand/agree with what you say about pride in gender identity - do you mean a collective pride?
Some of us have great pride in these, in who we are in relationship to these, in what being a part of one of these, has done for us?
Modcleopatra said:
I think what men are afraid of is meaninglessness. How I see it is that the home, family, taking care of your basic needs, are all very important, important to our survival, in fact crucial, and fall under the woman's domain. Her life has immediate purpose, and obvious meaning.
This is a very interesting point, but would it not apply more to the past, like 25+ years ago, than today? Also is the search for meaning not something that women also desire/are burdened by(for lack of better word). Yes they have the biological option to mother and nurture and many women embrace this role completely and it does give their lives meaning. But for many others, there is the quest to find meaning/redefine themselves/transcend mere biology. We can see this in women waiting later and later well in their 30s before starting a family. Not only this, but also the woman wants to be a good role model for her child etc. I'm not disagreeing with your point, just throwing some thoughts out there maybe to expand the discussion..
The_Sundance_Kid said:
it is difficult to ever be free of spin in this topic- it is difficult for a person to know what they really feel about their gender/ sexuality. How much is socially conditioned, how much is a (free) expression of the personality, how much is pre-determined? Any thoughts on this would be appreciated.
I think the 'spin' is something that we as individuals should not be concerned about - it is not 'ours'. As for becoming accepting of one's own sexuality and this journey of discovery, for the word 'difficult' substitute 'challenging' etc.
I agree with what has been said in the rest of thread about equality. It seems to me that males and females, in the core of their being are very similar, if not identical - I mean independently of biological urges etc.
The_Sundance_Kid said:
In addition I wanted to suggest that maybe we have evolved to be creatures that accept social conditioning, as we are social animals?
Do you think that social conditioning is beneficial/debilitating/too much/not enough etc...? Is it possible/desirable to be non-accepting?
The_Sundance_Kid said:
...I don't mean to trivialise the thread (my moon is in Gemini)..
My moon is Gemini too and I don't think it was trivialising :) My first thoughts were the father needs to relax, but then again his parental instinct to protect the child is understandable from his pespective...
 
Last edited:
I really like what people are talking about here. Has anyone ever heard of something called Queer Theory?

I wrote this work in College, based on my travels in Europe, where I felt rather strange and alien, and use this to explore how queer sexuality, can be explored as a platform to look at in a number of ways, about that which is an Alien in all of us, or Alien to us. Aliens are Queer, or different.

What do people think about this, that we divide ourselves, based on a lot of truth of some substantial physical differences, but we might make it more than it is, or not see it more honestly, how it really is. That the meaning how we apply to it might be questionable, or changeable, based on sexual desires (being Gay for example, means that how you relate to your body sexually and therefore the meaning of these sex organs are different to who you are) , sexual behaviors (a celibate priest is different than a hormonal man acting on this, the world sees these two people very differently), and how your organs perform biologically (having a uterus does not make a woman, she could be infertile, or what if she hasn't menstruated yet, or given birth, or has a hysterectomy?), and what organs you were actually born with, which could actually be ambiguous, throwing the whole system of divide and state, and in my opinion conquer, off track.

I say conquer because it's important to appreciate our own uniqueness, our own differences, our own choices, our own right to change things as we want them to be, and not be judged. Many people are born with ambiguous body parts and they deserve personhood without being subjected to surgery without consent, which often happens, leaving them confused and often suicidal.

What we desire is wholeness, in part from others, and in part, and perhaps most importantly in ourselves. When we get too caught up in dividing male from female, both in ourselves and among one another, we make this part of ourselves abject or alien to us. We deny what it is that gives us wholeness, and project it onto people, focusing implicitly and explicitly, on the sexual parts of who we are. This isn't a bad thing, but it's important to be more self-focused in the process of gaining complete attunement or alignment to one's self, for we have but a precious physical life to lead, and the first focus should be on the self, empowering that part of ourselves without relying on, or becoming addicted to making other people whole, or using people to make us whole. If you follow the basic system of Acupuncture, Chi and such, the Yin and Yang, and how each part composes the whole, you will see that male and female are not opposites, but supplements to a whole. The white spot in the black, and vice versa, making a whole circle. Making the yin and yang what it is.

We live in a world that forces us to narrow or cut off these parts of ourselves into little boxes, compartmentalized forms of self-expression which encourage us to act out negatively upon triggers that force us to focus on this anxiety of not being totally one thing or the other, but a human being, made of energy, light, and soul. It's sort of like our shadows but it goes even deeper, forcing us to be blind to our own biology in fact, in my opinion at least, since the female body presets the male body in utero. It's almost like going all the way back to the Reptilian Mind, where we are focused on the issues of survival, self-care and species sustenance.
Not suprisingly, in utero, the body goes from reptilian to mammalian as well.

I guess it's kind of like making a pun when I say it's alien because not only does it make foreign or alien to us our energies, but also how, when you focus on the issues of the Repitilian Mind, the hypothesis that there are Reptilian Aliens in the Universe, is kind of interesting. :cool:
 
Last edited:
I'm curious what other's peoples thought are about seeing ourselves as part Alien, or extra-terrestrial, like extra of the earth, since it has to do with the basics of being a species here on the planet, connected to this earth. I like how this word really ties everything together, because it demonstrates how, like the Astrologers we are, we can relate to the heavens even in our own biology, psychology, and dictionary.
 

Inconjunct

Well-known member
Thanks for inviting me to contribute to this thread, Modcleopatra. I've not read any of the other replies, as I wanted to come to your questions with a fresh head. Personally, my feeling is that there are major problems in the concept of gender as a binary. Even at the purely anatomical level, people are not wholly male or wholly female; even people who are not intersex have some female and male hormones whizzing around their bodies. When you get beyond the anatomical and into the realm of human psychology, the picture becomes even more blurred and the idea that you are either a woman or a man seems almost laughable as it relies on stereotypical notions of what a man or a woman is.

Having said that, I think some things - such as certain cognitive abilities - do seem to be hard-wired into "male" and "female" brains; whether those brains always reside in the appropriate physical body is another matter altogether!

How does this relate to astrology? Well, I personally think that astrology can offer a gender-neutral view - we are made up of all the planets and all the signs and the combinations that indicate traditionally "male" characteristics can appear in the charts of women, and vice versa, enabling us to have a sort of "extra-personal" or helicopter view unchained to notions of gender and gender roles. If that makes sense??!!
 
Thanks for inviting me to contribute to this thread, Modcleopatra.

You're welcome. I'm glad to see you've posted!

I've not read any of the other replies, as I wanted to come to your questions with a fresh head. Personally, my feeling is that there are major problems in the concept of gender as a binary.

A binary? As in two equal halves being entirely separate from one another and can be understood as entirely separate or distinct from one another? Having no relationship to one another? The binary as it functions in this way assumes there is a dialectical discussion between the two "normalized sexes," and that everything revolves around these two. This isn't always a bad thing, it has been the way art has been produced, of course, historically, and even currently, it still promotes oppression. Oppression in that it creates a world in which we consumed to adopt certain roles or methods of behaviors which may not actually feel right or limit our potential. But, instead of blaming the world, I try to turn inward. For example, in this video by Ciara, "Like a Boy" she is singing a song and dancing a dance to a tune about how Men act a certain way (like a boy)and how would a particular Man (her cheating lover) would feel if she decided to start treating him the way he treats her?

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1dugl_ciara-like-a-boy_music

All is "well and good" what we'd expect: Woman hating on a Man for doing stereotypical Man things but also things a lot of Men do without realizing it, though in this case, it's hard to imagine that a Man wouldn't know this is wrong, it's more that this Man and Men like him, justify their behavior and she's turning this all around on him.


From the beginning of the video she's wearing a beater, muscles exposed, and baggy pants, surrounded by dancers who support this tough, proud image of her and follow in line in the same way. Until about 2:20 minutes in, where Ciara exposes something really cool. She dresses up as a Man on one side of the screen, and a Woman on the other side, excellent dancing on either end exposing creative expressions of self that can then come packaged as a Male or Female. Then she sings: "Dose of Your Own Medicine" meaning she also exposing Gender here as a construction, and in this case constructing it, is like a ploy, wants this Guy, who's Gender expression as a Man, is problematic, for her, and for many women, which is the purpose behind her generalization here, because many women could relate to her concerns and say men act like this and need to be shown how their behavior is problematic by simply having their behaviors mirrored, as an attempt to reneuralize his thinking about something and how thinks he can treat Women and Men based on how he sees himself to operate, and Women to operate (notice, the claim/analysis I make here is not to All Men or All Women, but Ciara turning around his specific perspective onto him.) But she stays true to herself: "which is I'm angry, why did you treat me this way and think you can get away with it, I think it has something with how you think your Masculinity operates!"

So if we now return to me turning inward, I'm suggesting that how we balance and harmonize ourselves with others is like the Ying Yang. The two supplement each other, there is a bit of the Yin in the Yang and bit of the Yang in the Yin and together the not only support and reify one another, the image of the Yin Yang as a whole. The binary operates a complementary system in which the two are totally divisible from the other, rather than contingent, related and ever flowing back and forth within each other and around. Moreover, you can find evidence of this in Astrology, with some planets being Yin and some planets being Yang. So for example I'm an Woman who has a majority of Yin planets, so I am very receptive to the energies around me and what I create energetically and how I self-express. In this way, a Virgo Man, Taurus, or Pisces Man could be very Yin and therefore very receptive and responsive rather than directed and already acting, which is Yang energy and considered to be Masculine energy. To me this is all conceptual, it's symbolic, it's simply creative force and energy.


How it actualizes in each person is very specific and unique, the way each of us and our energetic fields which is all Yin and Yang is (energy) is very unique, based on our bodies, our experiences, and our charts. Therefore, a very masculine looking and behaving man, could actually be all Yin in his chart.

"Yin and Yang are opposite and yet they are the two sides of a coin. Think about the Big Bang Theory. All matter, energy, time and space came from one single point, we call it singularity. No matter how far away and how different we are, we all came from the “ONE”, there is a “oneness” inside us, that it is the true love of the universe. We all have the same type of energy- chi flowing through us. And all of us, right from a tiny microbe to the strongest of human being have the same matter present in it. " http://www.thespiritualfengshui.com/yin-and-yang.php

Many people try to assert therefore that balance has to happen on a macro level. That a Woman must be very Yin appearing and behaving to be balanced, and that a Man must be very Yang appearing and behaving to be balanced. It doesn't work that way and I think alot of the issues you had on the "Gay indicators chart" go back to this kind of belief system. Except that if we look at this aformentioned quote, it would appear that Yin for one person could be Yang for another. Moreover:

"There are no rigid borders between Yin and Yang and they rely on each other to be true. Imagine if there is no earth, then the word sky becomes meaningless. Like a coin cannot exist without two sides, life cannot exist without both energy and matter. As we are dependent on the universe for our existence, the universe cannot exist without us. There can be no life without death and without death life has no meaning. A human being has both positive energies and negative energies. A human being is both good and bad and so are our thoughts and emotions, resulting in some of our energies to be positive and some being negative."

http://www.thespiritualfengshui.com/yin-and-yang.php

But now let's look at this quote:

"The same goes for the sun & moon as well as man and woman. They are all Yin/Yang kismet pairs--one cannot be without the other. When talking in terms of energy and matter energy can’t exist without matter, and matter can’t exist unless it has energy to keep its structure. "

All this means that is that in order to understand things as they are, we need to see how things are related and connected to one another. Therefore, a Gay Man doesn't have to adopt any sort of Womanly qualities to have balanced relationship with another Gay Man who doesn't have to do the same either. The concern is that matter must balance itself through a flow. Negative energy would be trying to adopt "norms" of behavior, that one person must be the "woman" and the other person the "man," when in reality, relationships of all kinds, operate as a flow of energy. This assumption that one must be one way and the other the other way in order to achieve balance is actually stagnant and against the way Yin Yang Chi works.


In reality if we really break it down, the Male Body is the Center, and all other bodies, Female (pre-pubscent), Female body (menstruating), Female Body (pregnant), Female Body (post pregnancy), Female body (menopausal), the Transsexual Body, the Intersexed Body, all bodies revolve around a plastic, ummoveable Male Center. I've included a picture of Atom here to express what I mean:

neils-bohr-model-atom.gif



In actuality, if we accept this kind of model, the Female Body could be the center. Even if a fetus has an XY chromosome makeup, if the body during pregnancy fails to respond to a trigger to start producing male hormones and male sex characteristics, the body will phenotypically develop as female, suggesting that in fact, the female body comes first. If we go back even further into development in Utero, we end up in something relatively neutral. Whats interesting to note however, is that if you look at the body, just look at it, you can see how the Female Genitalia could be the template for the Male Genitalia.

Now as you say here:

Even at the purely anatomical level, people are not wholly male or wholly female; even people who are not intersex have some female and male hormones whizzing around their bodies.

See, now I see what you mean, but I think we disagree. I don't like characterizing hormones as male or female, because the hormones themselves are just chemical mechanisms which produce visible results that we then call/label male or female. It doesn't mean any of this is wrong; I'm just pointing out the power and the role we have making things mean something. Are for "wholly" male or female, it depends what you mean by that. A female who hasn't begun menstruating isn't the same as a female who has begun menstruating; a female who hasn't given birth isn't the same as a female who has. So if we go back now to hormones, as this relates to hormones, it's almost like the hormones once they impact our bodies, are indivisible from the results they produce and thus become wrapped in the labels we give them.

On a purely anatomical level, no one is purely hormonally one way or the other.

When you get beyond the anatomical and into the realm of human psychology, the picture becomes even more blurred and the idea that you are either a woman or a man seems almost laughable as it relies on stereotypical notions of what a man or a woman is.

I think it has to do with the stereotypical notions of what a man or a woman is SUPPOSED to be to reify and justify a history surrounding this kind of behavior, which people then justify has to do with the differences in body types. Some people I've heard like to say that men are stronger, more muscular than women, and that therefore justifies why it has become that Men are stronger in society. They are physically stronger so they should be the strong ones: conceptually speaking. Of course, so much of world doesn't rely on having personal physical strength so this concept sort of all makes me scratch my head!



Having said that, I think some things - such as certain cognitive abilities - do seem to be hard-wired into "male" and "female" brains; whether those brains always reside in the appropriate physical body is another matter altogether!

Like spatial intelligence? I think the issue is with seeing this as connected to ideas of male or female. For example, studies show Girls do worse at Math than Boys. I don't think this has anything to do with how the Male Brain works versus the Female Brain in terms of Mathematic ability. I think the difference might be in how Girls experience a certain kind of pressure whereas Boys experience another kind of pressure, both of which relate back to Math. Girls should be more sensitive and Boys should be more analytical. This doesn't mean the "male brain" is more analytical and Boys therefore less senstive. Male babies, right after birth, are considerably more sensitive and easily agitated than Female babies. What happens however, is that the parts of the brain which are present and used to do math problems effectively, are more encouraged in those that have Male Bodies, at least in the dominant cultures of White/American/Anglo-Saxon/English/European and many cultures across the Americas. We can witness and see substantial differences in capacities and functions of the peoples of the Indian Subcontinent, and via the various Asian Cultures. I don't think that the strength in Math here in these cultures can then be linked to the Culture itself. There isn't an "Indian Brain." There is the Indian experience which shapes how one thinks and sees the world and could therefore promote, no matter one's sex, a capacity for math.

How does this relate to astrology? Well, I personally think that astrology can offer a gender-neutral view - we are made up of all the planets and all the signs and the combinations that indicate traditionally "male" characteristics can appear in the charts of women, and vice versa, enabling us to have a sort of "extra-personal" or helicopter view unchained to notions of gender and gender roles. If that makes sense??!!

For me what you're saying is a sex-neutral view. I tend to look at the word gender as more open-ended. It is in part, your sexed body, how you relate to your sexed body, how you cloth your sexed body, but so many factors go into how these aforementioned components can operate. Gender is a composite of so many things. Therefore, astrology doesn't necessarily offer, for me, a gender-neutral view, but a way to shape, hone, and understand our specific way of being the world. Our Gender as we understand it, is refined by our self-exploration and exploration of others, into the world of Astrology.
 
Last edited:
I hope it's okay to join the thread. I've read through all and have some comments I'd like to add. Fascinating topic and discussion!

Thanks so much for sharing! I agree very fascinating.

I don't have an answer for this, but it is something very worth thinking about and exploring I believe. It seems to me that we might be gradually going towards a sexless society, so the more people debate stuff like this, the more we can protect ourselves and know what to expect.

I worry about a sexless society. I think if I could decide how things are, I'd say we simply need to become more sensitive with what we make sex mean. I think neutrality is trap, absolves us of responsibility, personal awareness, and communal/global connectiveness.



This reminds me of how I went through what is known as being a Tomboy when in the years pre-puberty when obviously there was no sexuality in the equation to complicate things.

I like that you say there is no sexuality here, it's just prana and flows of energy that has not become harnessed or connected to the person as an expression of sexual desire. I do think it's problematic how we as a Global Society try to begin this process of programming via or depictions of gender and boy and girl. Prince is a certain way, must be a certain way, and Princess must be a certain way, is a certain way, never to mind how one might want to express their own inner Prince or Princess. And sometimes in extreme examples of how this can go completely ary and destroyed and maimed, is in examples of JonBennet Ramsey.

I shouldn't say 'went through', as if it should be seen as some kind of deviance, it wasn't. It was about being free to explore, or valuing/desiring that freedom.

I like what you suggest with this. I also stress that being extremely girly as a Girl can be an expression of freedom.


I don't really agree with this idea that masculinity is best understood as aggressive vs not being aggressive! To me it makes more sense to see these opposing drives or energies as activity vs passivity. Action chanelled in a healthy way need not be aggressive.

Action can simply be responsive, which is how Yin/"Feminine" Energy is described.

There are positive and negative aspects to both extremes.

I think shying away from extremes altogether is perhaps the best way to be, but in some cases seeing behavior as VERY BAD (sociopaths, pedophiles, incestual family members) or VERY GOOD (sharing the berries you picked on your way to your friend's house)

Maybe freedom in sex, gender, sexuality, as opposed to 'from'? I'm not sure I understand/agree with what you say about pride in gender identity - do you mean a collective pride?

I love what you say here. I know I originally asked the question sort of musing/Socratic Method of inquiry. Yes freedom within contained spheres of being or influence seems much more enjoyable and taking pride in who you are, whoever you are. The concern comes when you believe that your pride should come at the expense of another person feeling prideful, or against them in some way.


This is a very interesting point, but would it not apply more to the past, like 25+ years ago, than today? [referring to Men as fear meaninglessness because the traditionally-assigned Woman roles have more immediate meaning.]

In some ways, in many ways yes, but not entirely. It has however, gotten a WHOLE LOT BETTER! Moreover, Women can just as much experience a feeling of emptiness from this role. Meaninglessness can find anyone anywhere. I just tend to think of things sometimes in terms of apocolypse, when the absence of God seems most present. In those circumstances what becomes most important, is a sense of home, one's house, one's sense of comfort, of which is directly connected to the role Women have typically been assigned and said to function within most effectively and most appropriately. Apocolopyse can happen at any time anywhere... ;) I still believe however, that things have changed and if we were to have an Apocolopyse now, or soon, what would actually ideally be happening, is people would be eroded from their comfort zones of all kinds shapes and sizes and the responsibility to provide comfort and retrieve once again a sense of sure-footedness would rely simply on the actions of kindness.


Also is the search for meaning not something that women also desire/are burdened by(for lack of better word). Yes they have the biological option to mother and nurture and many women embrace this role completely and it does give their lives meaning. But for many others, there is the quest to find meaning/redefine themselves/transcend mere biology. We can see this in women waiting later and later well in their 30s before starting a family. Not only this, but also the woman wants to be a good role model for her child etc. I'm not disagreeing with your point, just throwing some thoughts out there maybe to expand the discussion..

I think my aforementioned discussion speaks to a lot of this in another way. Some women, not all, have the biological option to give birth. Some women, not all, have the desire to mother and nurture. Some women, not all, find meaning in this. As for your point about some women find meaning through transcending their biology: I think we all do this no matter what we do with ourselves. "Our brains are separate and independent enough from our genes to rebel against them.. we do so in a small way everytime we use contraception. There is no reason why we should not rebel in a large way too." (Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene 1989, http://www.spaceandmotion.com/evolutionist-richard-dawkins.htm)





I think the 'spin' is something that we as individuals should not be concerned about - it is not 'ours'. As for becoming accepting of one's own sexuality and this journey of discovery, for the word 'difficult' substitute 'challenging' etc.

I think Pixi, taking control and managing how come across to others is important and understanding how others may "spin" our behaviors is something to also be aware of. I see it as a process of recognizing the power you have in your self-expression to influence others, and how our self-expression and how we come across to others, is something to be aware of and responsible towards.


I agree with what has been said in the rest of thread about equality. It seems to me that males and females, in the core of their being are very similar, if not identical - I mean independently of biological urges etc.
Do you think that social conditioning is beneficial/debilitating/too much/not enough etc...? Is it possible/desirable to be non-accepting?

To answer things backwards. First of all I think it's entirely possible and desirable to be non-accepting. The idea is the instances with people are few and far between and the people you meet who qualify in one's book to not be acceptable are seldom. You do not have to like everybody, and everybody does not have to like you. The focus on the singular You is important, and is therefore independent from others' influence (family, religious, or cultural) to decide who to like and who to not like.

Curious what you mean about biological urges? Biological urge as the need to urinate? Defecate? We are all equals here. ;)

Biological urge to reproduce? Not everyone desires this equally, and some not at all. Couldn't merely be divisible down sexed lines.

Biological urge for sensual pleasure? Does this come and go for people differently? Couldn't merely be divisible down sexed lines.
 
Top