Core Sex Identity

We are in most part born male or female, this is determined by most people at conception with either a x or y sperm joining an egg which will have an x or xx. Other genetic factors can send xx or xy embryos in other directions, as can hormone exposure. These dont make up a biological sex spectrum that runs from male to female which is shown like this.At birth sex is determined, and if it can’t be further tests are done, and then a sex will be assigned and sex assignment surgery may be done. A false sex binary is not created as sex in most cases is binary and those who develop in other directions have physical complications in worst cases and most can’t reproduce. Some need hormone replacement and if left untreated may develop other conditions from hormone excess or deficiency. The sex binary does not represent a binary which needs to be overcome, instead more awareness of those who don’t fit it, and treatment in line with what they want.

Sex role scripts are what’s assigned to each sex. These are not a spectrum, they are binary and consist of many things which do run along spectrums naturally. Males are socialized into the masculine script and females into the feminine script. The core of the sex roles scripts is the division of the instrumental and expressive personality traits. This it whats done.

Instrumental and expressive are first set up as a binary, and relabeled masculine and feminine traits and the behaviours which stem from them become masculine and feminine behaviours. Then roles are build opon thse behavioural expectations, people who have traits outside their sex role expectations are expected to supress them or view them as negative leading to things considered good in one sex being seen as not so good in another. For example being desisive translates to decision making in men and in women it may be called fussy or choosy. Another in men never get labeled as independant men, in the way women get labeled independent women because men by default are expected to be independant. Women get policed for showing traits accociated with strength in males, and male get policed for showing the traits expected by default in women. This is because when instrumental and expressive traits are coded as masculine and feminine they become viewed as antagonistic to each other and when one has one set its assumed they will lack the other and be less effective at preforming their sex role or less willing to comply. The coding of these core traits by sex is so ingrained in society that people are lead to believe they have a masculine side or a feminine side based on the presence of these traits or on disires to do behaviours that stem from them.



To maintain the status of males in relation to females the traits allocated to females are then degraded, i.e the expressive traits. Males with lots of expressive traits will find they feel boxed in by whats expected of them, they may get typed as feminine and end up not feeling secure in their maleness as a result of not fitting with masculinity. Women with more of the instrumental traits will find they are accused of wanting to be men, or told they are men. All this keeps the illusion of the sexes having opposite natures and interests and therefore being suited to different roles due to their different abilities intact. The fact that the expressive traits get coded feminine and then degraded means that men with expressive traits are viewed as lower ranking, get called things like “pussy ” , “mangina” , “effemenate” and even “woman” , the idea behind this is to make him feel lower in status, to the status of women. Most radical feminists think the reason these men are hurt by this is because they are mysogynistic and hurt at the loss of their place in the male hierarchy, in part this is true. I think though that an overlooked factor is at play and that overlooked factor is core sex identity, that core sex identity gets hurt by the constant referenced to not being a real man and this caused a type of dysphoria and in some a need for their self as a man to be confirmed. I also think in some cases this can lead to what is now termed “gender dysphoria”. The thing that tells me core sex identity is real and its this that hurts men who get labeled feminine more then any dislike of being accociated with women it that a similar pattern appears in many women when they are made to feel masculine, if it was just about status then by default all women would get a boost from being told they are masculine, but this is not the case what instead happens as it leads to dysphoria.

When displaying the products of expressive traits one may feel feminine, or effeminate and when displaying the products of instrumental traits one may feel or be told they are masculine. Some try and combine the two and call it androgynous, this is hard work and impossible because sex role scripts first divide the traits and then they add things to them which makes them incompatible, like associating them with biological sex. So wanting to step out in your own direction, and take the lead not also means being cold and distant, logic becomes emotionally detached. The woman scientist is seen as emotionally detached less sociable, not because she spends all the time in the lab and has less social time, but because by nature of being female she is expected now to be expressive in everything she does. Her going home at the end of the day and been seen as no different from someone who spent the day in a nursery, as far as authenticity as a woman goes is made impossible. So instead she may find she has to compensate and walk around smiling all day, which of course is expressive, as is dressing in more elaborate clothing. Which is why men are as a rule not to wear elaborate clothing, and when they do they are seen feminine, its because that clothing is expressive.

Instrumental clothing are things made more for a function, and fit in a way thats practical, not too baggy or tight for the task at hand, you know like mens sports wear. Not too bright in colour unless it needs to be for a functional reason, fabric is made to suit conditions and pockets are located for the task of what needs to be put in them and in places which dont get in the way of body movements. Expressive clothing may be made from the perspective of decoration of the body, colours to suit how one feels and fabrics which have emotional content, pockets wont be added in places which spoil the overall intended image. Pockets that are non functional may be added to create an instrumental look (as in womens jeans). The clothing is made under the assumption that men will be doing functional tasks, won’t want to show off their body unless its athletically and competitively (as women dont look, sorry revised, women know they are not meant to be looking) with other men or to show dominance. Meanwhile the women will be going around looking for colours to suit their mood, tactile interactional fabrics which spark conversation (where did you get that), clothing which would tear as the slightest activity and lacking in pockets because they need a bag anyways. Also that womens shoes need only be practical enough for the school run where she will take child stept, as other times she will either be barefoot in the house or tottering about on heels. If she runs then they will make her trainers pink, or white because she will be staying out the mud and will be less likely to scuff them.

The clothing also acts to reinforce the behaviours expected in the sex role scripts, and creates the visual display to allow women to be sexualized in the way written in the sex role scripts at the time.

The problem with the queer gender spectrum is that it is a stretched out version of sex role script created ideas of what males and females form of expression should be. It also links these things directly with biology, when infact they are linked indirectly.


What the trans spectrums would look like if social gender was removed.

Sex identity


Sex identity expression

What i think is that spectrums should be done away with and a new way of looking at sex identity needs to emerge, one not linked up with the social gender created by sex role scripts.

Sex identity could be a very real and valid thing, its something most non transsexuals need assistance finding.


The gendurality landscape and sex role script abolition

Gendurality is the dimension of self which gets labeled as masculine and feminine were instrumental and expressive aspects of self are divided based on sex. Traits and behaviours associated them become sex bound, and thought of as male and female behaviour leading many to think they have a masculine and feminine side resulting from a binary created within the self. Other things are then associated with those traits, wrongly associated creating a division in self which may clash with ones sex identity. Gendurality is one aspect of self bound by the chains of sex role scripts, its natural direction obstructed. Gendurality forms the basis for creation of what is termed social gender or sex roles.

The gendurality landscape

If gendurality was a big unmapped landscape, sex role scripts would be cordoned off areas of that landscape and the cordens would be named masculinity and femininity. The cordens would move with time and get more narrow or more wide as the definition of masculinity and femininity widens and narrows as the ages pass, this change in definition changes as the sex role scripts change in response to the system wanting different things from the sexes. Sometimes a barren desert separates them, other times they are so close together like two bubbles they could easy meld into one and if they did they would still not be whole. The cordons are made for the two biological sexes and people are adjusted to fit in them if need be. Under this system transitioners are expected to fit within those cordens, their sex identity is expected to be inline with the corden allocated to that sex.

There is a gulf between the cordons and this creates a gulf between the people in them and a gulf within the self of each individual, a gulf between whats masculine and what’s feminine between ones instrumental and expressive side, between mind and emotion. We are familiar with that gulf and may draw a spectrum through it connecting the two cordons and call this “gender expression”. But what lies undiscovered is greater than the two cordons together, greater than the blending of any definition of masculine and feminine we have ever had. Even having all the definitions of masculine and feminine from all the eras in time and culture in one place would not be as great as the freedom of living unbound by sex role scripts and free to plot ones own course through the gendurality landscape. The things inside the two cordons are not lost by breaking the chains of the sex role scripts. Choice is not lost and freedom is not lost the only casualty to them being knocked down is power, the false sense of freedom.

There are debates about who created the cordons and what it will take to break the cordens, some saying the cordons are natural and the only hope is to navigate around them, others say the cordons are constructed from two equal power based belonging to each sex, while others insist the two cordons were created from male domination of females. In this case the two cordons are not created equally, they occupy different amounts of space and the moving of the cordens results from changing interests of the ones in the corden where the power is. Knowing who created them and who holds them in place the hardest is more important than everyone trying to reset their allocated script and hoping it will lead them to freedom. The consequences of resisting the scripts are bumping into the cordens day in and day out and overtime learning to avoid bumping into them. Some don’t know the cordons are there and spend their days forever bounding off them in an attempt to go in their own direction, which they experience as trying to be themselves and being bruised by them and not knowing why. Many experience the battle as inside them, as life tugs on their chains and pull them in a direction that feels wrong for them, like the years are passing them by and their journey has yet to begin, the avenue they wanted to go down looking narrower and more obstructed as the years pass.

Some try embracing the two cordons by learning both scripts, others push to try and blend the two scripts using all their energy trying to get the two cordons to come closer together in the hope the bubble will burst and the two join together for good into one whole. A landscape of equality and choice where power is not dissolved and one where the creators of the original cordens dominate the new space and create several new ones within it. Here the outer perimeter remains intact and everyone feels a false sense of freedom just by getting rid of the two and are able to access all the things once out of reach. Here the original scripts are still in operation but are masked, all that happens is navigation around the rules of the script is made smoother.

Total eradication of the cordens turns everyone into an explorer able to follow their own inner compass, follow their own direction in life and in gendurality. The cordons of masculinity and femininity are totally broken down and as they are they release the sexed body, the sexuality and generality from the chains of the scripts. The thing thought of as identity becomes a direction, no longer obstructed and labeled and no longer transgressive as their is nothing to transgress. Here sex identity is easily discovered in oneself, clarity of it no longer obstructed by the created binary of masculine and feminine. Here those not born male or female are free to take the direction in biology and in life they wish, no longer do they have to be allocated a sex in preparation for being allocated a script based on it. Here one growing from male to female or female to male is no different from growing from teen to adult, a life stage un obstructed by others and one no one has to take for any social reason. Here sex identity has no bearing on what we do as in role or how we express as in presentation. Here wearing clothes termed pretty does not translate to femininity as ways of dressing are no longer allocated to people based on sex or sex identity. Here wearing clothes that are sturdy and functional (and look just as great as the others, depending on the observers view) no longer translates to masculinity as clothing choice is seen to be more about personality and activity and not sex or sex identity. Thats because instrumental and expressive and all associated with them are no longer sorted into a binary named masculine and feminine, the scripts no longer are there to sort them.

The whole of society needs to transition, in a direction away from sex role scripts, a journey that will take the whole of society on a one way trip, and what’s left behind is the power behind the scripts.


Sex role scripts and scripted sexuality, the power behind the male gaze.

Sex roles scripts are a conservative thing, a favorite of the right and the lapsing of sex roles has always been linked to the breaking of morality codes. In times gone past the instinct of attraction was referred to as lust, in many cultures today arranged marriages are the norm. The term lust has always been used against women more than men, just as today women are referred to as slut or whore more frequently than men.
When sex roles are conditioned “successfully” it create a situation where one sex needs the other to do certain tasks. More specifically it makes women need men, because historically and still today in some ways they are not allowed to want them. There are stacks of theories on why women are not as visual as men, yet few explain why women are visual enough to notice the finer details of “femininity” yet are not visual when it comes to looking at potential mates. They have tried to say estrogen makes women less visual, but other studies have shown that progesterone makes them more visual so in the end it balances out.

Through the sex role created gender lens womens visual ability gets distorted, for she learns to see the male body in a way incompatible with her sexuality. She cannot look at it and think about it in a way that will want to bring her closer to it because it behaves in a way towards her that annihilates the ability. For to do so she has to have opinion, judgement and be looking at him and not herself. She has to be thinking about how sexy he is, not how sexy she feels and about how he looks not how she looks. She is to think about what he is going to do to her not her to him, but most of all she has to be careful that looking does not bring violence to her. She has to watch that the men she looks over and away from don’t attach her for doing so, to claim their sex role given right to be the deciders.

Through sex role creation and the creation of dependency and need in women they are removed of their right or ability to look and decide, they instead have to look through the lens of gender roles and see the one who fulfils the needs created in her. The need for protection, for home and and resources. Through this lens an older rich man in in the leauge of a young woman, women are there as commodities.
When sex roles are abolished sexuality will be de scripted as sexuality currently is coded by the sex role scripts which regulate behaviour in a way that ensures men look and women are looked at, women watch themselves being looked at and cannot look back. This radical idea that might not make sense to many makes perfect sense when broken down.

Without sex role scripts most people would get on better not worse, and attraction and looking would be both ways. This would not be the same as objectification because there would be two subjects. Women see themselves as objects because their outward gaze is suppressed and they are relegated to looking inwards at themselves and not at the world. The process manifests as them being objects sexually, but the very process of the womans relegation from looking out and deciding is the very same process of removing her instrumentality.

The instrumentality of sexuality and doing.

The lesbian is asked who is the man? Who is the one who looks and who is the one who does it, who is the one who is the object of the other ones attraction? The one who does not need to make a visual display as she will not be looked at back, the one who wears the smart suit while the other wears a dress. The one who makes the decisions and does the DIY, the instrumental one of the two.
None of us, for we both look at each other and we are both the subjects of each others attraction, we decide together paint together and cook together, the point of this is the shared experience of being together, not out of need but out of want.

Womens sexuality is relegated to the expressive, while the mans is to be instrumental. She is to receive his gaze and his sex and she is to express her desire in beauty and passivity if at all. She is not to hit on him, or make the first move, take the lead or anything that involved original thought and action. The only time she is to be instrumental is under his authority when he tells her what he wants done, much like the women who filled the instrumental role during WW2, it is done on his say so.
Her sexuality is controlled by the sex role script and how she measures up. A woman will think she does not look sexy, based on these scripted ideas and this will translate to her lack of interest in sex. But in reality she has been conditioned to see her sexual expression through the lens of what is gonna be done to her, this is how she becomes to see herself as a sexual object. I say that her on switch should not be herself or her body through his eyes, through her internalization of what he wants her to be she loses what she wants him to be, by seeing herself she cannot see him and because she cannot see him she cannot be visually attracted to him or his body. Women have to learn to see themselves through this lens because the consequences of transgression are to have ones sexualities chains replaced with barbed wire in the form of being called slut or whore, creating sexual shame which acts to return the woman to “passivity” i.e only receptive to males under their will.

The solution to this is not to abandon sexuality, its to break the chains of the scripts and to free it. This cannot be done through transgression alone, only through the end of sex role scripts.The control of womens sexuality is central to the control of their reproduction and to the maintenance of the male hierarchy and male power as a class. It is the foundation of the sex role scripts. Liberation of sexuality is not possible without liberation of women, not from men themselves but from male domination.

Gender like a privet hedge.

(This describes the shaping of females by the script of femininity and is not in reference to sex identity or transition, its about how gender non conforming women are viewed. It refers to the gender created out of sex role scripts.)
I want to say no one is born with gender that matches their sex organs. Gender is like a privet hedge, it’s constantly shaped into what it becomes, the only thing innate in the seed is that it will grow and produce a privet hedge (sex identity could be part of that seed). Getting it to fit and match the surroundings is in how well its trimmed in shape as it grows. Its not possible to get the seeds for a privet that will grow into an archway or a blob or a square.

If an hawthorn was bought instead and trimmed into the same shape as a privet thats been made into an archway, it would still retain its thorns as they are biological. Even if it had been cared for in the same way, and trimmed in shape while young it would still have thorns.

Now imagine if the trimming of the privet was not seen, and most privets you saw were in the shape of arches, some tidy and others shabby but all in that shape. And concluded the reason why privets grow like that is because they don’t have thorns, which means they make good archways as people don’t get cut going under them. This also becomes the explanation as to why every hawthorn hedge you have seen has not been in the shape of an arch.

(This is very much what gender is, its the grouping of what females are constructed into via sex roles as innately in them and suited to them because of biology.)

Then one day everything changes for good, you find a privet hedge in the shape of a shabby bush like an hawthorn hedge, but still without the thorns. You may not even recognise it as a privet and wonder whats wrong with it, is it a privet or an hawthorn with badly formed leafs and no thorns. It lacks the traits you associate to be innate in the privet, it failed to grow into an accommodating arch, it may as well of been an hawthorn and had the power to be able to prick you. Just seeing the one will make you think that one is unnatural, and not question the shape of the rest of the privets.

You even think about cutting the hedge down to prevent any more growing but you don’t have anything to do it with, its too big and bushy.

Then one day you find out the truth, privets don’t grow into arches by any program installed in their seeds, and the reason they are trimmed into arches is because humans like them that way and its not their destiny. Seeing the soft thornless stems and their green leaves makes them a canvas to be constructed into archways. So you go back to that unnatural privet you thought was an hawthorn and try to trim it into an arch, but you cant as the branches are too tough its too late, but instead you make sure every one is trimmed while young and make that the new ruling. You know the tree is not unnatural, but your desire to make it accommodate you simply because its a privet is still there. The idea of what a real privet hedge should look like is still the one that’s been crafted into an arch. And the ones shown in magazines are still those crafted into an arch.

The shaping of the tree is much like the shaping of females into femininity. The femininity construct represents the arch, not an innate aspect of the female. Male dominance is the trimmer of females into a form of expression that accommodates male wishes as a class. This trimming represents the separation of them from their instrumental traits, the shaping of their bodies and sexuality by cultural expectations and the deprivation caused by their oppression.

An introduction to sex role scripts, gendurality and gendural orientation.

Biological sex refers to male or female or intersex. The standard word used to refer to biological sex is now gender. Because of this many people hear a confusing message when they hear the word gender abolition, and many respond by saying “gender is biological, do you want to create a sexless race all the same and androgynous” and they respond like this in many cases because gender means sex now as in male or female. Many people did confuse feminist androgyny concepts with physical androgyny in past decades, these androgyny concepts were about the sharing of tasks and power not about mixing masculinity and femininity together to create this idea that arose.
Some phrases no longer make sense, while some still do, for example gender based power structure and sex based power structure originally mean different things.

Gender used to mean the sex role class system, and the masculinity and femininity created from it. Masculinity and femininity referred to two sex role scripts, created for men and women and which formed part of their identity and sense of self. In much the same way the word we do and the title of the job form a part of our sense of self, its a constructed sense of identity formed from a role or place in society.
But now that gender has become interchangeable with sex, gender abolition is no longer code for abolishing this social system, it now means abolishing biological sex.
The use of the terms masculinity and femininity refer to either maleness or femaleness for most people, and most people assume the social stuff is just part of who men and women are.

The idea of androgyny for most people is translated into a sexlessness which now means sexuality lessness and absence of sexed physical features. Or it means effort to blend the two or even physical intersex to some. At best it can mean either avoiding both social roles or trying to do them both.

When people hear of an androgynous future after gender abolition they see it as an asexual (all the same sex) and sexless (sexualityness) race that reproduces by cloning. One where no one is allowed to be a man or a woman (read male or female) any longer.I think that by saying what needs to be abolished is sex role scripts, a term interchangeable with gender role scripts (just as sex and gender are interchangeable) makes sense without getting confused with what androgyny now signifies.
Masculinity and femininity need to be talked about from the point of view of instrumental and expressive personality traits, not on a spectrum creating the illusion of them being binary. It needs to be made clear both sexes are born with the potential to posses both instrumental and expressive traits to varying individual degrees. The idea on a continuum and a concept of psychological androgyny for someone who has a high level of both traits needs to be not used. That is because androgyny brings instrumental and expressive back to being masculine and feminine.

The sex role scripts are what codes these traits into a masculine and feminine binary and in effect is tells everyone what they combination should be based on sex. The stopping of that process creates no androgyny, just people who vary on how much instrumental or expressive traits they have. This forms a part of personality and is a predictor of what a person is more likely to want to do, but it is not a determinant.
So basically instrumental and expressive is a part of sex role scripts, but not the whole of it. A concept of genderality has been coined to refer to sense of being masculine or feminine, and it is rooted mostly in the instrumental and expressive traits and how they are shaped around biological sex in culture. I am adapting this term to gendurality to further distinguish the tem from gender or gender identity.

What’s considered gendurality is constructed by the sex role scripts, but the natural instrumentality and expressiveness one may have outside what they are forced to learn is not, only the fact its constructed around sex is. Its for this reason women with more instrumental traits can find they feel masculine, and males with more expressive traits feel feminine. This is the dimension of gender that is different to gender identity, which means sex identity (man or woman).

Gendural orientation refers to the direction someone takes in the dimension of gendurality and is constructed by sex role scripts, its based on how your instrumental or expressive traits fit around your expected instrumental and expressive behaviour expected based on sex. So if you are female with an instrumental gendural orientation you may get a sense of being masculine from society on in comparison to the sex stereotypes created out of sex role expectations. If you are male with an expressive gendural orientation you may get a sense of being feminine, You could experience fluidity of roles and traits and have a fluid gendurality.

Gendural orientation is not a gender identity (sex identity) and it differs from a persons sex identity, it is also not related to sexual orientation. Gendurality, sexuality and sex identity are all hindered by the sex role scripts. The abolition of the sex role scripts makes all behaviour right across the gendurality “spectrum” both male and female behaviour, as opposed to being partitioned around sex and instrumental traits getting coded as masculine and expressive ones as feminine. Sex role scripts act to divide the personality in half, and script it around sex, this must end and the only way to end it is to end the patriarchal system and any other underlying power structures which created sex roles.