If there was no gender...

[JeanneAnne]

---

JeanneAnne wrote:

---

Ishtara Rothschild wrote:

Don't you mean micropenis conditions, gynecomastia, and hypogonadism instead of hypospadias? Hypospadias is merely a misplaced urethral opening, although it sometimes goes along with the aforementioned conditions.

Gender is very much a biological reality imho, but since both biological genders have varying amounts of both estrogene and testosterone -- even normal XX and XY karyotypes -- gender can be a rather fluid state. However, the majority of humans have rather unambiguous gender characteristics (both physical and behavioral; the latter is not to be confused with gender roles, which are indeed a bit of a social construct) and an equally unambiguous gender identity.

---

Hypospadiasis can range from a slightly undershot urethral opening to a complete failure of the scrotal & **bleep** raphe to close. To my mind, mild hypospadiasis is one end of the continuum of developmental intersex conditions with mild clitoral hypertrophy at the other. Gynecomastia isn't even an issue of development but is an endocrine condition, rather.

I agree that the majority of humans have rather unambiguous gender characteristics but believe this to be due to socialization & cultural conditioning, having little to do with biology. Unless you want to argue that culture is biological, which I would agree with, making the distinction between a cultural versus biological origin of gender distinctions moot.

---

How come "penyle" (sic) gets **bleeped** but "clitoral" doesn't? Is even the censorship sexist?

[Ishtara Rothschild]

---

Void Singer wrote:

I would tend to disagree. identity of any form is largely malleable based on environment. absent social cues and correction the only gendered behaviors that remain are physical structural limits and personal taste, which vary continuously for most things, although a few have higher edge distribution thanks to structural differences (to which scale seems to be more determinant)

---

I don't think that's true when it comes to sexual and gender identities, which are the most prominent gender-typical traits. In case of sexual identity / orientation, it's pretty obvious that attempts to change these traits or pray them away never work out, even if the individual actively tries to change his or her sexual orientation.

The same has been found in regard to gender identity. During the 1950s - 70s, physicians often recommended that victims of botched circumcisions, male children suffering from extreme forms of micropenis conditions, and intersexed children should be raised as girls and undergo sexual reassignment at some point. But many of them failed to identify with their assigned gender and suffered from depression. The case of David Reimer was a prominent example.

And of course there are transsexuals who are born with a female brain in a male body, or vice versa. Many a parent has found that kids can't be forced to play with toy cars if they'd rather play with dolls. There really is such a thing as a female or a male brain structure, even if that might sound outrageous and offensive to feminists. Savic and Lindstrom have even found that gays and heteroseuxal women share the same brain symmetry, whereas lesbians and hetero men share typically male neurological characteristics (link). 

Quote:

Gay men and straight women share some characteristics in the area of the brain responsible for emotion, mood and anxiety [...] Brain scans of 90 volunteers showed that the brains of heterosexual men and homosexual women were slightly asymmetric with the right hemisphere slightly larger than the left, Ivanka Savic and Pers Lindstrom wrote. The brains of gay men and heterosexual women were not.

Then they measured blood flow to the amygdala -- the area key for the "fight-or-flight" response -- and found it was wired in a similar fashion in gay men and heterosexual women as well as lesbians and heterosexual men.

 

Of course there are environmental factors as well, but since even our developmental response to different environments is ultimately hardwired in our DNA (environmental stimuli can literally switch genes on and off, but only genes that are already there), nature always trumps nurture. Nurture, i.e. the environment, can only activate or disable different hardwired options. 

[Ishtara Rothschild]

---

JeanneAnne wrote:

---

Ishtara Rothschild wrote:

Don't you mean micropenis conditions, gynecomastia, and hypogonadism instead of hypospadias? Hypospadias is merely a misplaced urethral opening, although it sometimes goes along with the aforementioned conditions.

---

Hypospadiasis can range from a slightly undershot urethral opening to a complete failure of the scrotal & **bleep** raphe to close. To my mind, mild hypospadiasis is one end of the continuum of developmental intersex conditions with mild clitoral hypertrophy at the other. Gynecomastia isn't even an issue of development but is an endocrine condition, rather.

---

But this urethral misdevelopment has nothing to do with an intersex condition. There are no female gender characteristics, it's just that the urethral tube shows an abnormal development. I also don't know if I would list clitoral hypertrophy or clitoromegaly as an intersex condition. I'd put this down to normal phenotypic variation, just like labial hypertrophy, or mammary hypertrophy (commonly known as giant boobs). Or an oversized nose, for that matter

As for gynecomastia, why is an endocrine condition not a developmental condition? The neuroendocrine system is exactly what causes the development of different gender traits. If it's out of whack, there is usually an underlying genetic predisposition. Of course there can be environmental factors in some cases, such as gynecomastia caused by lavender soap or soy products, but those are exceptions. If the excess estrogene is produced by the own body and not artificially introduced, there are genetic factors at work.

[Bree Giffen]

Interest in androgyny seems to skew more to men who resemble women. Why don't we see more idolizing women who look like men? I say vive la différence.

[Ishtara Rothschild]

---

Bree Giffen wrote:

Interest in androgyny seems to skew more to men who resemble women. Why don't we see more idolizing women who look like men? I say vive la différence.

---

Being ca. 85% male and about 70% heterosexual, I'm of course more attracted to people with feminine traits, which includes feminine men

But I remember that Daria had a huge crush on Rachel Maddow, who unarguably has a few masculine traits: 

See http://dariasafterthoughts.blogspot.com/2010/04/omgomgomgomglolololo.html

 

ETA: Buck Angel also comes to mind. He is a pre-OP F2M trans man who looks 100% male until he takes his pants off, and has become a huge star in the gay porn industry.

[JeanneAnne]

 

>>But this urethral misdevelopment has nothing to do with an intersex condition.<< 

But indeed it does. Review your college embryology text re: the ontogeny of male morphology from female-like primordia. The closure of the scrotal & "penyle" raphe and positioning of the urethral tube is the very essence of male genital development, with intersexed conditions resulting from something going haywire with this development.

>>I also don't know if I would list clitoral hypertrophy or clitoromegaly as an intersex condition. I'd put this down to normal phenotypic variation...<<

Yes, conditions near either pole of this developmental continuum should be considered nothing more than examples of normal phenotypic variation. But conditions further removed from either pole are decidedly pathological and usually require surgical intervention.

>>As for gynecomastia, why is an endocrine condition not a developmental condition?<<

Because in this context, "development" may be considered more or less complete by the end of organogenesis, around the end of the first trimester. An endocrine imbalance or disorder that typically occurs during puberty isn't profitably regarded as being a developmental issue.

>>The neuroendocrine system is exactly what causes the development of different gender traits.<<

I don't believe so. The neuroendocrine systems is what accounts for the development of primary and secondary sexual characteristics, but "gender" characteristics are largely culturally imposed, admittedly often in response to primary and secondary sexual characteristics but not exclusively so.

>>If it's out of whack, there is usually an underlying genetic predisposition. Of course there can be environmental factors in some cases, such as gynecomastia caused by lavender soap or soy products, but those are exceptions. If the excess estrogene is produced by the own body and not artificially introduced, there are genetic factors at work.<<

Often countervalent excesses of sex hormones are due to adrenal or gonadal tumors. The etiology of these tumors may be genetic or environmental, or more likely the nonadditive interaction of genetic & environmental factors.

---

Think of it this way Ishtara: Think of the sliders we use to modify the looks of our avatars. Think of these issues as a slider set somewhere between 0 & 100:

Genetic sex: XO to XYY, with XX & XY in between.

Anatomical sex: Typical female morphology to typical male, with intersexed conditions somewhere in between.

Hormonal sex: Overwhelming preponderance of estrogenic & progesterogenic steroids to overwhelming preponderance of androgens, with most of us somewhere in between.

Sexual orientation: Exclusive heterosexuality to exclusive homosexuality, with bisexuality somewhere in between.

Gender identification: Culturally stereotypical feminine identification to culturally stereotypical masculine identification, with incogruous or ambiguous identifications & gender bending somewhere in between.

Gender role: Same as above.

Where these sliders are set may often be correlated but there is certainly no biological reason why they must be.

This is how I look at these issues, anyway...

Jeanne



[Ishtara Rothschild]

---

JeanneAnne wrote: 

>>

But this urethral misdevelopment has nothing to do with an intersex condition.

<< 

But indeed it does. Review your college embryology text re: the ontogeny of male morphology from female-like primordia. The closure of the scrotal & "penyle" raphe and positioning of the urethral tube is the very essence of male genital development, with intersexed conditions resulting from something going haywire with this development.

---

I agree, and I stand corrected I wasn't aware that the typical, less severe form of hypospadias, where the urethral opening is located somewhere along the **bleep** shaft, is the result of an incomplete closing of the perineal raphe. I thought it simply came down to the great natural variation in the location of the urethral opening, which is often located on the top or the bottom of the glans instead of the tip.

 

---

>>

As for gynecomastia, why is an endocrine condition not a developmental condition?

<<

Because in this context, "development" may be considered more or less complete by the end of organogenesis, around the end of the first trimester. An endocrine imbalance or disorder that typically occurs during puberty isn't profitably regarded as being a developmental issue.

---

This is where we disagree. The physical development continues until the age of 22-25 (some traits develop even later, such as the ruddy cheek color in older males that signals dominance). Puberty is a very important developmental stage, especially when it comes to gender development.

Unless we are talking about environmentally introduced hormones or the estrogene-producing tumors that you've mentioned, all post-birth morphological development is ultimately congenital, since our genes determine our neuroendocrine development and our endocrine activity.

 

 

---

Gender identification: Culturally stereotypical feminine identification to culturally stereotypical masculine identification, with incogruous or ambiguous identifications & gender bending somewhere in between.



---

Gender identification is mostly based on facial and other morphological cues. Even if the body shape is androgynous or hidden by loose clothing, people can usually accurately determine a person's gender based on eye distance, eyelash length (face-eye contrast), jaw line, nose and mouth size in relation to head size, facial complexion, and face-lip color contrast (which is exactly why women instinctively try to enhance these gender cues by using makeup).

Unlike gender-specific clothes and hairstyles, this is not merely a cultural stereotype. Facial gender recognition has been found to work in the exact same way across all human cultures (the anthropologist Peter Frost has extensively written about this topic).

This also explains why men who wear makeup that simulates feminine gender cues can mess with other people's gender recognition mechanisms Of course this works better if their facial structure is naturally feminine. As I wrote in an earlier post, Ru Paul's narrow-set eyes are a typical masculine facial trait that makes him immediately recognizable as a biologically male person, even when his clothing and hairstyle meet the female cultural stereotype. 

[JeanneAnne]

     >>As for gynecomastia, why is an endocrine condition not a developmental condition?<<

     Because in this context, "development" may be considered more or less complete by the end of organogenesis,     around the end of the first trimester. An endocrine imbalance or disorder that typically occurs during puberty isn't profitably regarded as being a developmental issue.

---

>>This is where we disagree. The physical development continues until the age of 22-25 (some traits develop even later, such as the ruddy cheek color in older males that signals dominance). Puberty is a very important developmental stage, especially when it comes to gender development.

Unless we are talking about environmentally introduced hormones or the estrogene-producing tumors that you've mentioned, all post-birth morphological development is ultimately congenital, since our genes determine our neuroendocrine development and our endocrine activity<<.

Well, if processes beyond the embryonic stage, and continuing into puberty and early adulthood, are going to be considered "developmental" then so may as well geriatric conditions be. There's nothing really "wrong" with this perspective except that to my mind it makes the term "developmental" unprofitably generic.

>>Gender identification is mostly based on facial and other morphological cues.<<

I would amend this statement by saying that 'Gender identification is mostly based on OTHER PEOPLE'S REACTION to facial & other morphological cues.' I guess it boils down to the semantics of the term "gender." What you're calling gender characteristics I'm calling secondary sexual characteristics. To me, gender is the entire panoply of culturally inculcated responses & behaviors largly based on the reactions of others to primary & secondary sexual features. I think that the only difference between what we're saying is that you apply the terms "developmental" and "gender" more broadly than I do.

Jeanne

Edited for spelling.



[Ishtara Rothschild]

---

JeanneAnne wrote:

 

>>This is where we disagree. The physical development continues until the age of 22-25 (some traits develop even later, such as the ruddy cheek color in older males that signals dominance). Puberty is a very important developmental stage, especially when it comes to gender development.

Unless we are talking about environmentally introduced hormones or the estrogene-producing tumors that you've mentioned, all post-birth morphological development is ultimately congenital, since our genes determine our neuroendocrine development and our endocrine activity<<.

Well, if processes beyond the embryonic stage, and continuing into puberty and early adulthood, are going to be considered "developmental" then so may as well geriatric conditions be. There's nothing really "wrong" with this perspective except that to my mind it makes the term "developmental" unprofitably generic.

---

Geriatric conditions are not really congenital, although things like the shortening of telomeres and programmed cell death could be said to be genetically predetermined and inherited. But overall, I would call the adult ageing process a slow deterioration and gradual systemic failure rather than physical and neurological development.

If humans were cars, we wouldn't roll off the production line until after puberty Rust, friction plate abrasion, and other wear and tear that occurs later on are not part of the manufacturing process anymore. Those are bugs, not features

 

---

>>Gender identification is mostly based on facial and other morphological cues.<<

I would amend this statement by saying that 'Gender identification is mostly based on OTHER PEOPLE'S REACTION to facial & other morphological cues.' I guess it boils down to the semantics of the term "gender." What you're calling gender characteristics I'm calling secondary sexual characteristics. To me, gender is the entire panoply of culturally inculcated responses & behaviors largly based on the reactions of others to primary & secondary sexual features. I think that the only difference between what we're saying is that you apply the terms "developmental" and "gender" more broadly than I do.

---

Of course the concept of gender in its entirety goes far beyond visual gender cues. My statement was only about gender identification, which happens in the mind of the observer.

Although... I just realize that I probably misunderstood you. Did you mean gender identity? In that case, we've been talking about different things. I thought you meant gender recognization, not identity or self-identification. 

[Persephone Emerald]

I generally think of gender as being in the mind of the individual, while their sex is what's between their legs (to but it bluntly).

The question of identity vs. identification isn't just about gender, though. What abiout racial identity vs. identification? For instance, Is a person black or white or asian if *they* think they are or if *other people* think they are?

 

[Ishtara Rothschild]

---

Persephone Emerald wrote:

The question of identity vs. identification isn't just about gender, though. What abiout racial identity vs. identification? For instance, Is a person black or white or asian if *they* think they are or if *other people* think they are?

 

---

 

 

 

I never thought of myself as a white person I'm fair-skinned (i.e. pale pink), blue-eyed and street cur blond. There is nothing white about me, except for my... well, actually my teeth are slightly yellowish :matte-motes-big-grin: I've always thought that these racial denominators made as little sense as the entire concept of human races.

I also find it odd when people call me a Caucasian. I've never been anywhere near the Caucasus region So no, "white" is not a part of my self-image. I'm a Homo sapiens. Or perhaps a Homo liberalis atheos. World views are a lot more dividing and say much more about a person than skin color, imho. 

[Mayalily]

I don't know Ishy, I can't say that person in the picture is "my type".  I like tall, dark, and handsome with more rugged, manly features. 

I don't like this almost dressing androgynous look of the early 21st Century.   But, that androgynous look is mostly what they call athleisure.  It's the athlectic sweatpants and sweat jacket look, or jeans with a sweat jacket on everybody.  However, since the maxi dress came out, I have noticed more women dressing like women, and I think the maxi dress is bringing back some fashion to this athleisure fashion society. 

However, I agree we should all be able to wear whatever the heck we want, even if our whole (non-work) wardrobe is athleisure orientated. 

 

 

[Pristeen Barbosa]

Having been through male to female gender reassignment when I was younger, I ended up finding myself in a place that was quite unexpected, but that I'm now perfectly happy with.

Prior to surgery, I felt it was very important to me that the world viewed me as female, as that's how I felt about myself, and as my hormone treatment progressed, that became reasonably easy to achieve.  I never felt entirely comfortable though, which troubled me quite a lot.  I never felt comfortable dressing in an overtly feminine manner, though that's exactly what the medical profession demand of you, before they'll consider you for gender reassignment.  So I toed the line, and breezed through the "real life test" without too much trouble at all.  

Once I'd had surgery though, I found myself caring less and less about how I was viewed by others.  I realize now that the confirmation of having the body that I felt that I should always have had, was really all I needed, and the views of others, or any need for validation on the matter, was moot.

Having mixed with a lot of other transsexuals, and dated a few, I know that my take on it all is quite atypical, as most seem to feel that the need to fit into the "gender binary" view that our society (mostly) imposes on itself, is of vital importance.  I ended up in many heated debates on the matter, which left me feeling quite at odds with the TS community.

As far as appearance goes, I would descibe myself as androgynous.  The reactions I get when I'm out and about, vary a great deal.  Some people gawp, slack jawed at me, others seem mildly puzzled for a moment and then shrug it off, some don't appear to see anything unusual at all, and others are outwardly hostile to the point of shouting abuse, and even spitting at me.  I should add, I do get positive reactions as well.  The funny thing is, I'm often most disarmed when people flirt with me.  :D 

I don't in any way try to court controversy (other than being open about who I am, which seems to some, to be controversial in of itself), and I don't dress in an outrageous manner.  For the most part, when I'm out and about, I'm either riding a bicycle or skating on my longboard, so jeans and hoodies/t-shirts and trainers are not only the most practical clothes to wear, but also what I feel most comfortable in.  

I'm not really sure I'll ever understand why people seem so preoccupied with how others present themselves to the outside world, unless of course they're deliberately courting controversy, but for the most part, I'm past caring about it.

 

*edit - sorry Mayalily, my post wasn't a reply to yours, it's just a general reply.

[Void Singer]

my point wasn't that people don't develop their own preferences (in regards to anything), but that those preferences only exist as "identity" in relation to our envirionment... with no basis for comparison, no comparisons are made.

with the influence of environment (particularly social conditioning) not only do the answers start to artificially converge, but also there tends to be more reporting bias. it's simply because society tends to guide and train for not only what it expects one to do, but also even further for what is expected to say (even if one isn't doing it). we literally train liars, and punish honesty.

[Melita Magic]

I'm not RL attracted to androgynous people, though. (And, there's something I dislike about the model in your OP. It's OK, I wouldn't be their type, either.) And many people prefer or are attracted to their physical opposites. So that would leave a great many of us in the cold, if everyone were androgynous and no one had a sexual physical gender.

Of course, by that time, a lot of other things must have changed in the world, and society, so I can hardly imagine the context.  Human beings are largely adaptive, so, perhaps there would be other, new dividing lines.

People do tend to, and seem to prefer to, segregate themselves, don't forget. Something about our makeup seems to find comfort in that, no matter how un-PC it might be. Look around RL at all the different groupings people put themselves into.

I've always felt odd in that I've always had all sorts of friends, most of whom wouldn't get along or choose to align with the other. So maybe I am less this way than some?

Still, I've seen more than one study about certain rugged features in a male jaw indicating fertility, the same with the female jaw being softer and pointier, the waist to hip ratio being larger, etc. etc.

This speaks to the average, or largest number of people, though. Of course there are always subsets of people and preferences as well as fetishes and the like. Not sure fetishes are a good topic for a G-rated forum, though.

[Ishtara Rothschild]

As somebody who grew in a time when both genders wore the same kind of casual clothing consisting of jeans, T-shirts and sneakers -- and, at least in the youth scene of my choice, also the same long hairstyles -- I can understand what you mean Perhaps this also helped shape my mixed sexual orientation to some degree. Some heavy metal stars, such as Dave Mustaine from Megadeth, looked quite androgynous, and of course many of my adolescent peers did too.

I've often thought that if I was female in RL, I would probably dress exactly the same as I do now -- jeans, tee, chucks. The only reason that I occasionally crossdress is that I'm *not* female As a woman, there would be no point in wearing traditionally and stereotypically feminine clothes. I'm not transgendered or transsexual though, so I can't really compare my experience to yours.

[Melita Magic]

---

Ishtara Rothschild wrote:

I've often thought that if I was female in RL, I would probably dress exactly the same as I do now -- jeans, tee, chucks. The only reason that I occasionally crossdress is that I'm *not* female

As a woman, there would be no point in wearing traditionally and stereotypically feminine clothes. I'm not transgendered or transsexual though, so I can't really compare my experience to yours.

---

I used to enjoy the feminine get up occasionally. It was either all out or jeans/tees/boots or sweats, if given my druthers. No frilly stuff, being a bit tall it made me feel like a lampshade.

It's idle thinking at times but I've wondered in the past "what if I were a guy." Some things would seem to be so much easier for men. Then again some things are more difficult and more stressful for them also I think. Sartorially I'd be very casual. Or I'd have impeccable tailored suits for the odd occasion. I'd almost certainly have my head nearly shaved as the men in my family mostly do.  Upkeep is a bear isn't it?

I do admire people who do not have to do all the heels, hose, makeup and do anyway cos they enjoy doing / wearing it.  Maybe if I felt deprived of it I would, too...For me it's a more special occasion type of thing.  Who the heck invented pantyhose anyway? Or heels? bleh  Gimme chunky heel boots anytime...

[Ishtara Rothschild]

Yes, women have a lot more work to do in the grooming and beautification department Men can usually get away with body hair, cuticles and  wrinkles, and in some cases even with a lesser amount of personal hygiene than women would feel comfortable with. Which is a shame, imho. Not that men should wear makeup, but a little more grooming (such as body hair removal) sure couldn't hurt.

Where men are clearly disadvantaged by cultural norms as well as their own male instincts is the whole area of social interaction. We can't just hug one another. We can't cry in front of other men if we feel like it. We are always on our toes, always careful not to show any sign of weakness or deep emotion, or an inappropriate amount of physical intimacy. We are always rivals and competitors, even if we think of one another as friends.

Plus, we are perceived as a danger, by both our fellow gender and (especially) by women. Nobody perceives a woman as a threat. But when trapped in an elevator with a male stranger, or when it appears that one is being followed by a strange male late at night, people of both genders are very guarded and on the edge. I have always felt very uncomfortable in such situations, because being seen as a threat increases my own social phobia.

For all these reasons, it is generally much harder for men to be socially accepted, to make friends, or to find their place within a new social group. It is also harder to open up and talk to people about emotional problems, or to find somebody to open up to in the first place. That's why I've always envied women. 

[Deltango Vale]

Here is a classic sci-fi novel on the subject, written in 1969:

http://www.amazon.com/Left-Hand-Darkness-Ursula-LeGuin/dp/0441478123

[Void Singer]

thanks for reminding me, I still have that one in my reading backlog.....

[Canoro Philipp]

i dont find androgynes attractive, what i find attractive is femininity, that thing that only women can do best, that is not fake or learned, that it comes naturally, those aspects that separate us as genders, physically, psychologically and emotionally.

nobody is better then them at that, doesnt matter if an androgyne uses a lot of makeup and even have a sex change operation, men are never gonna become a woman, because our gender is hardcoded from even before we are born.

i like women, so i find no androgyne attractive.

[Persephone Emerald]

Physically I'm attracted to women with feminine curves & men who are neither too rugged nor too feminine. Yet, what I'm really attracted to is intelligence, open-mindedness, playfulness, perseverance, sensitivity, compassion, and humor. In other words, it's what's inside that counts much more than what's outside.

[Canoro Philipp]

for friendship i am attracted too to intelligence, compassion and humor. i guess the features we find attractive in a person varies depending on the relationship that that person inspire us to have with him/her.

[Ishtara Rothschild]

---

Canoro Philipp wrote:

i dont find androgynes attractive, what i find attractive is femininity, that thing that only women can do best, that is not fake or learned, that it comes naturally, those aspects that separate us as genders, physically, psychologically and emotionally.

nobody is better then them at that, doesnt matter if an androgyne uses a lot of makeup and even have a sex change operation, men are never gonna become a woman, because our gender is hardcoded from even before we are born.

i like women, so i find no androgyne attractive.

---

Well, I'm a natural born male, and I suck at masculinity :smileyvery-happy: And at femininity too, for that matter. Anyway, the fact that some men aren't very manly suggests that there are also women who don't do femininity. Calamity Jane is probably the most (in)famous historical example.

At the same time, there are very feminine and in fact genuinely female minds that happen to be stuck in male bodies. That too was hardcoded before they were born, and the gender information that was hardcoded into their brains is the bit that matters imho. They are not fake, they are simply women that come with some assembly required

[Pristeen Barbosa]

---

Canoro Philipp wrote:

i dont find androgynes attractive, what i find attractive is femininity, that thing that only women can do best, that is not fake or learned, that it comes naturally, those aspects that separate us as genders, physically, psychologically and emotionally.

nobody is better then them at that, doesnt matter if an androgyne uses a lot of makeup and even have a sex change operation, men are never gonna become a woman, because our gender is hardcoded from even before we are born.

i like women, so i find no androgyne attractive.

---

You seem to be implying that anyone who isn't cisgendered is somehow fake or that traits/gender cues that they display, are some sort of affectation rather than something which is natural to them.

I can't speak for other transsexuals or androdgynous people, but from my perspective, it was society that tried to force me to be something that was wholly unnatural to me.  The person that I've grown to become, goes right back as far as I can remember.  To use your term, I would suggest that my gender identity is as "hardcoded" in me as anyone else's is in them.  From a very early age though, I learned that if I was to be accepted, then I had to hide who I was, and not talk about it.  So for years, I buried who I was, to the point that it quite literally nearly killed me.  

I don't wear makeup or try to convince people that I'm something I'm not.  I dress in a completely neutral manner, as that's how I feel most comfortable, and it suits my lifestyle.  That it seems to cause so much consternation when I'm out and about, appears to me to say far more about society than it does about me.   I'm not surprised though, as I've long since felt that as much as society binds people together, it also drives them apart.  Race, religion, politics, sexuality, all these things, with constant reinforcement from the media, drive a wedge between people, and potentially set up conflicts that need not exist.  

And it's because of all this, that I limit my contact with most of society.  I only involve myself in it as much as I need too, and no more.  I'm not unhappy about it though, as I've grown to value my privacy, and as odd as I may seem to some people, I can assure you, society at large seems equally odd to me.  

Whether someone is cisgendered, intersex, trans, andro, or any point inbetween, is irrelevant to me.  All that matters is what they've got going on upstairs.