I don't understand the term trans

[wulf3n]

Maybe off topic but I think it's one of those things that if you don't experience it, you'll never truly understand it.

 

[Something Amyss]

So if there are no feelings that only a man or only a woman can feel, then how on Earth could someone who is born, raised, educated, etc. as a man claim to "feel" like a woman? That only makes sense if there is some kind of existential experience of womanhood available only to those who are born with it, which again seems suuuper conservative.

Okay, again, can you ask this question without putting words in my mouth? This reads as "I'm neither trans nor a feminist, let me tell you what you believe." Maybe that's not your intent. Maybe you really do have an honest question. But it looks like you're trying to chastise a group for beliefs that group does not hold. It also uses the same sort of equivocation Ray Comfort does to demonstrate that atheists have faith because they "believe" in their wives. You use two different concepts of "feeling" interchangeably.

To make this clearer, what do you think I am feeling that you think is a feeling that would be exclusive to one sex or t'other?

But to follow up: would you be willing to go through SRS to demonstrate how little sense this makes? Hypothetically, of course. I'm not challenging you to reassign your gender.

What radical feminism says is that there are no differences between the sexes and that gender is a social construct that has no basis in biology, thus gender shouldn't exist because everyone is the same.

No it doesn't, and it really doesn't help the issue to misportray them. Radical feminism is based around the ideal of systematic oppression by "the patriarchy." It doesn't really matter if you agree or disagree with them, but the general concept does not speak to there being no biological difference between men and women. At most, radfems are generally considered to want to do away with gender roles, which are not the same thing.

Also, the presence of TERFs/GCFs should indicate the contrary, given they staunchly believe that trans people are what their birth genitals are. If you were born with a penis, you are irrevocably a man to these camps.

In fact, most radical feminist ideals should be ones trans individuals are concerned with, since they deal with things like not dividing power based on gender lines and equal treatment regardless of your gender or genitals. The fact that TERFs exist and want womanhood to be proprietary should not impact those ideals. At most, you can point to individual radfems who believe there are no biological differences between male and female (which is not the same as "gender is a biological construct").

"Radical" in this context does not mean "extreme." Nothing you wrote is contradictory to radical feminism as a doctrine.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

What radical feminism says is that there are no differences between the sexes and that gender is a social construct that has no basis in biology, thus gender shouldn't exist because everyone is the same.

No it doesn't, and it really doesn't help the issue to misportray them. Radical feminism is based around the ideal of systematic oppression by "the patriarchy." It doesn't really matter if you agree or disagree with them, but the general concept does not speak to there being no biological difference between men and women. At most, radfems are generally considered to want to do away with gender roles, which are not the same thing.

Also, the presence of TERFs/GCFs should indicate the contrary, given they staunchly believe that trans people are what their birth genitals are. If you were born with a penis, you are irrevocably a man to these camps.

In fact, most radical feminist ideals should be ones trans individuals are concerned with, since they deal with things like not dividing power based on gender lines and equal treatment regardless of your gender or genitals. The fact that TERFs exist and want womanhood to be proprietary should not impact those ideals. At most, you can point to individual radfems who believe there are no biological differences between male and female (which is not the same as "gender is a biological construct").

"Radical" in this context does not mean "extreme." Nothing you wrote is contradictory to radical feminism as a doctrine.

I didn't say anything about extreme, but I think where my confusion lies is with several people whose statements I've read on the subject of radical feminism. So you're probably more right than I am. I think I confused radical feminists with transhuminsit feminists, or something along those lines. Although I don't think things like not dividing power, work responsibility, or treatment and rights are radical concepts within feminism. Then again I don't think feminism in general has a monopoly on the idea of equality of the genders in general, but I also don't really delve into feminism much because it gets a bit too gender centric for me. So what do I know in these regards anyways? Not enough.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

You might want to try going back to the prior question, then. Because this here is something nobody's claiming. At least, not in any practical sense.

So if there are no feelings that only a man or only a woman can feel, then how on Earth could someone who is born, raised, educated, etc. as a man claim to "feel" like a woman? That only makes sense if there is some kind of existential experience of womanhood available only to those who are born with it, which again seems suuuper conservative.

I have to ask, why are you ignoring body issues? What exactly is super conservative about the idea that a woman would feel comfortable in a female body and not a male one? And vice versa.

 

[MrFalconfly]

You might want to try going back to the prior question, then. Because this here is something nobody's claiming. At least, not in any practical sense.

So if there are no feelings that only a man or only a woman can feel, then how on Earth could someone who is born, raised, educated, etc. as a man claim to "feel" like a woman? That only makes sense if there is some kind of existential experience of womanhood available only to those who are born with it, which again seems suuuper conservative.

I have to ask, why are you ignoring body issues? What exactly is super conservative about the idea that a woman would feel comfortable in a female body and not a male one? And vice versa.

Presumably because body issues aren't genetic in nature, but rather is something you develop from exposure to your peers.

The human brain is very plastic, so if the environment it finds itself in is filled with people who say you look weird, it'll develop an "ideal body image" which conforms to what your peers think.

If anything this just shows how peer-pressure works.

 

[Something Amyss]

I have to ask, why are you ignoring body issues? What exactly is super conservative about the idea that a woman would feel comfortable in a female body and not a male one? And vice versa.

Which, as you point out isn't a gendered issues. It impacts men, women, and anyone else not in one of those boxes.

 

[manic_depressive13]

The rhetoric surrounding transgenderism is just a giant clusterfuck of contradictions and bad science. I feel like this is a result of needing to justify transgenderism to the right wing majority. It's really frustrating, because while I wish I could wholeheartedly be an ally, all this nonsense about "male" and "female" brains makes me so angry. The idea that transgender people just want to be treated like their chosen gender seems to legitimise the notion that it's okay to treat people differently on that basis, and directly undermines how I've been fighting to be perceived and treated my whole life. I don't see why, in order to be progressive, I have to accept these really regressive notions about sex and gender.

 

[Drops a Sweet Katana]

Hmmmmmmm. You could be right. I haven't done biology since A-Level so I could very well be wrong. However, the NHS gives a similar explanation, although it's more a development-based one (http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Gender-dysphoria/Pages/Causes.aspx). I don't think I add much more past chin-scratching since I don't really have a proper understanding of biochemistry.

Wow, I'm actually kind of shocked that the NHS is reporting that as fact.

Put it this way, it is a known and observable fact that gender identity can change throughout someone's life. A person can live happily as a member of a particular sex for many decades and then suddenly hit a point where they desire to be the opposite sex. This can include people who have already transitioned once and, crucially, people who have had their gonads (testes or ovaries) removed, meaning it's very unlikely to be down to changing levels of sex hormones.

We tend to assume that when people's gender identity changes during their life they haven't actually "changed" but rather "discovered" something that was always innate to them, and that's a good assumption to follow because it's very comforting and affirming for the person who is transitioning, but taking it too far can also be very confusing. If someone has managed to survive for thirty years as a man but now wants to be a woman, the fact that they are authentically a woman doesn't necessarily mean they were never "really" a man. I would say that a person who can survive as a man is as worthy of being called a man as anyone.

I think in a better world, in a world where trans people didn't have to fear the accusation of mental illness, that would be something we'd probably find much easier to accept.

Ultimately, though, even if I'm completely wrong. Even if there is a single determinate cause of gender identity, then it's clearly not actually that determinate because people sometimes seem to be able to ignore it, or even to not know about it, for years on end. We tend to fixate on the experience of people who "always knew" and who never had any doubts or confusion or second thoughts and present that as typical. It's a common experience, sure, and one as worthy of respect as anyone's experience, but it isn't the only possible experience of being trans.

It's just a murky thing we don't really understand yet. When I had a quick look explanations for gender dysphoria, most sources pretty universally said 'we don't really know, but it could be this...'. It seems like it's only recently been the subject of any rigorous study. In situations like this, especially when very few people and fewer willingly can speak from first hand experience, it seems like chin scratching and spit balling are the order of the day. It doesn't help that it's a fairly alien concept to most people.

 

[ThatOtherGirl]

The rhetoric surrounding transgenderism is just a giant clusterfuck of contradictions and bad science. I feel like this is a result of needing to justify transgenderism to the right wing majority. It's really frustrating, because while I wish I could wholeheartedly be an ally, all this nonsense about "male" and "female" brains makes me so angry. The idea that transgender people just want to be treated like their chosen gender seems to legitimise the notion that it's okay to treat people differently on that basis, and directly undermines how I've been fighting to be perceived and treated my whole life. I don't see why, in order to be progressive, I have to accept these really regressive notions about sex and gender.

Forget about all the back and forth questionable science (fyi, it comes from both sides). And really, that stuff doesn't matter anyway, at least not in terms of being a progressive and accepting person. That is ultimately just arguing over the reason that a problem exists that most definitely does exist. Leave the why to the scientists and doctors to sort out. What you should care about is what you should do about it.

Ultimately, the problem you are having is the line of reasoning that says if a person assigned one gender at birth can identify as the opposite gender and that is real it implies that there are real, non superficial differences between the genders, which justifies treating genders differently. Or at least that is what you believe is implied. The other way to look at it, what I would say is the correct way, is that it supports that the differences between assigned genders is superficial and that gender is no reason to treat someone differently.

Consider this: If a person assigned male at birth can actually be female (and vice versa) it means gender is primarily a matter of personal identity. This means all that stuff women have been dealing with about "inherent differences" between the sexes has been bullshit from the very start. It is the ultimate proof of equality of different genders.

I (as a trans woman) would argue that I do not want to be treated as a woman. Let me justify that statement. Forget about male vs female for a moment and consider people who are non binary trans. What do they want to be treated like? They want to be treated in a way that is consistent with and respects their personal identity. The same is true of all trans people, and indeed all people in general.

I don't want to be treated like a woman. I want to be treated like me. It just so happens that I both identify as a woman and I largely want to be treated the way most people treat women in most situations.

This is a subtle but incredibly important point, and one that I don't think even most trans people have properly considered because the difference is so hard to see.

But explaining all of this to everyone I meet is impractical, so I often use the shortcut of "treat me like a woman" despite the pitfalls of that statement. I recognize that this includes the pitfall that you have a major problem with, which is that it suggests there is an inherently correct way to treat women, and thus treating people differently based on gender is justified.

Which is, of course, nonsense. It leads to bullshit like people claiming I am not a "real" woman because I am not a stereotype that loves to arrange furniture. (Yes, that has actually happened, and more than once.) Because guess what, treating people different based on gender is bullshit.

No, what you should do is treat people differently based on their personal identity according to their wishes.

Now lets boil all this down to actionable principles. What you need to do to be a progressive person in relation to trans issues is the following:

1. Recognize that whether or not we understand the causes this is real.
2. Recognize that people want to be treated according to their personal identity and respect that desire.

That is it.

 

[Something Amyss]

I don't see why, in order to be progressive, I have to accept these really regressive notions about sex and gender.

These regressive ideas that people aren't asserting, but that you're saddling us with?

If you want to talk regressive, though, what's with "chosen gender?" Sounds an awful lot like people relegating sexuality to a lifestyle choice.

Surely the designation leads to the expectation though yes? Without the expectation the designation means very little?

Without the expectations, men will still be men and women will still be women. What they won't be is anchored to ideals in terms of what that means with respect to gender roles.

 

[manic_depressive13]

Now lets boil all this down to actionable principles. What you need to do to be a progressive person in relation to trans issues is the following:

1. Recognize that whether or not we understand the causes this is real.
2. Recognize that people want to be treated according to their personal identity and respect that desire.

That is it.

I can totally get behind everything you said. I do respect transgender people's identities, support their medical rights, and try to treat them as they want to be treated. I don't mean that I'm not an ally. Just that I don't feel comfortable with the common rhetoric that emphasises gender differences, and because of that, I feel like I'm not being supportive enough. Like, when someone tells me they were born with a "female brain" or a "male brain" and I'm here thinking "that's bullshit, there's no such thing" I feel like I'm undermining them, and this makes me feel guilty, and like not a good ally.

 

[MrFalconfly]

Without the expectations, men will still be men and women will still be women. What they won't be is anchored to ideals in terms of what that means with respect to gender roles.

Pardon my ignorance.

But since there are no gender roles (something I thought we left behind in the 1970s, but that's just blisfully ignorant me in my little corner of the world aparantly), then "genders" would be a useless identifier.

And if genders are useless, then why keep using it?

I mean wouldn't the best scenario involve that we only be "humans", and that our choices should only be limited by merit? And if identification based on visual data is necessary, then sex, instead of gender, seems a lot more reliable (xx = female, xy = male. Not that it matters, but it makes it easier for me to find the "man in the brown coat, and red cap" who were supposed to meat me in the bus-station).

 

[ThatOtherGirl]

Now lets boil all this down to actionable principles. What you need to do to be a progressive person in relation to trans issues is the following:

1. Recognize that whether or not we understand the causes this is real.
2. Recognize that people want to be treated according to their personal identity and respect that desire.

That is it.

I can totally get behind everything you said. I do respect transgender people's identities, support their medical rights, and try to treat them as they want to be treated. I don't mean that I'm not an ally. Just that I don't feel comfortable with the common rhetoric that emphasises gender differences, and because of that, I feel like I'm not being supportive enough. Like, when someone tells me they were born with a "female brain" or a "male brain" and I'm here thinking "that's bullshit, there's no such thing" I feel like I'm undermining them, and this makes me feel guilty, and like not a good ally.

I wouldn't worry about it. You have a way forward to be a strong and supportive ally, focus on that. If you can feel comfortable speaking out against things like the bathroom myths and properly respect our identity then you are exactly what we need in an ally.

 

[1981]

The rhetoric surrounding transgenderism is just a giant clusterfuck of contradictions and bad science. I feel like this is a result of needing to justify transgenderism to the right wing majority. It's really frustrating, because while I wish I could wholeheartedly be an ally, all this nonsense about "male" and "female" brains makes me so angry. The idea that transgender people just want to be treated like their chosen gender seems to legitimise the notion that it's okay to treat people differently on that basis, and directly undermines how I've been fighting to be perceived and treated my whole life. I don't see why, in order to be progressive, I have to accept these really regressive notions about sex and gender.

My thoughts exactly. I mean, I get why some believe they were born in the wrong body. There probably is some kind of blueprint for these things. Animals don't need sex ed to know what to do with their genitals. They do get it wrong sometimes, although I've heard that females mounting males or other females may be dominance assertion. But I digress. What I don't get is where these strange ideas of what it's like to be a man or a woman come from.

I've never had a problem with being asked if I'm a man or a woman or called son, but I've learned that it's a touchy subject for some people. So... dunno. Who am I to say they shouldn't feel that way?

 

[manic_depressive13]

I don't see why, in order to be progressive, I have to accept these really regressive notions about sex and gender.

These regressive ideas that people aren't asserting, but that you're saddling us with?

If you want to talk regressive, though, what's with "chosen gender?" Sounds an awful lot like people relegating sexuality to a lifestyle choice.

I don't know what to say. I don't feel like calling people out, which is why I didn't quote anyone in my post. But if you care to read the thread, there are several mentions of the notion that the neurology of transgender people's brains match the gender they identify with. I can only conclude that this notion of male and female brains doesn't seem regressive to you, but it does to me.

Honestly I only phrased it like that because I felt "the gender they identify with" made my sentence too long and clunky, and I thought that was a decent substitute. But, does my sexuality being a choice somehow make it less legitimate?

 

[Something Amyss]

I don't know what to say. I don't feel like calling people out, which is why I didn't quote anyone in my post. But if you care to read the thread, there are several mentions of the notion that the neurology of transgender people's brains match the gender they identify with. I can only conclude that this notion of male and female brains doesn't seem regressive to you, but it does to me.

It's the latter part that's in dispute, not the former. This idea that it somehow undoes equality if male and female brains are a thing. Yet I doubt admitting that penises (generally male) and vaginas (generally female) are a thing in any way undermines things.

There are physiological differences between male and female bodies, and that doesn't justify treating women as lesser. Why would male and female brains? The terminology may not suit you, but you can identify structural differences between a male brain and a female one, and trans individuals do tend to more closely resemble the brains of the sex they identify with. This is reality, and if reality is inconvenient to your basis for the fight for equal treatment of women, you should probably reevaluate that.

However, it in no way impacts mine. Women deserve equal treatment regardless of sexual dimorphism, and they deserve treatment even if there are identifiable structural differences in the brain that can identify one as "male" or "female." I would honestly hope you would agree.

Honestly I only phrased it like that because I felt "the gender they identify with" made my sentence too long and clunky, and I thought that was a decent substitute. But, does my sexuality being a choice somehow make it less legitimate?

If I could choose to simply be a man, I honestly would. It shouldn't matter if your sexuality is a choice or not, but the terminology downplays the experience. I have been attacked and sexually assaulted because I don't meet up with the ideas that are supposed to come along with the genitals I was born with. I'd had almost a dozen suicide attempts by the time I was sixteen years old, and the trans suicide rate in general is alarmingly high. To be told this is the result of a choice is rather insulting.

I feel like I'm undermining them

Because you literally are. In the same way women have been undermined for ages, no less. Oh, and this was used as an argument against homosexuality and bisexuality, too.

My thoughts exactly. I mean, I get why some believe they were born in the wrong body. There probably is some kind of blueprint for these things. Animals don't need sex ed to know what to do with their genitals. They do get it wrong sometimes, although I've heard that females mounting males or other females may be dominance assertion. But I digress. What I don't get is where these strange ideas of what it's like to be a man or a woman come from.

I've never had a problem with being asked if I'm a man or a woman or called son, but I've learned that it's a touchy subject for some people. So... dunno. Who am I to say they shouldn't feel that way?

What are these strange ideas beyond the internal blueprint you already said probably existed?

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

Without the expectations, men will still be men and women will still be women. What they won't be is anchored to ideals in terms of what that means with respect to gender roles.

Pardon my ignorance.

But since there are no gender roles (something I thought we left behind in the 1970s, but that's just blisfully ignorant me in my little corner of the world aparantly), then "genders" would be a useless identifier.

And if genders are useless, then why keep using it?

I mean wouldn't the best scenario involve that we only be "humans", and that our choices should only be limited by merit? And if identification based on visual data is necessary, then sex, instead of gender, seems a lot more reliable (xx = female, xy = male. Not that it matters, but it makes it easier for me to find the "man in the brown coat, and red cap" who were supposed to meat me in the bus-station).

Well one thing is that gender roles still do exist, they might have adapted some as women gained the ability to choose and have careers, but they're still a real thing. Also gender as an identifier is something that seems rather natural for humans. It's especially important because so many people hold traits of femininity and masculinity in places of high importance. Really in western society it's practically forbidden for males to show any feminine interests, let alone even allowing males to be able to wear clothing associated with women. Still because sexual dimorphism exists I doubt that we'll ever have genders be uniformly treated the same, with the same expectations placed upon them.

For people talking about the "male brain" and "female brain" concept.... Well I think Something Amyss and ThatOtherGirl have covered it better than I ever could, just because of the disorganized nature of my dyslexic brain. I just want to simplify the idea: Sexual dimorphism has an effect on the brain, human brain structures do differ based on sex, and trans folk generally tend to look more like the opposite sex than their birth sex when examined under MRI.

 

[Terminal Blue]

The terminology may not suit you, but you can identify structural differences between a male brain and a female one, and trans individuals do tend to more closely resemble the brains of the sex they identify with. This is reality, and if reality is inconvenient to your basis for the fight for equal treatment of women, you should probably reevaluate that.

You can observe it, yes. Whether it is repeatable is quite another matter.

The theory of "male and female brains" and its use as an explanation for "sexual deviance" has a long history, and a pretty disreputable history. The science of opening up skulls and measuring brains has always been used as a way of explaining social differences between people, and the defining difference between men and women, up until fairly recently, was generally assumed to be the inferiority of the latter. Thus, you have this ridiculous dance in early Darwinism whereby whenever a neurological advance is made (such as the discovery of the role of the frontal lobe in intelligence) anatomists miraculously discover all this evidence that male frontal lobes are so much obviously larger than those of women relative to the size of their brains, something which we now know not to be true (and which is particularly ironic because previously the exact opposite thesis was generally held to be true).

The issue here is not that male and female brains tend to display generalized differences. There are some which are very obvious (for example, male brains tend to be bigger for the same reason men's bodies in general tend to be bigger, because of the steroidal function of androgens) but that the search for neurological differences generally has nothing whatsoever to do with simply making observations about the brain. It is, just as in Darwin's time, entirely about providing explanations for social differences between men and women. That makes it very difficult to trust when people make anatomical observations (which are at this point extremely tiny and subtle) specifically to answer sociological questions.

I would say that the point at which something becomes "reality" in science (although in an empiricist sense nothing ever truly does) is not simply when you can observe it, but when you can use that observation as a predictive tool. When someone can look at a brain without knowing whether it comes from a trans person or not and say "that person identifies as female" or "that person identifies as male" and be right over and over again to the point that it can't just be a chance, well.. that would be the point at which prediction has been reached. We're still a long, long way off that point.

Oh, and this was used as an argument against homosexuality and bisexuality, too.

Yeah.. on that note.

Do you really think the people who came up with this whole idea that queer/trans folks/general sexual deviants ("inverts" as they were called back then) were neurologically similar to the "wrong" sex did so in order to promote tolerance of them, because if so that is some serious forgetfulness.

A few decades ago, you and I would be forced to take hormones in order to try and "normalize" our malfunctioning brains.

But yeah, on that note I suppose it's time to be brave and risk offending someone..

This whole notion that you're either male or female and that you must feel some intrinsic connection to one or the other because that's the sex your brain is.. that undermines me. That totally undermines my whole experience, because I don't want to be either male or female. I don't feel this innate special connection to one category or the other, in fact I find them both equally demeaning and coercive when they're applied to me, and I don't accept the sticking plaster that I must have an "intersexed brain" (much as some anatomist is doubtless enthralled at the prospect of cutting me open and mysteriously finding one) because frankly I don't feel any active connection to any kind of "inbetweeness" either. Gender to me is a big absence which I am nonetheless forced to play along with in order to pander to everyone's conviction that it's somehow absolutely determinant of who they are. That's precisely why I feel I can't live as a man any more, because to me it's not myself, it's not even close to myself. The only time I've ever felt close to myself is in the moment where someone genuinely doesn't know or doesn't care if I'm male or female, on the rare happy occasion where that's just okay.

If you feel that on some deep psychological level you feel like a man or a woman and think that it somehow has to be more than a feeling, then I will always tolerate and accept that and try to be as sensitive as possible, but it isn't an experience I can relate to and thus I can't see it as something you can generalize to all of humanity.