Allegations of transphobia Mod Advisory post #42

antiskeptic

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Which is why the term is transgender not transbiology.

The human body is basically a meat machine carrying around a consciousness..

..the consciousness being as much a part of the machine as any of the meat, you will agree?

. Much of what occurs in this meat machine is controlled by hormones - which quite often f up.

You seem to be implying that the gender identity is spot on but the f up meat hormones haven't played ball.

But can be that gender identity is not the problem bit? How does one decide? Is the decision that it is a meat problem one of utility: I can modify the meat but not the gender identity.

No-one that I have heard is saying biology is being 'changed' - what it is being is corrected. The mistake is acknowledged and attempts are made to rectify it so that it aligns to what the consciousness believes is the correct situation gender wise

Whilst questioning this rationale, let me point out that my theology supposes we are all out of shape in some way shape or form. And so, no judgement implied in my querying the logic.

While not agreeing with Dawkins, I have always somewhat respected his intellectual honesty in following though to the logical conclusion and being firm with his convictions. For instance, he has no problem with acknowledging and living out the implications of his philosophy, such as by freely admitting that free will is an illusion, and does not exist. Many, if not most, who say they subscribe to a similar Godless materialist philosophy as he does, stop short of denying the existence of free will, finding such an idea irreconcilable with their experience of life (and perhaps also some fear at the conclusions which much flow, and the changes that must occur, if free will does not exist). Some try and dodge it with some vague allusion to "complexity" or seemingly suggest that a complex enough illusion is the same as the real thing. Others still, and perhaps the majority, just deny the existence of God, sort of accept some of the materialist position (even though materialism really is all or nothing), and do not go any further. This is sad I think, but Dawkins cannot be accused of this, he follows it through.

Regarding the trans issue, I find it confusing that on the one hand we are told that gender is a social construct (which, hence, can be deconstructed and is not "real") and that "gender norms" or "gender roles" or stereotypes are a nonsense and everyone should be treated the same (effectively as gender-less - the net result of totally disregarding gender from the consideration of how one should be treated) yet when it comes to trans people, the demand/expectation is that these people should be applauded in their embracing of a social construct, and the 'trappings' that come with it. Now, if it were entirely different groups that were saying these things that would be one thing, but very often they are coming from the very same people, almost in the one breath. In my opinion it is because of the intellectual confusion of half thought out "whatever you're having yourself as long as it doesn't make anyone feel bad" philosophy that is popular on certain corners of the left, and dominant online in less sophisticated recesses of the internet than here, indeed the intellectual foundation for many, is the reason why "dissent" from the main narrative by the likes of Dawkins, or JKR is met with such venom and anger. It seems the ability to say "you're wrong there, I don't agree" is completely lost, even when the people in question probably agree on 9/10 occasions. This is because they feel on shaky ground to begin with, insecure in their thought and dissent must be stamped out. It helps that the most effective way of gaining plaudits is the intellectual craw thumping of cancelling someone - even better if they are a friend. It's a bit scary, I would not like to be part of a community where there is almost zero chance of forgiveness if you deviate from the accepted line. Personally I have always made a point of being friends with people who fundamentally disagree with me, this way you challenge each other and might learn something. I've been friends with these people for years, but we have discussed how if we were the age we met now, we probably wouldn't get past a few sentences, which was a sad observation, and acknowledgement of the retreat into rather ill defined ideological silos.

On a more general point and observation, the internet just dooesn't really help with these things, it is so extreme and while on it most people seem to only display one, insincere and crafted, aspect of their personality.

Most people, be they trans or gay or whatever, are fairly well adjusted and want to get on with things as normal as possible without their sexual orientation or the fact that they are trans being their dominant personality trait or the defining thing in their life. People have the free will (sorry Dawkins) to make their own decisions on issues of morality and the like. It is possible to think someone wrong, confused or whatever and still treat them with respect and indeed to be friends. It is when we start to demand that everyone think the same that we go wrong, because then no one, or only a very vocal few, actually say what they think, they keep their heads down as ideologues run wild - until another of their ideologue pals cancels them for a slip-up that is. This is manna from heaven for the (actual, Nazi I mean) far right.

So Dawkins has ran foul, not irredeemably so, yet, it seems, for acting as he always has, when he adopts a position he follows it all the way through. Some just don't like where it has led him.

smacl

magicbastarder wrote: »

i'm also fond of assuming that because there are many more ways of being wrong than being right, society will get this wrong several times over before we get this right.

Agreed entirely. I'd also have deep reservations about publicly placing a tiny and vulnerably minority under the microscope and dissecting what they are for the purposes of pigeon-holing them in terms of a narrow, conservative and probably obsolete world view. The primary purpose, in my opinion, seems to me to be to enable an often hateful discrimination which, so far as I can see, serves no real or useful purpose. There seems to be a growing cohort in society who are on the lookout for something to hate and the trans community is a soft target. Why?

Hotblack Desiato

Because homophobia is no longer generally socially acceptable...

magicbastarder

smacl wrote: »

I'd also have deep reservations about publicly placing a tiny and vulnerably minority under the microscope and dissecting what they are

i do have a course of rhetoric planned for the next time someone brings the topic up in conversation (probably my father in law), where i'll find myself on the other side of the fence; i deliberately am not going to outline it here, for fear of starting that debate. but it's based on the notion that if you disagree with someone over a topic, asking them to explain how they reached their conclusions is a better way of getting them to question them, than it is to challenge their conclusions directly.

smacl wrote: »

There seems to be a growing cohort in society who are on the lookout for something to hate and the trans community is a soft target. Why?

i'm just about old enough to have voted in the divorce referendum (the one the rain won), and i remember similar arguments being made (and which were remade with the same sex marriage one); that allowing divorce or same sex marriage, it was cheapening the institution of marriage as it supposedly currently was. and i'd draw a parallel with that and peoples notion of gender; that with the old notions of 'man' and 'woman' you knew where you stood, and people are uncomfortable with old certainties dissolving into shades of grey.

seamus

Rylie Happy Potassium wrote: »

Regarding the trans issue, I find it confusing that on the one hand we are told that gender is a social construct (which, hence, can be deconstructed and is not "real") and that "gender norms" or "gender roles" or stereotypes are a nonsense and everyone should be treated the same (effectively as gender-less - the net result of totally disregarding gender from the consideration of how one should be treated) yet when it comes to trans people, the demand/expectation is that these people should be applauded in their embracing of a social construct, and the 'trappings' that come with it.

The primary argument here is to not consider gender as an absolute. That is, gender is not, "men are X, women are Y". Acknowledge instead that it's incredibly complex and with multiple facets, some of which are nurture, some of which are nature.

In the past, the nature argument was the overall winner - men and women were defined by their biology, and therefore the things they did and the people that they are and their roles in the home and society were likewise predetermined by biology. Individuals who tried to break out of this were aberrations; unnatural; perversions.

The whole feminist movement to a certain extent swung the argument in the opposite direction; gender is absolutely a social construct; people are not defined by their biology and it is therefore entirely down to society that girls want to be princesses and boys want to be firemen. And you had this toxic feminism that (for example) degraded women who were stay at home mothers, that looked down on people for "conforming".

This created an impression that the equal rights movement saw a child as a blank slate onto which we imprinted behaviours, expectations and limits. This was never the intention of equal rights, but nevertheless it happened anyway, because there were those within the movement who believed it to be the case.

We've come to a realisation now that a lot of stuff is nature; men tend toward certain characteristics and jobs, women tend towards others. But there is also a lot of nurture in it too, where society pushes men and women towards certain behaviours and roles.

Nevertheless, the key takeaway is that even though there are tendencies built in by nature (hence how someone can identify as male or female), that doesn't oblige someone to fit a particular profile. So just because someone identifies as male, doesn't oblige them to be attracted to females, or to be the "provider".
And even though some stereotypical things are pure constructs of society, that doesn't oblige someone to conform to them, nor should anyone be ashamed of conforming to them.

I do appreciate that it's confusing. And I do think some of the loudest people circling this discussion don't really give a lot of thought to exactly what they're doing;
On the one hand a woman who says that she's a "girly girl" and loves staying home with her kids may be scoffed at as a poor role model. On the other a trans woman who says she's a girly girl and wants to settle down and raise kids will be applauded. There's a good reason for the applause, and that's because the transition is difficult.

As a "movement", the entire ideology is to let everyone be whoever the hell they want to be. So this includes fighting for trans rights, while also fighting to break down gender barriers. The issue is not that a woman chooses to stay at home, the issue is that women have traditionally not been given a choice.

seamus

seamus wrote: »

The primary argument here is to not consider gender as an absolute. That is, gender is not, "men are X, women are Y". Acknowledge instead that it's incredibly complex and with multiple facets, some of which are nurture, some of which are nature.

In the past, the nature argument was the overall winner - men and women were defined by their biology, and therefore the things they did and the people that they are and their roles in the home and society were likewise predetermined by biology. Individuals who tried to break out of this were aberrations; unnatural; perversions.

The whole feminist movement to a certain extent swung the argument in the opposite direction; gender is absolutely a social construct; people are not defined by their biology and it is therefore entirely down to society that girls want to be princesses and boys want to be firemen. And you had this toxic feminism that (for example) degraded women who were stay at home mothers, that looked down on people for "conforming".

This created an impression that the equal rights movement saw a child as a blank slate onto which we imprinted behaviours, expectations and limits. This was never the intention of equal rights, but nevertheless it happened anyway, because there were those within the movement who believed it to be the case.

We've come to a realisation now that a lot of stuff is nature; men tend toward certain characteristics and jobs, women tend towards others. But there is also a lot of nurture in it too, where society pushes men and women towards certain behaviours and roles.

Nevertheless, the key takeaway is that even though there are tendencies built in by nature (hence how someone can identify as male or female), that doesn't oblige someone to fit a particular profile. So just because someone identifies as male, doesn't oblige them to be attracted to females, or to be the "provider".
And even though some stereotypical things are pure constructs of society, that doesn't oblige someone to conform to them, nor should anyone be ashamed of conforming to them.

I do appreciate that it's confusing. And I do think some of the loudest people circling this discussion don't really give a lot of thought to exactly what they're doing;
On the one hand a woman who says that she's a "girly girl" and loves staying home with her kids may be scoffed at as a poor role model. On the other a trans woman who says she's a girly girl and wants to settle down and raise kids will be applauded. There's a good reason for the applause, and that's because the transition is difficult.

As a "movement", the entire ideology is to let everyone be whoever the hell they want to be. So this includes fighting for trans rights, while also fighting to break down gender barriers. The issue is not that a woman chooses to stay at home, the issue is that women have traditionally not been given a choice.

But it's not that is it? It is only applauded or defended when what someone "wants to be" is deemed good in the eyes of the ideology. If what they "want to be" is deemed bad, they are bludgeoned pretty quickly. And when the ideology has no reference point for objective truth (how do you decide what is good or bad, or what is a social construct and what is "natural"?) this inevitably becomes a muddled mess, it is impossible to decide what is "good" in an abstract sense and the ideology retreats into a reactive assault on what it deems to be oppressive, it starts to define itself as what it is against, rather than standing for objective good - because there is not, and cannot, be such a thing. Everything instead is subjective and relative, with objective good reduced to what are fairly unworkable and simplistic slogans "be what you want, whatever makes you happy", that type of thing. These slogans are not lived out (rather they are boxed into a rather ill defined playing field within the ideology).

For instance, even the idea behind allowing people to be what they "want to be" rather than allowing people to be what they are, suggests active decision making over identity - i.e. hence it must be a social construction. If I can "decide" to be the opposite sex (rather than having supposedly been it all along but my body is mistaken) then it is clear that it must be a social construction. If it is a social construction, then I do not understand how a desire to have ones body operated upon for my physical characteristics to correspond with something that does not actually exist, can viewed as anything other than yet another delusion or episode of suffering inflicted by whatever is vilified for constructing such social constructions like gender in the first place. And if I believe it to be a social construction, and I encourage and applaud people going through with these procedures, what does that say about me?

Now, if it is believed that gender is "real" and it is believed that the physical body made a mistake or whatever in terms of biological sex, I can understand completely the logic (even though I would not agree with its basis) of undergoing "corrective" surgery. But it is clear that this is fundamentally incompatible with the social constructionist theory. Yet, we have plenty of people who basically believe and support these entirely contradictory positions, and also demonise those who say that "gender" is real.

Most people do not tend to actually think these things through in detail. This is why we see so many people who were "on the same track" 'cancelling' each other, not because they have veered wildly off track, but rather they followed it to their logical conclusion. We have seen this here with Dawkins as he has followed his ideology and philosophy through to its conclusion. I would argue that when these ideologies are scrutinisied and followed to their logical conclusions, as Dawkins tends to do, people become very uncomfortable and aware (I would suggest) of the fundamental problems, incoherence and ultimate untruth of this philosophy (or embrace the nihilistic conclusions as Dawkins does). What some do is then retreat to the comfortable, nice sounding, fringes of the philosophy and never leave. But there's not much truth there, and it is far from a firm foundation for civilization to be based on. And if the trend towards a "post christian" society continues, and the cultural and moral influence wanes and is replaced by something so ill defined on shifting sands, it will not be pretty - it won't endure, one would fear about what "order" would subsequently arise.

(Just to be clear this is not a criticism of your particular opinion or statements, rather my general observations on the subject).

seamus

Rylie Happy Potassium wrote: »

If what they "want to be" is deemed bad, they are bludgeoned pretty quickly.

Have you got an example?

There are a lot of caveats that I didn't go into, naturally. The obvious one being, "Be what you want to be so long as it doesn't require hurting anyone else".

For instance, even the idea behind allowing people to be what they "want to be" rather than allowing people to be what they are, suggests active decision making over identity - i.e. hence it must be a social construction.

You're assuming a hard definition based on my turn of phrase. A trans man doesn't choose to be a man any more than I do. A gay man doesn't choose to be gay just like I don't choose to be straight.

"Want to be" is a turn of phrase, as how a person outwardly projects themselves is indeed a choice, regardless of how they actually feel internally.

A trans man putting on a female facade and answering to a woman's name is akin to you turning down a cup of tea when you're actually gasping; or more accurately it's like the figurative Pagliacci smiling and clowning around on stage, when he's actually dying inside.

This is the "choice". Nobody chooses to be a man or a woman. But they can choose whether they pretend to be in order to please those who think biological sex and gender are immutably connected.

seamus

seamus wrote: »

Have you got an example?

There are a lot of caveats that I didn't go into, naturally. The obvious one being, "Be what you want to be so long as it doesn't require hurting anyone else".

Yes, caveats are necessary, and I would suggest so many will inevitably end up being applied to render the original statement actually very narrow, rather than broad, as it would first appear. This is what I am talking about, the detailed exploration of the underlying philosophy/ideology - what initially appears very permissive and broad, ends up being quite defined. Most people (less tuned in than people on boards like this I would suggest) do not seem to actually delve deeply into what statements like those actually mean in a positive sense, rather than a rail against what is deemed to be oppressive behavior.

For instance, how would you define "hurt"? If you include offended or made to feel bad, then how is it decided, or is it decided, if someone is objectively "correct" to feel hurt? This has to be decided on some basis surely, as people can be "hurt" in a subjective manner by a whole load of things, so obviously a weighing or decision process is necessary to decide who is right and should be protected, and who is wrong. It would appear to be that this process has no objective reference point, but is rather very subjective, and I would suggest, reactivity defined by, and in opposition to, what is viewed as currently being "oppressive". For example, certain groups of feminists (is the t word allowed here?) would appear to be almost mortally hurt and offended by a lot of this topic, the trans issue, but presumably the type of people we are talking about would not accept this hurt as "valid".

If we were starting with an absolute blank slate, I think a lot who hold this type of philosophy would flounder around somewhat blindly without existing social structures to rail against.

You're assuming a hard definition based on my turn of phrase. A trans man doesn't choose to be a man any more than I do. A gay man doesn't choose to be gay just like I don't choose to be straight.

"Want to be" is a turn of phrase, as how a person outwardly projects themselves is indeed a choice, regardless of how they actually feel internally.

I wasn't criticizing your own position (as I said in my final sentence) - it would seem that you are also critical of social constructionists, and believe that some things are "natural", implying that there is some objective truth in the world, and that some are social constructions. How do you decide what is what, is it subjective opinion? Why, in your opinion, is gender not a social construct?

A trans man putting on a female facade and answering to a woman's name is akin to you turning down a cup of tea when you're actually gasping; or more accurately it's like the figurative Pagliacci smiling and clowning around on stage, when he's actually dying inside.

This is the "choice". Nobody chooses to be a man or a woman. But they can choose whether they pretend to be in order to please those who think biological sex and gender are immutably connected.

It would seem that you subscribe to the reality of gender existing, and basically somehow through some biological mishap end up in the "wrong body". Fair enough, I understand this point of view.

But answer me this, on what objective basis can you say that a man is a man, or a woman is a woman? If the answer is "none" and it depends on what the individual identifies themselves as, then on what basis can you say that someone cannot actively choose to be a different gender?

Robert McGrath

Seamus asked for examples of when we negatively judge those who believe they were born in the “wrong” body.

What about those who suffer from anorexia nervosa or those who seek elective amputations because a limb feels “wrong”. I think these forms of body dysmorphia are generally considered pathologies and therefore something to be treated. But gender dysmorphia is treated by many as something to be accommodated. It’s not clear to me what the difference is between gender dysmorphia and other types of body dysmorphia

I am genuinely approaching this debate in good faith and in the interests of learning more, by the way. It’s difficult to find a forum online where this issue can be discussed civilly and this thread has so far been very refreshing and respectful

Bannasidhe

MOD ADVISORY.

Not a warning just an FYI to all posters in the interests that this thread continues in the respectful and thoughtful way it has been up to now.

Threads on the topic of Transgender people have tended to become train wrecks in various forums and no one wants that to happen here so some ground rules going forward.

Firstly in line with stated Boards.ie policy the following will not be tolerated:

Referring to gender dysphoria as a mental illness; deliberate misgendering of anyone (refer to a person as their preferred gender not the gender you prefer to call them - if this is too hard they/them will suffice); accusations that transgender people are seeking to sexually abuse others; classification of gender dysphoria as a sexual fetish.

Sanctions will be applied.


Additionally: Should anyone wish to raise 'arguments' about the danger of transgender women in female prisons they better be armed with evidence that demonstrates that inmates in female prisons are especially at risk from transgender women and not from male/female prison guards or fellow cis inmates.
On changing rooms/toilets again a strict level of evidence will be required if anyone decides to go down that particular route.



As this is a confusing topic for many people terms may be inadvertently used that could be offensive - rather than attack I would ask that it be explained why that term is offensive in an informative and civil way.

Be polite, respectful, and remember that these discussions are about real, living people trying to come to terms with a difficult situation who are often subject to physical attack, vilification, and are murdered.

antiskeptic

seamus wrote: »

Have you got an example?

There are a lot of caveats that I didn't go into, naturally. The obvious one being, "Be what you want to be so long as it doesn't require infringing on the rights of anyone else".

But if the right of a child to be raised by its biological mother and father is set aside so as to permit people, who nature didn't equip to have kids, to have kids..

What occurs is that that right wasn't ever a right...

Since rights lie in the eye of the beholder, your "caveats" are, surely, your own, only.

Annasopra

antiskeptic wrote: »

But if the right of a child to be raised by its biological mother and father is set aside so as to permit people, who nature didn't equip to have kids, to have kids..
.

Not sure what you are on about. Lots of trans people have kids naturally.

lazygal

antiskeptic wrote: »

But if the right of a child to be raised by its biological mother and father is set aside so as to permit people, who nature didn't equip to have kids, to have kids..

What occurs is that that right wasn't ever a right...

Since rights lie in the eye of the beholder, your "caveats" are, surely, your own, only.

Nature didn't equip many people to have kids but that didn't stop them adopting them and buying them from the nuns.

Odhinn

antiskeptic wrote: »

But if the right of a child to be raised by its biological mother and father is set aside so as to permit people, who nature didn't equip to have kids, to have kids..

What occurs is that that right wasn't ever a right...

Since rights lie in the eye of the beholder, your "caveats" are, surely, your own, only.

The trans gendered aren't, in the main, infertile afaik.



Are you saying that the infertile should be barred from having children?

Bannasidhe

antiskeptic wrote: »

But if the right of a child to be raised by its biological mother and father is set aside so as to permit people, who nature didn't equip to have kids, to have kids..

What occurs is that that right wasn't ever a right...

Since rights lie in the eye of the beholder, your "caveats" are, surely, your own, only.

I am struggling to see the relevance of this tbh.
But it's fantastically similar to 'arguments' raised during the Marriage Equality referendum debate and just as spurious now as it was then.

Indeed, that 'what about the children ' trope provides an interesting example of how the commentary on gender dysphoria echoes the commentary on homosexuality.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

But if the right of a child to be raised by its biological mother and father is set aside so as to permit people, who nature didn't equip to have kids, to have kids.

There has never been any such right. If there was, giving a baby up for adoption would not be allowed, yet I'm not aware of anyone having an issue with adoption per se. If people only have an issue in the case of adoption by certain classes of adoptive parents, e.g. trans couples, the problem is not with adoption, it is with prejudice against those people raising children.

smacl

Robert McGrath wrote: »

Seamus asked for examples of when we negatively judge those who believe they were born in the “wrong” body.

What about those who suffer from anorexia nervosa or those who seek elective amputations because a limb feels “wrong”. I think these forms of body dysmorphia are generally considered pathologies and therefore something to be treated. But gender dysmorphia is treated by many as something to be accommodated. It’s not clear to me what the difference is between gender dysmorphia and other types of body dysmorphia

I am genuinely approaching this debate in good faith and in the interests of learning more, by the way. It’s difficult to find a forum online where this issue can be discussed civilly and this thread has so far been very refreshing and respectful

I think you need to be very careful in seeking to draw comparisons between conditions such as BIID (seeking elective amputation) and anorexia nervosa and transsexuality as the former are accepted to be damaging pathologies whereas the latter is not. By making this comparison, you are essentially asking the question "should we consider trans people sick, if not, why not?". As you may or may not be aware, the trans community has suffered serious discrimination and social stigmatism in recent years and fought long and hard not to be discriminated against in this manner. This is a very serious cause for concern. For example, if you look at the scientific studies into self harm among trans community, the main cause listed is social stigmatism (source). While you claim to entering into this argument in good faith, most of those asking us to consider such arguments tend to do so with the agenda of increasing this stigmatism which is quite frankly hateful. I can only assume this wasn't your intention here but my advice is to tread softly.

Bannasidhe

Some thoughts on this, and they are just musings informed by a life lived categorised by society as not 'normal' until I was an adult- and still some people would feel I am not - but now (to my amazement at the fast about face sometimes) for most of society I am perfectly normal. Nonetheless, I have lived the majority of my life outside 'normal' society.

I am referring to being gay, knowing I didn't fancy boys from a very young age, and old enough to have campaigned against Clause 28th in the UK. To add to the joy of it all I am unapologetically a butch ol dyke and always have been. I own no make up, I do own nearly every power tool on the market.

I have been that alleged 'threat' in changing rooms, I have been questioned as to why I am in the 'Ladies' - sometimes abusively. I have been asked if I am a man or a woman. I have been told that gay people deserved to die in the Holocaust by a Rabbi whose family were wiped out in the camps. I still have the scar on my head from a 'queer bashing'.

I am butch. I am a cis woman. I am not a man.

How do I know I am not a man?

For me to 'drag up' in femme clothes I would need to be offered a serious amount of money, drunk, guaranteed there would be no photos/videos, and still unlikely to agree because I know I would be hideously uncomfortable, at ill ease, hate every second of it. It would not be me.
A cis, heterosexual man is more likely to femme drag that I am (this I know from my rugby playing days) as for me that whole feminine thing has connotations - it represents a life I had to fight not to be forced to live.
Clothes have meaning.

All those ads etc that gush "every woman...want/is/needs" - nope. Not me. Zero interest. I do not identify with this "ALL women' trope.

Doing lady things... like getting hair cut at the barber? Popping to the Builder's Merchants for a nose around? Into Penneys - purchase jeans- leave shop immediately?

I do not conform to the stereotypes of the gender I identify as, I would go so far as to say I do not present as the gender I identify as - and never have. But my gender aligns with my biological sex.

How do I know I am not a man?

Because when I am waking up, in that half sleep state, I do not expect to be in a male body.
Because I do not expect to see a man when I look in the mirror half asleep first thing in the morning.
I also don't expect to see a woman in late middle age but that is what I do see and I accept that yes. That's me. I'm not 30 any more.
Puberty did not completely freak me out (not impressed about menstruation starting aged 9 though - which nowadays would have me on puberty blockers) as my child body was turning into an adult version of the body I knew was my gender. I was a girl becoming a woman and that was a-ok with me.

I know I am female. I am comfortable with that.

How do any of you know you are male or female? Is it all down to which genitals you were born with or is it something more elusive?

It is something the vast majority never think about. They are comfortable with the gender of their body because well... it's ...you know.. umm.. penis/vagina...

However, most of us understand what it feels like to be unhappy with something about our body - something that just,... we want to 'fix' so that we are comfortable in our body.
Extend that feeling - imagine waking up every day and that thing is 'fixed', and then discover it isn't. And the whole world interacts with you on the basis of this thing.

This is how I approach gender dysphoria.
The 'thing' is a big thing where during gestation a hormonal mistake was made that impacted on chromosomes (probably bad science but I'm not a scientist and I believe we are more than the sum of our chromosomes anyway so sue me.)

Everyday you have to live in the wrong body and to compound that people for whom your gender identification has zero impact feel free to not only comment on you - but to bully you on social media, in real life, accuse you of being a sexual predictor, a fetishist, a danger to children, a stealer of safe spaces. To murder you.

I am in awe of the courage of transgender people and what they have to go through just to be in the body that they should have been born in.

Anyhoo - just my 2 cents on it.

btw - I know a lot of transgender people. Some of whom I have known since they were children, and some of them identified (minority granted) as trans (as in "I am not a boy, I am a girl" way) from a very young age - others had a real struggle.
I have no hesitation in saying that although they all have the usual blugh issues we all have every single one of them is happier in themselves now than they were then.

Interesting post.

Is there any objective reason why you do not think you are a man? Or is it something that is entirely subjective? Do you think it is something which is fixed, or could you wake up tomorrow and no longer be 'comfortable', and expect to see something different in the mirror?

seamus

^^

Really they are questions that any of us can answer. Is there any objective reason why you do not think you're a woman? You might say, "well I have male genitals and a flat chest". Yet if you were to lose your genitals in an accident and develop breasts due to gynecomastia, you would still think of yourself as a "man". Psychologically you might think of yourself "less", but you would never say, "I am a woman now".
Likewise, strip away everything else; you go to the doctor and they do a genetic test where you discover you're in an XX male. Your genetic "maleness", gone.

Remove all of the things that you might say make you "objectively" male, and you would agree that *you* would still call yourself a man. You wouldn't say, "Oh well I guess I better start living as a woman now, because I am objectively more female than male".

So the question can be asked to you as well as Bannasidhe: "could you wake up tomorrow and no longer be 'comfortable', and expect to see something different in the mirror?"

And I bet your answer would be the same as hers.

seamus

seamus wrote: »

^^

Really they are questions that any of us can answer. Is there any objective reason why you do not think you're a woman? You might say, "well I have male genitals and a flat chest". Yet if you were to lose your genitals in an accident and develop breasts due to gynecomastia, you would still think of yourself as a "man". Psychologically you might think of yourself "less", but you would never say, "I am a woman now".
Likewise, strip away everything else; you go to the doctor and they do a genetic test where you discover you're in an XX male. Your genetic "maleness", gone.

Remove all of the things that you might say make you "objectively" male, and you would agree that *you* would still call yourself a man. You wouldn't say, "Oh well I guess I better start living as a woman now, because I am objectively more female than male".

So the question can be asked to you as well as Bannasidhe: "could you wake up tomorrow and no longer be 'comfortable', and expect to see something different in the mirror?"

And I bet your answer would be the same as hers.

The point is, that if there are no objective reasons for a belief that someone (in this instance the individual, you or I, not a third party) is a certain gender, and rather it is something which is defined entirely subjectively in a whole myriad of ways varying from person to person, then how can you be sure that it (gender) actually exists in a material, objective way? (and that it is not a social construct).

smacl

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Some thoughts on this, and they are just musings informed by a life lived categorised by society as not 'normal' until I was an adult- and still some people would feel I am not - but now (to my amazement at the fast about face sometimes) for most of society I am perfectly normal. Nonetheless, I have lived the majority of my life outside 'normal' society.

I think the using the term 'normal' without also considering standard deviation is typically a mistake, particularly when considering complex or compound variables. No one is 'normal', they simply conform to what one group or another considers to be 'normal' to a greater or lesser degree. Historically, monocultural conservative societies have placed significant pressure to conform to notions of what the majority or those in power consider to be normal. These pressures have relaxed considerably in recent decades, to the extent where we now celebrate diversity and understand that 'normal' is often a divisive term with little real value. In my opinion, a modern caring society should treat with people based on how they behave as members of that society rather than how they identify themselves (or how others would identify them for that matter).

Bannasidhe

Rylie Happy Potassium wrote: »

The point is, that if there are no objective reasons for a belief that someone (in this instance the individual, you or I, not a third party) is a certain gender, and rather it is something which is defined entirely subjectively in a whole myriad of ways varying from person to person, then how can you be sure that it (gender) actually exists in a material, objective way? (and that it is not a social construct).

I would say that gender is fluid and not the binary some try and shoe horn it into.

Do you have a definitive definition of 'man' and 'woman' that is 100% accurate and every single human being will fit comfortably within in one of these two categories?

seamus

Rylie Happy Potassium wrote: »

The point is, that if there are no objective reasons for a belief that someone (in this instance the individual, you or I, not a third party) is a certain gender, and rather it is something which is defined entirely subjectively in a whole myriad of ways varying from person to person, then how can you be sure that it (gender) actually exists in a material, objective way? (and that it is not a social construct).

You seem to be alluding that if gender cannot be proven to exist objectively, then it doesn't exist at all and must a social construct.

But that's making a big leap. It's not a case that something either physically exists or it's made up. Many things are psychological constructs. They exist, but as emergent property of the psyche.

The general sense of self, the existence of consciousness, cannot be proven to objectively exist. Yet you also wouldn't say it's a social construct.

One of the first things philosophy students mull on is the question of whether anyone else actually has consciousness or whether you're the only truly conscious being in a world of really, really sophisticated robots.

For the sake of all of our sanity, we take some things for granted to exist even if they cannot be objectively proven to exist. Consciousness is one of these things. Dreams are another. Sexuality. Gender Identity.

Bannasidhe

seamus wrote: »

You seem to be alluding that if gender cannot be proven to exist objectively, then it doesn't exist at all and must a social construct.

But that's making a big leap. It's not a case that something either physically exists or it's made up. Many things are psychological constructs. They exist, but as emergent property of the psyche.

The general sense of self, the existence of consciousness, cannot be proven to objectively exist. Yet you also wouldn't say it's a social construct.

One of the first things philosophy students mull on is the question of whether anyone else actually has consciousness or whether you're the only truly conscious being in a world of really, really sophisticated robots.

For the sake of all of our sanity, we take some things for granted to exist even if they cannot be objectively proven to exist. Consciousness is one of these things. Dreams are another. Sexuality. Gender Identity.

Absolutely.
Does love exist or is it just a social construct designed to aid survival?
Is there only one definition of love or many?

Bannasidhe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I would say that gender is fluid and not the binary some try and shoe horn it into.

Do you have a definitive definition of 'man' and 'woman' that is 100% accurate and every single human being will fit comfortably within in one of these two categories?

If gender is fluid, and can "change", then how can you reconcile that with also believing that gender dysmorphia is down to, as you said previously, some sort of natural hormonal accident or mistake with chromosomes or whatever?

I read, and occasionally hear, that not only is gender not binary, in fact there are many many genders aside from male or female, some of which would seem to have little (if any reference) to physical, hormonal etc. characteristics. It would seem to me that within the bounds of this general ideology (as alluded to previous it is a very broad and ill defined ideology) that a massive reliance (exclusive?) is placed on the subjective opinion and experience of the individual.

But if something is "real", and not a social construct for example, in merely a subjective sense, there would seem to be no limits on this. For example, if someone tomorrow believed that they were some new gender hitherto unknown, there would be no reason whatsoever to question the reality of this new gender. Because why would it be questioned? Just because it is new?

So under this ideology, should reference to physical characteristics, hormonal, chromosomal mistakes etc, even be mentioned at all, given that these would (theoretically) give an objective explanation when none is sought, needed or asked for?

I'm not having a go or anything, I'm just curious at what you and others think, and how it fits together - if it does (or needs to) at all.

seamus wrote: »

You seem to be alluding that if gender cannot be proven to exist objectively, then it doesn't exist at all and must a social construct.

But that's making a big leap. It's not a case that something either physically exists or it's made up. Many things are psychological constructs. They exist, but as emergent property of the psyche.

The general sense of self, the existence of consciousness, cannot be proven to objectively exist. Yet you also wouldn't say it's a social construct.

No, I am asking why you think it is not a social construct. I am asking if there is any objective basis, under the ideology we are talking about, for the existence of gender as a "real thing", rather than a social construct (which many people believe it is).

It is not necessary to "prove" an objective basis, that is a different question entirely to if you believe there is one. You may have an objective basis for a belief that is not scientifically provable, that is much different to thinking that the existence of something is solely based on subjective reasons.

Materialists like Dawkins would maintain that free will (which is, I would suggest, a defining characteristic of what you and I understand as our "self") does not exists, and is in fact illusionary.

One of the first things philosophy students mull on is the question of whether anyone else actually has consciousness or whether you're the only truly conscious being in a world of really, really sophisticated robots.

For the sake of all of our sanity, we take some things for granted to exist even if they cannot be objectively proven to exist. Consciousness is one of these things. Dreams are another. Sexuality. Gender Identity.

It is a little different though when the existence of the things we are talking about here are heavily disputed, and indeed challenge many of the things we have taken for granted.

You may well say to me that objective reasoning or basis is not required, that individual subjective reasoning is, and should be, enough. Or you have an objective reason and basis for such belief. Or perhaps a combination. It is this which I am trying to establish - the reasons for such beliefs.

Bannasidhe

Rylie Happy Potassium wrote: »

If gender is fluid, and can "change", then how can you reconcile that with also believing that gender dysmorphia is down to, as you said previously, some sort of natural hormonal accident or mistake with chromosomes or whatever?
.

It strikes me that you are playing fast and lose with what I said in order to create an argument against an ideology (as you put it) that is your own creation and expecting me to defend it.

I said I believe gender is not binary - that it is fluid. It encompasses Masculine women, feminine men, and those who are neither/nor.
What I did not say is that it 'changes'. But that it what you have chosen to discuss.

This is not what I would call arguing in good faith tbh.

I am perfectly willing to discuss what I said. I am not willing to discuss your interpretation of what I said as filtered through your personal ideology.

Bannasidhe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It strikes me that you are playing fast and lose with what I said in order to create an argument against an ideology (as you put it) that is your own creation and expecting me to defend it.

I said I believe gender is not binary - that it is fluid. It encompasses Masculine women, feminine men, and those who are neither/nor.
What I did not say is that it 'changes'. But that it what you have chosen to discuss.

This is not what I would call arguing in good faith tbh.

I am perfectly willing to discuss what I said. I am not willing to discuss your interpretation of what I said as filtered through your personal ideology.

I am sorry if it appears that way, that is not what I am doing. I am trying to understand your position, by asking questions about it. I'll try to be clearer.

Do you think someone's gender can change, or is it something which is fixed?

Your reference to biological factors (such as hormone/chromosomes mistakes etc.) suggested to me (wrongly perhaps) that there is an objective basis for the belief that gender is real (i.e. it is linked to biology and basically sometimes biology makes a mistake and puts a man into a woman's body and vice versa), but in this context it would seem that explanation would tilt towards a more confining binary male/female categorization, and I don't understand how other genders, or no gender etc. would fit into or be explained by this. EDIT: Of course I could be picking you up wrong.

My essential question is that I do not understand if there is, or if there can be, an objective basis, within the realms of this broad ideology, for the belief in the reality of the existence of the whole spectrum of genders that are claimed.

It may well be the case that people believe that the personal subjective feeling of identity is enough, and there is no need for any objective reference point, theoretical or otherwise.

This is why I am questioning, I have not made any criticisms of your position, I am endeavoring to understand what you believe, and why you believe it.

Robert McGrath

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It strikes me that you are playing fast and lose with what I said in order to create an argument against an ideology (as you put it) that is your own creation and expecting me to defend it.

I said I believe gender is not binary - that it is fluid. It encompasses Masculine women, feminine men, and those who are neither/nor.
What I did not say is that it 'changes'. But that it what you have chosen to discuss.

This is not what I would call arguing in good faith tbh.

I am perfectly willing to discuss what I said. I am not willing to discuss your interpretation of what I said as filtered through your personal ideology.

To be fair to ex loco, I too would have interpreted the word “fluid” as meaning “subject to change” in this context. And this tangential debate over different interpretations of the meaning of a word is perhaps analogous to the main debate above about the subjectivity of gender identity. Obviously none of us can inhabit another’s perspective, but it is difficult to understand what any particular gender identity means without some broad parameters. I am a cis man and I have no idea what it means to “feel” like a man.

I hope I have expressed this respectfully.