-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Transgender 101
- Thread starter Ketkat
- Start date
Being gay doesn't make you any less likely to be transphobic imo. From my experience, some of the most virulently anti-trans people I've met have been rad-fem lesbians and drag queens.
I don't want to generalize necessarily, but I would even go as far to say that some subsets of the LGBT community are even more transphobic than straight cis people in general, barring the religious fundamentalists. Cis straight people are often ignorant and unempathetic regarding Trans people, but they don't have a big hard-on for constantly invalidating and shitting on us like TERFs (who skew overwhelmingly cis lesbian) and the Drag community (which skews overwhelming cis gay male) do.
Last edited:
I feel like smacking myself on the forehead. What you write makes total sense with how I've interacted with certain communities and explains a lot. Sometimes it really does just take someone else writing it. Thank you very much.
Hey y'all, I just saw this thread. Read through OP, good shit.
Just throwing a shout out for everyone that needs to go through this unfortunately very messy process, I feel for you all. I've got another friend that I'll be supporting for the next good while (she told me early last year, and is planning on going public... Soon™). Thankfully she's got a large support group to help her out, so I'm hoping it's a relatively smooth process and life. I hate hearing about the hate and vitriol some people feel is necessary. &_& We straight people can do better, I swear!
Just throwing a shout out for everyone that needs to go through this unfortunately very messy process, I feel for you all. I've got another friend that I'll be supporting for the next good while (she told me early last year, and is planning on going public... Soon™). Thankfully she's got a large support group to help her out, so I'm hoping it's a relatively smooth process and life. I hate hearing about the hate and vitriol some people feel is necessary. &_& We straight people can do better, I swear!
I've been wondering about the root causes about the antipathy directed at transgender people. It does seem to be coming from many sides. Is it a product from the way people view the nature of human experience?
It would be essential for those that strongly believe consciousness is emergent from the structure of the organism to have some sort of definable mechanism that shows physical evidence of where transgender identity originates and map the source of conflict with the body. Their acceptance would be dependent on science confirming the legitimacy of transgender rights through evidence that transgender is a 'real thing' and not a defect of psychology or biology. If there isn't this evidence for them then what is left to those with this worldview to conclude about transgender people besides questions and doubt of legitimacy?
Those with unorthodox spiritual beliefs that consider the body as a physical vehicle of a soul that exists without gender or has inhabited many bodies may be more willing to accept transgender rights.
Those with rigid traditional religious views could be just as or more immovable as the material atheist but instead of scientific research and evidence they would need religious leadership to motivate and guide them.
Those without any strong stance towards any type of these beliefs may be accepting or not for their own reasons and influenced by any or all the above.
Common humanity should be enough for people to accept the reality and rights of transgender individuals but it doesn't seem to be. Perhaps, with time, activism, community support, government legislation, and general exposure society will continue to become more accepting. Even if there is never found a defining fingerprint of God or nature to rationalize it.
It would be essential for those that strongly believe consciousness is emergent from the structure of the organism to have some sort of definable mechanism that shows physical evidence of where transgender identity originates and map the source of conflict with the body. Their acceptance would be dependent on science confirming the legitimacy of transgender rights through evidence that transgender is a 'real thing' and not a defect of psychology or biology. If there isn't this evidence for them then what is left to those with this worldview to conclude about transgender people besides questions and doubt of legitimacy?
Those with unorthodox spiritual beliefs that consider the body as a physical vehicle of a soul that exists without gender or has inhabited many bodies may be more willing to accept transgender rights.
Those with rigid traditional religious views could be just as or more immovable as the material atheist but instead of scientific research and evidence they would need religious leadership to motivate and guide them.
Those without any strong stance towards any type of these beliefs may be accepting or not for their own reasons and influenced by any or all the above.
Common humanity should be enough for people to accept the reality and rights of transgender individuals but it doesn't seem to be. Perhaps, with time, activism, community support, government legislation, and general exposure society will continue to become more accepting. Even if there is never found a defining fingerprint of God or nature to rationalize it.
something i'd like to ask -
whenever i think about gender dysphoria, or read articles about it, i get extremely nauseous feeling and cannot really handle thinking about it. it feels like the most sickening feeling possible to me; what does this mean? my brother is transgender and ive never really felt comfortable in my own gender so i dont know if this means im transgender or something; ive always identified with genderqueer since ive known what it is, but something about gender dysphoria specifically seems extremely painful and i dont know why
whenever i think about gender dysphoria, or read articles about it, i get extremely nauseous feeling and cannot really handle thinking about it. it feels like the most sickening feeling possible to me; what does this mean? my brother is transgender and ive never really felt comfortable in my own gender so i dont know if this means im transgender or something; ive always identified with genderqueer since ive known what it is, but something about gender dysphoria specifically seems extremely painful and i dont know why
I'll try to answer your questions.
Why not transgender issues? Homosexuality describes the sexual orientation, which is a different thing as you noticed. We don't have word to describe the issues pertaining being homosexual too, after all.
1. Again, why do you need a different set of words when the doctor can easily specifies that she means sex when asking the questions that you mention?
3. If she sees herself as a woman, I don't see what you get by denying what she says. What are the pragmatic implications that force you to deny her being a woman? Is it merely a matter of appearance, of sex or of having the wrong chromosome? When you approach the question from a pragmatic point of view, I think it becomes clear what it means to be a man or a woman. Suppose you are amab (assigned male at birth). You are given an option by a genie to wake up in the body of a woman. If you accept, you won't be able to go back. If someone, having thought carefully about the implications, accepts the proposal, I see no reason to deny the fact that she is a woman.
OP
OP
A lot of what you're saying here is not as much of a fact as you think it is. There have not been any studies into breast cancer in transwomen on a large scale that I know of. There have been some smaller scale ones into transwomen that do show developing breast cancer, like this one : https://www.hindawi.com/journals/crionm/2017/5172072 And why is it that you feel that nutrition advice varies by sex and not gender? From what I've seen in the little research that I've done into it, it seems to be more based on what hormones are in your body which can be independent of your sex. I'm also not sure where you're pulling those stats on mental illnesses and why that's tied to gender exactly. A lot of what your issues with the terminology seems to be based off assumptions that you have about sex and gender, and I'm really not sure where you're getting all of that information.
The answer to whether you see her as a woman or not would ideally be yes from a factual point of view. If you don't, you need to elaborate on why you don't so I can better explain this to you.
Because honestly, you've already established what the definition of a woman is. "A woman is a human who says she is a woman". I get that isn't a satisfying answer to you, but what more are you expecting out of her to show you that she's a woman?
That's honestly hard to say why you feel that way because ultimately only you can answer that. Its possible that you do have dysphoria but you don't think about it unless you're forced to confront it in some way, which isn't all that rare. A lot of trans people dive into escapism after escapism just to not think about those feelings. But, if you're not comfortable in your own gender, then you need to ask yourself what would make you more comfortable. If you had a genie that could grant you whatever you wanted, what would you change about your body and what would you not? I know that might sound a little cheesy, but seriously think about it. If nothing at all was holding you back and it was instant, what would you change?[/USER]
So someone please clear me up if I'm getting anything wrong:
Gender fluid/queer are basically the same thing, in that you are someone who doesn't prescribe to a set of gender norms. But it isn't necessarily a gender, more of a trait/adjective. You might still use male or female pronouns
Gender fluid/queer are basically the same thing, in that you are someone who doesn't prescribe to a set of gender norms. But it isn't necessarily a gender, more of a trait/adjective. You might still use male or female pronouns
OP
OP
Gender fluid and genderqueer are terms that sometimes overlap and sometimes don't. Some people use genderfluid to mean that their gender is actually fluid, and that it isn't set in one spot. Some people use it to mean the same thing as genderqueer, where it just means that you identify as any gender that isn't strictly binary. This include peoples who don't identify as any gender (agender) and both completely (bigender) or just some mixture of the two genders in some way. But, yes, these are in fact genders and not just related to gender norms.
As for what pronouns they prefer, that will differ from person to person. Some are okay with he or she, while some prefer they. Others might prefer a unique pronoun.
If there is not noun like transgenderism that is acceptable, then I will use transgender issues, I just asked in case there is such a noun so that I can use it, because there are many instances where I would like to have a handy noun :).
I am feeling very uncomfrotable with ambiguity, I want my language to be as precise as possible and I feel very uncomfortable if the same word describes very different things even within the same context. Usually I would completely avoid the ambiguous word altogether then, so this is probably the reason I am so eager to have acceptable separate words for both concepts. I know this might be strange to many, but it actually is rather important to me.
That's a single report. But yes, taking female hormones is a measure that is clearly a "good" way to raise one's risk for breast cancer (and note, it is non-zero for humans of male sex without any horome therapy, as well), but this comes on top of sex. So sex gives a base risk and then if you take hormones, independent of the reason for this, your risk may vary. The same is true for instance for heart diseases: If you are taking testosterone - which even humans of female sex and gender do, for doping - you increase your risk; if you are already a human of male sex, you raise your risk even further.
Regarding nutrition, I suppose the difference is based on different muscle structure, height, and disgestive efficiency. Of course, again, hormone therapy can lead to a change here, when compared to the "natural" state of the body (meaning: the one that has not been altered medically, this is not to say that this is the desired state or that it is wrong to want to change said "natural" state). But since hormone treatment is optional also for transgender people, and some may opt out (as far as I am aware some do), it would appear more precise to state the risk in terms of sex and to detail the change in risk through various medical measures.
I have no stats on mental illnesses in terms of gender rather than sex, I just assumed, since being transgender is something primarily rooted in the brain, as I understand it, as are mental illnesses (which is not saying that being transgender is a mental illness, it's just that both have to do with the brain / mind) that mental illnesses that are supported by a female / male brain strucure and the reality of life for male / female persons (gender here!), it would be natural that these issues are more tied to gender than sex. I could of course be wrong here, it is purely an assumption in this case (not just assumptions on the other things above!).
Using this definition I have proposed, it is of course right to say "I see you as a woman", but it is also a question that makes no sense then, because she knows she told me before she would rather be a woman (her wording, I know that the proper wording would be "she actually is a woman"), and we have talked about this for quite a long time already, so I assumed the question would mean more than "do you acknowledge that I see myself as a woman", something with, say, more meaning. And my trouble is that I completely lack a conception of what a woman is, or what differentiates a woman from a human who is not a woman, outside of just this one thing: What the person says of herself in regard to being a woman. Before I have been made aware of transgender people existing, I had a conception of the word that caried an inherent biological meaning, i.e. provider / carrier of the eggs, now it is completely void, it is like a word that has no meaning, but is just a name, if you get what I mean. Others do seem to have an understanding of what a woman is, that goes beyond "human that says she is a woman". In fact, every transgender person must have an understanding of this, because this is somehow required for this to even make any sense (because I assume it is clear that it wouldn't even be an issue if it was just liking the sound of "woman" more than "man" or vice versa).
My understanding of her question (By the way, is it correct to call her a "her", even though she hasn't transitioned yet and her psychologist is denying that she actually is transgender? I have asked her, she is unsure, for now, in direct conversation I am avoiding pronouns) appeared to me to target this deeper meaning of "woman" or "man" that eludes me.
So, to conclude with an answer to this:
I expect nothing of her and for all intents and purposes, she is syntactically a woman to me. My issue just is that this syntax carries no semantics (in terms of gender) for me, which is not her fault, or anyone's really, but it's the fundamental question that I need answer to, to even have hope of understanding transgender issues.
Maybe you can understand it like this: Let's just take two words that carry no meaning, klib and klob. I may say I am a klib and not a klob and you may well accept that I want to be called a klib and not a klob, but without any idea of what it entails to be a klib, or a klob, for that matter, this is just playing with words; for you to be satisfied, you would probably still like to know, what a klib is, right? Now, assume all society around you is used to klib and klob and uses the terms naturally, then you would hardly fault me for not giving you said idea of what a klib is, but still, it would maybe bother you if I asked you "do you see me as a klib?" if you expect this word to have a certain meaning and you can only, ignorant of the meaning of the word, say "I acknowledge that you identify as a klib, but I have no idea what it is".
I have googled the words klib and klob before I used them here and as far as I am aware they carry no meaning and have not prominently been used in any disrespectful way to address transgender people. If I made a mistake here, please excuse this and replace these words with any other pair of meaningless words in your mind. I just wanted to phrase the issue in a way that may be more relatable for someone who does have a deep and intuitive understanding of gender and may in turn have trouble understanding or relating to my failings here.
Last edited:
OP
OP
Even if HRT is optional and not every trans person goes through it, its still necessary for you to consider that and how that affects everything you're talking about. For instance, I've been on HRT for close to 4 years now, so everything that you're talking about here that's related to medicine should not be in the male range anymore. Its independent of my sex. I get what you're trying to say here, but I don't think that these are the examples to make the point that we need different terms. And even if you manage to convince me that we do need different terms for it, its not like I can really do much about that. Those are the terms that are widely used by society, and it won't be easy to change them.
If she's saying she would rather be a woman, she's most likely talking about her body and the discomfort that having a male body causes her. She's not saying that her identity isn't that of a woman's yet (probably, I don't know her).
And yeah, I think I'm seeing the issue that you're having, and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. You feel like we're just asking you to accept our identities as women no matter what, with no visible proof that you can point to like you can with physical sex. But gender identity is that proof that you have to accept is real. I understand that it's hard for you to just take our word for something that you can't physically see, which is why I usually direct people towards the scientific studies that have been done that point to it being a real thing with biological roots. Understanding how transgender identities work really comes down to how well you understand gender identity because that's really the entirety of it. Have you managed to look into some of the studies that were linked in the OP and considered the implications of what those mean towards the definition of man/woman?
Just because gender identity is introduced into the equation doesn't mean that the word "woman" has lost all meaning. It just means that the definition has expanded somewhat beyond what you thought it meant. Before, you were tying it entirely to biological sex, and that was the one thing that mattered to determine whether someone is a woman or not. Now, you have knowledge that gender identity exists, and that if someone's gender identity is a woman's, then they are one. This can still include people whose biological sex is female, so its not like that part of the classification is being taken out completely or anything like that. Its just not the entire story anymore.
As for her psychologist disagreeing, I really can't comment on that too much without knowing more details which probably aren't appropriate to be sharing. But, it really depends on what kind of psychologist you go to a lot of the time. If they're not trained in it or specialize in it in some way, then they could be just as clueless on what to do as the average person. I've talked with plenty of other trans people who have had very negative experiences with psychologists and who judge whether your gender identity is real on very arbitrary things. There are some that feel that you aren't really what you say you are unless you've already been presenting as a woman before you even go to therapy about this, which is just ridiculous.
I understand that you feel that the word woman has lost meaning, and that you don't know what that meaning is anymore. Like, I do get what you're saying. Its just difficult for me to describe this in a way that's satisfying for you.
I will not continue on point 1, because yes, you are right, even if you were to agree that the distinction is necessary, it wouldn't change a thing. Two people will not change English language.
By the way, I have not quoted the part on extension of the meaning of "woman", but I have read it. The issue with that is just this: If you change a definition by both, generalising it (you can also be a woman without a human that carries eggs, provided no physical malfunction) and restrict it (you can also not be a woman and still be a human that carries eggs), then this really means that the defining property of human who carries eggs provided no physical malfunction is ill-fit.
Also, I was puzzled by a new article I have read today, because I have read the word "gender-creative" for the first time and wanted to know what it is, I am talking this article: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...t-the-new-hipster_us_586ada7fe4b04d7df167d6c6
Here, they describe a boy who likes to play with Barbies and wear clothes which are predominantly worn by humans of female sex and humans of female gender, yet does not want to be regarded as non-male. What I do not understand here: Is this actually in any way a gender issue? I would have assumed it is just a case of a person who likes things one would not statistically expect of him and completely unrelated to gender and sex.
I think my problem is more basic. In order to provide a proof for something (in this case, a human) belonging to a class (in this case, "woman"), a proper definition would first be needed. In that sense, "says she is a woman" could be some sort of Lemma, which can be used as a proof, but under the assumption that it is more than just synatical in nature, I would expect some kind of defining property of "woman" that goes beyond the syntax. Basically, what I would really need is this:
I get that it is probably difficult to describe it in a way that I am satisfied with it, especially as I am a very formal person / one that is very hard wired on a way of thinking in terms of hard sciences. But really, if you could give me a description that you feel may be insufficient for me to be satisfied, but still goes beyond a purely syntactical one, I would appreciate this. Having an idea is better than having none, even if it is not something I can completely be satisfied with, yet. Maybe others might even chime in to formalise it more and make itmore understandable to me or others who are similar to me in that regard, if that makes sense to you.
By the way, I have not quoted the part on extension of the meaning of "woman", but I have read it. The issue with that is just this: If you change a definition by both, generalising it (you can also be a woman without a human that carries eggs, provided no physical malfunction) and restrict it (you can also not be a woman and still be a human that carries eggs), then this really means that the defining property of human who carries eggs provided no physical malfunction is ill-fit.
Also, I was puzzled by a new article I have read today, because I have read the word "gender-creative" for the first time and wanted to know what it is, I am talking this article: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...t-the-new-hipster_us_586ada7fe4b04d7df167d6c6
Here, they describe a boy who likes to play with Barbies and wear clothes which are predominantly worn by humans of female sex and humans of female gender, yet does not want to be regarded as non-male. What I do not understand here: Is this actually in any way a gender issue? I would have assumed it is just a case of a person who likes things one would not statistically expect of him and completely unrelated to gender and sex.
OP
OP
Its more than just saying you're a woman that's involved here. I'm telling you that its all about gender identity, which is why I recommend that you read through the scientific studies in the OP and try and understand what's being said in there. Especially if you're going to talk about how you're hard wired to think in terms of hard sciences. The defining property of a woman is to have a gender identity of a woman.
I really feel like that article sums it up for you already. "He is effeminate expressing from the inside-out. There is no confusion. He's very clear in stating he does not want to change his anatomy or live as a girl - he just prefers all the things stereo-typically marketed to girls, and prefers the company of girls over boys any day. That's the definition of gender creative." He's just a gender non-conforming child and that article is about the perspective of a parent about their son.
This is kind of tangential, but words are there merely for people to understand each other. If you have no problem understanding the meaning with which the word "woman" is being used, why do you feel the need of a more strict definition?
Once the ether was supposed to be the medium through which light propagated. It had a very precise scientific meaning. Just like woman used to mean someone who was born with a set of chromosome. Again a very strict, clear definition. Eventually relativity proved that the ether did not exist. The fact that its prior definition was a very specific one, a very formal one as you say, did not make the concept of ether any more right than it actually was. With time ether lost its original meaning, which did not have any scientific ground, and eventually acquired a broader meaning, which is the one people usually understand when using the word. Similarly woman is now slowly acquiring a different meaning, which is admittedly more difficult to express, but that doesn't mean than the one it used to have was righter by any possible metric. Perhaps science will eventually give the word woman another meaning, as scientific dry, so to say, as the one it had before, but for the time being, given our limited scientific understanding, I see no reason why we shouldn't infer the meaning of the word woman from the contexts in which it is finding usage.
If I had no trouble understanding the meaning of the word "woman", then yes, there would be no need for a more strict definition. But I have not the slightest idea what it mans beyond the syntactical component, which is certainly not the true meaning, because otherwise this would be a problem for an only extremely low portion of the population (much lower than the porition of the population who is transgender). I will have to read those of the studies Ketkat has talked about that I have not read yet (I know the one regarding a possible correlation of one brain section and gender), but I will probably only be able to do this at the weekend.
Regarding the ether paragraph: Ether was well-defined before, it just did not exist, then a new theory was developed, but it replaced the precise explanation of how light works with another one, so that's a different case from my perspective. Moreover, the old definition of woman does describe something that is real and potentially useful. Of course, it does not say the previous definition was "righter". A definition cannot really be right or wrong, as it is arbitrary. It can be consistent with a previous definition or inconsistent with a previous definition, it can be useful or useless, but it cannot be wrong in itself.
EDIT: Maybe from Ketkat's posting I can already make the question a bit more clear: What is a gender identity?
mental note: ALWAYS specify that the person is Cis or trans in the title of the topic.
Aparently it is very important to people to know
EW: Cis Roseanne producer urges fans to ignore star's trans* Hitler photo shoot
Mozilla Annouce Facebook Container extension for Firefox. Fuck Cis Zuck
Cis Jordan Peterson The Intellectual We Deserve
Planned Parenthood Cis CEO Says Cis Jared Kushner and Cis Ivanka Trump Offered 'Bribe' to Stop Abortions
CIS SWERY's The Good Life is live on Kickstarter [UPDATE: Tech demo]
><
Aparently it is very important to people to know
EW: Cis Roseanne producer urges fans to ignore star's trans* Hitler photo shoot
Mozilla Annouce Facebook Container extension for Firefox. Fuck Cis Zuck
Cis Jordan Peterson The Intellectual We Deserve
Planned Parenthood Cis CEO Says Cis Jared Kushner and Cis Ivanka Trump Offered 'Bribe' to Stop Abortions
CIS SWERY's The Good Life is live on Kickstarter [UPDATE: Tech demo]
><
I'll second Yoshi 's point about gender and sex being used interchangeably in language despite being very different things. That's something I've thought about a lot that not enough people talk about, and I believe it's problematic and certainly contributes to the problem of so few people understanding trans/non-binary people. I think it'd be better for everyone if gender identity and biological sex had different terms associated with them, but unfortunately these two things have been treated as one and the same for so long across so many cultures that I don't think it will ever happen. But even then, new labels would likely still be more limiting than they should be. The more I've learned about sexuality, gender, and sex, the more I've grown to dislike labels because the labels we use simply don't fit with the reality of sexuality, gender, and even sex existing on a spectrum, and as such they lead to confusion and misconceptions.
I don't even like to identify as gay/homosexual anymore, because while it's a largely accurate description of my sexuality, it can be unclear when it comes to trans and non-binary individuals at best, or not account for them at all at worst. I'll still call myself "gay" for simplicity's sake and to "fit in", but I'm not satisfied with that label because I feel it's too limiting, too black-and-white. And regarding gender, while most people would probably consider me to be cis male, I've come to dislike the label of male/man for myself as I've learned more about gender. But, like, it's complicated, largely because of this lack of distinction between gender and sex. If we're talking about being male strictly in the traditional sense of "having a penis", then yes, I'm 100% comfortable identifying as male because I have a penis and I love having a penis, lol. But I know that despite being called "male" genitalia, you can still be "male" without having the "matching" genitalia, of course, when it comes to gender, and even biological sex doesn't always match up perfectly with genitalia (depending on how you're defining "biological sex" of course, which seems to be another victim of unclear labeling, as it could be referring to chromosomes, genitals and/or reproductive system, or sex hormones, which of course aren't all mutually exclusive).
So in that regard, I can only really say I firmly feel "male" when it comes to biological sex (particularly based on genitalia), but aside from that, "male" is such a vague, unclear label that I'm not sure if I should use it for myself. I suppose I'd probably also be considered male in terms of gender identity, because I don't feel as if my gender doesn't match my sex...but instead I feel as if my gender is just irrelevant to my sex, that it doesn't matter to me. Of course, you could say that this is because I am indeed cis male, so it's natural that my gender identity wouldn't matter to me because it does in fact match my sex, but that still feels too rigid for me, and I feel like I'm instead somewhere in the middle. It's really hard to say when it comes to gender identity for me, which is why I don't identify as non-binary despite feeling like I should sometimes, and I continue to identify as male for simplicity's sake, as with identifying as gay. I can definitely say that I don't feel firmly "male" when it comes to gender expression though, and I definitely feel more comfortable expressing more on the androgynous end.
But ultimately I don't think that should matter, and people should be able to express themselves however they want without being labeled "male/masculine" or "female/feminine". Really, that's kind of how I feel about all of this. Gender, sex, sexuality...it shouldn't even matter. People are people. I wish society could reach a point where none of it matters, since it only matters because we make it matter. Love whoever you want, identify however you want, express yourself however you want; just be the person you want to be. It shouldn't matter how or why, as long as it's not hurting others.
I don't even like to identify as gay/homosexual anymore, because while it's a largely accurate description of my sexuality, it can be unclear when it comes to trans and non-binary individuals at best, or not account for them at all at worst. I'll still call myself "gay" for simplicity's sake and to "fit in", but I'm not satisfied with that label because I feel it's too limiting, too black-and-white. And regarding gender, while most people would probably consider me to be cis male, I've come to dislike the label of male/man for myself as I've learned more about gender. But, like, it's complicated, largely because of this lack of distinction between gender and sex. If we're talking about being male strictly in the traditional sense of "having a penis", then yes, I'm 100% comfortable identifying as male because I have a penis and I love having a penis, lol. But I know that despite being called "male" genitalia, you can still be "male" without having the "matching" genitalia, of course, when it comes to gender, and even biological sex doesn't always match up perfectly with genitalia (depending on how you're defining "biological sex" of course, which seems to be another victim of unclear labeling, as it could be referring to chromosomes, genitals and/or reproductive system, or sex hormones, which of course aren't all mutually exclusive).
So in that regard, I can only really say I firmly feel "male" when it comes to biological sex (particularly based on genitalia), but aside from that, "male" is such a vague, unclear label that I'm not sure if I should use it for myself. I suppose I'd probably also be considered male in terms of gender identity, because I don't feel as if my gender doesn't match my sex...but instead I feel as if my gender is just irrelevant to my sex, that it doesn't matter to me. Of course, you could say that this is because I am indeed cis male, so it's natural that my gender identity wouldn't matter to me because it does in fact match my sex, but that still feels too rigid for me, and I feel like I'm instead somewhere in the middle. It's really hard to say when it comes to gender identity for me, which is why I don't identify as non-binary despite feeling like I should sometimes, and I continue to identify as male for simplicity's sake, as with identifying as gay. I can definitely say that I don't feel firmly "male" when it comes to gender expression though, and I definitely feel more comfortable expressing more on the androgynous end.
But ultimately I don't think that should matter, and people should be able to express themselves however they want without being labeled "male/masculine" or "female/feminine". Really, that's kind of how I feel about all of this. Gender, sex, sexuality...it shouldn't even matter. People are people. I wish society could reach a point where none of it matters, since it only matters because we make it matter. Love whoever you want, identify however you want, express yourself however you want; just be the person you want to be. It shouldn't matter how or why, as long as it's not hurting others.
Is this in response to my post? If so, I'm fine with them I guess, but I'm not sure why gender needs to be attached to it since genitalia are separate from gender anyway? I understand why people would want to use them and that it's a thing, though. But it doesn't change the fact that a penis is traditionally and medically referred to as the male genitalia, and vagina as female. I'm not saying that's strictly how it should be or anything, I'm just stating that that's how it is. But that's in regards to sex, not gender. Your example is referring to gender, not sex, right? See, that's the problem; it's unclear whether male or female is referring to gender or sex because we have no distinction there. I understand that in most scenarios a person's gender is what's going to matter to the discussion, but in other situations, particularly medical, your sex may matter. I do understand why, for example, a trans man would be averse to referring to themselves as female in any context because they identify as male, even if their biological sex is technically female. This wouldn't be an issue if the terminology wasn't the same for gender and sex, and it would make the difference between gender and sex more clear and easier to understand for cis people too, which would only be a good thing.
Maybe I'm focusing too much on this issue, and I know it's not the most important thing, but I think it's worth talking about at least. It's so rare that I see anyone talk about the issue of sex and gender not having clear distinction between them in language, so I just wanted to follow that up when I saw it mentioned here. But I realize my previous post (and probably this one too, lol) is largely just me rambling on and I probably failed to convey my thoughts in a clear enough manner, so I hope it's not taken the wrong way.
When talking about people in general i think "man" and "woman" work well enough and should refer to gender identity. Should also not be to hard to take the wishes of people into account who feel like both or neither.
Now if you absolutely must make the distinction depending on sex, you can mix the words "trans" and "cis" with "man" and "woman" to get that across.
If you had a new word for people who were born a certain sex it would probably never be used for cis people while transphobes get a bit more leeway to call a trans man a woman.
Now if you absolutely must make the distinction depending on sex, you can mix the words "trans" and "cis" with "man" and "woman" to get that across.
If you had a new word for people who were born a certain sex it would probably never be used for cis people while transphobes get a bit more leeway to call a trans man a woman.
OP
OP
In the simplest terms, a gender identity is the gender that you identify as. What this means on a deeper level is what gender you feel like. What gender you want to be seen as, what gender you want to be treated as, what gender that your very core is telling you is right for you. While I use the term "gender you feel like", its much more than a feeling but its very difficult to describe how a part of your identity exists to someone who has never thought about it. This conflict between gender identity and biological sex can even cause intense discomfort in the form of gender dysphoria.
The reason I waited so long to reply to this was so that you could take the time to look into some of the resources in the OP so that we could maybe clarify this a little bit. Did you manage to look at the ones showing the nature of how gender identity exists? Because I really feel like that those can help you understand how gender identity can be the identifier between man and woman on its own. Especially something like David Reimer's case where they tried their best to convince him he was a girl.
I wasn't quite sure where else to post, but I felt like I needed to post somewhere regarding questions on this subject. The old site used to have LGBT community thread I think, but I didn't see one here.
I'm not actually sure what my question is, but a lot of days I struggle and wish I knew what my place in society is. I feel like such an unconventional male, that I questioned if I was in denial about certain things, like sexuality, and gender. I feel like I know what I am, but not entirely still.
I know that I'm straight, in that I'm a birth male, who likes girls, and not boys at all. However, I don't always feel like a man in the traditional sense. It's all mental with me. I don't feel like an alpha male. I'm not assertive like men are expected, I'm shy and submissive, much like how girls are often expected to be. I still get shit til this day for refusing to ever go to a strip club with him, because I don't like to oogle girls publicly like that. I'll admire women when I'm alone, but I feel like it's really rude to do it so openly like a strip club. I'm not into the things men are expected to like a lot. I like girly things, like I want to just surround myself with cute plushes and cute girl stuff... I know it's not uncommon for japan geeks like myself to love cute girls, and their outfits, but I like girls outfits more than mens. I've never worn any to say I like wearing them, but I do know I just can never pick out clothes for me that I think look good, and mens clothes, even ones that are supposed to look nice, never look nice to me.
I don't think I'm transgender, because I feel comfortable with my body in terms of what I was born with, but I do always have the feeling, especially when I'm in public that I don't like how I'm presenting myself ever. I can clean up, shower, shave, clean clothes, a t-shirt with a design I like, and jeans, but never feel comfortable with what I'm presenting to the world. Maybe it's just a self confidence thing, but I don't know if that's all it is or not.
I'm just seeking advice, and I wasn't sure where else to post. I don't really visit any other forums.
I'm not actually sure what my question is, but a lot of days I struggle and wish I knew what my place in society is. I feel like such an unconventional male, that I questioned if I was in denial about certain things, like sexuality, and gender. I feel like I know what I am, but not entirely still.
I know that I'm straight, in that I'm a birth male, who likes girls, and not boys at all. However, I don't always feel like a man in the traditional sense. It's all mental with me. I don't feel like an alpha male. I'm not assertive like men are expected, I'm shy and submissive, much like how girls are often expected to be. I still get shit til this day for refusing to ever go to a strip club with him, because I don't like to oogle girls publicly like that. I'll admire women when I'm alone, but I feel like it's really rude to do it so openly like a strip club. I'm not into the things men are expected to like a lot. I like girly things, like I want to just surround myself with cute plushes and cute girl stuff... I know it's not uncommon for japan geeks like myself to love cute girls, and their outfits, but I like girls outfits more than mens. I've never worn any to say I like wearing them, but I do know I just can never pick out clothes for me that I think look good, and mens clothes, even ones that are supposed to look nice, never look nice to me.
I don't think I'm transgender, because I feel comfortable with my body in terms of what I was born with, but I do always have the feeling, especially when I'm in public that I don't like how I'm presenting myself ever. I can clean up, shower, shave, clean clothes, a t-shirt with a design I like, and jeans, but never feel comfortable with what I'm presenting to the world. Maybe it's just a self confidence thing, but I don't know if that's all it is or not.
I'm just seeking advice, and I wasn't sure where else to post. I don't really visit any other forums.
sorry to be that guy but I totally didn't read the thread and would like to ask three simple questions
1. There are a lot of trans people where I live but I can never figure out what gender they are trying to be. How do I ask someone what gender they are without coming off as a total dick?
2. I sometimes hear people refer to their trans friends as "they". Is this a socially acceptable way to refer to trans? Seems sketch whenever I hear it
3. In this hypothetical scenario I (straight dude) unknowingly hook up with a trans chick. Before we fuck, she has to tell if she has dick, right?
1. There are a lot of trans people where I live but I can never figure out what gender they are trying to be. How do I ask someone what gender they are without coming off as a total dick?
2. I sometimes hear people refer to their trans friends as "they". Is this a socially acceptable way to refer to trans? Seems sketch whenever I hear it
3. In this hypothetical scenario I (straight dude) unknowingly hook up with a trans chick. Before we fuck, she has to tell if she has dick, right?
1. I think just being upfront and asking is fine, but its always good to phrase it kindly, "What gender do you identify as?", or something like that.
2. English is lacking in gender neutral terms, I think 'they' can be used fine, though it can certainly depend on familiarity, context and inflection, and some may be more sensitive to certain wording than others, if a person expresses they'd like you to use specific pronouns, try to be respectful of such. Personally, i try to be gender neutral whenever possible, it has nothing to do with someone being trans.
3. If you're at the point where you're considering being intimate with someone, and there is an attraction there, honestly, and this may require a some amount of personal reflection, does it really matter? No respectful partner is ever going to have you to do anything you are uncomfortable with.
Also, read through some of the thread. I think you'll be glad you did.
Last edited:
There's a trans thread over in Hangouts that's worth looking at/posting in.
There's nothing wrong with liking girly things as a guy - lots of guys like cute stuff, just as lots of girls like traditionally male things. You don't have to be trans for that. Similarly, sexuality also doesn't have any relation to gender - there are straight and gay trans people, just like with cis people.
Do you ever think about being a woman, or even want to be one? Would that make you feel more comfortable than being a man? If there was a button you could press that would magically change your gender without changing anything else, but there was no way to take it back, would you press it? What if you were already changed into a woman and the button was to change back to being a man?
Those are a few questions that might help you and anyone else who's questioning their gender sort out their feelings. Cis people do not want to be another gender or even think about that scenario very often.
1 and 2 : ask "what pronoums do you prefer" .... it is better than the gender question.
3. Chances are she will, but what do you consider "before we fuck" might not be what she considers "before we fuck" =P
I guess the disconnect for me comes from things like you saying "there's nothing wrong with a guy who likes..." or statements of like that. It doesn't feel like that there's nothing wrong with it. It doesn't feel like I'm allowed to be who I want, especially when I present myself outwardly as male. I'm a man, what I'm supposed to be feels like it's always dictated based on people's reactions, and statements ever since I was younger. I'm the man, well that means I'm supposed to be the brave one in the house when I got older. That means if there's something creepy and crawly in the house, I'm the one whose supposed to take care of it, while the women in the house get to cower in fear, even though I'm probably scared if not moreso of those types of things. I'm supposed to be the one whose ready to combat the dangers, while the women are supposed to stand behind me. That's how it always feels like I'm supposed to behave, when I'm not brave. I'm not "manly".
Like I mentioned before about the strip club also. I feel like I grew up in a society where men are expected to behave like drooling goons who go to places like strip clubs, when that isn't something I do. My brother questioned my masculinity because I didn't want to go with him for my birthday, or during his bachelor party.
Edit: I also remember I met a woman once who questioned my masculinity when I told her I liked The Princess Bride (forget why the subject came up), but yeah...a fucking great movie, and yet she treated me as weird because I liked it, saying it was a girl's movie.
OP
OP
That sounds like you're struggling with the pressures of having to conform to the gender roles and stereotypes that men are often expected to fill. What Vivian is saying when she says there's nothing wrong with not fitting into those roles is that you should work on being confident with who you are and not what society expects you to be. You don't have to be this strip club loving, bug smashing guy if you don't want to. You're not any less of a man just because you don't match up to how society wants you to be.
It is possible that feelings like this could be related to being trans, but they don't necessarily point in that direction. There are cisgender people who struggle with those same feelings of failing to meet society's expectations. If you're questioning whether or not you're trans at all, it might help you to really think about Vivian's questions as well as read through these resources that SweetNicole showed me recently :
https://genderanalysis.net/articles...ns-and-symptoms-of-indirect-gender-dysphoria/
https://freethoughtblogs.com/nataliereed/2012/04/17/the-null-hypothecis/
Technically, she doesn't. You will see/touch it at some point. Real talk, you can hope for courtesy, but not take it as a given.
All of this sounds like conflicts coming from the outside, not from you. It's the kids who are wrong. It's a free country, you don't need to be a manly man. Just as women don't need to be scaredy cats.
I have read the following things:
- The twin study: This indicates a genetic predisposition, but also indicates non-monocausality, because of the significant, yet somewhat spotty coincidence (I'd expect this to be much closer to 100% if it was fully causal, because the environment is usually similar for twins). It does not attempt to explain what a gender is though.
- Wikipedia on causes: I take from this, that there is clinical evidence (though with a small sample size, so further research is in order from my perspective, to narrow it down more precisely) that certain brain regions are linked towards gender identity. The differences seem to be similar to those between homosexual and hetereosexual individuals. I was actually aware of this (I read an earlier version of this text), but while it definitely interesting to see where it observably establishes and it is notable that this correlates with differences in non-trans individuals of the same gender, it is not all too surprising to me: Everything that has to do with personality is something I'd expect to be identifiable in the brain. Nevertheless, it certainly is worth reading and such studies can moreover probably help identifying the use of various parts of the brain, which I think is a very important thing for biologists to do.
- The case of Davd Reimer. This actually is the least interesting to me, as it merely points out how one individual was treated badly and the tragic ending of it. On a personal level, it is certainly a touching story, but on a purely rational level it does not really help me with the issue itself.
I think with your explanation above, maybe I can point out the issue for my understanding:
To my question "What is gender identity" you answer "In the simplest terms, a gender identity is the gender that you identify as." and to "What is a woman" you point towards my syntactical understanding of "a human who identifies as a woman" (paraphrasing here). The issue is that I still do not understand the semantics of the words "gender" and "woman" (in terms of gender). So maybe narrowing it down further: What is a gender and how do you identify it (e.g. in yourself). Also: What is the frame of reference, especially considering sterotypical behaviours and views on genders can probably ruled out due to "gender-non-conforming behaviour" being a thing.
On a slightly related note: The situation with my thesis candidate is worsening, which I do not want to detail in a public setting, but can you point towards helpful resources and / or online groups I could refer him to? It would be important that he (Is it correct to refer in third person to him as he still, when he wants to transition but still goes by male name and pronouns? This is really troublesome to me.) would feel welcome even though he is at the very beginning of the process yet at a relatively high age.
OP
OP
The case of David Reimer should have been the most interesting for you for the things that you're talking about. David Reimer was born male, but due to a botched circumcision was reassigned to be a girl and made sure to follow gender stereotypes that would fit that of girls. He was still able to recognize that he wasn't a girl at a very young age, which should help you understand what gender identity is. Its the prime example of doctors trying to prove that gender identity is learned and not innate and discovering otherwise, which I thought would be good for you to seriously consider the implications of everything involved in that. Like, seriously consider his case and everything that happened in it. How does that impact your view of what a woman is? Of what a man is? Or what gender identity is?
I'm sorry to hear that things are getting worse for your thesis candidate, but I don't really know of that many online communities that I could recommend them to. I mostly just interact with the trans groups here on Era. You could try recommending the reddit transgender communities, like /r/asktransgender which is mostly just a support group of trans people asking other trans people questions. There's also the trans lifeline that you could recommend that they call if they just need to talk about anything trans related : US: (877) 565-8860 Canada: (877) 330-6366
Without knowing what the situation is, which I perfectly understand why you don't share that, I don't really know what resources specifically to recommend. If they're struggling with questioning you could try the 2 links that I linked a couple of posts up above.
As for the pronouns, yeah you're fine to use 'he' as long as they haven't talked about wanting to change it. I tend to use 'they' more often than anything with people who are early in transition/questioning, but if they haven't asked for that, then you're fine as you are.
It does not really change anything in that regard, because it just tells me that it is some nebulous thing someone might identify as and which may make the person feel horrible if not acknowledged as such. The specific case may point towards a very strong genetic nature of this identifier, but as an isolated case I wouldn't want to draw this conclusion definitely, especially as environmental issues regarding the upbringing of the person are hard to discern. The knowledge that it causes a great distress to some (many?) people if the outside perception does not match the gender identity sadly does not help me with understanding what it precisely means or what properties are there beyond an identifier, which in itself cannot be an innate thing (since identifiers, as parts of language, are clearly cultural things).
OP
OP
It doesn't change anything for you? Being able to see the documented experiences of someone who was forcibly reassigned doesn't give you any clues as to how that could change your definition of man/woman? Gender identity is the identifier that you're looking for that will help you understand why your definition of woman needs to be expanded. I understand that you want something more concrete that you can look at and say "Yes, this person has this identity and this one has this" but it doesn't really work that way. Not yet at least. As of right now, all we really have to go off of is the self-identification of transgender individuals to show that it exists. The point of the studies in the OP isn't to show that we know for sure what causes all of this, but to show that its not as simple as eggs/sperm as you were trying to paint it. That there's proof out there that shows that our identities are real and that they should be the determining factors.
This is mostly for people questioning, but it might help explain why I'm struggling to explain this to you, and its certainly worded better than what I've been saying : https://freethoughtblogs.com/nataliereed/2012/04/17/the-null-hypothecis/
I could not read the link yet and I need to go now, but for the rest, let me quickly say: These things are a reason I do not use the old definition, even though it is one I understand, whereas the new one is one I do not understand, but it is not sufficient to satisfy my desire to understand the term I use. So while I will reference a human as (wo)man iff the person calls herself one (if I know it, otherwise I go by appearance, following the expected appearance of the old definition), I have no idea what I call the person by that.
How exactly are terf arguments with regards to socialization wrong? I know why terfs are frowned because in essence they're just mean-spirited bullies, but many of their arguments have always seemed incredibly valid to me.
Despite accepting myself as trans, I have never (and likely never will) view or accept myself as a woman. The biggest reason for this is the cornerstone TERF argument that lack of female socialization during childhood and adolescence inherently invalidates the identities of transgender women. Now obviously this doesn't apply to all trans women, as the age of transition keeps getting earlier and earlier, with some now socially transition in early childhood, but in my case it feels pretty much ironclad and indisputable. I've been socialized as male and internalizing male privilege for my entire life of 22 years, all the way through the entirety of my formative and developmental youth, and that's something that I'll never be able to change, even if I did successfully transition someday. This in combination with the physical reality of my body (height + bone structure) are the main reason why I will never socially transition and intend to die in the closet. Ultimately I will never be able to view myself as anything more than an embarassing fake compared to cis women no matter what I do. I've never seen a real reasonable refutation of this argument, and even though I may not want it to be, I feel in my heart of hearts that it's the truth.
Despite accepting myself as trans, I have never (and likely never will) view or accept myself as a woman. The biggest reason for this is the cornerstone TERF argument that lack of female socialization during childhood and adolescence inherently invalidates the identities of transgender women. Now obviously this doesn't apply to all trans women, as the age of transition keeps getting earlier and earlier, with some now socially transition in early childhood, but in my case it feels pretty much ironclad and indisputable. I've been socialized as male and internalizing male privilege for my entire life of 22 years, all the way through the entirety of my formative and developmental youth, and that's something that I'll never be able to change, even if I did successfully transition someday. This in combination with the physical reality of my body (height + bone structure) are the main reason why I will never socially transition and intend to die in the closet. Ultimately I will never be able to view myself as anything more than an embarassing fake compared to cis women no matter what I do. I've never seen a real reasonable refutation of this argument, and even though I may not want it to be, I feel in my heart of hearts that it's the truth.
OP
OP
The reason I don't like that argument is that it seems to go with the idea that there's a singular woman experience that all women are going through, and because we haven't gone through that, we're not women. If we look at a rich white woman's experience in America and compare that to a poor woman's experience in the Middle East, the 2 experiences that these women have gone through will vary pretty wildly. Yes, they were both most likely conditioned to be raised as women in their respective societies, but you can't point to any singular thing that those women have gone through and say "You have to have gone through this or you aren't a woman." We are women, and our experiences aren't somehow no longer a woman's just because they're not typical.
You're right that some of us have don't have typical woman experiences that we can point to in our past, but you're focusing a little too much on that part. That doesn't somehow invalidate you as a woman, or make you a fake in anyway. If you were to start presenting today, how much of that male socialization do you think would really matter in society? People would start treating you like a woman despite whatever upbringing you've had, and you would quickly gain the perspective and experiences of women that you feel like you're missing. Its a bit of a ridiculous premise because it goes off the idea that we can never understand what its like to be a woman, despite being one ourselves. The reason you see that brought up so often by TERFs and not other people is because TERFs will never accept us as women in any way. So to them, we'll never be able to gain that socialization because we aren't capable of being seen as women. Which is just nonsense, and why those people aren't really worth listening to.
OP
OP
I'm going to try and sum all this up as cleanly as I can and see if that helps.
If someone walks up to you and says "Hello, I am a woman, please refer to me as one" you say that you'll do that but you don't understand why you'll do that. For you, you're doing that out of a sense of being polite and not wanting to hurt someone over something that you don't understand. That's a good thing, but ideally we want others to understand why we're asking for this and why it hurts when people trample over our feelings and don't respect our identities. The reason that we ask people to refer to us as women is entirely because gender identity is a real thing and its painful for people to deny the experiences that we've gone through by refusing to acknowledge who we are.
We do not know the exact cause of what causes someone to be transgender yet. However, based on the studies in the OP, as well as various others that are out there, we can conclude that it's real and that it has some kind of biological link. It may not be entirely biological, we can't say for sure. But the fact that it has some kind at all points to the legitimacy of it. As a counterexample, something like otherkin, people who feel that they're an animal in a human body, have no possible biological basis that could come up. There is no biological anomaly that could happen that could shift a human's brain structure to be similar to that of an animal and for it to all turn out that way. On top of all of this, some transgender people experience what is known as gender dysphoria, where having the wrong body causes extreme distress.
So, if we can point to gender identity existing, and having some kind of biological link, then the question that really remains is "What is a gender identity? What is this a link to?" From the OP, I used this definition of gender identity "Gender identity is a person's internal, personal sense of being a man or a woman." What this means is that internally, something that you can't just point to a person and easily see, is the cause for gender identity. While it would be nice for you to just take our word for it that this is a very real thing that exists and that it causes some of us extreme discomfort, I understand that's not easy to accept. But that's why we have scientific studies, as well as the history of trans people going back thousands of years to point to, to show that this is serious.
The reason you should be treating a transwoman as a woman is because she is one. Because the defining characteristic that matters for whether someone is a man, or a woman, or nonbinary, is entirely based on the gender identity that they have. If you can't understand that, then you need to seriously sit down and think about why. What is it about a ciswoman that makes her a woman that doesn't for a transwoman? How do these studies into brain structure and other causes of being transgender factor into that? How do the experiences of trans people in this thread and someone like David Reimer factor into that? If the studies and experiences aren't impacting that definition in any way, then you need to think about the why of that as well. What kind of proof would it take for you to believe that gender identity is what makes someone who they are?
First I want to say sorry for the delayed response. When your response came I was very busy. Also, it is very difficult to answer your posting properly. Discussing otherkins and the question of what is the difference between a trans- and a non-trans-woman is something I find exceedingly stressing and I am sure that these are questions I should keep my mouth shut on usually, but since I can only learn by engaging also with those difficult questions, I try to answer this as well as I can. I want to stress in advance that my answer to your point on otherkins is highly hypothetical and I do not say that "transspecies" and transgender are the same thing or that the former is a legitimate argument to deny the latter any rights.
Still, I would refute the direct comparability even in the unlikely case such a correspondence in brain structure could be established, because there is one important point that is distinctive: If one asks to be treated like a cat, what does one actually expect? Forfeiting legal rights as a human? Being regarded as a thing that may be owned by others legally? I would have only limited issues calling the person a cat if he really insists on that, but I would have moral issues with actually treating the person as such beyond naming.
I feel this is a bit dismissive, because in principle (and I have no idea if there has been any research on this, I guess no because otherkin is not something that happens often; I am unsure whether it actually is a mental state one can be in) there might be an observable neurological difference between people who are otherkin and people who are not. Of course, in the sense of objective observable belonging to a species, it is clear that a human who think he is e.g. a cat still belongs to the species human and therefore is not a cat. But an otherkin may propose a concept of social species and may ask for being treated as the animal he identifies as. Now when it comes to the brain structure being that of an(other) animal, of course there is no anomaly that makes a human have the brain structure of a cat, but that's not the case with transgender people either, it is only a small part of the brain that is closer to that of non-trans people of the opposite sex / same gender than to the own sex / other gender. In principle, though I deem it highly unlikely, it could be that some small part of the brain may be structured differently for an otherkin (up until here, this is not even entirely absurd from my perspective, it is a mental state afterall, so it should be reflected in the brain) and pose similarities to the proposed species (now the latter part would be surprising to say the least).
Still, I would refute the direct comparability even in the unlikely case such a correspondence in brain structure could be established, because there is one important point that is distinctive: If one asks to be treated like a cat, what does one actually expect? Forfeiting legal rights as a human? Being regarded as a thing that may be owned by others legally? I would have only limited issues calling the person a cat if he really insists on that, but I would have moral issues with actually treating the person as such beyond naming.
I do not question whether it exists, but just what it entails. And the issue here is that the explanation is somewhat circular, when I ask what is a woman / man then the answer is someone who has the gender identity of one, when I ask what is a gender identity, the answer is the internal sense of being a man or a woman (or neither). But this is really a purely syntactical thing, maybe by answering your question below with a counterquestion might lead to a solution: What does a (regardless of being trans or not) woman have that a (regardless of being trans or not) man not have or vice versa?
What does it mean to treat someone as a woman outside of using female pronouns (and I guess gender separted rooms)?
I am doing this, but have found no answer yet.
Well, this is a difficult question, because the only understanding of woman I have outside of a syntactical one is the definition regarding sex characteristics. In this sense the answer is obvious, though also one that will be regarded as offensive: She is an egg-carrier by nature, whereas the trans woman is a semen carrier by nature. In this sense the difference would be one in physical functionality. The more interesting question is, disregarding this classification which is understandably offensive to trans people (and comes with issues when used as a social classifier even beyond that) what is it that makes a woman a woman?
They show that the classification via egg / semen is not the only viable classification of humans (mammals in general?) into a roughly binary system, one could also classify via the structure of this brain segment, but it of course poses the question of the practical use of such a classification.
I am unsure about this, these things point towards gender identity being a classification that is important to some / many, but it does not make the practical implications of that discrimination any more understandable to me.
This is a tough question, I am not really seeking a proof for anything, I am seeking a deeper understanding of the definition. Whether the gender identity is a major part of what makes the person is something that cannot easily globally be proven or disproven. I know for myself that if people were constantly referring to me as female it would not bother me much. I'd find it strange, but being male is not important to me beyond the practical implications in terms or reproduction. And this goes also for other people: If my wife were to state to me that she wanted to be regarded as male from tomorrow and changed her appearance accordingly, I would still love her, even though I am to my best knowledge heterosexual. It would be a strange situation indeed, but from my perspective, outside of syntax and looks, nothing would change.
OP
OP
The fact that you don't really see the difference between otherkin and trans people is actually really telling of how you see all of this. Otherkin are literally made up nonsense, and if you feel that being trans is similar to that, then this conversation won't ever go anywhere.
Based on the arguments you've been making throughout this post, as well as before in the thread, yes, I do get the feeling that you question whether gender identity exists. If you felt it was a real thing, you would be able to accept that it was a defining factor for determining whether you are a man or a woman, instead of consistently falling back on the outdated ideas you have. I honestly don't know how we can talk for close to 2 months about this, and you make literally 0 progress in the face of all of the evidence shown to you. Gender Identity is the defining characteristic between whether someone is a man or a woman, end of story.
You actually aren't. You aren't willing to sit there and actually think and listen to what I'm saying. You just continually keep saying the same thing while saying that nothing that is shown to you can actually prove this to you.
Gender Identity, as I have told you many times.
What do you mean that nothing would change? You don't feel that your wife transitioning would change anything about her? You would still see her as a woman, and not as a man?
My account on otherkin was not from a very informed position, I just said that in principle there might be a biological reason for that as well, but if it is actually known that it is not a mental state but something that is purely a play / something people make up for fun, then of course it is not comparable. I also do not want to frustrate you, if you feel that it does not make any sense to try to educate me, I will not complain if you terminate the discussion with me and I will then consequently keep out of topics that deal with transgender issues as to not hurt anyone.
What progress is there to be made with evidence? My issue, as I see it, is not the question "Does gender identity exist" but "What is gender identity". With evidence that it exists (and also, where it might establish in the brain, which in fact is a bit more helpful) I cannot reach an answer to that.
The issue is that you try to prove something to me that I do not doubt, that gender identity exists. But it does not answer the question what it is.
Which is precisely what I am asking you what it means. You answer with evidence that it exists, but the issue is not that I doubt that it exists, but that I do not understand what it constitutes. What the difference is between being a man and a woman when it comes to gender identity beyond pronouns.
Well, this is the basic point: What does this mean? To see someone as a woman. I would see her as the same person she is now, I would call her a man if she wants that, but it would change nothing about how I see her. Neither sex nor gender are strong differentiators for me between humans.
Yoshi some things are difficult to define in terms that are as accurate as you'd wish. What is consciousness? Would you deny that people are conscious just because consciousness is a concept that escapes our understanding and is thus impossible to define at the moment if not in very roundabout ways?
A person identifies as a given gender. A person whose sex is male may identify as a woman. This person gender identity is woman. As simple as that. We can then discuss about the possible reasons why for transgender people their gender identity is different from their sex (hormonal levels during gestation, for example), but that's a different thing from the mere definition that you are looking for. The moment you accept the existence of transgender people, you need to accept the relevance of gender identity as that thing that distinguishes a transgender person from someone who identifies with her sex. To deny this simple definition of gender identity means to deny the existence of transgender people altogether.
At this point you might ask, "alright, but what does it mean to identify as a woman?". At the very least it means that you want to be treated as one. Why would you need more?
A person identifies as a given gender. A person whose sex is male may identify as a woman. This person gender identity is woman. As simple as that. We can then discuss about the possible reasons why for transgender people their gender identity is different from their sex (hormonal levels during gestation, for example), but that's a different thing from the mere definition that you are looking for. The moment you accept the existence of transgender people, you need to accept the relevance of gender identity as that thing that distinguishes a transgender person from someone who identifies with her sex. To deny this simple definition of gender identity means to deny the existence of transgender people altogether.
At this point you might ask, "alright, but what does it mean to identify as a woman?". At the very least it means that you want to be treated as one. Why would you need more?
Last edited:
I think it would be good to know what it means to be treated as a woman. Does it merely mean using the correct pronouns?
I think you are right that consciousness is a rather nebulous term and I'd wish to have a better understanding of it, but at least I know (roughly) what it is: The perception of oneself as an acting agent together with an emotionality and the ability to reflect, contextualise and possibly decide the own behaviour (other people's definition may vary). An understanding on such a level woul be great to have for gender. My lack of understanding is not to mean I deny the concept, though.
I have a question about David Peter Reimer.
So, basically the whole experiment of the Psychologist (John Money) actually worked to prove the opposite of what he was trying to prove? Like, what was the legacy behind it for trans people?
In my mind, it is something like, he showed that if a boy is BORN idendifying as a male, even though we all treat him as a girl, he will never feel confort with that and he wont even know why. That is because he didnt idendify as a girl, but as a boy. Basically he proved that there is no "social environment effect" in regards to knowing someone's gender identity, is that it?
So, basically the whole experiment of the Psychologist (John Money) actually worked to prove the opposite of what he was trying to prove? Like, what was the legacy behind it for trans people?
In my mind, it is something like, he showed that if a boy is BORN idendifying as a male, even though we all treat him as a girl, he will never feel confort with that and he wont even know why. That is because he didnt idendify as a girl, but as a boy. Basically he proved that there is no "social environment effect" in regards to knowing someone's gender identity, is that it?