I asked this in the old place, but I thought I'd ask it here to get maybe different opinions. I've talked to several groups of LGB people about trans issues and they've usually have been split on trans rights (all but one or two were supportive, just hesitant). I've had a very rare few call it "just a mental illness" and like "it's like less than 1% of the population, so why upend everything", and I'm guesstimating 35%-ish comment that it isn't fair that "trans people are piggybacking on our plight" especially after Obergefell was decided. I'll grant you that most of these people are not minority LGB people, and that myself, a cis white male, is in the discussion (which very much may tilt things understandably), but is this a somewhat reoccurring schism even within the LGB community regarding T rights? Simplistically, for part of my life, it was "LGBT" and then "LGTB+", so I've always been surprised by the split I've personally encountered in the community.
And, of course, thanks for having this thread and sorry for placing the burden of my knowledge on all of you to educate me (it's a hard question to ask since it relates to communities).
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.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.
Ketkat: First thank you for answering this regardless of my extended absence.
Regarding the noun: I'm looking for the right term to use instead of transgenderism which I was told not to use. So a noun for the issue of transgender, like, e.g. "homosexuality", "heteosexuality" (I know transgender* is not a sexual orientation, this is a linguistic example). So for transgender people I use this term, which I have not been criticised for yet, but for the general issue of transgender* I am missing a word I am "allowed" to use.
1. I do not think that it makes sense to keep them the same words, because there are things, where sex is important, there are things where gender is important and in particular, there are things where one categorisation is relevant and another is not. So by overloading the term, one can quickly run into issues. Which is why this question is two-fold, not only targeting "why use the same terms", but also "which terms can one use to speak strictly about sex rather than gender without being hurtful".
To explain the issue, take the field of medicine. Some drugs work differently on different sexes (it is actually sexes from my understanding, even though the research field that works on this, I have read, calls it gender medicine, which is a bit problematic), some risks for diseases are very different according to sex (e.g. there is the very easy example of breast cancer, which is an oddity among people of male sex, regardless of gender, whereas it is a common issue with people of female sex, regardless of gender), nutrition advice varies by sex (not gender) and the procedure of questions before certain examinations or prescriptions is different according to sex (it does not make sense to ask a person of male sex whether the person is pregnant or menstruating, for example). On the other hand, some differences may actually be tied to gender, rather than sex. E.g. I would assume, though I do not know this, that the differences in various psychological issues (frequency / risk of disorders like autism, shizophrenia, depression and so on) are reported to be very different according to sex/gender and I would assume, but do not know if it is true, that the differing factor here could be gender rather than sex. This also extends to other topics, but naturally, medicine is the easy one. Which is why I am struggling with the terminology and would also love to have a clear terminology here, that, at the same time, is not hurtful to people.
2. I guess this might actually be something that I will not be able to get a definitive answer on then, at least for now. But that is fine, it is better to know that something is not entirely known yet than to work on imprecise knowledge.
3. I guess the question is more easily understood by saying "what is a man / what is a woman". I mean, it is easy to solve this by saying "a man is a human who says he is a man" and "a woman is a human who says she is a woman", but I think this is not really... satisfying in terms of understanding the issue, if that makes sense to you? It is hard to find the right words here, but maybe try it like this: If someone asked me (and this has happened to me by now, and I could only answer this question by explaining that I cannot answer it because the term is unclear to me nowadays) whether I see her as a woman, what does the question mean? When would "yes" be the right answer? Not, when would it be the expected or the morlly right answer, but when would it be factually correct? I suppose this question is not targeting the simple categorisation "a woman is a human who says she is a woman", because in this particular case, the person I am talking about told me she sees herself as a woman (her psychologist disagrees though), so she must mean something else.
I really think it is crucial for me to understand this to deal with her or other people in a similar position adequately without being hurtful to her and without being all too superficial. I am asking here and not her, because she is having other psychological issues as well and I am worried as hell I might make a significant mistake here.
4. I guess I will postpone this issue until it becomes relevant to me, then, to better focus on getting my head sorted on the more pressing issue.
Let me please also say that I recognise that my lack of understanding of th topic can lead to insensitivity, which is why I will not in any way discuss issues regarding transgender* outside of this topic and at the same time want to express my apologies if anything I have written here comes accross as crude or rude. It is not my intention to be either, I recognise that I still may be both and I hope that with a topic very specifically targeted at informing people about such issues they can still be perceived as within reason. If you feel I am unable to speak about this topic even at a level that is compatible with the intention of this thread, I would be greateful if you could tell me to keep my mouth shut also in this topic, but it would be great if you could point me towards a place, where I can get answers to this without running into risk of hurting someone.
1. I do not think that it makes sense to keep them the same words, because there are things, where sex is important, there are things where gender is important and in particular, there are things where one categorisation is relevant and another is not. So by overloading the term, one can quickly run into issues. Which is why this question is two-fold, not only targeting "why use the same terms", but also "which terms can one use to speak strictly about sex rather than gender without being hurtful".
To explain the issue, take the field of medicine. Some drugs work differently on different sexes (it is actually sexes from my understanding, even though the research field that works on this, I have read, calls it gender medicine, which is a bit problematic), some risks for diseases are very different according to sex (e.g. there is the very easy example of breast cancer, which is an oddity among people of male sex, regardless of gender, whereas it is a common issue with people of female sex, regardless of gender), nutrition advice varies by sex (not gender) and the procedure of questions before certain examinations or prescriptions is different according to sex (it does not make sense to ask a person of male sex whether the person is pregnant or menstruating, for example). On the other hand, some differences may actually be tied to gender, rather than sex. E.g. I would assume, though I do not know this, that the differences in various psychological issues (frequency / risk of disorders like autism, shizophrenia, depression and so on) are reported to be very different according to sex/gender and I would assume, but do not know if it is true, that the differing factor here could be gender rather than sex. This also extends to other topics, but naturally, medicine is the easy one. Which is why I am struggling with the terminology and would also love to have a clear terminology here, that, at the same time, is not hurtful to people.
3. I guess the question is more easily understood by saying "what is a man / what is a woman". I mean, it is easy to solve this by saying "a man is a human who says he is a man" and "a woman is a human who says she is a woman", but I think this is not really... satisfying in terms of understanding the issue, if that makes sense to you? It is hard to find the right words here, but maybe try it like this: If someone asked me (and this has happened to me by now, and I could only answer this question by explaining that I cannot answer it because the term is unclear to me nowadays) whether I see her as a woman, what does the question mean? When would "yes" be the right answer? Not, when would it be the expected or the morlly right answer, but when would it be factually correct? I suppose this question is not targeting the simple categorisation "a woman is a human who says she is a woman", because in this particular case, the person I am talking about told me she sees herself as a woman (her psychologist disagrees though), so she must mean something else.
I really think it is crucial for me to understand this to deal with her or other people in a similar position adequately without being hurtful to her and without being all too superficial. I am asking here and not her, because she is having other psychological issues as well and I am worried as hell I might make a significant mistake here.
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
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
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 :).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.
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.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?
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.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.
If she sees herself as a woman, I don't see what you get by denying what she says.
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).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.
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.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 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.
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.
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: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.
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.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 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.
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 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.
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.
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.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?
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.What do you feel about the expressions "male vagina" or "female penis" ?
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?
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.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?
There's a trans thread over in Hangouts that's worth looking at/posting in.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.
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?
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".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.
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.
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.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?
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 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.
I have read the following things: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 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.
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).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?
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).
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.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.
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.
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.
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).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.
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?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.
What does it mean to treat someone as a woman outside of using female pronouns (and I guess gender separted rooms)?The reason you should be treating a transwoman as a woman is because she is one.
I am doing this, but have found no answer yet.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.
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?What is it about a ciswoman that makes her a woman that doesn't for a transwoman?
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.How do these studies into brain structure and other causes of being transgender factor into that?
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.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.
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.What kind of proof would it take for you to believe that gender identity is what makes someone who they are?
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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?
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?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?