ESOC Gender Identity Corner

[deleted_user0]

How do you square transgenderism with feminism? One says men and women are the same and there's no such thing as inherently masculine or feminine personality traits. The other says men and women inherently have different personalities and a man can turn into a woman and vice versa. Which is it? Here's one feminist perspective on transgenderism:

Seems like you don't know what you're talking about. I'm not surprised though, reality is too complex for a meme, so you wouldn't get it.

Nobody must change their sex. But why shouldn't they be allowed to change their appearance to match that of a certain sex, if that's what they want? Men and women change their appearance to look more like what they believe they or their own sex should look like all the time. Whether it should be covered by insurance is another debate. But ironically, if it's a mental illness as Dolan insisted earlier, then it probably should. Otherwise, perhaps it shouldn't.

Also, it's called transgender, not transsex. Not every brand of feminism insists that men and women are the same, without any differences whatsoever, just they have equal value, regardless of any differences. I'm sure Dolan can tell you more about this, considering this seems to be very important to him. I'm surprised that he actually didn't pick up on this in your post, and went on to only bash "gender plurality". Oh wait, no, I'm not surprised at all.

[lejend]

How do you square transgenderism with feminism? One says men and women are the same and there's no such thing as inherently masculine or feminine personality traits. The other says men and women inherently have different personalities and a man can turn into a woman and vice versa. Which is it? Here's one feminist perspective on transgenderism:

Seems like you don't know what you're talking about. I'm not surprised though, reality is too complex for a meme, so you wouldn't get it.

Nobody must change their sex. But why shouldn't they be allowed to change their appearance to match that of a certain sex, if that's what they want? Men and women change their appearance to look more like what they believe they or their own sex should look like all the time. Whether it should be covered by insurance is another debate. But ironically, if it's a mental illness as Dolan insisted earlier, then it probably should. Otherwise, perhaps it shouldn't.

Also, it's called transgender, not transsex. Not every brand of feminism insists that men and women are the same, without any differences whatsoever, just they have equal value, regardless of any differences. I'm sure Dolan can tell you more about this, considering this seems to be very important to him. I'm surprised that he actually didn't pick up on this in your post, and went on to only bash "gender plurality". Oh wait, no, I'm not surprised at all.

That doesn't answer the question at all. I'm not talking about body modification. How do you square the belief that there's no innately male or female personality traits with the belief that if a man has stereotypically female personality traits, then he is justified in considering himself a female and not a male?

[XeeleeFlower]

Because masculinity and femininity are societal based, rather than biologically based.

[gamevideo113]

Because masculinity and femininity are societal based, rather than biologically based.

I'd rather say that masculitity and femininity are based on biology, but their structure (how they manifest) is determined by society.
The DNA of us males doesn't say we have to pay for dinner if we go out with a woman, society does. On the other hand our DNA makes us (in the great majority of cases) go after women, therefore we do what we can to follow what it says.
Actually society too says we have to look for a partner (it's not really just a matter of biology), but this still derives by our biological nature that our society was built on.

[Dolan]

Because masculinity and femininity are societal based, rather than biologically based.

So if how masculinity and femininity are expressed is shaped by social norms, does that make things less deterministic? Social norms could also be based in biological factors.

But, if "gender" expression is constructed, as many claim, why should it be constructed in the direction of having 52 or more of them? Or just as many as anyone could claim? Because at this point, gender tags seem to be proliferating at the speed of everyone's whim.



Surely, nobody was born owlkin and there are no genes that code for owlkinship, right? But well, I think we already agreed that genes don't really hardcode complex behaviours like these. But what if genes only provide a foundation and nature expects you to struggle to complete its job? You don't get a turnkey mechanism that works 100% in any context, but something that is "good enough" to work with, provided that you also put some effort into it? Because that's how most organisms on this planet evolved, in an environment of perpetual danger and hardship, in which every conundrum and problem found its solution through struggle and improvement of one's problem-solving skills. It seems that we forgot that spirit and we're just content with cultivating complacency, low effort, taking the path of least resistance and living on a whim.

[deleted_user0]

That doesn't answer the question at all. I'm not talking about body modification. How do you square the belief that there's no innately male or female personality traits with the belief that if a man has stereotypically female personality traits, then he is justified in considering himself a female and not a male?

The way you phrase the question is confusing. Like I've said before, they're transgenders. This is about gender. Not sex. Sex is innate. Gender isn't. You can change gender. But so far we haven't been able to change a person's sex, which in my book would mean that we were able to make a natural born male have a pregnancy, or have a natural born woman produce her own sperm capable of producing offspring. Maybe it's possible and I haven't heard of it. So the poster-meme you posted wrongfully asserts that transgenders change their sex to match their personality. Some modify their bodies, in various levels of extremity, but others modify only their appearance (for example, by wearing clothes traditionally associated with that gender), while some don't really modify anything at all and like the ambiguity which makes it that people are unable to tell which gender or sex they are.

The belief that there are no innate personality traits attached to the male and female sex might be right or wrong, but it's clear that, as @XeeleeFlower has pointed out, cultures have attached specific personality traits and roles to the different types of genders. Western societies typically recognize only 2 genders which correlate with the male and female sex, but other societies are believed to have recognized or currently recognize more than 2. Transgenders identifying with the personality traits and/or roles attached to that gender may feel inclined to change their appearance to match that of how their gender typically looks for different reasons, such as being more accepted/eliciting less disapproval or discrimination, having more success in finding a partner or just generally feeling happier.

On top of that, there's the possibility that there are innate personality traits which are sex specific. These traits can either always be active (in the majority, at least), or only be triggered within a certain context or activated under the right circumstances. And as I've said before, feminism doesn't necessarily imply that men and women are cognitively without any difference. There are feminist branches who do believe that there are such differences, just that they don't matter when it comes to attributing value to either sex.

But let's assume that you, and those feminists you are unwittingly using to oppose transgender emancipation, are right and there is no innate difference in cognitive traits or ability between men and women, then I think that actually justifies their switch of gender more. Because that means that gender is 100% a social construct and beyond a certain physical ideal of what that gender ought to look like, holds no ties to any biological reality. And thus, if a person feels like their personality traits matches a different gender, there's actually no biological barrier to making that change and that's all the justification one could need. The opposite, basically Dolan's argument, claims that there are so many biological barriers that it's pretty much impossible to change gender, as the roles and traits attached to gender have deep roots in the biology related to sex.

If you want to deconstruct all gender roles and gender related traits, that's definitely possible, and also something which certain feminists aim to do, even though I think it's more about allowing individuals the freedom to divert from the norm, rather than reducing the norm to something inconsequential or nonexistent. In any case, if that's your approach, then sure, there's no reason why a natural born boy who likes to play with dolls, polish nails, wear skirts and dresses, likes to take care of children, feels attracted to other men, has high empathy traits, has high conflict resolution traits, or whatever other stereotype is attached to the opposite gender etc etc, ought to consider himself, or ought to be considered by others as a girl. Still, in that case, there's the possibility that he just wants to look like a woman, and thus it does become about body modification. At least I'm fairly sure that one of the tenets of feminism is: boss in own body. What a person does with their own body is their business. Not yours. Or anyone else's.

[Dolan]

The opposite, basically Dolan's argument, claims that there are so many biological barriers that it's pretty much impossible to change gender, as the roles and traits attached to gender have deep roots in the biology related to sex.

Considering that "gender" is basically just behaviour that might be shaped by any relevant factors (someone's internal states, pressures coming from peers, social norms), obviously "gender" can be more or less elastic, it can be bended into different forms. So, I don't think I ever said that gender is impossible to change because of fixed biological roots. It's just that someone who decides to switch to "gender roles" that are in contrast with their biological sex does nothing but larp as another sex, with different degrees of credibility.

[deleted_user0]

The opposite, basically Dolan's argument, claims that there are so many biological barriers that it's pretty much impossible to change gender, as the roles and traits attached to gender have deep roots in the biology related to sex.

Considering that "gender" is basically just behaviour that might be shaped by any relevant factors (someone's internal states, pressures coming from peers, social norms), obviously "gender" can be more or less elastic, it can be bended into different forms. So, I don't think I ever said that gender is impossible to change because of fixed biological roots. It's just that someone who decides to switch to "gender roles" that are in contrast with their biological sex does nothing but larp as another sex, with different degrees of credibility.

Pretty much impossible doesn't mean entirely impossible. So i've said pretty much exactly what you've said before and and have just repeated here. But thanks for summing it up.

[Jam]

Maybe *gasp* it's a bit of both. Maybe genetics, culture and environment both contribute to what we call gender. Wouldn't that be crazy.

[Dolan]

Gender is pretty much behaviour and appeareance. So anyone can larp as any gender, if they put some effort into it. Like trannies take classes that teaches them how to walk, how to make gestures, how to make conversation like typical women do.
It's that part of sex-specific behaviour which can be simulated, basically. Especially when it involves lots of cultural norms, like dressing in a certain way or applying make-up.

Except that such simulation can't go beyond the skin-deep. So at some point they decide that just larping as another gender is not enough, so they proceed to butcher their inborn sex organs and get them reshaped to sort of look like those of the opposite sex. Obviously, that doesn't go too deep either, since they don't get a womb or organic testicles. Male-to-female get an open wound, instead of a vagina, that they have to keep dilating with a device every day. It's flesh that wasn't genetically programmed to be in that shape, so it's forced to stay in a certain shape by constant injury with a dilation device. Needless to say, occasionally this artificially created vagina can become infected, it can lead to necrosis, urinary infections, narrowing and other conditions that sometimes make it necessary to perform a secondary surgery to correct the issues. Female-to-male get prosthetic testicles that make their surgically constructed genitals to look like they're male.

So, it's pretty much like if one day you decide you feel like a clown and want to become the clown in every way. So you go to a clinic and ask them to make your nose look naturally puffy, round and red and your hair look all spiralled and wooly. Then you put on a lot of flamboyant make-up, dress in colourful overalls, go outside and start complaining that people don't show you enough respect, that they're clownophobic and hateful.

[gamevideo113]

Oh now i see it @fightinfrenchman
Yeah i think i agree with you on the term "trannies" not being very cool. Not that i find it particularly offensive, but Dolan might as well spend those extra 0.3 seconds and spell transexuals in more formal way.
Besides this, i find myself agreeing with the points he's making.

[Dolan]

"Tranny" is nothing else but shorthand for transsexuals. Jeez, so much feigned offense over terms. It's like "lesby" instead of lesbian.

[tedere12]

didn't read

[deleted_user0]

Gender is pretty much behaviour and appeareance. So anyone can larp as any gender, if they put some effort into it. Like trannies take classes that teaches them how to walk, how to make gestures, how to make conversation like typical women do.
It's that part of sex-specific behaviour which can be simulated, basically. Especially when it involves lots of cultural norms, like dressing in a certain way or applying make-up.

Except that such simulation can't go beyond the skin-deep. So at some point they decide that just larping as another gender is not enough, so they proceed to butcher their inborn sex organs and get them reshaped to sort of look like those of the opposite sex. Obviously, that doesn't go too deep either, since they don't get a womb or organic testicles. Male-to-female get an open wound, instead of a vagina, that they have to keep dilating with a device every day. It's flesh that wasn't genetically programmed to be in that shape, so it's forced to stay in a certain shape by constant injury with a dilation device. Needless to say, occasionally this artificially created vagina can become infected, it can lead to necrosis, urinary infections, narrowing and other conditions that sometimes make it necessary to perform a secondary surgery to correct the issues. Female-to-male get prosthetic testicles that make their surgically constructed genitals to look like they're male.

So, it's pretty much like if one day you decide you feel like a clown and want to become the clown in every way. So you go to a clinic and ask them to make your nose look naturally puffy, round and red and your hair look all spiralled and wooly. Then you go outside and start complaining that people don't show you enough respect, that they're clownophobic and hateful.

Judging by the language you use, you seem pretty hateful. But I'm sure you'll deny that you are. Very Impartiolan! A lot of akromatic fragility. Lots of feigned offense and drama over what people are doing with their body.

So what are you angriest about, the fact that they changed their bodies, or the fact that they're asking that you treat them as human beings? You know you can be opposed to certain things related to transgenderism without trying to debase people for their choices. Well, maybe you can't.

[Dolan]

It's just a question of still having a critical spirit, of still seeing the crazy craziness of such phenomena. If instead of getting a sex reassignment surgery they were eating feces, would this be just as respectable because "hey, there are some cultures out there where eating feces is part of their traditions, so it's all normal, what people decide to do with their bodies is their business"?

It's their business, sure, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't think and perceive that something's amiss about their behaviour.

[deleted_user0]

It's just a question of still having a critical spirit, of still seeing the crazy craziness of such phenomena. If instead of getting a sex reassignment surgery they were eating feces, would this be just as respectable because "hey, there are some cultures out there where eating feces is part of their traditions, so it's all normal, what people decide to do with their bodies is their business"?

It's their business, sure, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't think and perceive that something's amiss about their behaviour.

Nah, that's not being critical. In fact it detracts from your point. You can be critical without mocking or purposefully insulting the people you criticize.

[Dolan]

Athens deserved to be insulted by Socrates, tbh.

[Amsel_]

I'm confused by the word "gender." It's a fairly new word, and I get the impression that it's supposed to mean "the various traits attributed to a sex by a given culture." But then you have "transgenderism" which would imply someone appropriating the gender of the opposite sex, and that just leads to me asking "But if you do this in a culture where transgenderism isn't acceptable (I can't think of any where it is acceptable), you aren't actually 'switching' to the opposite sex's gender; because that gender you are trying to assume is itself a subsection of the culture which is anti-transgender. In that case, if you were truly transgender, wouldn't you be anti-transgender, and against yourself? Isn't that just undermining your own culture then, if you were to continue on this course?"

I guess one might argue that there isn't a link between sex and gender, since the word "gender" comes from linguistics; and a lot of gendered languages have no rhyme or reason behind why some words are gendered the way they are. But if you look at the context of this new "gender" it is an inherent part of someone's identity. And it just seems to absurd to imagine that various cultures would develop their own unique ideas of "gender" which all happen to rotate along the male-female sex axis, but then to assume that these genders do not presuppose belonging to their corresponding sex. I am very hard pressed to see gender as anything but a natural outgrowth of sex. I see gender - from this sociological perspective - as a flower which grows on and depends upon the bush of sex.

[deleted_user0]

Athens deserved to be insulted by Socrates, tbh.

I said, “You know they refused Jesus, too”
He said, “You’re not Him
Get out of here

Please show me the paragraphs where Socrates insults the Athenians with slurs, rather than questioning the wisdom of their leaders.

[Dolan]

Show me the slurs. Calling someone a clown because they impersonate another sex is not a slur, it's just a description of their behaviour.

[deleted_user0]

I'm confused by the word "gender." It's a fairly new word, and I get the impression that it's supposed to mean "the various traits attributed to a sex by a given culture." But then you have "transgenderism" which would imply someone appropriating the gender of the opposite sex, and that just leads to me asking "But if you do this in a culture where transgenderism isn't acceptable (I can't think of any where it is acceptable), you aren't actually 'switching' to the opposite sex's gender; because that gender you are trying to assume is itself a subsection of the culture which is anti-transgender. In that case, if you were truly transgender, wouldn't you be anti-transgender, and against yourself? Isn't that just undermining your own culture then, if you were to continue on this course?"

I guess one might argue that there isn't a link between sex and gender, since the word "gender" comes from linguistics; and a lot of gendered languages have no rhyme or reason behind why some words are gendered the way they are. But if you look at the context of this new "gender" it is an inherent part of someone's identity. And it just seems to absurd to imagine that various cultures would develop their own unique ideas of "gender" which all happen to rotate along the male-female sex axis, but then to assume that these genders do not presuppose belonging to their corresponding sex. I am very hard pressed to see gender as anything but a natural outgrowth of sex. I see gender - from this sociological perspective - as a flower which grows on and depends upon the bush of sex.

There are lots of cultures where it's or was acceptable to be transgender, albeit, it is almost exclusively male to female, and catering to male to male relations. A simple google search would have helped you with that.

The second part makes little sense to me. What exactly do you mean?

[deleted_user0]

Show me the slurs. Calling someone a clown because they impersonate another sex is not a slur, it's just a description of their behaviour.

I've never read that definition of a clown. Please show me which dictionary you are using.

[Dolan]

@Amsel_ Yeah, gender is pretty much the behavioural and cultural upper layer of sex. In most cases, it matches the 2 inborn, biological sexes, and it's no coincidence that that's the case.

[Dolan]

I've never read that definition of a clown. Please show me which dictionary you are using.

clown [ kloun ] - noun:
a comic performer, as in a circus, theatrical production, or the like, who wears an outlandish costume and makeup and entertains by pantomiming common situations or actions in exaggerated or ridiculous fashion, by juggling or tumbling, etc.

Let's adapt it to the context:

a performer of behaviours that are stereotypical of the opposite sex, as in a sex circus, sex appearance production, or the like, who wears outlandish costumes and makeup and creates an appearance of belonging to the opposite sex by affecting mannerisms or actions which are typical of the opposite sex, in exaggerated or ridiculous fashion, by swinging hips, pouting one's lips, etc.

[deleted_user0]

So politicians are also clowns?

Let's adapt for context.

a performer of behaviours that are stereotypical of liars and manipulators, as in a political circus, propaganda, or the like, who wears outlandish costumes and makeup and creates an appearance of being respectable and believavle by affecting mannerisms or actions which are typical of trustworthy individuals, in exaggerated or ridiculous fashion, by raising their voice, using ad hominems, red herrings or other fallacies, etc

.

What about pilots?

a performer of behaviours that are stereotypical of birds, as in a flock of geese, a host of ducks, or the like, who wears outlandish costumes and uses machines to mimic the flight of birdd and creates an illusion of being in control of said machine by affecting mannerisms or actions which are typical of captains of a sailing ship, in exaggerated or ridiculous fashion, by lowering their voice, speaking slowly, and sounding friendly etc

.

Wow, like, I didn't know you could just take a word and adapt it to a totally different meaning and then claim its the same.

Let's try it with another!

Bigot. Let's adapt for context:

A Dolan who does not like other people who have a different gender than their sex or lives a different way of life than Dolan expects of said sex or gender.

Especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (for example transgenders) with insults (because he thinks he's Socrates), mocking, angry forum posts and intolerance

For example: He was known to be a loud-mouthed, opinionated bigot.

Damn, that was easy, didn't really have to change that many words.