Gender Essentialism, Genderqueer theory and Transgender stuff

[Frosty]

I think I wrote something similar regarding overlapping circles in another post, not sure on this thread or not because my post count is ridiculously high, but I pretty much do agree that everything is a cirlce. You have your core individuality that can never be experienced by anyone else, and then you have societal expectations, physical hormonal levels, thought processes, imposing themselves on the core causing fluctioations of what is already there, and bringing up things that might never have been there. Like a coloring book, your individual picture might always be the same, but give people different sets of crayons, and you will never get an exact replica. That is sort of far from the point I am trying to make, but it will do for now.

I sort of wrote something similar to the battlefield analogy a few pages above. Expectations, both internal ones and external ones, if conflicting produce a feeling of insecurity. As more and more insecurity is piled upon itself, in order to regain that connectivity between body and mind, bridges must be built and original foundations need to be scrapped. I just think that pretty much the entire human experience is filled with contradictions, slight unsettlements, and self doubt. Gender identity is a huge one, giant, and I don't entirely remember what I said about it before, but it did and probably still does encompass my feelings about it. Too lazy to look back, and reference, or write again.

 

[Coriolis]

It just felt wrong. The reason I did (and sometimes still do for short periods) is because I thought it would be more appealing/attractive to the types of guys I am attracted to. All it resulted in is me feeling very restrained and locked up, and like I was starving/yearning to more properly express myself. It did draw in different types of people, but I found myself to be incompatible with them.

Another illustration of why being yourself pays off in the end, at least socially.

Meanwhile, it's interesting to try to tease apart being gay, being INFP, and the contribution of other character traits. It's interesting to have the subjective experience of being gay, but feeling fine with my gender. Sometimes I've felt irritated by societal expectations (Be more dominant! Don't express emotions! Care about sports!)... but I've never felt like I should be a woman.

This is the opposite of what women have traditionally been told: be warm, sensitive, accommodating; don't be pushy/bossy; care about how you look. This has irritated me, too, but I felt I shouldn't have to be a man to be free of such expectations.

This might sound rude, but do you think it is fully possible to really find a way to completely understand your feelings towards your own gender?

Even if you were born CIS and straight, I would think that you would have to take in information and judge that against what you believe about yourself. As was said, and of which I agree, everyone is composed of different traits/feelings, which make up not only their gender, but everything about them. I suppose that you can assign a gender to someone, or TRY to understand someone elses conflicts, I don't think that you can really live them.

Do you think gender is made up of our traits and feelings? How do you define gender? Where do you draw the line between masculine and feminine? How closely aligned with physiological sex attributes is this? How do you account for cultural differences in what is considered masculine vs. feminine?

I know this was in arguments before, but isn't everything composed of everything? You cannot completely recreate an experience, but there are so many different experiences that sometimes they can overlap or take the place of another, although none can be exact. That being said, the gender community has a long long way to go to immediately come even close to being accepting of all individuals.

The highlighted has been my experience as well, but apparently some people find distinctions in our experiences more absolute. On the other hand, one can accept without understanding.

LAcceptance of differences, all ideally but gender specifically, would probably need to come before distillation of roles all together. People are attached to labels, they provide an easy way to quickly sum something up without having to really know much, so I would think that people would be hardset to let them go unfortunately.

Yes, I suppose allowing people to choose their own labels freely and without judgment is a likely if not necessary middle ground between what we have now and elimination of gender bias. It would be a step forward at least.

 

[Frosty]

Do you think gender is made up of our traits and feelings? How do you define gender? Where do you draw the line between masculine and feminine? How closely aligned with physiological sex attributes is this? How do you account for cultural differences in what is considered masculine vs. feminine?

I really do not know how exactly I would define gender. Maybe just generally as an overall roadmap of who we are, destinations interconnecting, new roads connecting, old roads torn down, but the same place. Absloute but not absolute. I don't know it is hard to define, but thoughts and feelings, personal experience, biology, (maybe even what happens in in the womb), could all be contributing factors, but not the whole. Seems as if there is some sort of subconcious pulling one way, try to conform to expectations or be something that you are not, and you will be tugged back into yourself. It seems as if it could be something you just know, with added distinct personal experience tweaking it here and there. Not sure.

I think there are dozens upon millions of lines. Do you like barbies or do you like trucks? Do you like pink or do you like blue? Simple ones building into a larger picture. Do you feel fundementally different from what you expect you should feel? Do you feel uncomfortable in your own body? Larger ones that need to be broken down to analyze what they really mean.

Oh, I know very little about physiology or biology so bear with me but I will give it a try. I suppose that different levels of different hormones could tilt you one way or another. I would not say that gender is all psychological, but I would say that the effects of gender misidentification sort of are. While biology makes up the body and all things tangible, there is no accounting for human conciousness, at least that I know of. Sure estrogen generally helps with the development of female parts, and testosterone with male, but even with those being within normal measures that SHOULD make someone identify with what they were born with, something overrides it.

Cultural differences... That is a good question. The fear of being different from the pack seems to be a great motivator for all beings. Fish swim together generally? Deer flock together. Humans live together. No one really questions the absolute depth of what they are doing. It just is the way it is and every pack of the same animal develops their own particular traits/behaviors while staying the same at the core. Although expectations might be different, and things could be flopped around, hmm... would people recognize biologically without any other outside motivators, that there is something wrong? That didn't really answer that last question, but I guess maybe-maybe-maybe, there could possibly be differences in ratios between cultures, things could be flipped. But expectations are expectations, and there are so many overlapping at the core that I really am not sure. I could run around this question without truly answering it forever. Your thoughts?

 

[á´…eparted]

I still struggle with aspects of this, as well, even at my age (47). I still find myself trying to act more masculine and repress the less masculine aspects of myself. I grew up in a medium-sized conservative Texas town, so blending in was definitely a survival trait. At least I've learned to appreciate the guys who just are who they are, and leave it to those around them to cope or not. In a way, those that are less gender conforming tend to open up a wider space for the rest of us.

While being gay is tough, it's panful to imagine having most of the same issues plus needing additional resources to transition. Then having to deal with the reactions from others when one did so.

Meanwhile, it's interesting to try to tease apart being gay, being INFP, and the contribution of other character traits. It's interesting to have the subjective experience of being gay, but feeling fine with my gender. Sometimes I've felt irritated by societal expectations (Be more dominant! Don't express emotions! Care about sports!)... but I've never felt like I should be a woman.

Being gay also gives one an odd outsider perspective to various aspects of the gender wars, even as at times it seems like certain aspects of gay/lesbian stereotypes come from having one gender predominate without the counterbalancing influence of the other.

This is a slight but of a derail, but it's worth saying anyway.

Our reasons for doing this are fairly different I assume (Fe/Fi difference). The reason I did this was because, yes I thought it was more attractive. But another very strong motivator is I really do not like being something I dislike in others. I can not control it, but I am actively turned off by overly effeminate men. Same with overly feminine women as well (though it's a different kind of turn off of course). I know I'm gonna get some flack for it, but I can not change how I react. The idea of me being like that as well is wholely unappealing at every level and I feel absolutely horrible if I become what I hate, or realize I am what I hate.

I honestly never gave being gay a second though. It was more like "oh, well that's a thing I guess. Ok." and once I confirmed I was I outed myself and went on with it. I didn't care if it would have consequences. I had enough implicit confidence with myself in respect to it that if there was a problem I could deal with it. I never really feel pressure from society to be one way or another, and I never resent it either. I conform to it on a smaller level based on what my peers are like around me (including people who aren't in my social circle). I just sort of... do my thing?

I did however realize that "weak" qualities were really undesireable to most when I was in high school, and those who did value them, I really didn't value back, so I trained and worked on myself to bring myself near the type of person I thought I should be. I couldn't take on all of it, but I took on most of what I could. There is a particular feeling associated with moving too far out of who I can and can not be, and I back off when I do that.

Honestly I pay little mind to gender issues and just treat everyone case-by-case. Largely because when it comes to how I express my gender, I just do what I want myself to be and that's good enough. If others don't like it, I either write them off or shift myself to accomoidate.

Another illustration of why being yourself pays off in the end, at least socially.

More or less yeah. I wouldn't call it paying off, so much as being healthy. You have to expend a lot of energy to do it. I'm always shifting myself one way or another around others, but it's at minor levels.

 

[Coriolis]

I really do not know how exactly I would define gender. Maybe just generally as an overall roadmap of who we are, destinations interconnecting, new roads connecting, old roads torn down, but the same place. Absloute but not absolute. I don't know it is hard to define, but thoughts and feelings, personal experience, biology, (maybe even what happens in in the womb), could all be contributing factors, but not the whole. Seems as if there is some sort of subconcious pulling one way, try to conform to expectations or be something that you are not, and you will be tugged back into yourself. It seems as if it could be something you just know, with added distinct personal experience tweaking it here and there. Not sure.

I think there are dozens upon millions of lines. Do you like barbies or do you like trucks? Do you like pink or do you like blue? Simple ones building into a larger picture. Do you feel fundementally different from what you expect you should feel? Do you feel uncomfortable in your own body? Larger ones that need to be broken down to analyze what they really mean.

Oh, I know very little about physiology or biology so bear with me but I will give it a try. I suppose that different levels of different hormones could tilt you one way or another. I would not say that gender is all psychological, but I would say that the effects of gender misidentification sort of are. While biology makes up the body and all things tangible, there is no accounting for human conciousness, at least that I know of. Sure estrogen generally helps with the development of female parts, and testosterone with male, but even with those being within normal measures that SHOULD make someone identify with what they were born with, something overrides it.

Cultural differences... That is a good question. The fear of being different from the pack seems to be a great motivator for all beings. Fish swim together generally? Deer flock together. Humans live together. No one really questions the absolute depth of what they are doing. It just is the way it is and every pack of the same animal develops their own particular traits/behaviors while staying the same at the core. Although expectations might be different, and things could be flopped around, hmm... would people recognize biologically without any other outside motivators, that there is something wrong? That didn't really answer that last question, but I guess maybe-maybe-maybe, there could possibly be differences in ratios between cultures, things could be flipped. But expectations are expectations, and there are so many overlapping at the core that I really am not sure. I could run around this question without truly answering it forever. Your thoughts?

I have very definite views on gender, but it is difficult to express them coherently and concisely. To start, I do not see gender in anything physiological. This includes our chomosomes (XX vs XY), reproductive organs, secondary sexual characteristics, hormones, and whatever differences occur in how our brains are wired. I see these distinctions as making up our biological sex, understanding that while most people get an internally consistent set, either male or female, some people do not. They might feel they fit better under the opposite sex from what they are assigned at birth, or may feel more comfortable outside the sexual binary altogether, not forced to fit into either.

Then there are traditions, gender roles, and all the expectations that people and societies associate with the two biological sexes, from domestic divisions of labor, to career and education options, to clothing and appearance, to personal manner and interaction style. While our physiological aspects are hard-wired by birth, nothing about these roles and traditions prevents their complete reversal, other than human inertia.

This leaves a middle ground of personal mannerisms and preferences, things like preferring dolls over trucks, pink over blue, nursing over engineering, talk of relationships over talk of tools. I have yet to see convincing evidence that any of this is hard-wired, or determined by biological sex, so I include this in the category of external expectations. People prefer what they are raised to prefer, and what they see others who look like them preferring. But remember: looks can be superficial, and misleading as to the real human being inside.

Based on this, I can only define gender as something inherently external to our persons. It is a bifurcation of human traits and actions loosely correlated with biological sex in a somewhat arbitrary and often constraining way, in an attempt to impose order on the world. It colors our existence from before our birth in ways both obvious and almost too subtle to detect. In this sense, it is similar to culture. Some people identify quite strongly with their culture, while others grow up feeling confined by it and reject it. Some have fun playing with the superficial aspects of it, and still others are largely indifferent to it. Gender seems to work the same way.

There is nothing wrong with any of these approaches to gender as long as it is freely chosen/accepted by the individual, and never used as a basis for harrassment, exclusion, unfairness, baseless assumption, or prejudice.

Fortunately there are some people who do not fear being different from the pack, and who do question the absolute depth of what they (and everyone else) are doing. Such people feel themselves only when they accept and give in to this tendency. To do otherwise is self-betrayal.

 

[Frosty]

It's times like these where I really wish I had access to something more flexible than my phone. Anyways, that above is pretty reflective of many of my own thoughts and hard for me to add to, but to hell if I won't try.

If gender is totally the result of external influence, what determined it in the first place? Was it the result of different groups valuing gender in different ways that eventually merged together into larger distinct cultures? Was the way women were valued as compared to men, based pretty much out of 'logic'? Women need time to gestate and that would take away from the time they could use to hunt, they are physically weaker anyways so why not just have them stay at home and continue to reproduce. To give the human race, and the individual family, the best chance to thrive and carry on the bloodlines, women were needed in the early days to stay and protect and develop the young from the inside, while the men protected and developed from the outside. (Badly worded)
Eventually individual manifestations, growing into group manifestations, growing into cultural manifestations, solidifying themselves into firm judgements as to what exactly a mans role is as opposed to a womans, and leading to defensive rejection of differentiation as it fights pretty much everything ingrained and everything that ever was.

Moving away from evolutionary theories somewhat, (as I could go on way too long with them and become less and less coherent), now that we are away from the day to day desperate fight for survival, I think that it just comes down to a fight between human 'individualization' and human... stagnated biology. Mans nature vs natures man. I would maybe even say that life is pretty much a fight to accept rejecting ALL order.

And no for sure, I believe that nothing should ever be harassed, unaccepted, ect, unless it causes absolute harm to something else. Although the value of individual liberty vs. society is something else. Anyways, nothing should be condemned just for being different, but it seems some of that is rooted possibly out of a cruel fear of the unknown. Hmm, this didn't exactly come out as I would have liked.

 

[Entropic]

It's times like these where I really wish I had access to something more flexible than my phone. Anyways, that above is pretty reflective of many of my own thoughts and hard for me to add to, but to hell if I won't try.

If gender is totally the result of external influence, what determined it in the first place? Was it the result of different groups valuing gender in different ways that eventually merged together into larger distinct cultures? Was the way women were valued as compared to men, based pretty much out of 'logic'? Women need time to gestate and that would take away from the time they could use to hunt, they are physically weaker anyways so why not just have them stay at home and continue to reproduce. To give the human race, and the individual family, the best chance to thrive and carry on the bloodlines, women were needed in the early days to stay and protect and develop the young from the inside, while the men protected and developed from the outside. (Badly worded)
Eventually individual manifestations, growing into group manifestations, growing into cultural manifestations, solidifying themselves into firm judgements as to what exactly a mans role is as opposed to a womans, and leading to defensive rejection of differentiation as it fights pretty much everything ingrained and everything that ever was.

Moving away from evolutionary theories somewhat, (as I could go on way too long with them and become less and less coherent), now that we are away from the day to day desperate fight for survival, I think that it just comes down to a fight between human 'individualization' and human... stagnated biology. Mans nature vs natures man. I would maybe even say that life is pretty much a fight to accept rejecting ALL order.

And no for sure, I believe that nothing should ever be harassed, unaccepted, ect, unless it causes absolute harm to something else. Although the value of individual liberty vs. society is something else. Anyways, nothing should be condemned just for being different, but it seems some of that is rooted possibly out of a cruel fear of the unknown. Hmm, this didn't exactly come out as I would have liked.

The problem is that attempts to explain gender roles, which both you and Coriolis are talking about here, which is separate and distinct from identity, are not necessarily rooted in evolutionary development of men being physically stronger than women. There are plenty of examples of societies where women are the hunters and men are the caretakers, so this line of thought is simply not accurate but seems to rather reflect existing bias of the thinker inherently assuming that the cultural ideas of masculine-feminine in the West e.g. men are strong so therefore the breadwinners of the household, should be true across both time and space. Again, however, this isn't always the case. To draw a comparison to a different species, it is the female lion that does all the hunting including raising the cubs, even though the male is actually more physically astute and should therefore by this logic, be the one to perform all the hunting. Sometimes there is no real logical reason as to why some things are the way they are, and I think a big error in human cognition is the desire to seek logical connections or make logical attributions when there are actually none.

I also want to add that I find it problematic that both you and Coriolis approach the subject of gender as a blanket statement when you are in all scenarios dealing with gender roles or the outwards manifestation of gender in society e.g. what behaviors and other sets of traits associated with say, a certain gender role instead of realizing that gender roles/performance is a subset of the larger cluster of gender as a concept, of which identity is a part.

 

[Frosty]

Call me confused, but what you are basically saying is that there is absolutely no way to really try and understand anyone elses perspective on gender identity at all? I do agree that I will probably never be able to come close to actually knowing the depths of what someone is feeling, as I am not able to be psychologically present with them during their experience, but I am unsure whether disregarding attempts to understand is more or less acceptable than just trying to draw any sort of comparisons.

I do think that yes, there might be some sort of gaping wound in someone practically begging for some sort of ackowlegdement, but I think that society has bullets as well as the inner mind. Yes, I would suspect that even without any sort of external stimuli, there might be a sort of feeling of inherent turmoil, but I do not know for sure whether or not if put in a void there would be any sort of dissatisfaction/disconnect between experience and biological functionality. Sure, I would bet that there are studies of paired beings who end up identifying differently, but yes even then I would think that there would he factors that would differ and would muddle things.

I would never want to detract from what ANYONE experiences emotionally, physically, psychologically, spiritually, culturally, anything, as I do think that everyone deserves to do ehatever they want to their body as long as it does not negatively affect anyone else. Judgement, castigation of what is misunderstood, value reconfiguration, and moral shaming all seem to be a bit hard handed to me, and generally those who do resort to these tactics seem to be doing so because they cannot let something go of themselves. It is not a matter to me of judgment, and I think attemps at understanding, no matter how incomplete or out in the blue off target, are conductive to moving forward, and trying to grasp the slippery.

 

[Coriolis]

If gender is totally the result of external influence, what determined it in the first place? Was it the result of different groups valuing gender in different ways that eventually merged together into larger distinct cultures? Was the way women were valued as compared to men, based pretty much out of 'logic'? Women need time to gestate and that would take away from the time they could use to hunt, they are physically weaker anyways so why not just have them stay at home and continue to reproduce. To give the human race, and the individual family, the best chance to thrive and carry on the bloodlines, women were needed in the early days to stay and protect and develop the young from the inside, while the men protected and developed from the outside. (Badly worded)

Eventually individual manifestations, growing into group manifestations, growing into cultural manifestations, solidifying themselves into firm judgements as to what exactly a mans role is as opposed to a womans, and leading to defensive rejection of differentiation as it fights pretty much everything ingrained and everything that ever was.

We can't know unequivocally what is responsible for the various gender expectations in play across the world. (Here again I am taking gender as an external, social construct.) I think it is safe to say it originated in biology, specifically the different functions of male and female in reproduction before the modern era. These were eventually generalized far beyond what was really necessary for reproduction, for instance applying to childless women gender expectations that might have made sense for women caring for young children at home; and turning it all into an uneven power distribution.

Moving away from evolutionary theories somewhat, (as I could go on way too long with them and become less and less coherent), now that we are away from the day to day desperate fight for survival, I think that it just comes down to a fight between human 'individualization' and human... stagnated biology. Mans nature vs natures man. I would maybe even say that life is pretty much a fight to accept rejecting ALL order.

It all comes down to what makes sense in the circumstances, as it always should have. If there was a society that really did need mothers to stay home with children and do home-based tasks while men went off to hunt or fight, then that's what the majority should have done. Individuals should have been encouraged to respond to the need of the community. That shouldn't have been that hard to achieve, given how easily humans are still raised to respond to the same long-nonexistent needs. Whatever legitimate need for broad gender expectations might have existed in earlier times, there is no justification for them now. Reality will drive all legitimate expectations.

The problem is that attempts to explain gender roles, which both you and Coriolis are talking about here, which is separate and distinct from identity, are not necessarily rooted in evolutionary development of men being physically stronger than women.

I agree, and have observed as much on several threads hereabouts. Gender roles, or more broadly, gender expectations are separate but related to gender identity. Gender identity is sometimes tied up in gender expectations, whether to embrace them, reject them, or even toy with them, much as we do with culture, as I mentioned above.

I also want to add that I find it problematic that both you and Coriolis approach the subject of gender as a blanket statement when you are in all scenarios dealing with gender roles or the outwards manifestation of gender in society e.g. what behaviors and other sets of traits associated with say, a certain gender role instead of realizing that gender roles/performance is a subset of the larger cluster of gender as a concept, of which identity is a part.

We are discussing what we can observe, understanding that it is only one part of the puzzle. What does gender identity consist in as an internal, personal matter, separate from any external roles or expectations? How if at all does it relate to physiology?

I would never want to detract from what ANYONE experiences emotionally, physically, psychologically, spiritually, culturally, anything, as I do think that everyone deserves to do ehatever they want to their body as long as it does not negatively affect anyone else. Judgement, castigation of what is misunderstood, value reconfiguration, and moral shaming all seem to be a bit hard handed to me, and generally those who do resort to these tactics seem to be doing so because they cannot let something go of themselves. It is not a matter to me of judgment, and I think attemps at understanding, no matter how incomplete or out in the blue off target, are conductive to moving forward, and trying to grasp the slippery.

Absolutely this. Everyone has the right to do what they want with their body, to express themselves as they see fit, and generally to live the life they want as much as possible. I do not have to understand them at all. I just need to show them the same respect and consideration as anyone else, and hopefully speak up for them or help them out if they need it. No one owes me any explanations. When someone does take the trouble to try to help me understand, I am therefore very appreciative.

 

[Entropic]

I agree, and have observed as much on several threads hereabouts. Gender roles, or more broadly, gender expectations are separate but related to gender identity. Gender identity is sometimes tied up in gender expectations, whether to embrace them, reject them, or even toy with them, much as we do with culture, as I mentioned above.

Identity is related insofar that one can identify with a role and choose to let it become a part of one's identity, but one can choose to identify with a role because one already identifies with an idea of what the role represents i.e. I feel like a man, so I choose to identify with roles or other physical representations that seem to best represent my sense of masculinity.

We are discussing what we can observe, understanding that it is only one part of the puzzle. What does gender identity consist in as an internal, personal matter, separate from any external roles or expectations? How if at all does it relate to physiology?

That entirely depends on how you define identity. In this case here, identity refers to a wide spectrum, including an intrinsic sense of who one is as separate from other objects. Identity would include all the clusters that make us feel that we are who we are. We can to a degree construct our identity, but on what basis do we then choose to identify with certain aspects over others? I think it would be fallacious to assume this would entirely be derived based on what is deemed appropriate or consensus since people are clearly able to go against the status quo or feel that their experiences do not fit the status quo; so insofar identity is something somewhat malleable, there also seems to decidedly be a static portion of identity that remains the same and stable throughout our lives. Exactly what identity is beyond this is probably a philosophical question.

Call me confused, but what you are basically saying is that there is absolutely no way to really try and understand anyone elses perspective on gender identity at all? I do agree that I will probably never be able to come close to actually knowing the depths of what someone is feeling, as I am not able to be psychologically present with them during their experience, but I am unsure whether disregarding attempts to understand is more or less acceptable than just trying to draw any sort of comparisons.

I do think that yes, there might be some sort of gaping wound in someone practically begging for some sort of ackowlegdement, but I think that society has bullets as well as the inner mind. Yes, I would suspect that even without any sort of external stimuli, there might be a sort of feeling of inherent turmoil, but I do not know for sure whether or not if put in a void there would be any sort of dissatisfaction/disconnect between experience and biological functionality. Sure, I would bet that there are studies of paired beings who end up identifying differently, but yes even then I would think that there would he factors that would differ and would muddle things.

I would never want to detract from what ANYONE experiences emotionally, physically, psychologically, spiritually, culturally, anything, as I do think that everyone deserves to do ehatever they want to their body as long as it does not negatively affect anyone else. Judgement, castigation of what is misunderstood, value reconfiguration, and moral shaming all seem to be a bit hard handed to me, and generally those who do resort to these tactics seem to be doing so because they cannot let something go of themselves. It is not a matter to me of judgment, and I think attemps at understanding, no matter how incomplete or out in the blue off target, are conductive to moving forward, and trying to grasp the slippery.

Actually, I never implied such a thing. It remains evidently clear though, that throughout time and space, people do manifest and experience themselves through ways not accepted or a part of the hegemony. If we entirely construct our sense of self and our gender identities, it stands to reason that no one would ever experience gender dysphoria and that people such as the already cited example of David Reimer would not experience dysphoria when raised as a girl/woman either. The fact that they do suggests that there is a part of our gender identity that goes beyond the constructed and social layer that Butler speaks of.

Similarly, why would someone, when given a choice, choose to experience their gender identity or identify with something contrary or transgressive when compared to the hegemony? It makes no sense given that being a part of the hegemony is what provides the most power and thus also, privileges, in society. Why would anyone freely give up these privileges? Again see the comment I made about the feminist movement and how parts of it sees the existence of transwomen as a form of mocking mimicry. There is absolutely no reason any sane person would choose that, which is why gender dysphoria is currently classified as a mental disorder anyway, lol, though a lot of recent science suggests that at least transsexualism, has biological causes.

 

[Holy]

I don't think I can say more than what's already been said, but I'm glad that this thread is here.
@Entropic, you saved me a lot of time.

 

[Coriolis]

I ran across the following NY Times article recently, discussing the meaning of gender against the backdrop of Caitlyn Jenner's very public transition. An excerpt:

Do women and men have different brains?

Back when Lawrence H. Summers was president of Harvard and suggested that they did, the reaction was swift and merciless. Pundits branded him sexist. Faculty members deemed him a troglodyte. Alumni withheld donations.

But when Bruce Jenner said much the same thing in an April interview with Diane Sawyer, he was lionized for his bravery, even for his progressivism.

“My brain is much more female than it is male,” he told her, explaining how he knew that he was transgender.

This was the prelude to a new photo spread and interview in Vanity Fair that offered us a glimpse into Caitlyn Jenner’s idea of a woman: a cleavage-boosting corset, sultry poses, thick mascara and the prospect of regular “girls’ nights” of banter about hair and makeup. Ms. Jenner was greeted with even more thunderous applause. ESPN announced it would give Ms. Jenner an award for courage. President Obama also praised her. Not to be outdone, Chelsea Manning hopped on Ms. Jenner’s gender train on Twitter, gushing, “I am so much more aware of my emotions; much more sensitive emotionally (and physically).”

A part of me winced. I have fought for many of my 68 years against efforts to put women — our brains, our hearts, our bodies, even our moods — into tidy boxes, to reduce us to hoary stereotypes. Suddenly, I find that many of the people I think of as being on my side — people who proudly call themselves progressive and fervently support the human need for self-determination — are buying into the notion that minor differences in male and female brains lead to major forks in the road and that some sort of gendered destiny is encoded in us.

That’s the kind of nonsense that was used to repress women for centuries. But the desire to support people like Ms. Jenner and their journey toward their truest selves has strangely and unwittingly brought it back.

Thoughts?

 

[Magic Poriferan]

I ran across the following NY Times article recently, discussing the meaning of gender against the backdrop of Caitlyn Jenner's very public transition. An excerpt:



Thoughts?

I agree with that excerpt. Summers was wrong, and Jenner is just as wrong, and we shouldn't see it different because of their different life background. But it is really simple to illustrate how this works by pointing out that even if a cisgender woman said the things Jenner said, I'd call it harmful bullshit, and nothing about her existence as a woman makes it any truer. It's a category that includes approximately half of the human race. There is not much about oneself that can be accurately extended onto every other member of the group.

It seems that attempts to express this view have gotten me into some conflicts before, so I'm afraid I also know what the author is talking about when she says there's a compulsion to bite our tongue on this subject when it comes to trans people, out of fear that will be an expression of anti-trans opinions (as she says in the article). I also think she makes an interesting point about how there is more constraint on what it means to be a man these days than a woman, and that it may have something to do with the substantially larger number of male to female trans than female to male trans.

The only thing in the article I really didn't like is that I still get too much of a possessive vibe about gender from the author. Yes, I understand that she's had experience that Caitlyn Jenner has not, but it sounds like she is claiming to be more entitled to speak for or about women, which ends up running smack into my criticism above. Nobody is really entitled to do that. The problem is that the acceptance of these categories and identification with them will perhaps inevitably lead to arguments about legitimacy, claims to representation, and by definition, terms on which to confine people to boxes.

It's a subject I've thought about a great deal. I know someone who posts enormous amounts of LGBT support stuff on her Facebook wall, and I see a lot of it, and find I have these subtle but profound disagreements with them.
She posted something that said "everyone's gender is valid" and I thought "nobody's gender is valid".
She posted something that said "two gender aren't enough" and I thought "one gender is too many".

 

[Crabs]

I also think she makes an interesting point about how there is more constraint on what it means to be a man these days than a woman, and that it may have something to do with the substantially larger number of male to female trans than female to male trans.

That's interesting. I don't understand the trans-phenomenon. Are there just more 'female brains' being born into male bodies than vice versa? Or is it a cultural thing where women have a lot more acceptable expressions of their humanity/personality, which causes more males than females to reject their biological sex due to rigid gender roles? I'm genuinely curious because it seems to me like it's more of a cultural issue than a biological one.

 

[Coriolis]

That's interesting. I don't understand the trans-phenomenon. Are there just more 'female brains' being born into male bodies than vice versa? Or is it a cultural thing where women have a lot more acceptable expressions of their humanity/personality, which causes more males than females to reject their biological sex due to rigid gender roles? I'm genuinely curious because it seems to me like it's more of a cultural issue than a biological one.

I agree, and with [MENTION=1449]Magic Poriferan[/MENTION] also. I was wondering the same thing myself - why more women are born into the wrong bodies than male. I think everyone should be free to express themselves however they want, as long as it doesn't encroach on the right of others to do the same. Gender seems the least meaningful of human distinctions. If it had real meaning, so many customs and social strictures would not have been necessary to keep people confined to the boxes of the traditional gender binary all these years.

 

[Totenkindly]

I think everyone should be free to express themselves however they want, as long as it doesn't encroach on the right of others to do the same. Gender seems the least meaningful of human distinctions. If it had real meaning, so many customs and social strictures would not have been necessary to keep people confined to the boxes of the traditional gender binary all these years.

In general, none of this should even be an issue, honestly. Whether you are born physically male, female, or somewhere in-between should have the least amount of bearing on what you do with your life and who you are as a person; but for some reason it's an item that people fixate upon and is even used to judge who you are as a person.

I agree with that excerpt. Summers was wrong, and Jenner is just as wrong, and we shouldn't see it different because of their different life background. But it is really simple to illustrate how this works by pointing out that even if a cisgender woman said the things Jenner said, I'd call it harmful bullshit, and nothing about her existence as a woman makes it any truer. It's a category that includes approximately half of the human race. There is not much about oneself that can be accurately extended onto every other member of the group.

It seems that attempts to express this view have gotten me into some conflicts before, so I'm afraid I also know what the author is talking about when she says there's a compulsion to bite our tongue on this subject when it comes to trans people, out of fear that will be an expression of anti-trans opinions (as she says in the article). I also think she makes an interesting point about how there is more constraint on what it means to be a man these days than a woman, and that it may have something to do with the substantially larger number of male to female trans than female to male trans.

The only thing in the article I really didn't like is that I still get too much of a possessive vibe about gender from the author. Yes, I understand that she's had experience that Caitlyn Jenner has not, but it sounds like she is claiming to be more entitled to speak for or about women, which ends up running smack into my criticism above. Nobody is really entitled to do that. The problem is that the acceptance of these categories and identification with them will perhaps inevitably lead to arguments about legitimacy, claims to representation, and by definition, terms on which to confine people to boxes.

It's a subject I've thought about a great deal. I know someone who posts enormous amounts of LGBT support stuff on her Facebook wall, and I see a lot of it, and find I have these subtle but profound disagreements with them.
She posted something that said "everyone's gender is valid" and I thought "nobody's gender is valid".
She posted something that said "two gender aren't enough" and I thought "one gender is too many".

Well, looking at this from a variety of angles:

The professor's model was viewed through a sociopolitical paradigm, Jenner is viewed through a therapeutic one. It's one thing to say, "Men are biologically better than women at <this> and vice versa," because that information comes off as restrictive and an attempt to limit opportunities for one gender or another. While I was surprised at the heat he got (since data is data), the reality is that the information is used most naturally to limit and resembled information previously used to discriminate against others on the basis of race, etc. Jenner's comments could be generalized to impact everyone, but essentially what is being said is, "I've been fighting this for decades, it doesn't change, evidence at least suggests it is innate, and I need to make this change in order to OPEN my opportunities and become a more EFFECTIVE and happier person." In general, this is the pitch of all the trans stuff -- it's not about limiting opportunities for a particular gender, it's about an individual being able to function in society and have a higher quality of life. Most people are generally amenable to another individual experiencing happiness, if it doesn't affect them personally.

(So I'll add that's another of the angles here: Broad gender vs single individual -- when you say "Men are worse at <this>" you automatically are generalizing since not all men are likely worse than all women at <this> and you are including half the population. A trans person coming out COULD have broader implications if you want to extrapolate, but typically it's about, "This is me, and here's what I need to do for myself, please accept me." It's the same thing that, when I see you seem to be agendered or indifferent to gender by what you've posted above, although i don't at all understand it and don't have the same perception, I'm inclined to say, "okay, whatever MP needs to be happy and feel at one with himself, sure; I can make space for that in my world.")

As far as brain stuff goes, we're able to distinguish preexisting brain structures that resemble the opposite gender in the brains of people who identify as trans. Do we know exactly how that works? Do we understand in general how the brain truly works on the miniscule level in any area? Not really. We just know what we target certain areas, certain experiences are impacted.

We also have tested the impact of hormonal washes at various stages of gestation in other species like rats (which have some use simulating humans on certain things), and we know we can change gender role behaviors by hitting the rat with androgens or by removing androgens; physically male rats will behave as females in sex, and vice versa. Rats aren't aware enough to explore trans experience; are they just gay or trans? We'll never know. But obviously there is a mechanism there that can radically shift sexual expression and gendered behaviors like mothering in other species. It doesn't seem odd that the same incidents could create much more complex responses in human beings who have the additional aspect of self-awareness / self-identity that leads us to ask who we are and have a sense of "who we are."


---

Jenner might be trans but isn't necessarily a good articulator of experience or feelings. So people can rightfully be offended by nonsensical/rationally vague things that come out her mouth, but that's not necessarily the case being made nor speaks for all trans people. I know transpeople who are great communicators and very intelligent, and I know others who are lousy communicators and have different strengths.

Jenner has never seemed very emotionally aware and in fact seems to have suppressed this without dealing with it for decades, to the tune of three marriages. Of course if she opens her mouth now, she's going to be regurgitating much of the most general speak she's heard that has had an impact, much as people who hear inspirational quotes will post them on their FaceBook feed because they are meaningful to them and "gelled" a bunch of ambiguous feelings they might have had about life. The only reason Jenner is a spokesperson is because American loves money and celebrity; those are her only qualifications. I'm surprised she's done as well as she has and been received as well as she has been, but honestly, the experience of the average (and maybe not just average, but 90% of transpeople or more) does not include a lot of public acclaim, photo shoots, unlimited spending accounts, countless plastic surgeries to look better whenever you feel like it, media fawning over you and offering you TV specials, etc. I've definitely seen worse celebrities tossed into the limelight (who have made even more of a mess articulating trans thought and experience), but Jenner's not really representative of the best arguments or thinking behind things. It's understandable she would be targetted -- she is the BIGGEST cultural target right now and people want to knock her down / find fault with her -- but again, not really representative.

 

[Totenkindly]

That's interesting. I don't understand the trans-phenomenon. Are there just more 'female brains' being born into male bodies than vice versa? Or is it a cultural thing where women have a lot more acceptable expressions of their humanity/personality, which causes more males than females to reject their biological sex due to rigid gender roles? I'm genuinely curious because it seems to me like it's more of a cultural issue than a biological one.

In terms of brain differentiations (in the areas that actually differ measurably between genders), F2Ms align with male structures and M2Fs are halfway between male and female standards.

I'm curious if a culture becomes more open to flexibility between gender boxes how that will impact people who identify as transsexual. (And now I have to mention again that "trans" is a big broad term that essentially includes all displays of non-binary gender behavior, of which transsexuality is just one that has gotten a lot of exposure recently.)

Also, in the past, before trans became a "thing," the journey of self-discovery was long and full of peril. At first you think you're weird. Then you think you're bad. Then you think you can fix it if you just try hard enough to be like everyone else. Then, maybe you identify as something... and since gay was more common, that was a box people tried out. Or drag / CD'ing. Then, maybe, after some time of trying that, if it didn't satisfy you, you might have moved on to something else, such as deciding you really would feel a lot more "you" being gender-reassigned. Some people made that journey fast (if they were the type who could read themselves well and didn't care about anyone else's expectations / had strong drive). Others took a much longer time.

It seems like more and more transguys have come out as "transman" has become a known box. In the past, I think the culture accommodated F2M's in the female box much better than M2F's in the male box; the box was far bigger. it was socially acceptable to be a tomboy growing up (but not a sissy -- see the differences in terminology?) And then you saw a lot of butch lesbians. It's pretty common to hear a transguy talk about moving into masculine behaviors, maybe being a butch, then realizing he really was a guy and feeling happy once he made that step. M2Fs were kind of hosed; you either had to be a man or you somehow had to leap way over and go into a gay or female box, but you were definitely not allowed to be a feminized man.

But with genderqueer and a bunch of other categories appearing nowadays, and with transsexual being not just much better known but also reachable (whereas in the past it really wasn't, easily) while keeping much of your life, you will see quicker self-identification and more flexibility in how and when you get there. Of course, you will also see many more "explorers" who might not have pursued some kind of genderqueer/trans persentation in the past due to the stigma but who nowadays feel freer to explore since the repercussions have lessened.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

Well, looking at this from a variety of angles:

The professor's model was viewed through a sociopolitical paradigm, Jenner is viewed through a therapeutic one. It's one thing to say, "Men are biologically better than women at <this> and vice versa," because that information comes off as restrictive and an attempt to limit opportunities for one gender or another. While I was surprised at the heat he got (since data is data), the reality is that the information is used most naturally to limit and resembled information previously used to discriminate against others on the basis of race, etc. Jenner's comments could be generalized to impact everyone, but essentially what is being said is, "I've been fighting this for decades, it doesn't change, evidence at least suggests it is innate, and I need to make this change in order to OPEN my opportunities and become a more EFFECTIVE and happier person." In general, this is the pitch of all the trans stuff -- it's not about limiting opportunities for a particular gender, it's about an individual being able to function in society and have a higher quality of life. Most people are generally amenable to another individual experiencing happiness, if it doesn't affect them personally.

I think Summers deservedly got into trouble, because the entirety of what he said was that men and women have different brains, women perform more poorly at STEM type fields, these two factors are related, and he said in no uncertain terms that social conditioning was the "lesser" element. So women are inferior in a relevant, practical way, because of supposed brain differences which are mostly not acquired by experience but somehow innate.

Anyhow, my issue with what Jenner is saying is that to me, there isn't a way for someone to say what Jenner said, the way Jenner said it, without broader implications about other people which are restrictive.

(So I'll add that's another of the angles here: Broad gender vs single individual -- when you say "Men are worse at <this>" you automatically are generalizing since not all men are likely worse than all women at <this> and you are including half the population. A trans person coming out COULD have broader implications if you want to extrapolate, but typically it's about, "This is me, and here's what I need to do for myself, please accept me." It's the same thing that, when I see you seem to be agendered or indifferent to gender by what you've posted above, although i don't at all understand it and don't have the same perception, I'm inclined to say, "okay, whatever MP needs to be happy and feel at one with himself, sure; I can make space for that in my world.")

But that' not really what was said, was it? I think, basically, there were unspoken, or implicit logical operators in Jenner's (or for that matter, Chelsea Manning's) statements. We specifically have a statement about a male brain vs a female brain tied in with personality traits. It is basically saying "I am X, Y, and Z, because my identity is actually female, ergo the female identity is X, Y, and Z". I don't think there's getting around the problem for women who don't share those traits or men who do.

I've sort of been on the end of this, too. I remember reading the account of female to male transsexual and his experience with going through hormone therapy. The experience was described like a transformation into what, frankly, sounded like a carton caricature of a man that I could not possibly identify with, bar fights and all (I wondered if he began wearing tiger skins). This makes no difference to me if this were merely a description of this person's own life, but there was a logic to it, about being a man, about testosterone being this vital element to becoming a man, and those behaviors being the product of this male nature, that makes the comments something I can't ignore. I am biologically a male by any definition known to science, and I must surely have the necessary testosterone levels, so why am I not acting like this? Any man who doesn't share these traits, or any woman who does, is justified in being irritated by comments like this. And unlike the author of the article, I don't claim to represent men in any general way, I'm not more entitled to any sort of position on this as a cisgendered male, but I don't have to be, because the reasoning being used here is simply too categorical to be compatible with my mere existence as a not stereotypical male.

And to be clear, it's not that there's anything special about transsexuals in this regard. Rather, my point is how not special transsexuals are. This is a very typical kind of mistake that is made be cisgendered who identify with traditional roles all the time. They project their personal experience onto all of humanity, with no consideration of other peoples' lives, and don't even realize. If I were to make a suggestion for a change in language, it would simply be mindfulness about whether or not one's statements sound like statements about the self, or statements about everyone else.

As far as brain stuff goes, we're able to distinguish preexisting brain structures that resemble the opposite gender in the brains of people who identify as trans. Do we know exactly how that works? Do we understand in general how the brain truly works on the miniscule level in any area? Not really. We just know what we target certain areas, certain experiences are impacted.

We also have tested the impact of hormonal washes at various stages of gestation in other species like rats (which have some use simulating humans on certain things), and we know we can change gender role behaviors by hitting the rat with androgens or by removing androgens; physically male rats will behave as females in sex, and vice versa. Rats aren't aware enough to explore trans experience; are they just gay or trans? We'll never know. But obviously there is a mechanism there that can radically shift sexual expression and gendered behaviors like mothering in other species. It doesn't seem odd that the same incidents could create much more complex responses in human beings who have the additional aspect of self-awareness / self-identity that leads us to ask who we are and have a sense of "who we are."

I would point to the Telegraph piece linked in the article. I'm not sure if you read it, I actually read it in its own right when it came out. Basically it's a neurologist making the case against gender essentialism, which is interesting in itself, but she raises a really great point about the famous studies that showed London cab drivers experience substantial, detectable changes in the physiology of their brain simply as the result of being cab drivers. The differences we think if as "big" differences in the male and female brain may not be so big, and may very well be formed by conditioning (and I could go on and on about how difference the day to day experience is for men and women in society). I bring this up just because it leaves us even more confused about what to do with the concept of a transgendered brain. How innate of a thing is that in and of itself? And what parts have to change? How much can match the other sex's brain to create transsexualism without including the other things most life long members of a gender obtain? And of course, if this creates transsexualism post gestation, before adult hormone therapy, what do the hormones do to psychology at that point?

Going back to the female to male individual, I've often thought about something which I know is controversial with trans and trans advocates, but how do I know this person's change in behavior isn't placebo? Is this not the ideal conditioning for a placebo effect? The transsexual individual, like any other person, has gender norms hammered into their head to a degree matched by few other cultural norms, and then on top of that they have their personal condition. They typical identify this aspect of themselves well before getting hormone therapy, and have time to anticipate, imagine, fantasize, about something they are told is very essential to gender. It's sort of already rehearsed. I can't help but wonder if saline or sugar could have also made that individual get into a bar fight, as long as he was under the impression it was testosterone.

---

Jenner might be trans but isn't necessarily a good articulator of experience or feelings. So people can rightfully be offended by nonsensical/rationally vague things that come out her mouth, but that's not necessarily the case being made nor speaks for all trans people. I know transpeople who are great communicators and very intelligent, and I know others who are lousy communicators and have different strengths.

Jenner has never seemed very emotionally aware and in fact seems to have suppressed this without dealing with it for decades, to the tune of three marriages. Of course if she opens her mouth now, she's going to be regurgitating much of the most general speak she's heard that has had an impact, much as people who hear inspirational quotes will post them on their FaceBook feed because they are meaningful to them and "gelled" a bunch of ambiguous feelings they might have had about life. The only reason Jenner is a spokesperson is because American loves money and celebrity; those are her only qualifications. I'm surprised she's done as well as she has and been received as well as she has been, but honestly, the experience of the average (and maybe not just average, but 90% of transpeople or more) does not include a lot of public acclaim, photo shoots, unlimited spending accounts, countless plastic surgeries to look better whenever you feel like it, media fawning over you and offering you TV specials, etc. I've definitely seen worse celebrities tossed into the limelight (who have made even more of a mess articulating trans thought and experience), but Jenner's not really representative of the best arguments or thinking behind things. It's understandable she would be targetted -- she is the BIGGEST cultural target right now and people want to knock her down / find fault with her -- but again, not really representative.

Yes. Like you said, she's now the spokesperson, whether that's a good thing or a bad thing. And like I said, she's making mistakes that are typical for any average person to make. Unfortunately, this is what's going to be informing a lot of people about the topic, so those mistakes ought to be addressed.

 

[Xann]