-
Features
Transgender-Identity Infographic
- Thread starter lpetrich
- Start date
repoman
Contributor
Interesting.
Prompted me to go back to this website
https://thirdwaytrans.com/
But alas, it looks like the blog entries have been removed.
Prompted me to go back to this website
https://thirdwaytrans.com/
But alas, it looks like the blog entries have been removed.
4321lynx
Veteran Member
"Truth is not truth" Guiliani said; and tht's OK with all Trump-voting Bible-quoting Xtians.
Jobar
Zen Hedonist
I admit to some trouble thinking of a person with plainly male or female somatotype in terms of the opposite sex. Their psychological gender is surely real and valid, but until they actually start surgically transitioning, I resist calling someone with a beard and penis female, or with obvious breasts and a vagina male. I recognize and sympathize with their gender disphoria, but IMO they ought to deal with it by changing their bodies before trying to adopt the identity of the sex their mind tells them they should be.
It's not like I worry about men using women's restrooms, or vice versa. But male and female are strongly polar concepts; blurring them by accepting psychological gender as the primary means of distinguishing between the two is at least confusing, and may have other negative consequences.
It's not like I worry about men using women's restrooms, or vice versa. But male and female are strongly polar concepts; blurring them by accepting psychological gender as the primary means of distinguishing between the two is at least confusing, and may have other negative consequences.
repoman
Contributor
In addition to people who do have bodily based gender dysphoria, are there people who just don't like the roles of their actual sex and prefer the role of the opposite sex but are for the most part happy with their genitals and rest of their body?
Is there any pressure (even accidental) for them to be seen as or consider themselves as transgender?
On the other side of this, if there are people who prefer the gender roles of the opposite sex but are fully happy with their bodies, then people will think that they are transgender who have not undergone hormones yet. This is not because they are jerks, but just an assumption they will make.
Is there any pressure (even accidental) for them to be seen as or consider themselves as transgender?
On the other side of this, if there are people who prefer the gender roles of the opposite sex but are fully happy with their bodies, then people will think that they are transgender who have not undergone hormones yet. This is not because they are jerks, but just an assumption they will make.
fast
Contributor
I wasn't aware we were asked to. We are asked to refer to them as girls or women, and we are asked to use corresponding pronouns like "she" and "her." If they FEEL like they are women, we are asked to refer to their self-perceived GENDER not SEX.
A person unschooled in proper etiquette would refer to a person with a penis (that feels like a woman) as a man and use the "he" and "his" pronoun and regard the person as a MALE.
A person schooled in proper etiquette would refer to a person with a penis (that feels like a woman) as a woman and use the "she" and "her" pronoun and still regard the person as a MALE.
Am I now on the cusp of learning something new? Do I have it incorrect? Are transgenders seriously wanting everyone to not only regard their gender as being that of a woman but also in addition to that wanting us to regard their sex as being that of female? Seriously?
PyramidHead
Contributor
This scheme you've laid out is by no means obvious to everyone. I would imagine that almost nobody thinks of 'woman' as a noun that refers solely to gender while 'female' refers solely to sex... I would also imagine most people would have trouble defining the difference between gender and sex. Even the Wikipedia article runs into trouble:
The bolded part is presumably what we mean when we talk about transgendered people. So, looking at that definition, doesn't it seem completely circular? My gender identity is a personal identification of my own gender based on an internal awareness. Okay, but what actually is gender to begin with? What does it mean, in other words, to "feel like a man", if "man" is already a gender-specific and not sex-specific noun?
repoman
Contributor
This is a blast from the past, dark and evil times of the 90s...
Is what is said in this video wrong?!?
The best comment on the video:
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/bill-nye-the-science-guy-netflix-edit-removed-censored-gender-sex-chromosome-transgenderism-a7716881.html
So, I think that male and female are the best stand-ins for chromosomal sex (ignoring intersex and so on for now) and man and woman for gender. But this will be negotiated by society. There is no right or wrong way to label this stuff. This is not a hard science. Also the euphemism treadmill is in effect.
Just because some people get touchy about the treatment they get for being transgender does not mean we should obliterate the hard biological line for the vast majority of people who have normal (as in the statistical meaning of the word, not judgmental meaning) chromosomes and biology.
Teach the normal basics of chromosomes and sex and behavior and psychology and then teach the exceptions and advanced topics. Is it that hard?
Is what is said in this video wrong?!?
The best comment on the video:
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/bill-nye-the-science-guy-netflix-edit-removed-censored-gender-sex-chromosome-transgenderism-a7716881.html
So, I think that male and female are the best stand-ins for chromosomal sex (ignoring intersex and so on for now) and man and woman for gender. But this will be negotiated by society. There is no right or wrong way to label this stuff. This is not a hard science. Also the euphemism treadmill is in effect.
Just because some people get touchy about the treatment they get for being transgender does not mean we should obliterate the hard biological line for the vast majority of people who have normal (as in the statistical meaning of the word, not judgmental meaning) chromosomes and biology.
Teach the normal basics of chromosomes and sex and behavior and psychology and then teach the exceptions and advanced topics. Is it that hard?
Last edited:
southernhybrid
Contributor
I can't listen to a video right now, but I did find several sites that explain gender identity. I think that some of us simply don't understand how others might gender identify because most of us have always identified by the gender that matches our body parts. I assume that traditional cis gender is the most common.
About a year ago, I read that there are over 50 different gender identities and just because they don't apply to me or anyone that I know well, doesn't mean that they aren't valid. Supposedly, unusual gender identities have always been around. I haven't personally researched that claim, but I assume those who have made the claim have. It might be something interesting to research.
https://www.genderspectrum.org/quick-links/understanding-gender/
There are so many things that we continue to learn about Homo Sapiens, that sometimes we are naturally biased when something like the concept of numerous gender identities first comes to our attention. I think it's an interesting thing to learn about and hopefully, the more we learn, the more tolerant we will become towards those who don't identify as cis, or even traditional trans. Maybe we all have a lot more to learn about the concept of gender identity and how it impacts the individual.
About a year ago, I read that there are over 50 different gender identities and just because they don't apply to me or anyone that I know well, doesn't mean that they aren't valid. Supposedly, unusual gender identities have always been around. I haven't personally researched that claim, but I assume those who have made the claim have. It might be something interesting to research.
https://www.genderspectrum.org/quick-links/understanding-gender/
There are so many things that we continue to learn about Homo Sapiens, that sometimes we are naturally biased when something like the concept of numerous gender identities first comes to our attention. I think it's an interesting thing to learn about and hopefully, the more we learn, the more tolerant we will become towards those who don't identify as cis, or even traditional trans. Maybe we all have a lot more to learn about the concept of gender identity and how it impacts the individual.
southernhybrid
Contributor
https://listverse.com/2015/10/21/10-examples-of-nonbinary-genders-throughout-history/
The link gives some examples of less common gender identities in many different cultures in different historical times.
The link gives some examples of less common gender identities in many different cultures in different historical times.
Emily Lake
Might be a replicant
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2014
- Messages
- 8,497
- Location
- It's a desert out there
- Gender
- Agenderist
- Basic Beliefs
- Atheist
People who don't like the gender roles of their somatic sex have been around forever, and are still here... and usually busy fighting for equal treatment and getting rid of gender-based stereotypes while being derided for not conforming to what society thinks a male or female should be like.
For example... I'm physically female, and I'm quite content to think of my self as a female (I don't feel like I'm in the wrong body). But I chafe at gender roles on a regular basis, I don't like cooking, I don't much care for children, I'm not particularly compassionate, and I'm confident, strong-willed and decisive. In all honesty, I suspect my career would be a fair bit further along if I had been born in a man's body... but I'm rather fond of my vag, so...
fast
Contributor
I am not so solidified in my view that I would be inclined to say it's wrong since it was acceptable to use terms like "female" and "woman/girl" interchangeably. I am inclined to say it doesn't accord with what I have been saying. The seeming contradiction stems from the subtle qualifications I've been making--qualifications that are dependent on my openmindedness that this is not a mental issue exasperated by the unintentional consequences of tolerance.
In a world where it's accepted (like the spirit in which the video was made) that all males are men/boys and all men/boys are males (and all women/girls are female and all females are girls/women), the terms "men" and "males" can be used interchangeably by mistake without skipping a beat. After all, if I am only aware that a male has entered a room but say instead that a man has entered a room, I will not be mistaken (in such a world) in what I said (since all men are males) even though I cited a truth that I did not know.
As a previous poster pointed out, it wouldn't be unusual for people to be sloppy with the terms since they are unaware of the differences and how they apply when there is a mismatch between sex and gender.
If gender is fully culturally dependent (and if we live in a world where sex and gender mismatch is possible), I think it would be impossible for a doctor to determine gender prior to birth. Do transgenders believe otherwise?
I grow weary of this apparent truth. There is a fundamental difference between meaning and reference. When meaning changes, chaos ensues, but the old referent doesn't necessarily dissipate. For instance, the chromosomal difference remains despite a culturally backed battle of negotiations that prove successful in altering meaning to the point it becomes something different in our lexicon. Appeasement knows no bounds. I'll have to look up this treadmill to which you speak; it sounds spot on if I catch your drift.
Like how "sex" nor "marriage" stands the test of time in how it's meant in context. People vigorously fight with emotion and passion so terms can apply.
It gets difficult. Like days of yesteryear, I sometimes just want to know the answers already. Thinking things through just doesn't always work out.
PyramidHead
Contributor
When you say "there are", are you referring to the number of historically identified gender identities, or biological/psychologically distinct gender identities? In other words, could there be an infinite number of possible gender identities, each one unique to an individual's preferred mode of expressing themselves? If so, what is the use of the concept?
I'd like to pause here and ask what this actually means. Are the words 'male' and 'female' used in this sentence referring to biological sex, cultural roles for members of either biological sex, or something else?
If it's biological sex: how can we 'know' ourselves to be something biologically other than what we are?
If it's culture: what does it mean to 'know' that one is culturally male, but also call that knowledge an 'internal sense of self'? Wouldn't it change depending on one's geographic location and group membership, which are external factors? And wouldn't this be the same thing as the next category, Expression?
If it's something else: what actually is it?
How are aspects of gender identity qua gender identity different from other aspects of one's personality? For instance, what makes the choice to wear one's hair in a braid objectively a matter of gender identity, such that it can be sensed from the inside as an immutable aspect of self-knowledge, rather than a matter of contingent cultural identity that does not need a special designation?
I hope everyone can be civil with me. I'm genuinely asking these questions in good faith and without any agenda.
southernhybrid
Contributor
I'm learning about this and don't have answers to all of your questions. I just see no reason to criticize or deny anyone the gender identity that they feel best describes them. If you looked at the link about the numerous gender identities that apparently have been around throughout most or much of history, it makes sense that some people don't feel comfortable identifying as male of female. We tend to link gender identity to biological parts, and perhaps that's a very narrow minded way of looking at things.
After all, there are people who are born with sex organs of both biological genders. Parents once made the decision as to what gender they should be, and radical surgery was done to conform to the parent's wishes. ( I honestly don't know if this still continues ) That may have seemed like the right thing to do at the time, but now we are learning that many of these folks have suffered greatly because their parents chose their gender instead of allowing them to develop and discover which gender or genders they feel most fits their identity. I'm not an expert on this topic. When I first read a little about it last year, it sounded kind of nutty to me. But, that was because it wasn't something that I had ever given much serious consideration to. Now, having read a little bit more, it makes sense that some people identify very differently than what most of us once considered "normal". So, who am I to to say they are wrong? And, how are these people harming anyone? They aren't, so why not take them seriously when they say they are trans, or mixed gender etc.?
I don't know enough to say if it's completely biological or partly cultural. I imagine that most people with rare gender identities are in the closet since even traditional trans gendered folks still face a lot of prejudice and criticism. I've only met two trans females, actually only one in person. One was a member of SC and one was a new nurse that I met at an atheist meet up several years ago. Do I totally understand how they feel and why they identify the way they do? No. But, I am accepting that we aren't all traditional male or female and I am respectful of those who are outside what we traditionally have thought was "normal". I hope that eventually these folks will feel that they don't have to hide their identities if they want to be more open.
After all, there are people who are born with sex organs of both biological genders. Parents once made the decision as to what gender they should be, and radical surgery was done to conform to the parent's wishes. ( I honestly don't know if this still continues ) That may have seemed like the right thing to do at the time, but now we are learning that many of these folks have suffered greatly because their parents chose their gender instead of allowing them to develop and discover which gender or genders they feel most fits their identity. I'm not an expert on this topic. When I first read a little about it last year, it sounded kind of nutty to me. But, that was because it wasn't something that I had ever given much serious consideration to. Now, having read a little bit more, it makes sense that some people identify very differently than what most of us once considered "normal". So, who am I to to say they are wrong? And, how are these people harming anyone? They aren't, so why not take them seriously when they say they are trans, or mixed gender etc.?
I don't know enough to say if it's completely biological or partly cultural. I imagine that most people with rare gender identities are in the closet since even traditional trans gendered folks still face a lot of prejudice and criticism. I've only met two trans females, actually only one in person. One was a member of SC and one was a new nurse that I met at an atheist meet up several years ago. Do I totally understand how they feel and why they identify the way they do? No. But, I am accepting that we aren't all traditional male or female and I am respectful of those who are outside what we traditionally have thought was "normal". I hope that eventually these folks will feel that they don't have to hide their identities if they want to be more open.
A few critiques you'd get from some people:
There isn't a 'normal' gender state, there is a 'most common' gender state. Calling e.g. male gender/male sex 'normal' undermines the validity of the gender of transgender people. Their experience is no less normal than ours, just uncommon.
The body doesn't have an implicit 'gender' it has an implicit 'sex'. The sex of someone with a penis is male, the gender is not necessarily male.
There isn't a 'normal' gender state, there is a 'most common' gender state. Calling e.g. male gender/male sex 'normal' undermines the validity of the gender of transgender people. Their experience is no less normal than ours, just uncommon.
The body doesn't have an implicit 'gender' it has an implicit 'sex'. The sex of someone with a penis is male, the gender is not necessarily male.
repoman
Contributor
I hope that people don't get on the hormone and surgery train because of all of the sideshow tumult surrounding this topic, instead of only having a deep to the core gender dysphoria which would indeed necessitate it.
PyramidHead
Contributor
One of my stepsons is transgender. He presents as male and wants to be referred to as such, which I gladly oblige. It's such an easy thing for me to do, and it means so much to him, that there's no reason not to unless I just want to be a jerk about it. That's one issue in my head, how to behave towards people who are trans, that I consider totally separate from the matter of whether gender identity itself is a coherent concept.
I try sometimes to put myself in his shoes. He's a teenager, and has friends that are both male and female (biologically speaking) who run the gamut of fashion, hairstyle, demeanor, aggressiveness, and all the usual qualities that for some reason are associated with gender. For them, expressing their individuality in the way that feels right is a matter of just being the person they are, and paying no attention to what is expected of them for ANY cultural reason, be it their age, their sex, or their race. Yet, when my stepson comes to the same realization about his individuality, for some reason it is entirely coupled to the idea of "feeling like a boy even though I was born a girl". I'm suspicious that if we did not label certain character traits and social behaviors as "like a boy" to begin with, we would not equate these things to any "mismatch", they would just be "things about me that go against cultural expectations" for some reason or another. As long as there has been human culture, there have been culturally deviant identities (I don't use that pejoratively, just as a description).
It never occurred to us to treat people who do not adhere to cultural norms as a protected class of citizens until the manner of their non-adherence was linked to a trait that has been used as grounds for protection in the past. In other words: even though taste in music is also under cultural pressure based on many factors in a person's background, we do not encounter people whose taste in music is claimed to be "mismatched" with some feature of their biology. The extent of social conditioning involved in what kind of music I listen to is not as extensive as gender expectations, to be fair, but the difference is a matter of degree and not type, surely? If I am raised in the rural south and my social circle, family unit, and church all regard it as normal for me to like country music with Christian themes, it will be uncomfortable and awkward for me to admit to being a lover of hip-hop... but will it necessitate calling me by a different name, or altering my biology to match the cultural image of somebody who listens to hip-hop? If, in the end, gender expectations are no more than highly pervasive and stubborn cultural norms of the same kind as musical tastes, then the association between being a boy and wearing long pants is no more biological than the association between listening to hip-hop and being black. Both are cultural stereotypes that we can just ignore if we want to wear long pants or enjoy hip-hop. So, I feel like I must be missing a big ingredient of gender identity that would explain why the concept of mismatch should be required to explain it. Can someone point out where I'm wrong?
I try sometimes to put myself in his shoes. He's a teenager, and has friends that are both male and female (biologically speaking) who run the gamut of fashion, hairstyle, demeanor, aggressiveness, and all the usual qualities that for some reason are associated with gender. For them, expressing their individuality in the way that feels right is a matter of just being the person they are, and paying no attention to what is expected of them for ANY cultural reason, be it their age, their sex, or their race. Yet, when my stepson comes to the same realization about his individuality, for some reason it is entirely coupled to the idea of "feeling like a boy even though I was born a girl". I'm suspicious that if we did not label certain character traits and social behaviors as "like a boy" to begin with, we would not equate these things to any "mismatch", they would just be "things about me that go against cultural expectations" for some reason or another. As long as there has been human culture, there have been culturally deviant identities (I don't use that pejoratively, just as a description).
It never occurred to us to treat people who do not adhere to cultural norms as a protected class of citizens until the manner of their non-adherence was linked to a trait that has been used as grounds for protection in the past. In other words: even though taste in music is also under cultural pressure based on many factors in a person's background, we do not encounter people whose taste in music is claimed to be "mismatched" with some feature of their biology. The extent of social conditioning involved in what kind of music I listen to is not as extensive as gender expectations, to be fair, but the difference is a matter of degree and not type, surely? If I am raised in the rural south and my social circle, family unit, and church all regard it as normal for me to like country music with Christian themes, it will be uncomfortable and awkward for me to admit to being a lover of hip-hop... but will it necessitate calling me by a different name, or altering my biology to match the cultural image of somebody who listens to hip-hop? If, in the end, gender expectations are no more than highly pervasive and stubborn cultural norms of the same kind as musical tastes, then the association between being a boy and wearing long pants is no more biological than the association between listening to hip-hop and being black. Both are cultural stereotypes that we can just ignore if we want to wear long pants or enjoy hip-hop. So, I feel like I must be missing a big ingredient of gender identity that would explain why the concept of mismatch should be required to explain it. Can someone point out where I'm wrong?
You raise a good question, but I can't say that I have the answer.
I suspect, though, that some people going to the lengths of physically changing their body to conform to their gender would suggest that being transgender isn't just about cultural preferences, but something deeper and innate. At the very least it's a very real phenomenon that exists in our species, for whatever reason.
PyramidHead
Contributor
I have to assume you (and they, from their self-reports) are right about that, but I haven't found a way of squaring that with any kind of definition of "gender" as distinct from "sex", at least not the ones that have been offered. There are people who say it's like their primary and secondary sex characteristics are viscerally foreign to them, like being trapped in the wrong body, and I have no reason to suspect they are lying about that, nor would I suggest they are just taking cultural expectations too seriously. HOWEVER, ruling out those explanations, aren't we left with what would ordinarily be called a medical condition? Polite people tend to react with horror when this is suggested, but isn't the feeling of severe discomfort with one's own sexual characteristics something that we could consider treating, and not just accommodating? If there is something genuinely physically different about people whose internal sexual identity does not match their external one, why must we consider it off-limits to intervene on the side of the internal identity, just as we do with people whose brains are physically different in other ways?
If I had to offer a response to my own question, I'd speculate that there's just not much downside to accommodating the external identity to fit the internal one, rather than the other way around. Other than a period of societal adjustment to people in various stages of this process, nothing is really at stake unless the person makes an error in judgment and later regrets the surgery (does this ever happen? I'm genuinely curious). But if we had the right medication, for example, that would alter the hormonal and neurotransmitter phenotype of somebody whose sex characteristics appeared repulsive and strange to them, I would say that this too would be an acceptable strategy. And that puts me on the shit list of a lot of people I ordinarily agree with, but I can't get a straight answer as to why.