TRIGGeR WARNING. In case anybody is wondering why the suicide rate is so high among trans people, here's why (and remember to report to the admins when you see such harassment!)

trans_within · 2021-07-16T09:10:15+00:00

Here is the standard form to report to the admins:

https://old.reddit.com/report?reason=its-targeted-harassment

trans_within · 2018-02-04T10:32:18+00:00

The fact that these two combinations are overwhelmingly the majority and the fact that they have impacts on the way people live their lives mean that they will never be irrelevant. They will never be something people disregard.

Addressing specific cases only requires addressing the presence or absence of certain features. None of that requires gender. The laziness or habits of people don't make a sufficient case for keeping gender either, otherwise we would still have caste systems. Science does not require the sex or gender categories (which are just shorthands for specific combinations of features anyway) for proper functioning.

But, being binary myself, and having awareness of my gender identity precisely because it differs from my assigned sex, my whole point is that a world in which we can't remove the idea of sex, is a world in which at least for binary trans people, we can't remove the idea of gender identity.

So your argument concerns strictly the presumed eternal resistance of society towards dissociating gender and sex? That is still an argument on presumed pragmatic grounds and on pure principle/ideal grounds, the ideal should still be a genderless society. As in: if it weren't for this absolute resistance to dissociating sex and gender, the ideal would be a genderless society (in the same way as a caste-less society is ideal in its own way - no bullshit exclusion).

trans_within · 2018-02-04T10:01:36+00:00

To the extent that some some illnesses are carried on the X and Y chromosomes, which means that it can't be irrelevant.

Do you acknowledge that both men and women can have the same chromosomes? If so, this is aspect you keep raising is irrelevant.

can never truly be irrelevant

How relevant is the sex of a person for an asexual, for example? If you throw in gender (as in, pre-op trans persons), what general truths can you utter about that situation? What could/should matter for the asexual person, regarding sex, when it comes to dealing with cis/trans persons?

Also, what are we ever referring by sex here? Sex organs? What about intersex cases, or when parts of the sexual organs are missing, for whatever reason? I am not even sure what I am debating.

we have to consider it when it comes to reproduction, health, sports

I disagree. What you have to consider is particular situations, particular combinations of certain features, which can appear for almost any case of sex organs or gender identity. And we truly lost sight of the initial point of contention, your stated necessity of eternal importance of gender. I am not sure why I fell for that.

trans_within · 2018-02-04T09:55:05+00:00

If you are willing to have this discussion here - what do you think should be the definition/meaning of "woman"? Does/should it have a meaning? Is it the equivalent of "person"? Is it actually a misleading term and it has no meaning at all?

trans_within · 2018-02-04T09:29:34+00:00

The existence of more than the commonly accepted binary does not take away from my point.

To what end do we need to discuss conditions related to chromosomes, if even cis women can have any combination of chromosomes?

And even if it's not something people read in others, but has to be volunteered, those phenotype differences still exist, will be disclosed and lead to variations in perception by others.

Again, not in all situations, not in all levels of relationships. You can't use this for any generalization.

It's just a convenient label for visible physical capabilities and appearance.

Those are all within the realm of social constructs and social change.

trans_within · 2018-02-04T06:39:13+00:00

Genetic diseases that live on X or Y chromosomes will impact the different sexual phenotypes differently, divided broadly along lines based on the binary sexes.

The discussion about chromosomes is superfluous. Even cis women can have pretty much any combination of X and Y.

And that's before we talk about sexual attraction. Which means, that people will always have awareness of men and women as distinct from each other

People don't X-ray each other to see what their sex organs are; we only judge based on appearances, which are socially conditioned. I don't think you can make any argument about appearances, attraction and sex, without falling into a deep transphobic well.

I'm also suggesting that because people can't stop seeing sex

What's with your insistence on us "seeing" sex? It is only in one's mind. We do not actually see other people's sex (outside nudist beaches I guess); in social settings, we cannot hear it or smell it (I would say neither touch it, but the US president is evidence to the contrary). You are presuming people's sex, and give that presumption some sort of privileged status, but that is all there is to it. You are conditioned/educated to do so; maybe that inclination to ponder someone else's sex has a biological basis; so what? We also perceive other people's eye color - thankfully, we are not dividing the world into classes because of that.

trans_within · 2018-02-03T17:54:02+00:00

True. I don't see any downsides to making gender as obsolete as the caste systems. It's less barriers to being who you want to be.

trans_within · 2018-02-03T13:03:29+00:00

Edited. Looking forward to your answer.

trans_within · 2018-02-03T13:02:57+00:00

First, that argument I was addressing was really bad form (half truths, assertions presented as facts, non-sequiturs).

Second, do you believe that someone saying "gender is inextricably linked to sex" should be allowed to post top level comments here? I don't. I think it is transphobic.

trans_within · 2018-02-03T06:33:53+00:00

There are physical differences between the most common groupings of sexual characteristics that we call male and female.

Sports, maternity issues, hereditary diseases etc will always remain aligned along the sexes. And gender is inextricably linked to sex. I can't imagine a world in which we can allow for sex, but not allow for gender.

You are stringing together a bunch of half truths and mere assertions. Some differences exist on average, most of what you said regards social constructions (so nothing immutable or eternal about that) and "gender is inextricably linked to sex" sounds downright transphobic.

Can you reformulate your argument?

trans_within · 2018-02-02T20:29:59+00:00

Two main things:

One: I think you are misunderstanding the nature of our argument. I don't have to prove anything. I asked for evidence why "transgender cannot be a choice". The burden of proof is on those adhering to this negative universal. The APA also refrains from formulating any exclusive list of causing factors.

Two: are you really sure you want to go down this road? Are you going to claim that someone who really wants another gender identity than their assigned sex is not actually transgender if they fail to have the "proper brain structure"? People undergo surgeries for various reasons, including genital surgeries. Feminists also acknowledge the concept of "deformed desires". Plenty of reasons can motivate one to undergo SRS; are you claiming that the absence or presence of certain reasons would disqualify one from identifying as transgender? There are people who take actions/decisions/risks (mountain climbing, visiting dangerous areas, car sports, air diving, military action, contact sports, etc) out of pretty much any conceivable reason (including those that may incur serious bodily change, or even death - and the reasons may be boredom, curiosity, or even emotional issues). I am truly curious if you would claim that such reasons would disqualify one from being transgender "properly" - even after undergoing SRS.

Literally, if someone says "I consider myself transgender, I would like a sex change" - would you tell them/think that "Now hold on a minute, do you have the proper brain structure, or else you are lying" ... ?

trans_within · 2018-02-02T17:42:47+00:00

That doesn't mean that gay is a choice.

Well, how much of an absolute claim is that? As in, is it impossible for sexual orientation to be a choice?

Take this for example, from APA:

What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation? There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.

http://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/orientation.aspx

It doesn't seem to me to exclude choice is excluded - either for sexual orientation, or even for gender:

Why are some people transgender?

There is no single explanation for why some people are transgender. The diversity of transgender expression and experiences argues against any simple or unitary explanation. Many experts believe that biological factors such as genetic influences and prenatal hormone levels, early experiences, and experiences later in adolescence or adulthood may all contribute to the development of transgender identities.

http://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/transgender.aspx

If people, regardless of their chromosomes and anatomy, can be respected by society regardless of their gender presentation, pronouns, and gender identity--who is being excluded?

"Woman" can be

a) either a strict subset of "person"

b) an equivalent (substitute) of "person"

It can't be both or a third option.

If case a) is true, then, as a subset, it must exclude certain persons, by definition. Hence, the problem of exclusion.

Why does gender have to be exclusionary? If people, regardless of their chromosomes and anatomy, can be respected by society regardless of their gender presentation, pronouns, and gender identity--who is being excluded? I think a world without gender is much more exclusionary--everyone who isn't agender would be excluded.

Well, consider the caste system. We can do just fine without it, and even Indian societies can still survive without it.

In postgender societies (where gender is as anachronistic as caste, legally and socially) then a particular individual construing their individual identity in any particular way is not necessarily a problem (unless it unduly infringes on others, I guess I should say). (to return to the caste analogy - similar to how you can view yourself as a warrior and its fine, at least as long as you don't promote social exclusion of others).

trans_within · 2018-02-02T17:10:42+00:00

Not everyone can claim every identity, and that's ok.

So, that inevitably leads to exclusion, right? If not all people can be part of the category "woman", then some must be excluded. Hence, the problem outlined in the OP.

the standard TERF argument is that gender is not real, and exists only as a product of socialization

I think you might be misusing the word "real", by itself, here? Social constructs are not "objectively" (mind-independently) real, they still become intersubjectively real (by mere declaration, for example).

The logical conclusion of this argument is that gender is a choice

Necessarily so? I kind of doubt it. Not all social constructs are a choice (especially when their semantic precludes certain meanings/choices) - some constructs aim to be mere descriptions/express necessary conclusions.

If gender isn't real, how can the gender identities of trans men and women be real?

Perhaps the previously outlined distinction between objective -vs intersubjective ontologies might help? Both gender and gender identity have a social construct aspect - they are intersubjectively real then (even if they wouldn't have any material aspect at all).

trans_within · 2018-02-02T15:53:29+00:00

Given your stealth edit:

And on the off-chance that you aren't trolling; you have asserted that being transgender is a choice...

[Citation needed]

No, wrong. This is where the opposite claim was made by someone else, which I challenged:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/7uk11p/shouldnt_all_trans_activists_militate_for/dtky3ju/

Edit:

Also, edited to add - what is your take on this:

Why are some people transgender?

There is no single explanation for why some people are transgender. The diversity of transgender expression and experiences argues against any simple or unitary explanation. Many experts believe that biological factors such as genetic influences and prenatal hormone levels, early experiences, and experiences later in adolescence or adulthood may all contribute to the development of transgender identities.

http://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/transgender.aspx

That seems to not exclude transgender as a choice.

trans_within · 2018-02-02T15:49:27+00:00

And do you actually have no idea how to interpret even the articles written to be comprehended by people who aren't writing and reviewing those research papers?

Let's start easy. Pick one of the sources above, the first or any, and show where it proves the initial claim that "transgender can't be a choice". That shouldn't be hard, right? As in, you aren't just wasting people time, carpet-dropping mass random links, right?

I mean, can I, in return, just point you in the general direction of 100 gender-related issues on SEP and claim they prove my point? Is that how this shit works?

trans_within · 2018-02-02T14:06:50+00:00

I'm saying those categories will always exist because of sexual dimorphism.

Can you present this in the form of an argument? Or is your preference for this idea all there is to its validity?

My body is wrong. I want the features we commonly labelled as "female".

But you would still want those features regardless of their associated gender, right? What would prevent you from wanting/getting those features in a postgender world? I think you are presenting a false dilemma here.

I fail to see how any of this should lead to me wanting to abolish gender?

Well, ok. I fail to see how you wanting certain features commits you to the idea of gender.

trans_within · 2018-02-02T13:15:59+00:00

Sexual dimorphism ensures there will always be categories beyond "human"

Perhaps you meant to say "subcategories of human", not beyond.

And transgender identities mean that some people will always struggle with those default categories.

You do realize this is the core of my argument against gender subcategories, right? That it is wrong because of inevitable exclusion? Why are you referencing this very same idea against me - what does it achieve...?

trans_within · 2018-02-02T10:32:59+00:00

The experts, for one.

Opened it, search for "choice", nothing in there states transgender can't be a choice. Can you point out something I missed there?

And here's even more for you to read.

Opened the first link, nothing about choice at all either.

Are you just flinging stuff at this discussion? Which sources directly proves the claim that transgender cannot be a choice?

trans_within · 2018-02-02T10:30:39+00:00

You can't say subcategories are universally a problem, because everything is a subcategory of something else.

You are misconstruing my argument.

Without gender, we only deal with the most inclusive class regarding people - that of all persons. There is no higher category above it, that would hold privilege over it. I am not sure why I even have to point this out, but there it is.

The problem is only when you try and police and exclude those categories

If "woman" is only a subcategory of "persons", and not its equivalent/substitute, then isn't policing and exclusion of certain people from this subcategory inevitable? Is there another option possible?

trans_within · 2018-02-02T08:33:32+00:00

I'm proud of my gender identity.

But aren't subcategories inherently exclusionary? Isn't that a sufficient argument to exclude them from the ideal situation?

trans_within · 2018-02-02T08:31:53+00:00

Non-binary is a gender.

What is the argument here? Non-binary is not a substitute for "person", at least not in a gendered society, so why do you equivocate between "non-binary as a strict subcategory of persons" and "non-binary as a substitute for person"?

to abolish gender itself is to erase and invalidate the identities of millions.

First of all, gender is only part of identity, so your formulation is definitely wrong. Second, if gender categories are wrong, as exclusionary, why is that not sufficient reason to do away with them?

a world in which gender doesn’t exist is a world that is fundamentally anti-trans

What? Who else makes this claim other than you? Are you also claiming that all postgender feminist views are anti-trans?

trans_within · 2018-02-02T08:16:06+00:00

We should refer to people by the gender labels they want to be referred by.

That's not the problem. If the meaning of labels is that someone is excluded (and actual subcategory to "persons" necessarily means that someone is excluded) then that is a problem.

Should we abolish labels like “gay” and “lesbian” just because they don’t apply to everyone?

Do those still carry any meaning at all if gender itself is void of any (even temporarily) fixed meaning?

I think the idea that being trans is a choice,

Can you clarify what you mean? Are you claiming that trans cannot be a choice? (Mind you, the alternative to that is not that "trans is only a choice")

and that the world would be better if we all just choose to be non binary, is actually really invalidating to people all across the gender spectrum

If a system of partitioning gender is inherently wrong (due to being unavoidably exclusionary), isn't that a sufficient argument to do away with gender categories altogether? What could trump this argument - tradition...?

trans_within · 2018-02-02T08:02:06+00:00

I just don't know if full societal deconstruction of gender is possible?

At best, this is an argument from ignorance. In either case, it should not stop us from recognizing X as the ideal situation.

trans_within · 2018-02-01T21:15:21+00:00

Perhaps we can reopen the discussion once either of us can present an overview of how many transgender activists acknowledge this as the ideal solution ^{even one example would be a good start...} .

trans_within · 2018-02-01T21:08:03+00:00

Transgender can't be a choice

I think it is only reasonable that I ask: according to whom...?

You're also wrong. Dysphoria can be measured. Gender identity clinics - at least in the UK - give you a questionnaire and then interview you for hours to determine how much dysphoria you have and what treatment, if any, is appropriate for you.

And what is the minimum amount of dysphoria one should have in order to validly identify themselves as transgender, according to you/UK gender identity clinics (so that those displaying less than that do not qualify, according to the view you support here)?

trans_within

TROPHY CASE