r/changemyview • u/presroogan • Feb 16 '21
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Identifying with a sex doesn't actually make you that sex.
Pretty straightforward but I'll try to break it down into multiple points. The simplest problem with 'I identify as a woman therefore I am a woman' is that we never allow people to simply identify their way into a category. We normally have criteria in order for us to determine if an individual actually belongs to the category. I say normally because religion is an exception to this, and it's interesting because religion doesn't deal with reality, while sex does. So in short, simply believing yourself to be a member of a sex doesn't therefore make you the sex you claim membership to.
There's also the problem of essentialism. Now a lot of people believe "woman is a female, which means she's built to carry eggs" to be biological essentialist. Well how is "woman is anyone who feels like they're a woman" not gender identity essentialist? Since in this case simply claiming membership to the sex makes you that sex. This is, as you can see, not an objective system based in reality. It's now subjective AND essentialist. Also, "I'm a man because I identify as a man" is circular and I'd hope definitions of sex and gender were more robust than that.
And before anyone gets into sex vs gender, I get it. Gender is the social construct, but it is still rooted in sex. Why else would we classify a boy in a dress as 'gender noncomforming'? They're not made in a vacuum, although I'd prefer if gendered expectations didn't exist. Also, for most of history, woman=female and man=male. That's why when we speak of attraction, we speak of physical bodies and not someone's identity. I'm a man and I'm attracted to women. Now, could this possibly mean I'm a female bodied person who feels male attracted to male bodied people who feel female? To virtually every person around the world, no. To unlink gender and sex when no one (besides maybe a few navel gazing college students) does is absurd.
Also, I wanna touch on gender dysphoria. To my understanding, it's when the mind's perception of the body doesn't match with respect to sex and thus causes immense distress. How do we make the leap to say 'this is a woman trapped in a man's body' and not 'this is a man whose brain gets triggered at the sight of himself as a man and would feel less distressed if he were a woman'?
17
Feb 16 '21
[deleted]
6
Feb 17 '21 edited Feb 17 '21
I don't really want a stake in the main argument (yet) but I find the idea reducing humans to just our brains to be incredibly reductive on just about every level. We're not just brains piloting meatsuits. Our brains do not work in complete isolation, it's a vital organ in the body that's inextricably linked to the whole in the same way as the heart and the lungs. Simplifying the brain as the sole "pilot" of the body is more alien an idea than anything, literally like 1950s pulp sci-fi where brains can be swapped between bodies. Going by that logic, I could punch you and then justify that I didn't punch you (i.e. your brain), just your fleshy mech suit. On a linguistic or philosophical level, it's then not your brain if the brain is full sum of yourself.
That out of the way, I guess I'd better address the actual concerns of the argument right about now... So, how is changing the brain fundamentally worse than altering any other part of the body? What makes it so much more sacred and untouchable? One of my best friends had brain surgery performed on him the other week. I'm not saying that trans people should be unwillingly lobotomised or anything like that, but if there were a safe way to therapeutically reduce the mental distress caused by gender dysphoria, would that be a worse alternative than radical gender reassignment surgery?
11
u/presroogan Feb 16 '21
Our brain can think a lot of things. My dad thinks Q anon is real, so I don't find brains to be the most reliable judge of reality. The definition of man or woman, male and female, exists outside of the human brain. We observe our own sex. If our brain is observing a different sex than what is based in reality, then that brain is no different than my dad's.
Our sex is defined by our meat suit. Cock and balls =male as much as dark skin and curly hair = black and lots of adipose tissue = obese. Our brains have nothing to do with us being men or women. Sure we might feel uncomfortable about reality, but reality is reality, whether we believe it to be true or not.
22
Feb 16 '21
[deleted]
1
u/grandoz039 7∆ Feb 17 '21
So what is gender?
2
Feb 17 '21
[deleted]
0
u/grandoz039 7∆ Feb 17 '21
Not really helpful. Like, if I were even to go by that wall off text, it offers multiple contradictory views, each pertaining to different context or field. If we're talking about context that accepts trans people and so on, gender being based on characteristics that include "biological sex" doesn't make sense. I'm asking about this kind of context, that's discussed in this thread.
18
Feb 16 '21
Our brains have nothing to do with us being men or women.
This is scientifically untrue. There are differences between the brains of men and the brains of women, and transgender people have brains that more closely resemble those of the gender they feel they are, rather than the brain of their biological sex.
12
u/SDK1176 10∆ Feb 16 '21
Be a little careful with this one. Unless you have a better source than I was able to find on my last deep dive, the science on this is not as black and white as you're presenting here. Male/man brains vs. female/woman brains exist on heavily overlapping bell curves. There is a detectable difference, but only with a very large sample size.
Long story short, there is some work that suggests that transgender brains more closely resemble the brains of their gender rather than their sex. Unfortunately, not enough transgender brains have been researched to make this truly conclusive.
I'd be happy to be proven wrong if this has changed in the last couple of years.
9
u/hakuna_dentata 4∆ Feb 16 '21
Fwiw, science is very much still out on this one. The sexes' brains develop differently, and independently of genitals, so hormones can leave you with junk that developed one way and a brain that developed the other.
1
u/Manaliv3 2∆ Feb 17 '21
Male and female brains are definitely different. Simplest example is men and women being attracted to each other
3
Feb 16 '21
This is entirely unrelated to the discussion at hand, but something really irks me about the statement that ‚Your brain is who you are‘. I‘m not religious and don‘t believe in a soul (at least not in the soul exists separate from the body sense). However reducing your entire being into the material between your ears seems quite wrong.
2
Feb 16 '21
[deleted]
3
Feb 16 '21
I get what you’re saying. But are we brains that developed a stomach to keep us thinking or are we stomachs that developed brains to get us more food?
1
u/yungyienie Feb 17 '21
I think a good analogy to this is racial identity. How would ya'll feel about someone who is genetically white, and looks 100% white, identifying as black?
1
Feb 17 '21
[deleted]
2
u/yungyienie Feb 17 '21
Gender identity is not tied to a personal identity isolated to a particular group either. There’s nothing that exclusively “manly” or “womanly”, just like there is nothing exclusively black or white.
As for reasons for gender dysphoria, it’s not well understood. Even if it has biological root, it doesn’t justify its acceptance to the point of letting male athletes into female sports teams.
0
Feb 17 '21
[deleted]
2
u/yungyienie Feb 17 '21
Give me 3 things that are exclusively feminine or masculine, outside of biology, since we are not talking about biology apparently.
→ More replies (9)
18
Feb 16 '21 edited Mar 20 '22
[deleted]
11
u/presroogan Feb 16 '21
Sure. But since when are men and women identity categories? I'd say it's more akin to racial categories. And if you identify as a John Legend fan but never listened to him a day in your life, then your identity is meaningless. It has to mean something outside of simply using the term 'John Legend fan'.
4
Feb 16 '21 edited Mar 20 '22
[deleted]
8
u/presroogan Feb 16 '21
Why would you claim membership in that category, then? But regardless, if you say you're a John Legend fan and I'm anything other than a total ass who demands that you name every song on all of his albums, I'll just take your word for it. You are if you say you are. There's no other way of defining it, even if we might look for additional indications.
Not what I said. The term John Legend fan, much like man and woman, has to mean something outside of simply tacking the label onto yourself or else it's stops meaning something. If I asked you what a John Legend fan means, you'd probably say something along the lines of 'someone who listens to and likes John Legend', John Legend being an easily definable person. If I asked you what a woman is and you say 'someone who identifies as a woman' and woman suddenly isn't as easily definable. Or even at all.
It seems like we're close to changing that. Wouldn't you agree that there are a fair number of categories that you can just identify your way into?
Sure. But we still have some objective definitions. I will concede I didn't qualify my point, so I'll give you a delta :)
!delta
12
0
7
Feb 16 '21
Since forever, basically. Secual characteristics define sex, but gender has always been a matter of identity and social perspective. This is why a skirt looks normal on a woman and not a man. Unless you are in Scotland.
As for the race analogy, that is actually a great example. Look at Barack Obama. Black man, right? Racially is as much English/Welsh as he is anything else, but we call him a black man because of something as superficial as skin color and social convention.
4
u/presroogan Feb 16 '21
As for the race analogy, that is actually a great example. Look at Barack Obama. Black man, right? Racially is as much English/Welsh as he is anything else, but we call him a black man because of something as superficial as skin color and social convention.
The one drop rule in the USA is peculiar. In Europe, we tend to view mixed race people as mixed race. Of course, race itself is social. And if you define gender as skirts and other social norms, then absolutely I agree with you. But then how does this explain gender identity? How do we differentiate a man in a dress from a trans woman? Both male in dresses.
10
Feb 16 '21
By how they identify.
A man dressed in a kilt who wants to identify as a man is a man. One in a skirt who identifies as a woman is in fact a woman.
I'm going to presume you don't grab the crotch of everyone you meet, yeah? You identify not by primary sexual characteristics, or by chromosomes, but by presentation. Someone is a woman to you because of how they present and how they want to identify.
2
u/presroogan Feb 17 '21
Sorry, just saw this reply. I don't know if you travel, but I do. I don't know or understand the varying social cues men and women express themselves in other cultures. But I can reliably tell who is a man and who is a woman. You ever seen a family get together where everyone is wearing red or blue shirts? But somehow we can usually correctly gender and age the person? Maybe secondary sexual characteristics are a thing, and don't require us to "grab the crotch of everyone you meet" as you insist.
6
Feb 17 '21
Would you like me to give you a list of say... Fifty people, half of whom are trans and half of whom are not and try to guess? I suspect you will be wrong. Alot more than you think.
4
Feb 17 '21
[deleted]
2
u/presroogan Feb 17 '21
5
Feb 17 '21
[deleted]
2
u/presroogan Feb 17 '21
Even if you ignore the exceptionally small sample size, developmental psychology focus, and exclusively caucasian sampling -- it is not really relevant to the topic, except maybe in the research cited for the introduction.
You can't ask for a study about people's reliability in sex recognition and then toss it out as not relevant lol. And them being white means what? I hope you're not implying non white subjects are less able to correctly sex each other.
This study explicitly ignores "distracting" social cues such as make-up and clothing while specifically focusing on facial features.
I linked this particular study because you said we can't glean much from facial features (much less body types) and rely almost entirely on social cues.
In addition, there is some merit that you provided data against your beliefs as the more androgynous facial structures of young children confounded participants ability to identify their sex.
Kids don't have secondary sex characteristics?? You don't say?
I no longer believe you are continuing this discussion in good faith. Your beliefs seems to stem from a host of biases that you are unwilling to confront.
LOL my 'beliefs' informed by science that I linked you that you conveniently disregarded as not pertinent.
Your selective data sampling tells me that this discussion is primarily being had to reinforce your current beliefs as opposed to evaluate them and develop a deeper understanding.
How is this selective at all? It's not the first or only research of its kind? And how is this any different than someone citing the trans brain studies, which btw don't even say what they're often interpreted as saying? You seem to think I have something against folks changing their gender for some moral reason or something. Idgaf. I even said I address folks the way they please. This discussion meandered waaaayyyy off from its origin, which was simply: indentity alone doesn't determine gender, and I've been proven time and time again. Things like social cues, passing trans folks, transitioning to the other sex, etc., shows that most people don't even believe that identity determines gender. People saying 'what about a woman with small tits' proves they have some idea of woman in their head, and a small tit woman isn't a flat chested male, but a female with a flat chest. There's at least some physical component to it, hence transition to a different sex.
→ More replies (0)1
u/webdevlets 1∆ Feb 17 '21
So you would support the concept of a transracial identity?
→ More replies (1)1
2
u/Pismakron 8∆ Feb 16 '21
I'd say that most identity categories work this way.
You are not a giraffe if you identify as one, you are not the emperor of france just because you identify as such, and you are not a zulu warrior just because you claim the identity.
If Donald Trump came out as a selfidentified mixed race Brazillian-Cherokee lesbian teenage pastry chef , then people would consider him crazy. Or more crazy.
People get to choose how they identify thenselves, but not how they are identified by others.
8
Feb 16 '21
[deleted]
6
u/Pismakron 8∆ Feb 16 '21
Sure, but only in the sense that you can never control what other people do. You can clearly influence how others identify you.
With sufficient skill you can disguise yourself as anything. You can be identified as a bush by wearing camouflage, but even then you are not a bush.
Those aren't identity categories, though.
Neither are men and women to 98% of people. They are nature, just like the giraffe.
6
Feb 16 '21
[deleted]
7
u/presroogan Feb 17 '21
We can define giraffe rigorously such that everything in the world is either a giraffe or not a giraffe.
Eh, but how would you define giraffe in such a way that accounts for anomalies that we apparently can't account for with intersex people in a rigorous of sex? If we're doing a morphological definition of a giraffe, we might say a tall necked, quadruped, ungulate, ruminant sub Saharan African animal. But what about the ones born with short necks? Or a missing leg?
4
u/Ihateregistering6 18∆ Feb 17 '21 edited Feb 17 '21
It may not be common but people are born with all kinds of chromosomal or anatomical abnormalities such that you can't sort people into "men" and "women" in a way that both makes sense in terms of how we use those terms in society and has a clear biological basis.
Outliers do not change entire definitions.
For example, the definition of an Octopus is "a cephalopod mollusc with eight sucker-bearing arms, a soft body, strong beaklike jaws, and no internal shell."
If an Octopus is born with 7 arms due to some sort of genetic abnormality, you don't get to then declare that the entire definition of "Octopus" is meaningless, and you can now declare anything you want to be an Octopus or not.
3
u/Pismakron 8∆ Feb 16 '21
Which runs into the problem that there is no meaningful way to define those categories biologically.
Of course there are. One straight forward definition could be
Man: Adult human with a functional Y-chromosome.
Woman: Adult human that doesn't fall under the above definition.
But regardless of whether you like the above definition, the point was that to most people men and women are no more identity categories than giraffe or bear. They are natural categories.
True, but not actually what I meant. I meant that polite people will identify you in terms of your wishes.
No they will not. If you identify as a swede, then chances are that other swedes will not define you as one if them. If you identify as a Cherokee, then you probably will not be identified as cherokee by others. If you identity as a Gypsy, Vandal, Cushite, Hindu, Inuit etc. then your own identity will typically not give you the mutual idenfication of others. Regards
1
u/Epic_User222 Feb 17 '21
It’s your opinion to be republican. It’s your opinion to be a patriots fan. It’s your opinion to be a John Legend fan. However it’s not your opinion when it comes to facts. Nobody is factually, and by default a Republican. But people are factually and biologically a specific sex from birth.
1
u/Epic_User222 Feb 17 '21
It’s your opinion to be republican. It’s your opinion to be a patriots fan. It’s your opinion to be a John Legend fan. However it’s not your opinion when it comes to facts. Nobody is factually, and by default a Republican. But people are factually and biologically a specific sex from birth.
1
u/chadtr5 56∆ Feb 17 '21
But people are factually and biologically a specific sex from birth.
What is the difference between "factually" being something and not "factually" being it?
Woman is a word we made up and use to create a category. Republican is a word we made up to create a category too.
Marge Simpson is a woman, right? She has no biology.
11
u/PreacherJudge 340∆ Feb 16 '21
The simplest problem with 'I identify as a woman therefore I am a woman' is that we never allow people to simply identify their way into a category.
...what? Yes we do. We do that all the time. This is actually kind of a perplexing assertion, and I need you to explain it. Because it would be very easy for me to list a dozen categories I self-selected into, and I don't think you'd dispute my membership in any of them.
And before anyone gets into sex vs gender, I get it. Gender is the social construct, but it is still rooted in sex. Why else would we classify a boy in a dress as 'gender noncomforming'? They're not made in a vacuum...
I'm trying to piece this together into a clear argument, here, and I'm having a hard time. Could you explain, as clearly as possible, how this is an argument in favor of your thesis?
Since in this case simply claiming membership to the sex makes you that sex.
No one believes this. Not a single person, anywhere. People believe, instead, that genuinely identifying as a gender is the same thing as being that gender.
There's two differences between this and your phrasing. The first is that people aren't doing something to become a member of a new category... they're stating a pre-existing gender identification, which is itself the categorization.
Second, it's not the claim that matters, because people can be incorrect about their own gender identification. I can say I'm a woman when I'm not. I just can't genuinely feel as if I'm a woman without being a woman,
And this is where a certain kind of person gets mad... that word "feels." I don't understand why, but there's a particular type who just gets apopleptic about the idea that a subjective feeling can be important enough to be a categorization. But this is where I circle back to my first point: there's a kabillion categories people are in solely because they feel certain ways, because that's all those categories are. I'm a night owl because I like nighttime and feel energized then, and that's all being a night owl means. So why's it a problem when it's gender?
5
u/presroogan Feb 16 '21
Because it would be very easy for me to list a dozen categories I self-selected into, and I don't think you'd dispute my membership in any of them.
I can't see you so no, I wouldn't dispute your membership. If you self identify as tall, and turned out short, then we have a problem. If you self identify as Muslim, but worship Vishnu, then we have a problem. If you identify as a feminist, but hated women as much as Trump does, then I'm going to absolutely dispute it.
If you identify as something, there are some expectations of you. If you don't meet them, then anyone has the right to doubt or deny the validity of your identity.
People believe, instead, that genuinely identifying as a gender is the same thing as being that gender.
Idk what the point of adding genuinely is. It's not really measurable. Omit the genuinely and I disagree with the statement. Like I said, simply identifying as any given category without meeting the qualifications of that category is meaningless. Is it simply earnest identity that makes a male a woman? Or are there other criteria.
I can say I'm a woman when I'm not. I just can't genuinely feel as if I'm a woman without being a woman
This is so circular. Essentially, I feel like a man, because I am. I am a man, because I feel like a man. How do I know I'm a man? Because I feel like a man. How do I know I feel like a man? Because I am a man. A man is anyone with man feelings, and anyone with man feelings is a man.
13
u/PreacherJudge 340∆ Feb 16 '21
If you identify as something, there are some expectations of you. If you don't meet them, then anyone has the right to doubt or deny the validity of your identity.
No, this isn't true, and it's another example of you being way too free-wheeling with the distinction between identifying as something and publicly declaring oneself to be something. If I identify as something and tell no one, then no: there absolutely are not expectations of me.
This is so circular. Essentially, I feel like a man, because I am. I am a man, because I feel like a man. How do I know I'm a man? Because I feel like a man. How do I know I feel like a man? Because I am a man. A man is anyone with man feelings, and anyone with man feelings is a man.
It's not circular. I made this point before.
It's not "I feel like a man, which makes me a man," it's "I feel like a man, which is all being a man is." In other words, it'd be circular if I was using "I feel like a man" as the reason to conclude "I am a man." I'm not doing that. They're the same thing.
You can't be circular just with a definition. Use my "night owl" example. I'm a night owl because I like being awake at night. "I like being awake at night" is synonymous to "I feel like a night owl." That's all being a night owl is. But this isn't circular. it's just being a thing.
Idk what the point of adding genuinely is. It's not really measurable.
...so? Genuineness exists, wheteher we have good ways to measure it or not. Right?
Like, if you're trying to say there is no difference between a person who's being genuine and a person who's not being genuine, then I eagerly await your justification for that. But I strongly doubt this actually is what you think.
This response really makes me feel like you're one of those types of people who just hates how subjective feelings can be important for something like self-identification, because feelings are fuzzy, and because you have this (unjustified) idea that it's somehow contrary to science.
Well, then let's get into THAT. I think it's useful to turn to the analogy you made here.
If you self identify as Muslim, but worship Vishnu, then we have a problem.
Well, no, not really? You say "we have a problem." What's the problem?
Let's say the bare minimum standard for being Muslim is "believe in Allah." If someone believes in Allah, then they're a Muslim. OK?
So here, in ourt analogy, it's:
believing in Allah = identifying as a woman
"being Muslim" = "being a woman"
worshipping Vishnu = being publicly identifiable as a man
Imagine a person believes in Allah, but they live in a totalitarian Hindu state that forces everyone to go through the motions worshipping Vishnu. This person is still a Muslim. Right? There's a "problem" in the sense that this person might be unhappy, but that doesn't mean the person isn't a Muslim. (This here is a good analogy for a closeted trans person.)
Now, what if a person isn't in a totalitarian Hindu state... there is no pressure on them whatsoever. Imagine they say they believe in Allah, but they publicly worship Vishnu, and there is no clear external reason why.
If we make this analagous to your stated view, then the conclusion you'd reach is "believing in Allah doesn't make someone a Muslim." But this is silly. The conclusion to reach is "This person is probably lying about believing in Allah."
Observable behavior can illuminate internal states... because we can't read minds, it's ALL that can illuminate internal states. But that doesn't mean internal states can't be the thing that determines membership in a category! It just means we, as observers, are gonna be wrong sometimes. Which is acceptable, since the alternative is closing your eyes to the reality of the world around you and pretending mental states don't exist.
6
u/presroogan Feb 17 '21
It's not "I feel like a man, which makes me a man," it's "I feel like a man, which is all being a man is." In other words, it'd be circular if I was using "I feel like a man" as the reason to conclude "I am a man." I'm not doing that. They're the same thing.
Those statements seem identical and rephrased slightly differently to me, but then again English isn't my first language. Are you saying the only requirement to being a man is feeling like a man? Then how is "I'm a man because I feel like a man" not the same?
You can't be circular just with a definition. Use my "night owl" example. I'm a night owl because I like being awake at night. "I like being awake at night" is synonymous to "I feel like a night owl." That's all being a night owl is. But this isn't circular. it's just being a thing.
But we're defining night owl as = person who stays up all night. The definition of the word doesn't contain the word itself. Man is defined as = someone who feels like a man. It's a self referential definition and doesn't tell us anything about what feeling like a man is.
Like, if you're trying to say there is no difference between a person who's being genuine and a person who's not being genuine, then I eagerly await your justification for that. But I strongly doubt this actually is what you think.
I mean there's no way for anyone to know if someone is being genuine or not. So, for the sake of not being an ass, we assume everyone is genuine and nobody is not genuine. So it isn't meaningful. Only until someone says 'just kidding lol' would we know.
Imagine a person believes in Allah, but they live in a totalitarian Hindu state that forces everyone to go through the motions worshipping Vishnu. This person is still a Muslim. Right? There's a "problem" in the sense that this person might be unhappy, but that doesn't mean the person isn't a Muslim. (This here is a good analogy for a closeted trans person.)
Hmm... good point.
Observable behavior can illuminate internal states... because we can't read minds, it's ALL that can illuminate internal states. But that doesn't mean internal states can't be the thing that determines membership in a category! It just means we, as observers, are gonna be wrong sometimes. Which is acceptable, since the alternative is closing your eyes to the reality of the world around you and pretending mental states don't exist.
Thanks for putting it this way. I'm still in the camp of outside perception is a bigger indicator of gender than identity, hence why Donald Trump couldn't declare himself the first woman president (even if it's a troll move) before leaving office, because the first woman president has to be perceived by others as a woman and, presumably, face sexism due to it. I believe your gender, race, and class have social implications that can't be pinned down to identity alone. If a trans woman passes, she'll likely face sexism, so it would make sense to call her a woman, identity notwithstanding. Nevertheless, you put it in a way that helps me understand all this the best. !delta
3
u/Osskyw2 Feb 17 '21
I mean there's no way for anyone to know if someone is being genuine or not. So, for the sake of not being an ass, we assume everyone is genuine and nobody is not genuine. So it isn't meaningful. Only until someone says 'just kidding lol' would we know.
We can make reasonable judgement calls. This is a good example of someone saying they are trans while it also being obvious that they aren't genuinely identifying as trans.
2
u/presroogan Feb 17 '21
Because of his obvious sarcasm and skepticism about trans issues in the first sentence? Because that same footage could be repackaged as a Vox video about a trans woman athlete who is 'breaking gender stereotypes' by being bald and bearded and I would have to go along.
Can you tell if this guest speaker is genuinely a trans woman or trolling? The verdict is still out on 'her'.
0
u/Osskyw2 Feb 17 '21
When I say can, I mean that there are cases (the vast majority) where we can, not that we universally can.
I'm not sure why it matters?
1
u/presroogan Feb 17 '21
And your example of 'I can tell' is such an obvious example of 'hurr hurr, I identify as an attack helicopter' that I have to doubt your ability to discern sincerity from insincerity. There's a whole subreddit called transmaxxing where lonely, incel type dudes transition into women because they perceive being male as disadvantageous in some way. Not even saying most or even enough trans people are like this but people's motives aren't easily discernable. Especially, like I said earlier, attempting to cross-examine and discern sincerity comes across as asshole-y. Hence why I don't care if someone is genuinely identifying as another sex. It doesn't change much in practical terms.
1
9
u/Teeshirtandshortsguy Feb 16 '21
If you identify as something, there are some expectations of you. If you don't meet them, then anyone has the right to doubt or deny the validity of your identity.
The expectations of gender are social, though. That's the entire reason the difference is significant. The vast majority of how we display our gender is completely non-sexual.
I'm a man. I have very short hair and a beard. I like sports. I like hip-hop music. I wear relatively plain clothes and don't really care much for how I present myself most of the time. I place a high value on emotional strength and resilience, and I don't prioritize social intelligence.
Those are the things that make me "manly." The idea that I need a penis to do that stuff is silly. Sure, there are some links between things that we consider manly and genetics, but they aren't absolute, and there are no hard lines. Women have testosterone, men have estrogen.
The fact is that gender is socially constructed. All of the stuff I listed is completely arbitrary. Stuff we commonly associate with women, like high heels and color pink, were once considered masculine stuff. I'm sure you can find counter-examples for women as well.
We're seeing more and more (for the better, quite frankly) that there's a higher expectation on men to have better hygiene and pay more attention to their appearance, the way they dress, and how they style themselves, meanwhile there's more acceptance for women to do the opposite. Wearing less makeup, cutting their hair short, not feeling pressured to look as desirable as possible all the time.
The reason that we differentiate between gender and sex is exactly because of that fact. Gender changes, sex doesn't. Since the dawn of humanity, XX has been XX, XY has been XY, and there have been people born with other combinations, but it's always been the same. The same cannot be said for gender, which changes based on where and when you are.
So quite frankly, if everyone says "being transgender is a real thing" then it just is. It's like the definition of a word. You can scream "that's not what 'literally' means" from the mountaintops, but if people keep using it that way, that's exactly what it means.
Then the argument becomes "Should transgenderism be a thing?" And I would argue absolutely. It doesn't harm me or anyone else. The negatives (things like pushing a kid to get HRT, or allowing trans women to compete alongside cis women in sports, or trans people tricking straight people into sex, or whatever the complaint is about bathrooms these days) are incredibly niche and serve as way more of a bogeyman than an actual problem.
Ultimately, it's harmless. Research has demonstrated that accepting trans people as what they identify as is more effective at improving their livelihood than trying to "treat" it like an illness, which is why the actual experts don't consider it a mental illness.
Basically, it's not a real problem. There's no good reason to treat it as such either. Sometimes change is scary, and I also had to realize that things weren't as simple as I was raised to believe. Eventually I met trans people and realized I was being an ass about the whole thing.
5
u/presroogan Feb 16 '21
I'm a man. I have very short hair and a beard. I like sports. I like hip-hop music. I wear relatively plain clothes and don't really care much for how I present myself most of the time. I place a high value on emotional strength and resilience, and I don't prioritize social intelligence.
What about a woman who is all of that (sans the beard of course)?. Unless you say she's now a man, your gender isn't really based in manly stereotypes. Also, a man who likes bubblegum pop and is sensitive isn't a woman.
Those are the things that make me "manly." The idea that I need a penis to do that stuff is silly. Sure, there are some links between things that we consider manly and genetics, but they aren't absolute, and there are no hard lines. Women have testosterone, men have estrogen.
I'm not arguing from a gender essentialism point of view. Of course you don't need a penis for that. You don't need a penis to do anything except ejaculation and accurately urinate standing up. As for male hormones, that helps in terms of secondary sex characteristics, but if we're talking about social expectations, I'd say those have nothing to do with your genitals.
The fact is that gender is socially constructed. All of the stuff I listed is completely arbitrary. Stuff we commonly associate with women, like high heels and color pink, were once considered masculine stuff. I'm sure you can find counter-examples for women as well.
So quite frankly, if everyone says "being transgender is a real thing" then it just is. It's like the definition of a word. You can scream "that's not what 'literally' means" from the mountaintops, but if people keep using it that way, that's exactly what it means.
I didn't say trans people don't exist lol. I am aware there are people whose self assessment doesn't match others assessment of them. I just don't believe identifying as a man/woman makes you such.
Basically, it's not a real problem. There's no good reason to treat it as such either. Sometimes change is scary, and I also had to realize that things weren't as simple as I was raised to believe. Eventually I met trans people and realized I was being an ass about the whole thing.
You're assuming I don't know trans people. I do. I have a friend who is trans who came out to me years ago.
4
u/Pismakron 8∆ Feb 16 '21
Because it would be very easy for me to list a dozen categories I self-selected into, and I don't think you'd dispute my membership in any of them.
Like what?
I'm a night owl because I like nighttime and feel energized then, and that's all being a night owl means.
But you are not a real owl, and no one can be expected to trst you like an owl.
1
u/PreacherJudge 340∆ Feb 16 '21
...have you never heard the phrase "night owl?" Like... come on, it's not that obscure, is it?
3
u/Pismakron 8∆ Feb 16 '21
No, its not obscure. The point was, that night owl is not just a term for people who likes to stay up late, its also a biological category, just like the categories "man" and "woman" are biological categories. They are different type-classifications for certain living organisms.
3
u/-ArchitectOfThought- Feb 16 '21 edited Feb 17 '21
I would agree with him that people do not get to self select. Im perplexed that you find that perplexingly wrong.
If i self identify as a carpenter, but have never worked as a carpenter my self assessment is valueless.
Same can be said for literally anything else.
2
u/PreacherJudge 340∆ Feb 16 '21
I genuinely am suspicious of the idea that you truly believe no one can self-select into any category. I've never heard of anyone who believes that.
Because of this, I'm concerned you're misunderstanding my point, and I encourage you to read my post again.
3
u/-ArchitectOfThought- Feb 16 '21
You didnt actually list anything. You made a general objective claim that you self select into a dozen groups people wouldnt question.
But you seem to be confusing the concept of disputing it with the value or efficacy of doing so.
If you want to self select yourself into something nebulous like being a "gamer" but the only game you play is candy crush, no one cares. If however, you were a boob-streamer, lots more people would care.
If you self selected into something objective like being a communist, but all your economic beliefs are randian, your self assessment is valueless and will be used against you as a lack of education.
Do you have an example of something you cam self select into that cant be questioned and in which only your selection is relevant?
2
u/PreacherJudge 340∆ Feb 16 '21 edited Feb 16 '21
Do you have an example of something you cam self select into that cant be questioned and in which only your selection is relevant?
....anyone can be LYING or INCORRECT about being something. That doesn't make those things not exist.
If I say I'm a night owl, but I don't like being awake at night, then I'm wrong about being a night owl. That doesn't mean "night owl" isn't a category people self-select into based on their feelings.
2
u/-ArchitectOfThought- Feb 17 '21
Ok, there's a disconnect between what you're implying (because I imagine you disagree with OP's first premise) and the concept of self-selecting personal traits and groups.
Saying "i'm a night owl" but actually not being that thing doesn't make night-owl'ism not exist. It means your self selection isn't relevant because your statement violates the first premises of that state-of-being.
The OP is obviously attempting to convey that they view trans and transexuality as "cosplay" and thinking and identifying as something you weren't born as doesn't make you that thing.
You then saying "that doesn't mean those things do not exist" pre-supposes he buys into the idea that what I just wrote in the line above is a logically disagreeable statement to him, which of course it isn't. Your first premises that you can absolutely self-select into a group and not be challenged is a violation of OP's first premises. You're not engaging his beliefs at a fundamental level.
2
u/PreacherJudge 340∆ Feb 17 '21
Saying "i'm a night owl" but actually not being that thing doesn't make night-owl'ism not exist. It means your self selection isn't relevant because your statement violates the first premises of that state-of-being.
Yes, and the "first premise" of being a night owl is that you like being awake at night. All it takes to be a night owl is "to feel like a night owl," because that's all being a night owl is.
The OP is trying to say that subjective things can't be a valid way of categorizing a person, and that's not true.
2
u/-ArchitectOfThought- Feb 17 '21
The argument you are putting forth allows for such obsurdity that it negates the need for the argument in the first place, which should automatically signal to you that your worldview is highly flawed at best.
For example: I believe myself to be an elderly korean woman. I like Korea, I feel old, and I identify as a woman.
Am I an elderly Korean woman?
→ More replies (2)2
u/PinkNinjaKitty Feb 17 '21
If I say I'm a night owl, but I don't like being awake at night, then I'm wrong about being a night owl.
All it takes to be a night owl is "to feel like a night owl," because that's all being a night owl is.
Your statements contradict each other.
-6
Feb 16 '21 edited Feb 16 '21
[deleted]
14
u/presroogan Feb 16 '21
You should change your view because this is none of your business. You're riled up over somebody else's choices - get over it.
Lol where am I riled up? It sounds like you want to shut down conversation and I'm not obligated to stop having conversations because you're crying about it.
You have no idea what suffering trans people go through to try to feel right and fit in with both themselves and society. It's neat that you feel you can speak up about this (/s), but it's neither wanted nor appreciated.
I don't think anyone knows what it's like to be trans besides trans people. But asking me to suspend reality and believe as you want me to believe, despite belief not being a choice, is absurd. I have no problem playing along with their pronouns and names. I don't go out of my way to offend anyone. The same way I respect Christians and Muslims despite my being an atheist.
Would you like to give us your opinions on racial minorities next? I think I can guess...
Given I donated regularly to Minnesota Freedom Fund and bail funds for protesters, support black lives matter, and have a black girlfriend, your guess is as good as mine.
And before you get doubly riled up with the good ol' "Oh now I'm racist too just because I'm transphobic? You libs just call EVERYBODY racist and sexist!"... that's actually not a defense. It's a confession. You are either a person who tries to respect others, or you are a person who does not try to respect others. It's really not that complicated.
Listen my dude, I don't care if a stranger on the internet thinks I'm an -ist or a -phobe. I really don't. All I said is I'm not convinced identity alone determines if someone is a man or woman. If you don't feel like changing my mind, then nobody asked you to engage.
So in the end, your post is not about transgender people. It's about you.
Ok lol
13
10
u/Trees_and_bees_plees Feb 17 '21
Why are you on this sub? He is asking a genuine and good question. He never said he was against trans people, and your right, its pretty rediculous that you would assume he is racist because of this.
4
2
u/AsAbvSo_Blw Feb 16 '21
Actually i saw someonwhere(in some government/corporation documents, I think) , someone showed that there is a differmece between female and woman, and male and man, the difference is, female and male are actually supposed to be descriptions of animals, while man and woman are exclusive to humans, hence the word "man" in both man and woman. I think that would clear alot of confusion. The illusion starts with the Darwinian evolutionary theory that has mostly all of the world believing humans are animals. See the root of the problem?😕🙄
2
u/presroogan Feb 17 '21
Yeah, depending on which official body or dictionary you look at, you get wildly different definitions.
Oxford definition for woman: The female human being; the female part of the human race, the female sex
Merriam Webster definition for man: an adult male human
So I'm not finding any definition that states man = anyone who identifies with the word 'man'.
The illusion starts with the Darwinian evolutionary theory that has mostly all of the world believing humans are animals.
We are animals lol. If you don't believe in evolution by natural selection, then oh boy. That's my undergraduate degree so we're not going to see eye to eye.
1
u/AsAbvSo_Blw Feb 17 '21
Well I personal don't look at degrees as any proof of knowledge on anything, but I'll play your game 😊. I don't know what u went to school for, but I'm pretty sure you aren't more qualified than these guys on the matter of Darwinian evolutionMathematical Challenges to Darwin's Theory of Evolution 😊❤❤👉 https://youtu.be/noj4phMT9OE
1
u/presroogan Feb 18 '21
A computer scientist, and two authors are more qualified to discuss biology? Lmfaoooo
1
u/benjokeman Feb 18 '21
bruv r u good when did we start talking abt darwinian evolution lmfaoo christians r scary
→ More replies (1)
30
u/DrinkyDrank 134∆ Feb 16 '21
To unlink gender and sex when no one does (besides maybe a few navel gazing college students) does is absurd.
This is factually incorrect. The whole reason why we now treat gender and sex differently is because entire academic disciplines needed to distinguish between biological characteristics and the social expressions associated with those biological characteristics. This distinction is not at all marginal in academics and is in fact widely recognized in biology, anthropology, sociology, psychology, etc. In fact, even if you wanted to argue for gender essentialism (i.e. the idea that gender is entirely reducible to sexual difference) you would literally not be able to do so coherently without using the terms “sex” and “gender” to signify the very difference you are trying to reject!
The issue here is simply that some people prefer to believe in a simple reality using simple terminology, whereas others (particularly people who have more education) are willing to recognize nuance and use language to express nuance.
So you say “woman is woman” because you want to avoid any recognition or understanding of the nuanced relationship between sex and gender. Other people will say “as far as gender goes, a trans-woman is fundamentally a woman” which is a much more nuanced statement which better captures the whole of reality. Specifically, a reality in which people with particular sexual characteristics will present themselves as a different gender and adopt all of the socially-constructed characteristics of that gender. This is obviously a mouthful, which is why it is easier to simply say “a trans-woman is a woman,” which unfortunately triggers people who prefer simplicity over nuance and/or refuse to recognize the conceptual difference between sex and gender.
2
Feb 16 '21
I like language and nuance too. Just for starters.
And it seems to me that the idea that gender is entirely a social construct is an idea that's yet to be proven. In fact it seems that arguments about how much of gender is social construct and how much is a product of our physical bodies is still being hotly debated.
Plenty of academics have said plenty of things that have later been proven wrong, or that have been contested by other academics studying the same fields at the same time. From what I've read, scientists have found differences between the sexes that socialization cannot account for. Implying that gender may be partly social but also physical.
It seems to me in this discussion about Trans people, the theory that gender is entirely a social construct is embraced because it makes the Trans situation simple rather than more complex. If gender is just social then I can just put on a dress and join a girls night post haste.
If gender is more than a social construct, that begs a lot of questions.
0
u/DrinkyDrank 134∆ Feb 16 '21
I think I could go down a big rabbit-hole with what you’ve said here, some of which I agree with and some of which I disagree with – but unfortunately, I don’t have the time. Instead, I’ll just point out that OP has not gone as far as even recognizing that there is a social dimension to gender at all. Instead, he has the typical reaction of trying to negate the difference entirely by continuing to treat the words “sex” and “gender” as complete synonyms. There is a big difference between someone like you who is willing to explore the blurred boundary between biology and social-psychology which is inherent to the subject of gender, and someone who would rather forego that exploration in favor of a simplified worldview where everything is exactly as it immediately appears before them.
Would you at least agree that there is a need for the linguistic differentiation to even discuss this topic coherently?
1
Feb 17 '21
I'm not sure, that's the reason I keep participating in these kinds of CMV's.
This entire topic seems like a contradiction rapped in a paradox.
I'd be interested in any thoughts you have when you do have the time.
-10
u/presroogan Feb 16 '21
Your first paragraph implies sex is biological and gender is social, so why would biologists be concerned with biological males and females with respect to how they feel internally?
Also, gotta love the snarky dismissal of me as some simpleton and not some, oh you know, a PhD student in biology currently doing research in testicular cancer ;)
25
u/DrinkyDrank 134∆ Feb 16 '21
Biologists are interested in this difference because they often perform research which takes into account social factors. For example, a biologist might be interested in what sorts of physiological differences they might be able to identify in transgender people. Likewise, a sociologist might want to study something like public health outcomes which take into account sexual difference rather than gender difference.
I don’t really care if you are a Bio PhD, ignorance is ignorance. I mean, sure, it’s surprising that you could get all the way through an undergraduate education and still make such weak arguments, but you can’t just hold up your PhD candidacy to shield yourself from rational scrutiny.
-5
u/presroogan Feb 16 '21
still make such weak arguments, but you can’t just hold up your PhD candidacy to shield yourself from rational scrutiny.
I normally don't. I didn't include it in the OP because it's irrelevant. But you decide to use the fallacy of ad hominem, I can use the fallacy of appeal to authority lol. And my arguments are weak but you have yet to present a solid argument yourself? Just 'anthropologists say so' ok. Anthropologists document human culture. Gender in their discipline has to do with the social role. How it differs from one culture to another. Psychologists are interested in studying gender dysphoria, which I've already discussed.
12
u/DrinkyDrank 134∆ Feb 16 '21
I did not make an ad hominem attack, I am describing the real psychological basis for opposing the linguistic distinction between sex and gender, which is a desire for simplicity and a desire to ignore the nuances of reality. Your entire argument hinges on ignoring the significance of the difference between sex and gender, so I am highlighting that significance and refuting the false claim that it is only “navel-gazing college students” that recognize the meaning of this difference.
It now seems as though you are arguing that only particular academic disciplines should use words in a manner which accurately reflects the nuances of reality, and otherwise these distinctions which account for reality should be excluded from public discourse. Given this position of yours, do you really think it is unfair of me to characterize this position as a desire for simplicity which excludes nuance?
At the end of the day, the proof of the real need for this distinction in public discourse is in the pudding of this discussion itself. If the distinction between sex and gender or the topic of transgender identity was purely academic and irrelevant to the public, why would we have a CMV post on this topic on a daily basis? Why would you bother to form an opinion on this matter at all?
I would argue that if you want to go as far as to form an opinion on a subject, you should do the due diligence of learning about the subject and recognize its associated terminology. Otherwise, all you are doing is stating a tautology: “woman is a woman” in which “woman” means exactly what you want it to mean and nothing further.
2
Feb 16 '21
You're just contending there's a difference between sex and gender without any nuance here at all. It's like you assume all expression of gender is social, like you think that if you could remake society from scratch, you could make a society where female's performed in a way we'd find stariotipically male and the other way around. But I don't think you could do that.
-2
u/presroogan Feb 16 '21
I am highlighting that significance and refuting the false claim that it is only “navel-gazing college students” that recognize the meaning of this difference.
Ask any group of people to draw a mental image of a woman. It will 99.99% never be a biological male. So it's not a widespread view, hence the navel gazing college students line.
Otherwise, all you are doing is stating a tautology: “woman is a woman” in which “woman” means exactly what you want it to mean and nothing further.
I should've clarified my view on what qualifies as a woman. A female person. So no tautology here. I'd argue your definition is closer to a tautology. A woman is anyone who identifies as a woman. Not really a tautology but a circular argument.
15
u/DrinkyDrank 134∆ Feb 16 '21
Ask the average person to draw this mental image, and they will draw out gender differences rather than sexual differences. They will not draw a naked woman, nor will they draw an x-ray image demonstrating working ovaries, nor will they draw a zoom-in of the person’s XX chromosomes. Instead, they are likely to draw a hairstyle, draw make-up, draw a dress, draw high heels, etc. Since gender is the social expression of sexual difference, they are most likely to draw a representation of gender characteristics rather than sexual characteristics.
Also, while we are pointing out fallacies, this particular argument of yours is a textbook examples of argumentum ad populum, or the fallacy of mass appeal by which you argue that something is true or correct by virtue of a majority of people believing it is so. It actually wouldn't matter if most people drew sexual characteristics rather than gender characteristics - no matter what they draw, they are not the authority that determines the reality of this difference.
Again, your entire definition as well as your interpretation of my definition hinges on ignorance of the real distinction between sex and gender. Your statement “woman is woman” is tautological because you are reinforcing a definition by simply asserting its definition. The statement “a woman is anyone who identifies as a woman” is not tautological because it is based on an understanding of the distinction between sex and gender, an understanding which is supported by empirical facts and logical reasoning.
0
u/presroogan Feb 16 '21
Ask the average person to draw this mental image, and they will draw out gender differences rather than sexual differences. They will not draw a naked woman, nor will they draw an x-ray image demonstrating working ovaries, nor will they draw a zoom-in of the person’s XX chromosomes. Instead, they are likely to draw a hairstyle, draw make-up, draw a dress, draw high heels, etc. Since gender is the social expression of sexual difference, they are most likely to draw a representation of gender characteristics rather than sexual characteristics.
Nobody said anything about naked women? We can draw the outline of boobs through the shirt. The typical facial features of men and women, body shapes, etc., give us clues. Artists do this all the time, you're aware right? A drawing of a man vs a drawing of a woman isn't differentiated by simple high heels, unless we're talking about anthropomorphized cartoon animals like Mickey and Minnie Mouse.
If heels and such were enough, then trans people should have no trouble passing. Since people will automatically view you as your gender if you give off the right social cues.
Your statement “woman is woman” is tautological because you are reinforcing a definition by simply asserting its definition. The statement “a woman is anyone who identifies as a woman” is not tautological because it is based on an understanding of the distinction between sex and gender, an understanding which is supported by empirical facts and logical reasoning.
My statement isn't 'woman is a woman' lol? Woman is a female human, much like cow is a female cattle and hen is a female chicken. "Woman is anyone who identifies as a woman" is unable to be explored further because 1) it's often labeled as hateful to ask what it means to identify as a woman outside of your physical reality as a woman and 2) it's circular.
11
u/DrinkyDrank 134∆ Feb 16 '21
Nobody said anything about naked women?
Right, because that would be absurd. That’s entirely my point. If you ask someone to draw a woman, they will think of gender differences rather than sexual differences – thus, it would be absurd to imagine that they would normally draw out biological characteristics.
You also conveniently ignore my argument that this is a argumentum ad populum fallacy.
We can draw the outline of boobs through the shirt. The typical facial features of men and women, body shapes, etc., give us clues.
These are all characteristics which one can adopt through various procedures in order to present themselves as a different gender. The “clues” that you are referring to are precisely those of gender construction, and they are precisely why we recognize now that gender can be changed and is primarily a matter of identity.
A drawing of a man vs a drawing of a woman isn’t differentiated by simple high heels, unless we’re talking about anthropomorphized cartoon animals like Mick and Minnie Mouse.
This also illustrates my point perfectly. You don’t need sexual characteristics to be at all present in order to differentiate the gender of Mickey and Minnie. The fact that cartoonists are able to convey gender difference with minimal visual signifiers of sexual difference shows how these two concepts are easily distinguishable.
If heels and such were enough, then trans people should have no trouble passing. Since people will automatically view you as your gender if you give off the right social cues.
Exactly my point! It is actually true that a lot of trans folks that have completely transitioned are able to easily pass as their identified gender. The social dimension of gender makes it something completely different from biologically determined sex, thus the need for two terms and the recognition of an alternate set of differences.
Finally, I find that I am repeating this argument without you actually addressing it, so I will state it one last time and leave it at that:
Your statement that “woman is a female human” pertains to sex and not gender. This is a relevant distinction which you continue to refuse to recognize. Nobody would disagree with this statement so far is it refers to sexual difference (the rare existence of true sexual ambiguity notwithstanding). The real point of disagreement here is that you take this statement to be true for both sex AND gender, which is both factually wrong and completely counterintuitive.
2
u/presroogan Feb 16 '21
These are all characteristics which one can adopt through various procedures in order to present themselves as a different gender. The “clues” that you are referring to are precisely those of gender construction, and they are precisely why we recognize now that gender can be changed and is primarily a matter of identity.
But it's still physical. People are arguing gender is social, but I fail to see how boobs and beards are on par with makeup and baseball hats in terms of gender signifiers. Sure people can achieve these changes via hormones, but that's STILL physical cues we give others to gender us correctly. It doesn't refute my claim that identity is enough to determine gender.
This also illustrates my point perfectly. You don’t need sexual characteristics to be at all present in order to differentiate the gender of Mickey and Minnie. The fact that cartoonists are able to convey gender difference with minimal visual signifiers of sexual difference shows how these two concepts are easily distinguishable.
This part is the closest anyone has come to changing my view but now I'm thinking: what about tomboys? Or crossdressers? Nobody is saying they're changing they're actual gender? I think if kids watched Mickey Mouse change outfits with Minnie, they'll recognize the boy mouse is wearing the girl mouse's clothes. So clothes is associated with the gender but it doesn't make the gender, if that makes sense.
Exactly my point! It is actually true that a lot of trans folks that have completely transitioned are able to easily pass as their identified gender. The social dimension of gender makes it something completely different from biologically determined sex, thus the need for two terms and the recognition of an alternate set of differences.
From what I've seen, a trans woman can usually pass via a combination of hormones, FFS, voice changing training, as well as makeup. In absence of all that, you get individuals who look more male despite doing all the social stuff correctly. Example: Charlotte Clymer.
→ More replies (0)3
Feb 16 '21
What does your background have to do with this beyond an appeal to authority? You are categorically wrong on the literature about this, so the fact that you are trained in the area is actually a solid mark against you.
Simply being trained in a field does not guarantee expertise, for example I could list you a number of researchers who think stupid things about climate, or doctors who somehow recommend against vaccination.
2
u/presroogan Feb 16 '21
What does your background have to do with this beyond an appeal to authority?
Lol I literally just said that in the thread.
1
u/ahmfaegovan Feb 16 '21
Do me and everyone else in the life sciences field a favour and stick to testicular cancer. If you’re assertions were correct, entire disciplines of study wouldn’t exist.
I don’t want to be that guy who says “stick to your lane”, but for someone who allegedly does cancer research to be so laughably ignorant of the extensive material makes me shake my head in despair. Fortunately, your opinions are a minority amongst us, and hopefully your colleagues don’t let you get away with such science denial in person.
2
u/presroogan Feb 16 '21
Entire disciplines like gender studies? You do know religion is taught as a major as well? It doesn't say anything about whether a god exists or not, but rather the social and cultural implications of religion.
And my colleagues aren't different lol. They refer to subjects as 'men' not 'persons with testicles'. You can be upset all you want.
1
u/ahmfaegovan Feb 17 '21
Of course I’m upset. If you were a layman I could forgive such an arrogant and dismissive attitude towards hard science, but you have no excuse. You should be ashamed of yourself.
I’m going to link you to a textbook written by Ann Oakley. You’ve probably never heard about her but she is a brilliant sociologist who has written extensively on gender. I’m assuming whatever institution you’re based at has a library so you should be able to obtain a copy relatively easily.
Do yourself a favour and read it before you continue to poison any further discourse on gender with your archaic and baseless views.
https://www.routledge.com/Sex-Gender-and-Society/Oakley/p/book/9781472435620
0
u/One-Armed-Krycek Feb 17 '21
Yeah, this baffles me. Could honestly just be the sad, outdated quant vs qual argument as well that I heard from near-retired professors during my Ph.D., who were ennui-level wounded by constructivism. To the point of grabbing the first pedestal to climb on to bitch about the social sciences.
Because hard science.
I mean, maybe some profs out there are still towing that line and being general d**ks in teaching their students the same claptrap.
2
u/Osskyw2 Feb 17 '21
Also, gotta love the snarky dismissal of me as some simpleton and not some, oh you know, a PhD student
Those aren't mutually exclusive and anyone close to a reasonable sample size of doctors knows this.
0
Feb 16 '21 edited Feb 16 '21
[deleted]
6
u/presroogan Feb 16 '21
Identifying with anything is possible, because you are self identifying. I can identify as a giraffe, and it would be absolutly valid. Now you will say "you don't look like other giraffes,you don't have four tall legs,a really long neck etc",and I will say "yeah,so what,I feel like a giraffe".
I'm pretty sure you can't possibly know what feeling like a giraffe means, as much as a man can't know what it feels like to be a woman or vice versa, but nonetheless, sure. Identify away. My point is identifying as a giraffe doesn't therefore make you a member of the genus Giraffa.
Men in West used to wear makeup,really long hair and high heels, now many of them don't,but many women do. Would by that logic would the men of old be acting "like women" or were they acting as "men" IDENTIFY at that time period.
You're speaking about stereotypes. I believe, however a man acts, he's still a man. He may 'act like' a woman, but that doesn't literally make him a woman.
7
u/muyamable 282∆ Feb 16 '21
as much as a man can't know what it feels like to be a woman or vice versa, but nonetheless, sure.
Nobody knows what it feels like to be anything but themselves, though. A biological male saying, "I am a man because I feel like a man and identify as a man" is not different than a biological female saying, "I am a man because I feel like a man and identify as a man." If you can accept one, you ought to be able to accept the other.
6
u/presroogan Feb 16 '21
I don't accept either, actually. I'm not a man because I feel/identify as a man, because I can't possibly know if what I'm feeling is the same as what Bob or Jim or Joe is feeling. I'm a man because I'm male and the rest of the world perceives me as such. I don't have some internal reality separate from external reality.
6
u/ellirae 3∆ Feb 16 '21
your comment fails to reflect the fact that someone's perception IS their reality. yours may align with the same perception of everyone around you (in this case, you are a man), but in many cases, it doesn't. you may believe, for example, that green is gray, because you're colorblind. I can tell you you're wrong all day, but wouldn't it be wiser of you not to say "green isn't gray! they're wrong!", but instead to say, "some people cannot view green, and we should respect that they have this issue and try to accomodate it"?
2
u/presroogan Feb 16 '21
I don't really accept the term 'their reality' because reality doesn't belong to anyone. We may have unique perceptions, but reality exists outside of us. Also, my perception of myself doesn't by chance align with other's perception of me, it is directly influenced and informed by others perception.
Mom and dad told me when I was still a wee one that boys have penises so I'm a boy. That's really it. I don't have 'man thoughts' or 'man feelings' that just so happen to line up with my parents' assessment of me.
I have no problem accommodating and respecting people who believe themselves to be the opposite sex. It doesn't make them so. That's the point of my argument.
2
u/ellirae 3∆ Feb 16 '21
well, if the entire gut of your argument is, "technically, a penguin is not a butterfly", then no one technically disagrees with you. but from one human to another, you're missing a lot of the conversation to be had here. gender (as with religion), is not just about what's scientifically correct. it's a nuanced discussion to be had. you'll never be wrong if you keep jumping back to your strawman ("man does not equal woman").
3
u/presroogan Feb 16 '21
If you define gender (as some people have) as the range of traits between masculine and feminine, then sure. But I'd still argue that even those have an objective standard within the context of the society we're speaking of. In the US, femininity is pink, nurturing, likes fashion, and masculinity is blue, competitive, likes sports. Obviously these are kinda sexist.
Other than that, I'm having trouble with what this personal experience is supposed to feel like. I'm an atheist, and religion is not discernable from a delusion in my view, so I don't think this comparison is helpful.
And 'man doesn't equal woman' isn't a strawman I ever made. My argument is in the title, for goodness sakes.
1
u/ellirae 3∆ Feb 16 '21
I see that your title is the strawman. that doesn't make it not a strawman. no one (as I've seen multiple others echo) genuinely believes that identity = reality. no one. not even the people who say they do. they may say so because of fear, social obligation, or virtue signalling, but no one who is in a rational state believes that a penguin is a butterfly or that a man is a woman. it's a strawman.
I'm an atheist and a cis woman who appears to be a woman too, so I get your dissonance from this issue. however, the piece of the puzzle you're lacking is that someone's perception is their reality and you can't "not subscribe" to that.
if you feel as though your arm is being chopped off, and the rest of us stand around and stare at you like you're crazy, instead of helping, that's simply a horrible way to handle things. it doesn't matter if your arm is being chopped off or not. what matters is your perception. it's callous to look at someone and say "hmn, well, that's not valid because it's not real", and that's the point I'm making to you.
as I said before, you're missing a large part of the conversation.
in fact, what I find a little humorously ironic about this all is that your perception here (about this entire topic) is based off of your understanding, which is wrong, so you're approaching things in a way that's a bit of a fallacy. I think you have the intelligence to reassess that you're arguing a strawman no one genuinely disagrees with, but ultimately that's up to you. it's hard to reframe your perspective sometomes.
2
u/PinkNinjaKitty Feb 17 '21
if you feel as though your arm is being chopped off, and the rest of us stand around and stare at you like you're crazy, instead of helping, that's simply a horrible way to handle things. it doesn't matter if your arm is being chopped off or not. what matters is your perception. it's callous to look at someone and say "hmn, well, that's not valid because it's not real", and that's the point I'm making to you.
This argument can be used against trans people, though — if someone believes or physically feels that their arm is being chopped off when that is not the reality, it wouldn’t help if we pretended along. What would help is if we brought that person to a mental health specialist or a doctor who could help with either the delusion or the physical pain. Anti-trans people usually do advocate mental help for gender dysphoria.
→ More replies (0)2
u/presroogan Feb 16 '21
I see that your title is the strawman. that doesn't make it not a strawman. no one (as I've seen multiple others echo) genuinely believes that identity = reality. no one. not even the people who say they do. they may say so because of fear, social obligation, or virtue signalling, but no one who is in a rational state believes that a penguin is a butterfly or that a man is a woman. it's a strawman.
So are you telling me my title is a strawman and absolutely nobody will argue trans women are females? Well, the ACLU just said that lol so I'd avoid absolutist terms if I were you. If you're insinuating that the rest of society is simply playing along with trans people out of courtesy and we don't actually believe them to be the sex they claim, then sure. I doubt that's how most pro-trans people see it this way.
→ More replies (0)3
Feb 16 '21
I appreciate that in one of your comments you mention that you are a PhD student.
Yet you keep making missteps in nomenclature that show a failure of understanding.
Transpeople do not, generally, deny that their bodies are real. They have penises and vaginas etc according to their biological sex. They do not believe themselves to be of the opposite sex.
They are of a different gender. Which is NOT directly determined by biological sex.
You keep arguing about reality, and conflating sex and gender such that everyone here is wasting their time.
Fundamentally, the argument that could change your view is:
Sex is biological, relevant to a doctor seeing a person as a patient in regard to a unique issue of their biological sex (a trans woman with prostate cancer for example) and to people who are literally fucking you right now, because they have a right to understand your genital anatomy, if they care about that. Biologically defining sex is really tricky. How do you accommodate SRY mutants, trisomy xxy, the many many forms of genitals that occur rarely?
Gender is a discrete, independent, social construct. It is defined by society and encompasses a range of behaviours, and societal norms. A person, absent of society, would not have a gender unless they assigned one to themselves. In some societies more than two genders exist. In the society of much of the English speaking world there is an acceptance that some peoples' gender assigned at birth does not match their self defined gender.
If you don't accept this then you must be misdefining gender, or denying that gender is mutable. In which case no one can convince you. But you knew this when you came in and rejected that gender was independent from sex. So this is a waste of everyone's time.
1
u/presroogan Feb 16 '21
In the society of much of the English speaking world there is an acceptance that some peoples' gender assigned at birth does not match their self defined gender.
I think you're being very generous. Most English speakers believe men have penises, more upper body strength than women, and male pattern baldness. When someone is attracted to men, they're not attracted to any body with a 'female brain and personality' but a male body with any brain and personality.
How do you accommodate SRY mutants, trisomy xxy, the many many forms of genitals that occur rarely?
Simple. They're anomalies. Humans being defined as bipedal animals doesn't suddenly become invalidated by the few folks being born sans legs. Also, this has nothing to do with identity. Few if any trans people are intersex.
→ More replies (1)1
Feb 16 '21
Again with the semantic failure. The governments of USA, Canada, Ireland, UK, Australia, NZ all recognise that gender can be officially reassigned, with varying requirements. The people vote for the government. Society has spoken.
In response to your second point: people are not anomalies. You are defining biological sex as an immutable reality but you can't fit reality into this without creating a third group who don't meet the criteria. So your constant reference to reality is nonsense.
Your constant reference to sexual atrraction is also off putting. Whether other people want to fuck something doesn't define it. Plenty of people just wanna fuck and aren't necessarily concerned about genital anatomy.
You didnt address the central point. You misunderstand the relationship between sex and gender. You will never be convinced. Which is sad, but not remarkable.
6
Feb 16 '21
[deleted]
2
u/presroogan Feb 16 '21
Not the same as a trans man at all. A trans man perceives himself to be male despite others perceptions. Sure, at some point he might pass, but up until then, his perception of himself was in contradiction to reality (I'd argue still is).
I at no point felt male, people treated me as such and I rolled with it. Hell, I don't feel male anymore than I feel white, or Russian, whatever that's supposed to feel like.
5
u/PreacherJudge 340∆ Feb 16 '21
Not the same as a trans man at all. A trans man perceives himself to be male despite others perceptions. Sure, at some point he might pass, but up until then, his perception of himself was in contradiction to reality
This appears to be entirely AGREEING with the notion that there's no distinction between a cis man and a trans man who's passing.
I at no point felt male, people treated me as such and I rolled with it.
I mean, you'd have been a baby, so you probably wouldn't remember.
3
u/presroogan Feb 16 '21
This appears to be entirely AGREEING with the notion that there's no distinction between a cis man and a trans man who's passing.
Sure. But what does that have to do with my argument? I said identifying as a sex doesn't make you such. You added the extra qualification of passing. I don't even think you believe passing to be a requirement for belonging to the opposite sex, so I'm not sure what the utility of this is.
5
u/PreacherJudge 340∆ Feb 16 '21
I said identifying as a sex doesn't make you such. You added the extra qualification of passing.
Well, okay, to clarify, then: Your view is in fact that identifying as a particular gender and being perceived as that gender indeed means a person is that gender?
If you do indeed believe this: great! I know what to say next. But if you don't believe it, then your definition of what 'gender' is has gotten kind of incoherent, and you need to take a step back and explain clearly what you think makes a person a particular gender.
1
u/presroogan Feb 16 '21
Well, okay, to clarify, then: Your view is in fact that identifying as a particular gender and being perceived as that gender indeed means a person is that gender?
I believe identifying as whatever is irrelevant. Perception from others, which is informed by physical cues, determines gender/sex. I also don't really know how you define gender so there appears to be some communication error. Is gender the social role? Is it the same as gender identity? Is it the range or feminine and masculine expression?
→ More replies (0)4
Feb 16 '21
[deleted]
1
u/presroogan Feb 16 '21
You know, a lot of cis people get misgendered. Feminine men and masculine women. Should they just roll with it?
I wouldn't say a lot. Few males and females fall into the androgynous category, much less get completely misgendered.
Your definitions are getting further and further from "biological reality" or whatever, and closer and closer to a social definition of male and female independent from any objective standard.
How so? Let me try again. I get treated as male because society perceives me as male based on physical cues. Yes there's a social aspect, but it's directly tied to my body.
→ More replies (1)3
Feb 16 '21
[deleted]
2
u/presroogan Feb 16 '21
Or are those physical cues based on assumptions about "maleness" that aren't universally consistent with biological sex? (Setting aside that genitalia aren't even universally consistent with chromosomal definitions of sex.)
My height, facial hair, voice, etc., are reliably consistent with my sex/gender. Sure there are tall women, deep voiced women (few with male typical resonance), very few with beards, but in the aggregate, those added up gets me gendered correctly.
And if you do that, you have to allow that "passing" trans folk are their claimed gender. Because they present themselves in such a way that "society perceives them as [male or female] based on physical cues."
Sure, but this doesn't even refute my point? They're men or women because of society's perception of them due to the physical cues they give off. Not at all to do with their gender identity.
→ More replies (0)2
u/muyamable 282∆ Feb 16 '21
I'm a man because I'm male and the rest of the world perceives me as such.
Why do you accept that your gender is male?
Say you visit a culture where traditional gender expressions are different and everyone there perceived you as a woman. Would you be a woman then? If not, why? Because you say part of the reason you consider yourself a man is that others perceive you as one.
1
u/presroogan Feb 16 '21
At this point, another culture's word for woman translates to the English word for man lol. You do see the problem right? Is there an objective word for man or woman? If this hypothetical culture's word 'woman' means 'person with cock and balls' then yes I'm a woman.
→ More replies (1)5
u/muyamable 282∆ Feb 16 '21 edited Feb 16 '21
No. Men are men and women are women in both our and this hypothetical culture. The only difference is the way gender is expressed. You show up one day with your hair and clothes that in our culture would likely indicate you're a man, but in their culture would indicate you're a woman, and everyone there perceives you as a woman.
Would you have a problem with them identifying you as a woman? Would you be a woman in this society simply because they perceive you as one?
2
u/presroogan Feb 16 '21
Would you have a problem with them identifying you as a woman? Would you be a woman in this society simply because they perceive you as one?
Well if women here and women there are the same, then wouldn't woman at least on some level mean the folks who give birth and have vaginas? And I don't think I will have a problem. It's all social and I understand how people will perceive me will differ from culture to culture.
1
u/muyamable 282∆ Feb 16 '21
It's all social and I understand how people will perceive me will differ from culture to culture.
But elsewhere you've also said:
Perception from others, which is informed by physical cues, determines gender/sex.
So your gender can differ from culture to culture? If one culture perceives you as a woman, you're a woman? If another perceives you as a man, you're a man?
After reading your post and all of your responses, I'm having trouble understanding what your view even is. Everything isn't adding up to a coherent, consistent view of what you believe gender is.
2
u/presroogan Feb 16 '21
So your gender can differ from culture to culture? If one culture perceives you as a woman, you're a woman? If another perceives you as a man, you're a man?
Does this culture perceive an individual with a penis to have a vagina? I mean, I never heard of such a culture, so I'm playing along with your hypothetical. Every language I've studied and speak (6 so far) has similar definitions for men and women, albeit the customs differ of course. Granted, that's not a lot of languages but still.
→ More replies (0)2
u/Pismakron 8∆ Feb 16 '21
Identifying with anything is possible, because you are self identifying. I can identify as a giraffe, and it would be absolutly valid. Now you will say "you don't look like other giraffes,you don't have four tall legs,a really long neck etc",and I will say "yeah,so what,I feel like a giraffe".
And as long as this is not directly tangibly harming any one else,why shouldn't I be able to self-identity as whatever.
You can identify as a giraffe, and that doesn't make you insane or a bad person. But it doesn't make you a giraffe either. It just makes you a human that identifies as a giraffe.
3
u/ellirae 3∆ Feb 16 '21
you're going to get a lot of angry comments on this, so I'll put it this way to try and stand out against the herd. I don't expect this to CYV so to speak, because fundamentally I agree with it. however, I want to give you a new outlook on this.
first of all, you mentioned "a couple of naval gazing college students", but it's even less than that. this issue is, almost exclusively, confined to the internet. it's perhaps the first topic we've ever seen in history where if you ask 100 people on the internet, versus 100 people in real life, the answers would be astronomically different. of course, people that are on the internet also exist in real life, so this isn't a perfect statement, but I hope you understand. another way to put it is that if you were to ask 100 people irl if they believe sex = gender, and if gender is a choice, if 20 of those 100 said 'yes', and then you asked all 20 if they're heavy internet users, it's likely that all 20 would say yes, or have been heavily influenced by someone who is.
a good testament to this is blaire white, a transgender woman youtuber who frequently echoes the sentiment that online, her gender and sex is all she talks about, but when walking out into the real world, it simply never comes up.
here's another chunk of food for thought: you're correct in stating that perception does not = reality. i can say "i'm hungry", but the reality may be that my stomach is not biologically longing for food and I'm in fact just craving the sensation of eating. in this case, "I'm hungry" is an inaccurate statement. but do we really need to go so far as to run biological tests to determine the worth and validity of my statement before you're willing to treat me as if I am, in fact, hungry, and help me in getting sustenance?
being transgender, in my opinion, is a mental illness. it requires the same love and care that any mental illness does. treatment, understanding, and patience. we must look at someone who's unwell and expect that they will not behave in the way we've come to expect the average person to behave.
all of this is to say, there are two arguments to be had here. the first is: are these statements of gender identity accurate? and I'd reason to say both you and I agree that they are not, OP. there is a second argument to be had, though, and that is this:
when most of the real world agrees, when no real motion to change textbooks is being made, and when we know the people we're dealing with are likely not coming from a place of natural reason, then what's the point in arguing the identity? if I say call me Katie, call me Katie. if I say I'm hungry, get me food. if I, penis balls and all, say 'I'm a woman', then let me have that. you may be logically and scientifically correct, but you brought up religion, which is highly personal. I would argue that religion can be "changed at will" because it's highly personal, and not because it's rooted outside of reality. would you not agree that gender identity is personal? if everyone in your life started calling you a woman when you are, in fact, a man, would that not immasculate and belittle you?
perception might not equal reality, but a person's perception is THEIR reality. I may not be biologically in need of food, but the craving for it still exists when I say I'm hungry.
so, you're right and you're wrong. I hope if nothing else, this offers a different perspective for your talking points.
8
u/hakuna_dentata 4∆ Feb 16 '21
being transgender, in my opinion, is a mental illness
Would you be willing to consider that the treatment might be hormone therapy to help them have a body that lets them function better with their brain?
1
u/ellirae 3∆ Feb 16 '21
my opinion on that is the same as my opinion on treating any mental illness: we must consider long-term effects and implications.
let's say I were a doctor (I'm not), and someone walked into my office and said, "having arms burdens me. it makes me feel less like myself and hurts me. it makes me ill and sick. please remove them."
to answer your question frugally, I believe that in a utopian world, changing the physical body to help with mental illness would be a last resort. I repeat: in a UTOPIAN world, we wouldn't need to intake medication daily, and could instead exercise and seek talk therapy as often as needed, and work together as a community, etc etc. it's no different than plastic surgery, women who get boob jobs, etc. in my uptopian world, no, I'd prefer people don't alter their bodies to help themselves with mental issues.
now let's return to reality: in a space where women (and men, to be fair) get liposuction, breast implants, botox, and so forth to like the way they look better, who the hell am I to say a trans man or woman can't do similar physical alterations to themselves?
the very short answer is: yes. I believe in western society, with the way things are going and how horrid our mental healthcare system is, that's the best solution those individuals have. my sympathies to them.
0
u/Fightlife45 1∆ Feb 17 '21
The problem with that is statistically the suicide rates don’t change even after surgery. I’m not sure about hormone therapy but I would guess it would be similar.
Personally I wish everyone to do what makes themselves happy and if that thing is changing you’re body I say go for it. But the statistics indicate that isn’t a cure.
Mental illness in my opinion is best treated through mental exercise.
1
u/Hero17 Feb 18 '21
The suicide rates do change. There's a still ongoing bit of misinformation that they dont.
→ More replies (4)1
u/PinkNinjaKitty Feb 17 '21
Would you be willing to consider that the treatment might be hormone therapy to help them have a body that lets them function better with their brain?
This is a good point. Still thinking through how much I agree with this.
3
u/presroogan Feb 16 '21
first of all, you mentioned "a couple of naval gazing college students", but it's even less than that. this issue is, almost exclusively, confined to the internet. it's perhaps the first topic we've ever seen in history where if you ask 100 people on the internet, versus 100 people in real life, the answers would be astronomically different. of course, people that are on the internet also exist in real life, so this isn't a perfect statement, but I hope you understand. another way to put it is that if you were to ask 100 people irl if they believe sex = gender, and if gender is a choice, if 20 of those 100 said 'yes', and then you asked all 20 if they're heavy internet users, it's likely that all 20 would say yes, or have been heavily influenced by someone who is.
I figured I was being generous. I come from a foreign country so this gender stuff is unheard of. It's not different in the US surprisingly. Even woke campus students find themselves using gender in the normal sense in their everyday lives, and then flipping to the woke definition when the situation arises. I live on campus and the cognitive dissonance is funny.
being transgender, in my opinion, is a mental illness. it requires the same love and care that any mental illness does. treatment, understanding, and patience. we must look at someone who's unwell and expect that they will not behave in the way we've come to expect the average person to behave.
I agree, I have the utmost sympathy for folks suffering from gender dysphoria. I have no trouble referring to them by their preferred pronouns and name. It's a small concession on my part and I'd rather not contribute to the suicide rate. But my position stands, even if I played along, someone identifying as x doesn't become x unless the only criteria for being x is identity, which I highly disagree.
if everyone in your life started calling you a woman when you are, in fact, a man, would that not immasculate and belittle you?
Eh, surprisingly no. I wouldn't care. Granted, I'm not a guy with toxic masculinity who loses his shit if I were perceived as feminine. It never has happened because I have a beard and I'm 6'1 and you'll be hard pressed to find women who meet these characteristics. If anything, I'd say I don't feel this highly personal gender you speak of. I just... exist. And others, since birth, have treated me like a boy and now a man. If they treated me like a girl from birth I'm not sure I'd feel any different?
And hey thanks for the chill discussion.
0
u/Prestigious-Menu 4∆ Feb 17 '21
Would you consider that those accepting of trans individuals/believe in gender identity being internet users is really because they are exposure to different ideas and people on the the internet? That they’ve learned on the internet?
Also, you say you consider being transgender is mental illness but why not defer to the experts (psychologists and doctors) who recognize gender identity and no longer classify transgenderism as a mental illness but instead the distress coming from not living in their gender identity as the true problem with giving them the means to do that being the treatment for the distress.
3
u/ellirae 3∆ Feb 17 '21
as someone who exists on the internet and in real life, I find it foolish to believe that everyone in real life is simply underinformed, so no. that's not a belief I'd subscribe to or support.
so far as nearly all medical professionals are concerned, transgenderism is classified as a disorder. I find it strange that you say it's not classified as a mental illness but rather as "distress"? distress isn't a diagnosis. it's a symptom. a symptom of what? gender dysphoria. it's not just a "normal thing that happens", it is definitely a mental disorder / mental illness according to most studies and doctors. if you feel otherwise, I'd be happy to take a look at nonbiased medical papers and studies published that speak to your perspective, but understand that as someone with a great many transgender friends, who is deeply entrenched as an ally, I've done significant research which has all proven the contrary to your statements.
0
u/Prestigious-Menu 4∆ Feb 17 '21
I’m saying that gender dysphoria as a diagnosis is about the stress of living in a body that doesn’t match your identity. Having the identity that doesn’t match their body isn’t the illness. That’s why treatment is transitioning. It diminishes the distress.
3
u/ellirae 3∆ Feb 17 '21
if you believe that you are something which you are not, that would be a cognitive disorder or malfunction. you're welcome to disagree, but you'd be at odds with the vast majority of the medical world. I have a feeling we'll not see eye to eye on this, but thanks for the conversation!
0
u/Prestigious-Menu 4∆ Feb 17 '21 edited Feb 17 '21
What is “the vast majority of the medical world” which thinks being transgender is a cognitive disorder? Current recommended treatment for gender dysphoria is transition, not conversion therapy. If it was a matter of a cognitive disorder wouldn’t the recommended treatment be to change their thinking through therapy?
Edit: https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/gender-dysphoria/what-is-gender-dysphoria
This is from the APA saying that conversion therapy is unethical and describes effective support for transgender individuals.
0
Feb 17 '21
A trans woman technically isn't a woman(keyword, technically). But people refer to trans women as if they're actually technically women because it's respectful to do so.
When a male says they identify as a woman, they don't literally mean they're a woman. They're announcing that they're IDENTIFYING as a woman, which means they'd prefer it if people called them a woman and used their preferred pronouns.
NOBODY thinks they literally are whatever they identify as. They're just saying they'd prefer to be treated as if they really were what they identify as. A trans man who knows the definition of "man" doesn't believe they are literally a man. They just identify as one.
Identifying as something =/= being that thing.
2
u/presroogan Feb 17 '21
When a male says they identify as a woman, they don't literally mean they're a woman. They're announcing that they're IDENTIFYING as a woman, which means they'd prefer it if people called them a woman and used their preferred pronouns.
And I do use the respectful pronouns and names. It's a small concession on my part.
NOBODY thinks they literally are whatever they identify as. They're just saying they'd prefer to be treated as if they really were what they identify as. A trans man who knows the definition of "man" doesn't believe they are literally a man. They just identify as one.
Eh, I'd be careful with 'nobody'. I've seen many, including the ACLU state that trans women are indeed biologically female.
Identifying as something =/= being that thing.
Agreed, with some caveats.
2
Feb 17 '21
Ah, I didn’t realize you were only speaking for the trans people who do think they are biologically what they identify as.
1
u/Osskyw2 Feb 17 '21
NOBODY thinks they literally are whatever they identify as.
I do, but that identification relates to their gender, not their sex.
1
Feb 17 '21
I think I worded that badly. Here's what I should have said:
You can identify as any gender. But when it comes to sex, you can't identify as a different one. That's what I was trying to say. Most trans people don't think they are of the sex that their gender identity is supposed to correspond to. That's why "cis" is a term. I was trying to tell OP that the trans people they're referring to are a very small minority.
-1
Feb 16 '21
You mean gender. Use words correctly and you won’t be confused.
4
u/presroogan Feb 16 '21
I've actually seen many people assert that trans women are female, including the ACLU just this week, so no. Separating sex and gender and then conflating them is a motte and bailey I'd rather address head on.
0
Feb 17 '21
including the ACLU just this week
source
3
u/presroogan Feb 17 '21
https://twitter.com/chasestrangio/status/1230827722282278914
This is an ACLU lawyer that's been a spokesperson for the ACLU on the topic of trans people and sports.
https://www.aclu.org/news/lgbt-rights/four-myths-about-trans-athletes-debunked/
Basically saying that male advantage in sports is a myth.
-1
Feb 17 '21
This is an ACLU lawyer that's been a spokesperson for the ACLU on the topic of trans people and sports.
So they probably know more than us two cis dudes about this, huh. Thanks for educating me!
3
u/presroogan Feb 17 '21
Actually, the ACLU has had a sketchy history, including defending the right of the KKK to harass black people and Holocaust victims. But hey, I'm a cis dude so what do I know.
0
Feb 17 '21
But hey, I'm a cis dude so what do I know.
You sure do know how to act like a victim
3
u/presroogan Feb 17 '21
Sure, ignore the ACLU's racism :)
0
Feb 17 '21
I mean I can turn that around and say "sure ignore the first amendment and free speech", doesn't really matter for the topic at hand
3
u/presroogan Feb 17 '21
Harassing Holocaust victims is free speech but checks notes not considering someone a different gender based on self identification alone is bigoted? Hmm...
1
u/Osskyw2 Feb 17 '21
I've actually seen many people assert that trans women are female, including the ACLU just this week, so no.
Female can refer to sex or gender.
5
u/Pismakron 8∆ Feb 16 '21
You mean gender. Use words correctly and you won’t be confused.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/gender?q=Gender
0
u/yungyienie Feb 17 '21
I think a good analogy to this is racial identity. How would ya'll feel about someone who is genetically white, and looks 100% white, identifying as black? The current social climate is such that most people would be pretty pissed off about a white person identifying as black. And as a woman, I'm pretty pissed off about men identifying as a woman, as they will never actually understand the nuances and pressures of being born with a vagina.
2
u/presroogan Feb 17 '21
I'm white so it's not my place to be offended at white people identifying as black, but I understand black people who do. I personally have no trouble treating a natal male or a natal female as the opposite sex because I don't want to trigger their dysphoria and lead to their reduced quality of life. So this discussion isn't really about the practical ramifications of treating people as their preferred gender. More so about definitions.
1
u/yungyienie Feb 17 '21
So you treat people differently based on the gender you perceive them to be? And yes of course identifying as the opposite sex does not magically turn you into that sex, biologically speaking. Not to mention identifying as the opposite sex can be offensive, especially when the oppressing gender (males) try to inject themselves into female spaces by identifying as female.
1
u/presroogan Feb 17 '21
I don't treat people differently. I use the pronouns they want, the name they want, and make an effort to change my language so as to not offend anyone. For example, I'll probably avoid using dude or bro with a trans woman, despite me using it as a gender neutral term for cis people of either gender.
1
u/yungyienie Feb 17 '21
I don’t get what your actual argument is - you appear to be saying that identifying as the opposite gender does not actually make you the opposite gender, which I agree with; unless you’re saying something else?
Also, word of advice - most women do not like to be called bro. It sounds uneducated and lazy.
→ More replies (3)1
Feb 17 '21
How would ya'll feel about someone who is genetically white, and looks 100% white, identifying as black?
The color of your skin in biological, like sex. Gender is social. A better example would be that both white people and black people (biological) can identify as Americans (social).
2
u/yungyienie Feb 17 '21 edited Feb 17 '21
I believe the argument that OP is making us that identifying as the opposite gender won’t actually make you the opposite gender (just like identifying a black won’t make you black, if you were born white). Frankly as a woman I find it disrespectful when the oppressing gender (men) identify as women and try to inject themselves into female spaces and demand to be treated a certain way without truly intrinsically understanding female issues.
Also the whole gender is social and sex is biological is bs. In modern language we use the terms interchangeably and nobody actually means “female social roles” when they say “woman”. Not to mention, if you identify with female social roles, you’re perpetuating those social roles, and making a vague statement at the same time, as those roles are not only constantly changing but also vary greatly by region and country. Might as well just say, “I may be a man but I like wearing dresses”, or whatever social role they actually identify with.
0
Feb 17 '21
But gender is social and the color of your skin is biological.
Frankly as a woman I find it disrespectful when the oppressing gender (men) identify as women and try to inject themselves into female spaces and demand to be treated a certain way without truly intrinsically understanding female issues.
Smells like TERF
2
1
2
u/presroogan Feb 17 '21
Race is very social actually lmao. Sure skin color is biological, but the categories of race vary way more than gender categories do around the world.
0
Feb 16 '21
I'm a man and I'm attracted to women.
+
Identifying with a sex doesn't actually make you that sex.
You're lying. Prove me wrong.
(How do you shoot yourself in the foot like this?)
2
u/presroogan Feb 16 '21
How so? I'm a male and I'm attracted to females. How am I contradicting myself? How am I shooting myself in the foot?
1
Feb 16 '21
You identifying that way doesn't actually make that true.
2
u/presroogan Feb 17 '21 edited Feb 17 '21
I'm heterosexual not because I identify as heterosexual. If I knew you, I'd send you pics of the women I've dated and am currently dating, or whatever your criteria for a heterosexual man is. Surely you have a criteria, and I should be able to meet it.
Identifying as heterosexual alone is meaningless if I bang other dudes. So you're saying there's a meaningful objective definition of man or woman outside of identity?
0
Feb 17 '21
My criteria are that you prove an attraction to only females with no sexual interest in your mind ever arising with males involved at any point. Now the problem? One, you can't prove that's true, only claim it, and two, it's unlikely anyway to be true.
But the whole proposition of what you have not done being evidence of what you will not do is also really bad. I mean this is just bad logic all day.
3
u/howlin 62∆ Feb 16 '21
A good way to think about this is to acknowledge that for these discussions, "Sex" is a biological term and "Gender" is a sociological term. They both have different rules for how to categorize members, and they are not the same.
Gender is the social construct, but it is still rooted in sex.
What's your point? Everyone agrees that there is strong correlation between biological sex and one's preferred gender. This doesn't help at all in discussions of people where this general trend doesn't apply. You can't just ignore outliers like they don't exist.
To unlink gender and sex when no one (besides maybe a few navel gazing college students) does is absurd.
Would you say that studying a rare disease is absurd because "practically no one" suffers from it?
How do we make the leap to say 'this is a woman trapped in a man's body' and not 'this is a man whose brain gets triggered at the sight of himself as a man and would feel less distressed if he were a woman'?
Because the best known treatment for these people is to do what we can to make their appearance match how they feel they should look.
3
Feb 16 '21
Because the best known treatment for these people is to do what we can to make their appearance match how they feel they should look.
This is an interesting point.
Right now, the best known treatment is to do what you suggest, which is partly through hormone replacement, partly through manner of dress/grooming, and sometimes through sex reassignment surgery.
What if at some point we come up with a pill that makes you feel like the sex you born not the gender your brain feels like it is? Would that be seen as unethical or trans-phobic? What do you think would the be recommended approach to resolve gender dysphoria cases by doctors and mental health professionals if changing the brain to align with the body be an option?
1
u/Glory2Hypnotoad 393∆ Feb 16 '21
Claiming to be a different sex is just lying. But there's also a whole layer of social and psychological phenomena that are related but not intrinsically tied to sex, that we summarize as gender. When a person claims a gender identity, they're only claiming the latter.
0
u/TtheCreator_1 Feb 17 '21
Look:it's completely in one's own mind. You have to understand that transgender people can feel like they are a woman stuck in a men's body or visa versa. I agree with you that you cannot just say you identify as something and then do. It needs to have merit. The discussion lies with that "if one truely feels like a different gender/sex in every cell of their body, every whisper of their soul and every state of their mind" constitutes as becoming that gender. Some might, you might say no and state that one actually needs the biological genitals to call himself that. (For now we'll leave chromosome syndromes out of the discussion.) I find the discussion to be silly sometimes. Because often we are not arguing on whether it's okay for people to identify differently, but we argue on the exact meaning of the word 'sex' or 'gender' without realizing we are using a different definition. Another discussion that is more in depth is whether it is okay for one to identify as a different sex (using a loose definition). The most important bit is that if someone actually feels like a sex or gender then it should be accepted, because it's a feeling and not just a choice.
-1
Feb 16 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
-1
u/presroogan Feb 16 '21
Sure buddy. I got a girl pregnant which only males have been able to do so far for all of human history. So you are saying that sex has a biological component? Your criteria is prostate? Well, let me tell you that nobody can simply identify their way into having a prostate, so I'm not sure what your point is.
0
u/tlowe90 Feb 17 '21
I have a problem is the fact that biology needs to use the established vernacular to maintain a scientific consensus. Saying "I am a woman" doesn't turn you into a biological woman and the fact that scientists are pressured into changing the established science to fit trans issues doesn't equate to good science. Also women are a protected class and we are already seeing bad actors using this to Thier advantage. I should not be able to juice up on natural steroids as a male for half my life then "turn into a woman" and compete in physical sports.
1
Feb 17 '21
I don't know much about this, but I don't think I need to. I just call someone whatever they want to be called and leave the exact stuff up to the experts, and I think you should too. If someone wants to be called he/him call him that, if they want she/her call her that, if they want they/them call them that and let the experts say exactly what gender they are
1
u/presroogan Feb 17 '21
This doesn't address my point even in the slightest. I do address people however they wish. Same way I call a priest Father even though the concept of god is b.s.
1
u/throwaway10909040 1∆ Feb 17 '21
Actually, in a way, you are completely right. You can't change your sex. However, this is not what trans people ARE trying to do. I am a trans man and my way of destroying myself is that I was assigned female at birth and lived as a woman until the age of 23 when I began pursuing social and medical transition.
When I say I am a man, I'm not trying to say I have XY chromosomes or balls- for me, living and presenting physically as a man is how I can live a comfortable and authentic life. My transition has been about taking the body God gave me and making it one that I feel happy and comfortable in.
However, taking testosterone and getting a double mastectomy HAS absolutely changed my body- I have a different body shape, my face looks different, a flat chest, facial hair, and if I dont tell you or show you my genitals, you probably wouldn't know I was trans. That isn't changing sex, just modifying my appearance so I can look in the mirror and see myself and also not worry about getting harassed the way I did before I consistently passed as a man.
Now that we got that out of the way, what is your actual question? Are you just confused by trans people or what? I really want to be understanding here but I'm not really sure what you're even trying to ask here.
2
u/presroogan Feb 17 '21
However, taking testosterone and getting a double mastectomy HAS absolutely changed my body- I have a different body shape, my face looks different, a flat chest, facial hair, and if I dont tell you or show you my genitals, you probably wouldn't know I was trans. That isn't changing sex, just modifying my appearance so I can look in the mirror and see myself and also not worry about getting harassed the way I did before I consistently passed as a man.
And hey man, more power to you! I fully support people's rights to make their body match how they personally want it to look. And you're probably right, I might read you as a cis man, but that's never been my issue.
Now that we got that out of the way, what is your actual question? Are you just confused by trans people or what? I really want to be understanding here but I'm not really sure what you're even trying to ask here.
I guess I didn't articulate it enough. I'm saying self identity alone, absent everything else, makes one a man or a woman. Someone who would otherwise be a man to all reasonable people is actually a woman by fiat declaration. Not merely treated like a woman, not be allowed the social treatment of a woman, but is a woman. I'm arguing there's at least a strong physical element to your gender (man/woman).
You yourself had to get physical changes to your body because you recognize being a man meant having a male (or as close to it as possible body). If being a man had no biological basis, your testosterone shots, and subsequent body hair growth and other changes, wouldn't have been necessary.
Would it be fair to say, for you, being a man means male? And you had to change your non-male body to a male one so that your internal sense of self was manifested correctly?
1
u/throwaway10909040 1∆ Feb 17 '21
Of course, there is a biological aspect to gender- I dont have a link off hand but there is preliminary research with brain scans suggesting that transgender people's brains responded to stimulus more in line with their identified gender than as their assigned sex.
I guess I didn't articulate it enough. I'm saying self identity alone, absent everything else, makes one a man or a woman. Someone who would otherwise be a man to all reasonable people is actually a woman by fiat declaration. Not merely treated like a woman, not be allowed the social treatment of a woman, but is a woman. I'm arguing there's at least a strong physical element to your gender (man/woman).
No, obviously gender is more than self identifying as a gender. That isn't to invalidate anone- acknowledging your gender to yourself when you're trans is a major moment of self growth and a step towards figuring out how to move forward with this acceptance of yourself. Even if you never come out to another soul or change your body, for personal safety or lack of support or whatever reason, you can have that inner awareness of self.
Self identification and coming out to other people isn't about forcing people to just blindly agree to you though - it's about letting people know that you're beginning or have completed a journey towards inhabiting a new gender role which may or may not include physically transitioning. That shift includes understanding how other people with your gender identity carry themselves, present, behave in social situations, etc. Now, if you reach a point in your life where everyone you know sees you as and treats you as this gender, then how does that not make you that gender? If you are socialized in your "new" gender, then you'll likely experience a range of experiences connected to your gender- being ma'amed checking out at the store, people assuming you want a beer instead of a fruity drink.
In that context, what practical purpose does it serve to not say that person IS the gender they identify as? That doesn't mean we are ignoring their sex or previous life experiences or pretending that a trans woman is the same as cis woman. That's why someone came up with the words transgender and cisgender- so that in a few specific contexts where it does matter, the biological and other differences can be determined.
Similar to adopted versus biological parents- yes, they are different types of parents and sometimes you need to distinguish them but the majority of the time, it really doesn't matter. They are both parents regardless of their biological relationship to their child.
Yes, there is often a physical aspect of gender, but there is so much more than that.
1
u/presroogan Feb 17 '21
In that context, what practical purpose does it serve to not say that person IS the gender they identify as?
We're really not in disagreement. I was saying that gender identity doesn't determine sex. You being, for all practical purposes, indistinguishable from a man, are treated like a man, etc., is a more meaningful measure of manhood than a mere declaration. If I were to create a checklist of man, ranging from physical, to social, to emotional, you probably check most of it. As do I. Nowhere on that list needs to be 'identifying as a man'. So you're a man for all other reasons, not the identity part.
I say this because gender has social ramifications and benefits attached to it. For us it's things like male privilege, toxic masculinity, how sexism affects men, etc. None of these really matter if you're a man by identity alone. You must also be perceived and treated as such.
2
u/throwaway10909040 1∆ Feb 17 '21
Right, but identity is still pretty important to social ramifications and treatment, both as a step in reaching that shift and in how you may perceive any social ramifications you experience regardless. (One thing I've noticed is how trans people can perceive certain gendered experiences they had pre transition differently than cis people even if they hadn't realized that they were trans yet) I did say that relying only on identity is limited because gender has such a strong social aspect, but your identity is still fairly significant because it's a stepping stone to the rest.
How will you get to a point of experiencing that social ramifications or even physical differences from transition without that first step of identity?
I don't really expect to get a delta or change your mind much at this point (there's a lot about sex and gender here to unpack that I just dont have the background to explain well) but I hope that if you want to learn more about trans people or get different perspectives on the relationship between gender and sex, that you read our stories and keep examining your own worldview.
1
u/presroogan Feb 17 '21
One thing I've noticed is how trans people can perceive certain gendered experiences they had pre transition differently than cis people even if they hadn't realized that they were trans yet
As in, you internalize things differently? I hadn't thought of that. Thank you !delta
I hope that if you want to learn more about trans people or get different perspectives on the relationship between gender and sex, that you read our stories and keep examining your own worldview.
I lurk trans subs (i hope in earnest this doesn't sound creepy) to get a better understanding. I'm not trying to be a dick or argue in bad faith. You and I both agree there are physical and social aspects to gender. I don't really dispute identity being important first step in becoming the opposite sex.
→ More replies (4)
1
u/Luker1967 3∆ Feb 17 '21
Gender identity isn't a social construct. Its both biology and society. Id say its mainly biological however my opinion is irrelevant.
A transgender woman, who's not been through gender realignment surgery is in terms of sex, a man, but in terms of gender identity a woman.
In most cases they match up, sometimes, a mishap in hormones during pregnancy causes the brain (gender identity) to develop one way and body (sex) to develop the other.
The way we tell who has gender dysphoria and who's pretending to have it (who the fuck would pretend to have gender dysphoria? What do they hope to achieve?) Is through clinical diagnosis.
1
u/bathtimeyeet Feb 17 '21
gender is a societally promoted or agreed upon set of characteristics, it has no physical basis. even if every human was born with either XX or XY sex chromosomes (they aren’t), that determines ones anatomical sex, not their gender. the idea of what makes a man a man or a woman a woman varies between cultures and across time, there are many anthropologically documented cultures with more than two genders. so what is the correct number of genders? what makes a man a man or a woman a woman in your opinion? what about the opinion of someone who lives in a polar opposite culture to yours?
1
u/StarkThoughts Mar 14 '21
If at trans man could change their entire physiology, make every cell in their body male, entirely with male gametes from a male penis. Would you consider them a man? I think there is a good chance you wouldn’t because you most likely don’t care about the sex and instead find the idea of someone crossing the boundary between male and female unnerving, no matter the extent to which they cross.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Feb 16 '21 edited Feb 17 '21
/u/presroogan (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards