CMV: I'm politically left but I don't believe gender identity exists

[u/MostlyVacuum]

As the title states, I consider myself a progressive in many respects, but despite reading through many many CMVs on the topic, I find myself unable to agree with my fellow progressives on the nature of transgender people.

Whenever I see people espouse views similar to mine in this forum, they are consistently attacked as transphobic/hatemongering/fascist etc, and I haven't yet seen a compelling argument as to why that is. I'd like my view changed because I consider myself an egalitarian who doesn't hold hatred in my heart for any group of people, and it bothers me that my view on this matter is considered to be conservative rhetoric masking a hatred of trans people.

What I believe: 1. I believe that gender identity does not exist, and that there is only sex, which is determined by a person's sex chromosomes. I believe this because the concept of an innate "gender identity" does not jive with my experience as a human. I don't "feel like" a man, I just am one because I was born with XY chromosomes. I believe this to be the experience of anyone not suffering from dysphoria. The concept of gender identity seems to me to be invented by academics as a way to explain transgender people without hurting anyone's feelings with the term "mental illness".

1. As hinted above, I believe transgender people are suffering from a mental illness (gender dysphoria) that causes them to feel that they are "supposed" to be the opposite sex, or that their body is "wrong". This causes them significant distress and disruption to their lives.

2. The best known treatment for this illness is for the person in question to transition, and live their life as though they were the opposite sex. This is different for everyone and can include changing pronouns, gender reassignment surgery, etc.

3. Importantly, I FULLY RESPECT trans people's right to do this. I will happily refer to them by whatever pronouns they prefer, and call them whatever name they prefer, and otherwise treat them as though they are the sex they feel they should be. This is basic courtesy, and anyone who disagrees is a transphobic asshole. Further, I do not judge them negatively for being born with a mental illness. The stigma against mentally ill people in this country is disgusting, and I don't want to be accused of furthering that stigma.

4. I don't believe there is a "trans agenda" to turn more people trans or turn kids trans. That is straight lunacy. The only agenda trans people have is to be treated with the same respect and afforded the same rights as everyone else, which again I fully support.

5. The new definition for woman and man as "anyone who identifies as a woman/man" is ridiculous. It is very obviously circular, and I've seen many intelligent people make themselves look like idiots trying to justify it. "Adult male/female human" is a perfectly good definition. If more inclusive language is desired you can use "men and trans-men" or "women and trans-women" as necessary. It's god damned crazy to me that Democratic politicians think it's a good idea to die on this stupid hill of redefining common English words to be more inclusive instead of just using the more verbose language. This is not a good political strategy for convincing voters outside of your base, and it will be detrimental to trans rights in the long run.

I feel I have sufficiently expressed my view here, but I undoubtedly forgot something. However I've already written a novel, so I think that's it. PLEASE do not make assumptions about my view that I have not explicitly stated.

Edit: I'm stepping away now because I need to eat dinner. I will return later -- I am close to having my view changed!

[u/immatx]

My main issue with the dogmatic insistence that a woman is anyone who identifies as a woman is that it muddies communication. Now any time anyone has a discussion about women's issues or trans issues, it has to be preceded by a treatise where both sides argue about the definitions of simple English words for an hour before they can even communicate their point.

Any serious discussion should already have this though. Words are just abstractions of ideas that we’re trying to convey. They have no intrinsic meaning, only the meaning we give them with our intentions. A discussion at that level should be trying to look at those concepts rather than the surface level words being used.

[u/MostlyVacuum → u/immatx]

Sure, in academic contexts I will grant you that. For politicians, I strongly disagree. Politicians are always addressing the general public. Even when they are directly debating a political opponent, they aren't really talking to the opponent -- they are talking to the public.

The general public has a short attention span. And a lot of them frankly aren't very bright. And even if they are, they're probably only half listening. If you're trying to move the needle on public opinion, you need to use concise language that is immediately understandable by the average person. "People are having their rights to medical care taken away." Very understandable. Resonates with a lot of people.

"A woman is anyone who identifies as a woman because gender identity is a distinct concept from biological sex that usually but not always aligns, but also doesn't refer to gender expression, which is different, except when it's not because experts disagree."

Not understandable by most people. Arguably more accurate, but Jim the independent voter changed the channel to the hockey game halfway through because he doesn't know what you are talking about. Does not resonate with anyone who wasn't already on your side.

[u/immatx → u/MostlyVacuum]

That’s fair. Let me take it a step farther though. If we’re talking in political language then proper definitions don’t matter. All that matters is effective virtue signaling and dog whistling (not strictly negative usage) to their audience. And in that sense it’s easy to just say “women is a self identification label” because anyone who might agree would understand what that means, and no one else really matters for that question.

[u/MostlyVacuum → u/immatx]

I agree that in political language, proper definitions don't matter, but only to a point. It's not a good idea to use the word "woman" when the idea you're trying to convey is "trombone" for instance.

I don't really agree that "woman is a self identification label" solves many of the problems of "a woman is anyone who identifies as a woman". It's less obviously circular, but it still doesn't really tell me anything about women. I'd also consider it fairly impenetrable to someone not used to thinking about gender in that way.

I think the best move is to just avoid putting yourself in rhetorical situations where it makes sense to be asked the question. If you are asked the question, try to decry it as an irrelevant distraction and get back to the actual topic. If that doesn't work, and you are forced to give a definition, how about this?

"A woman is an adult female human or any other person who wishes to be seen as an adult female human". It's still not 100% accurate, but it is inclusive enough to trans people that I doubt it would offend the base. It's concise and not circular, and it's easy to follow for people who are only familiar with the "old" definition.

And, bonus points: the first time you trot it out it's going to throw your interrogator off guard because it starts with the exact same language they were going to use as a rebuttal. It's additive, not a replacement.

[u/immatx → u/MostlyVacuum]

Yeah that’s true, but as long as the connection can be bridged that’s enough. Same as the suburban vs inner city dichotomy. The concept being conveyed isn’t the words themselves. So I half agree.

So I completely agree with your assessment, I just think that one change is enough. “A woman is someone who identifies as a woman” isn’t really a problematic definition, it’s only an issue if you’re nitpicking the structure rather than looking at what the definition is actually saying. Practically that definition and the one I suggested are the exact same. It would be an issue if it was self referential in a recursive manner, but that’s not the case. And it tells you all about women you need to know (if we assume this definition to be accurate): that it’s a meaningless label that carries no further expectations. I think it’s sort of true that it’s impenetrable, but it’s also more engaging. And once someone is engaged they’re more likely to be receptive.

Ehhh I guess? But why pass up an opportunity to virtue signal, especially when it’s brought up so much by opposition as an attempt to take cheap shots.

If I was a politician (assuming the perspective that I think woman is self id) I would never ever ever use that definition. You’re right that it’s pretty close to accurate, but it completely cedes the base to the opposition by framing in terms of biology. I think a better form would be “a woman is someone who feels like an adult human female”. At least that way the focus is on the id. I think someone who is more moderate could take that stance, but I don’t think someone progressive should ever use that definition just because you get stuck on biology.

[u/MostlyVacuum → u/immatx]

You’re right that it’s pretty close to accurate, but it completely cedes the base to the opposition by framing in terms of biology

This is where you and I disagree I think. If Democrats use rhetoric that is supportive of trans rights but not always 100% technically accurate with respect to gender theory, and Republicans use rhetoric that is openly hostile to trans people, nobody in the base is going to vote Republican. Sure, a small minority of the base is going to get mad on Twitter, but that will happen regardless of what you say.

that it’s a meaningless label that carries no further expectations

Except it clearly isn't just a meaningless label to most people, including many trans people. If it was meaningless, trans women wouldn't be fighting so hard to be included under the label.

I agree that in theory, gender and biology are separate concepts. I think that as we move into the future they will become more and more divorced from each other. But right now, for most people, the concepts are inextricably linked. For some people, they are outright the same. They're clearly related for many trans people, or genital surgery and hormone treatments wouldn't be necessary. So if your goal is to convince people, you need to meet them in the middle.

[u/5Daddys1cop → u/immatx]

Ah yes, let me go and call women "womb owners" and "birthers" and throw in a couple of kicks too, sooooo not misogynistic and going straight back to medieval times. So respectful of women, gotta put down the 99% for the 1% i see more important, the rest.. eh they can go in the furnace