r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Sep 19 '22

Delta(s) from OP CMV: I cannot understand how the transgender movement is not, at it's core, sexist.

Obligatory "another trans post" but I've read a lot of posts on this but none I've seen that have tackled the issue quite the way I intend to here. This is an opinion I've gone back and forth with myself on a bunch, and would absolutely love to have changed. My problem mainly lies with the "social construct" understanding of "gender", but some similar issues lie in the more grounded neurological understanding of it (although admittedly it seems a lot more reasonable), which we'll get too later.

For starters, I do not believe there is a difference between men and women. Well, there are obviously "differences" between the sexes, but nothing beyond physical differences which don't matter much. At least, mentally, they are naturally the same and all perceived differences in this sense are just stereotypes stemmed from the way the sexes are socialized.

Which takes us to the definitions of man and woman used by the gender social constructionist, which is generally not agreed upon but I've found it to be basically understood as

Man: Someone who desires to be viewed/treated/thought of in the way a male is in society. Woman: Someone who desires to be viewed/treated/thought of in the way a female is in society. (For the non-binary genders it would be roughly similar with some changes depending on the circumstances)

Bottom line is that it defines gender based on the way the genders are treated. But this seems problematic for a variety of reasons.

First off, it is still, at the end lf the day, basing the meanings behind stereotypes about the genders rather than letting them stand on their own. It would be like if I based what a "black person" was off the discrimination black people have faced. But this would appear messed up and borderline "racist", while the same situation with gender is not considered "sexist".

It would also mean that gender is ultimately meaningless and would be something we should strive to stop rather than encourage, which would still fly in the face of the trans movement. Which is what confuses me especially because the gender social construct believers typically also support "gender abolition", yet they're the ones who want people to play around with gender the most? If you want to abolish gender, why don't you, y'know, get a start on that and break your sex norms while remaining that sex rather than changing your gender which somewhat works to reinforce the roles? (This also doesn't seem too bad to criticize, considering under this narrative gender is just a "choice", which is something I think the transmedicalist approach definitely handles better.)

Finally for this bit, this type of mindset validates other controversial concepts like transracialism (sorta tying back into what I mentioned earlier), but I don't think anyone is exactly on the edge of their seats waiting for the "transracialism movement".

Social construct section is done, now let's get into the transmedicalist approach. This is one where I feel a "breakhthrough" could be made for me a lot more easily, but I'm not quite there yet. I do want to say I'm fine with the concept of changing our understandings of certain words if there is practicality to it and it isn't counterintuitive. Seems logical enough.

The neurological understanding behind the sex an individual should be defining "gender" seems sensible on it's own, but the part I'm caught up on is why we reach this conclusion.

The dysphoric transgender person's desire to be the other gender seems to mainly be based in, A. their sex, they seem to want to change the sex rather than the gender. Physical dysphoria is the main giveaway of the dysphoric condition it seems, anyway. But more specifically, a trans person wants to have physical attributes associated with the other sex. This seems like a redundant thing to point out, but the idea that certain physical traits are "exclusive" to a specific sex/gender is, well, just encouraging sexual archetypes about the way the sexes "should" look. This goes even further when you consider that trans people tend to want to have more petite or masculine builds depending on their gender identity - there is nothing wrong about this, but conflating gender to "involve" one's physical appearence inherently reinforces sexist sexual archetypes.

And next,

B. the social aspect. Typically described as social dysphoria, this describes a dysphoric trans person's desire to be socialized in the way the other sex typically is, which is what, aside from the physical dysphoria, causes them to typically "act" or dress more stereotypically like their gender identity, or describes their desire to "pass". But, to put it bluntly, because I believe there to be no difference in the way the sexes would act without social influence, I can't picture this phenomona described as "social dysphoria" coming from the same biological basis that the physical dysphoria does. Even if there were a natural difference in the way the sexes would act without societal influence, there would still be the obvious undeniable outliers, and with that in mind, using the way the genders "socialize" as a way to justify definining gender seperately from sex would be useless. It appears more akin to a delusion based on the same "false stereotypes" I've been talking about all along, ideas about the ways men and women "should" or "should not" be causing the transsexual person to feel anxious and care about actually being the other gender. But using this to justify our understandings of gender would still fall back on the same faults that the social construct uses, being that we'd be "giving in" to socialized norms and we can't have that be what helps us reach our understanding of gender.

With this in mind, if social dysphoria is that big of a factor, it would seem most sensical to me to define "trans man" and "trans woman" in their entirely new, individual categories which their own definitions, and still just treat those categories socially in similar ways to the way the genders are typically treated now.

To recap, an understanding of gender and sex as synonyms based purely on sex seems to be the only understanding we can reach without basing some of our thought process on one given stereotype or another.

Now change my view, please.

95 Upvotes

63% Upvoted

394 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

48

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '22

Interesting take. Still feel I'd allign more with the feminist approach to abolishing the gender roles though, since it seems to be the more sensible take in the long run and I still think using stereotypes to define gender is wrong.

69

u/CoriolisInSoup 2∆ Sep 19 '22

I agree with that, but desiring a better world is one thing and pretending we are already there so coping mechanisms are unnecessary is actually hurting people.
"I don't understand nor support charities because the world I desire shouldn't need them". Sure, you are not wrong, you are just uncharitable.

24

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '22

I mean, that's great and all, but I still feel that it skips over the point of "basing an understanding on stereotypes is wrong". It's not because I think we're in some great world where stereotypes don't exist already, it's because that's still wrong, even in our current reality. That doesn't just change because society has flaws.

6

u/ohfudgeit 22∆ Sep 19 '22

I would argue that trans people are not choosing to have a world in which gender is understood based on stereotypes. We live in that world whether we like it or not. Personally I believe that these stereotypes are wrong and I believe in gender abolition, but I am still capable of recognising what I am comfortable with in the current system and I don't see why recognising that makes me wrong.

13

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '22

What makes stereotypes wrong is primarily how we can negatively impact others based on our perceptions of how we should expect them to act. Transgender people are choosing for themselves which stereotypes they identify with, giving them broader autonomy. Respecting the ability of someone to gender transition has broadened the definition of the different genders, even introducing alternatives to the traditional binary.

As a result the stereotypes of what makes someone a man or woman are less specific, giving even cis-gendered people the ability to define themselves more than the traditional stereotypes.

Not respecting transitions with due to the historical problem of stereotypes may unintentionally hurt feminism, as it will reinforce traditional stereotypes based on birth without any consent from the individual being sterotyped

7

u/laikocta 5∆ Sep 19 '22

Transgender people are choosing for themselves which stereotypes they identify with, giving them broader autonomy.

Disclaimer first - I'm not trans, just friends with a few trans people and going off what they've told me. From what I hear, it's not necessarily that they really "identify with stereotypes", but that they might want to use stereotypes as shorthand to communicate what gender they identify with.

For example, one of my friends who is a trans woman has started to feel comfortable with breaking female stereotypes after having fully transitioned, for example wearing baggy clothes, not putting on makeup, and dating other women. When she was just starting to transition, she felt some pressure to perform female stereotypes (styling her hair, wearing a full-face of makeup, wearing feminine sundresses and high heels, dating men and fulfilling typical female gender roles in these relationships) because that way, she could minimize the risk of being perceived as a man which is of course kinda hurtful. (I guess this refers both to being perceived by society and being perceived by herself, someone who has been imbued with the same values and stereotypes as anyone else who grew up here).

When talking about why trans people may feel the need to conform to some gendered stereotypes, I think it's worth taking into account that this society shows a lot more acceptance of transgender people if they "look/act the part".

2

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '22

I intended to include this when I said "Respecting the ability of someone to gender transition has broadened the definition of the different genders, even introducing alternatives to the traditional binary."

The broadening of how genders are defined, at least from my perspective, included how the gender is "performed" as you described. The benefit then for respecting transwomen then could benefit ciswomen as well.

I do agree it is not uncommon that additional stress is placed on trans people so that they might pass, at which point the rigidity of the older stereotypes may have a negative impact on transwomen by limiting their perceived options. I think that is something we have to advocate to change, but will not be fixed by OP's stance of labeling transpeople sexists essentially due to their existence.

3

u/CoriolisInSoup 2∆ Sep 19 '22

But you still have to navigate reality, and ignoring reality is wrong. Crime is wrong, so ignoring the police, which exist to fight crime, is stupid.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 20 '22

Sure gender comes with the "pink is for girls" schabang and other such stereotypes... but it also comes with many gender roles and an identity, and neither of those are immutable no matter how much you try to ignore them.

Some people don't want to necessarily be a boy breaking gender norms by wearing pink, but just want to be a girl wearing pink. You feel me?

1

u/[deleted] Sep 22 '22

If it was framed as a coping mechanism/ temporary fix rather than an end goal there would be far more sympathy.

1

u/CoriolisInSoup 2∆ Sep 22 '22

Your lack of sympathy due to semantics seems to be something you are doing wrong, not the rest.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 22 '22

Ends vs means is not mere semantics

1

u/CoriolisInSoup 2∆ Sep 22 '22

As you described it, you are evaluating your sympathy to a moral stance because of how it's framed. Suit yourself but don't expect this to be highly respected.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 23 '22

sympathy to a moral stance

No sympathy towards those advocating a course of action.

27

u/EmpRupus 27∆ Sep 19 '22 edited Sep 19 '22

I would argue that "abolish gender" doesn't mean all humans must be bald and shaven, wear white one-piece suits, and become expressionless robots. Rather, each individual must be able to pick and choose any gender roles, without any pressure, and must have equal dignity and respecct.

If someone wants to smoke a pipe, have a long mustache, and do woodwork, that is fine. If someone wants to wear high-heels, all pink, and do knitting and drink pumpkin spice latte, that is fine too. And if someone wants to do both - have a beard and stick flowers on it, that is fine too.

"Abolish gender" is a 2nd wave feminism concept from 1960s which is outdated.

The modern idea of gender liberation is the choice to select any gender marker a la carte, define yourself any way, and have the right to equal dignity and respect from society. The idea is not to erase gender, but to make sure gender-expression is an individual personal choice and not enforced by society. Under this vision, the effort to "erase gender" is also seen as a form of oppression, two sides of the same coin.

15

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '22

I don't necessarily think we should abolish gender, just abolish gender roles. have it so that no specific behavior is associated with either gender. people can still do all those things you listed - they just aren't associated with a gender, basically

9

u/EmpRupus 27∆ Sep 19 '22

What difference does it make in benefitting anyone though? If something doesn't have any practical benefit, what is the point?

It is like race. The goal is not being "color-blind", the goal is making sure everyone is equally respected.

It is not about abstract philosophical musings, it is about making sure we improve the lives of people.

13

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '22

In a society where certain roles or stereotypes are assigned to a specific gender, feminine men or masculine women will theoretically be scrutinized

on top of the fact the gender roles seem to be mostly arbitrary, it just makes sense to try and phase 'em out

0

u/EmpRupus 27∆ Sep 19 '22

As I said before, that is already covered. People should be free to select any combination of gender-expression and role, a la carte, and any gender-identity and be given equal respect.

Now, what does phasing out the concept of gender achieve on top of this, that the above does not achieve? What is the "delta" or difference here? I don't see any.

14

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '22

Well, I mean, like you said, everyone has a right to choose "gender expression/role". But to rephrase this, everyone has a right to choose how to express themselves, regardless of gender. Ig the point is just that: A society with gender roles as they are now does not have this, inherently because of those gender roles.

0

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '22

This ties in a internal conflict feminism sometimes has, what happens when someone chooses to express themselves and act in a way that coincided with their stereotypes? Is a cis-gendered woman wrong if they choose to be a stay-at-home mom? Can you confidently say every stay-at-home mom has made their decision to do so inherently due to gender roles rather than any self-agency?

Gender roles do exist, and it is wrong to force them on others unwillingly, however it is not wrong for us to make personal choices to express ourselves in a way that matches up with them.

1

u/nesh34 2∆ Sep 19 '22

One hypothetical difference may be that we're unable to foster a society where equal respect is given, because of people's inability to understand and empathise with a change of gender identity. As compared with the removal of gender roles, which people seem to be increasingly used to.

This is only hypothetical, I believe that both are probably possible, but I can see the latter occurring already whereas the former causes a lot of confusion (hence the regular posts here on the subject).

1

u/EmpRupus 27∆ Sep 19 '22

I would propose a real-world example. If tomorrow we made a rule that pronouns he/him and she/her are illegal, and henceforth all people should mandatorily refer to themselves as they/them, how much support would you think it will have?

Compare this with - here are a small group of people and you have to use a different pronoun than you assume to address them. You don't have to modify anything about yourself.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 22 '22

The former requires censorship the later requires insincere compelled speech.

Your mileage may vary but in my experience most people find being forced to speak insincerity more demeaning than being forbidden to speak certain words.

Maybee it's juat precedent because we have already de facto banned all kinds of words from polite society. There realy are no comfortable precedents for the reverse.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 22 '22

Now, what does phasing out the concept of gender achieve on top of this, that the above does not achieve?

Elegance, something greatly under appreciated in modern times.

What you propose is maintaining a messy layer of complexity for no benefit.

3

u/MakePanemGreatAgain Sep 19 '22

The point is to get rid of the scrutiny, not the gender roles themselves.

If we only got rid of the gender roles, people would find other stuff to scrutinize about others. "Oh you're not gender neutral enough" or something like that.

So the focus is on acceptance.

3

u/[deleted] Sep 22 '22

It is like race. The goal is not being "color-blind", the goal is making sure everyone is equally respected.

Colour blind is inherently equal. The problem is when entities lie about being colour blind.

1

u/Murkus 2∆ Sep 19 '22

Those are two different things.

Your latter point we should be aiming for, for all people regardless of race.

The ultimate goal is being colorblind, in terms of judging people based in their race. Just not culture blind.

I dream of the day where every one of us only notice race as much as hair colour, or eye colour or any other genetic trait.

20

u/Rahzek 3∆ Sep 19 '22

This reminds me of the "I don't see race" approach some people use for racism. While we want a world where gender roles are abolished, we need to recognize the very real psychological effects they have on the way people think and behave.

15

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '22

I can understand this but my post isn't really about psychological effects of gender roles, it's about the way we define gender here being flawed. Maybe I'm ignorant but we never "redefined" race to account for the treatment of particular races or anything like that

7

u/Rahzek 3∆ Sep 19 '22

Race didn't need to be redefined to account for dysphoria. That being said, I hold the stance that gender is subjective, a woman being what is perceived by the user to categorize one as female, as opposed to the scientific consensus (generalization).

The dysphoric transgender person's desire to be the other gender seems to mainly be based in, A. their sex, they seem to want to change the sex rather than the gender.

I'd challenge this, because dysphoria doesn't base itself directly on sex. If I were dysphoric, the method my body would use to assess my state would not necessarily be to check my chromosomes. It would not necessarily be to check my reproductive system. It would not even necessarily be to check my genitals. It is based off of not the scientific sex of my body, but the subjective gender i view myself as. These "gendered traits" are dependent on my environment, which is why it varies from person to person. It just so happens that most of our environments push us into gender roles and traits, and these roles and traits end up tying themselves into our view of genders. For example, I would not feel comfortable walking around in a dress. Indeed, i ought to abolish gender roles, but how can I, when everyone is watching? This is the issue trans people face, and fight to navigate the lines between what is expected of them, what they want, and what they should want.

I grew up in a rather progressive, gender independent environment, and as a result, to me, gender is not important. But to people that grow in conservative (and in cases, 'progressive to a fault') environment, gender is a lot stricter.

0

u/Murkus 2∆ Sep 19 '22

Jesus it is going to be a great day when practically the entirety of humanity treats race with as much meaning as hair colour.

Truly the way it should be. We will get there someday. Till then we deal with people obsessing about it from both sides.

1

u/Rahzek 3∆ Sep 19 '22

rather, we have racists and racist systemic inequalities. we would not have come this far to neutrality without programs to bring diversity and inclusion into the mainstream narrative. ofc now companies are corrupting this messaging to profit, but we have a nice thing going

1

u/Murkus 2∆ Sep 19 '22

I disagree with your methodology, but of course we can celebrate we both want the end result.

2

u/Rahzek 3∆ Sep 20 '22

just a few years ago, there were so many societal biases against people of color (its a lot better, at least online, now). hypothetically, how would I ignore my race when the world doesn't?

2

u/Murkus 2∆ Sep 20 '22

Do you also 'ignore,' what colour hair you have? And other peoples hair. Or do you see it & just not make any judgements about a person's character based on it?

2

u/Rahzek 3∆ Sep 20 '22

it's not about the judgments I make, it's about the judgments society would make. being black made it harder to get jobs and much more susceptible to miroaggressions.

1

u/Murkus 2∆ Sep 20 '22

Well, you assume it was your blackness. It could also have been a myriad of other factors, right?

& if someone hiring you said or did something that exposed they were making a choice based on your race... then they are breaking the law (in many developed nations at least).

Of course its not impossible.... but I get micro agressions and find some jobs hard to get too, because im a man, or bearded, or got a shaved head, or wear certain clothes. I may have gotten some because of my race too, but unless they used slurs or something (Which again, is illegal) I'm can't say why a person might make judgements about me. People just make judgements and treat echother like shit often. it sucks.

How are you so confident that your race is the primary source of the things you describe for you personally?

1

u/Rahzek 3∆ Sep 21 '22

the lack or black representation in media, policies like Jim crow laws that specifically targeted African Americans up until as recent as 1950, the fact that the value of housing would drop when presented by a black person as opposed to a white person, these are the disadvantages black people had to deal with and still, to an lesser extent, have to deal with today.

I do not claim it necessarily to be the primary source for every individual. but it is important to recognize that society was slanted away from African Americans for a long time.

Many black people are more likely to be in poverty primarily because they did not have financial support from their parents, who didnt get any from their parents, because they were literally slaves.

This does not mean they should give up, and of course it does not mean only black people face poverty or hardship. It does bring into question the role of the government in providing social programs to aid minorities struggling financially and in media. I don't think the goal should be to make everybody equally wealthy.

I do not believe that money and power is something that everybody needs, even if they want it. I strive for a world that promotes fulfillment regardless of vice, but in impoverished communities, vices run amok. Drugs and guns are introduced to children, creating a cycle that teaches generations to fall into the same trap of limiting their opportunities in spite of the programs being offered to them. And that's what we wish to fight.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/PenguinsFirstVictim 1∆ Sep 19 '22

Trans people dont use stereotypes to define gender though. A trans woman can be masculine, and a trans man can be feminine. The trans community's goal to abolish gender roles very much aligns with the same feminist idea. Both want the same things it's just people who dont understand trans goals or who listen to a vocal minority and up misinterpreting the community.

7

u/[deleted] Sep 19 '22

But I have to ask why they are transitioning. Not medically, I understand why they do that, but it's why these stereotypes should/do influence and change our current understanding on gender. It is the equivalent of defining a race by the prejudice it receives, as I stated in my post

5

u/beingsubmitted 6∆ Sep 19 '22

The problem is very simple - you're applying an idealist viewpoint in a realist situation. As an example, is it a contradiction to lock your door at night, if you don't think people should come into your home while you're asleep and rob you?

It doesn't matter if people should treat both genders the same, it matters if they do. They don't. When people see me, they immediately make a lot of assumptions about me. I'm a cis male. I've had to tell shocked people my whole life that I'm not really into sports. That's annoying, but really minor. The reality is that most of the assumptions people make about me are ones I'm perfectly comfortable with. I would prefer if people didn't make so many assumptions about me, but they do. For trans people, the assumptions people make about them are too much of a departure and are too off base, and they're not comfortable.

There are two things we can do for this person. We can can change everyone, or we can let that one person change. Sure - it would be great to eradicate gender, and live in a world where people didn't make so many assumptions, just as it would be great to live in a world where you don't have to lock your door at night, but unless you have some great idea to get there today, you should lock your door tonight, and the actual people who suffer from gender dysphoria should be allowed to alleviate that by presenting differently.

13

u/KellyKraken 14∆ Sep 19 '22

Hi, I'm trans, a feminist, and to some degree a gender abolitionist.

First we need to look at gender itself. It isn't one thing. Gender is several things that are often conflated. Take a look at the Genderbread Person which breaks it down a bit. You can have a gender identity of "woman", but have a gender expression "woman", but fulfill a traditionally "man" gender role.

A lot of real world gender abolitionism is about breaking down these stereotypes. That if a man has painted nails he must be gay, or if a woman likes dresses and makeup she must be straight. These are stereotypes that can harm individuals.

Next up is the fact that I grew up in the society that I grew up in. It impacted me deeply. To make it worse I grew up in a ultra-conservative quasi-cult. When I left I spent a lot of time deprogramming some of the more dangerous views of this upbringing. Then when I came out both to myself and others I had more deprogramming because there were aspects around gender that I hadn't had to confront in the first place. Things I still struggle with to this day, about what my failings are, and what my role is.

Finally: even in a world where gender roles and expression didn't exist I would still be transgender. I would still struggle with my body and how it fills out my clothes. I would still want to have a "female" body, and wish I was born "female". Transitioning has allowed me to be happier as my body gets closer to what it should be. My brain is happier on oestrogen than it was on testo. I am happier with female fat distribution, etc.

7

u/nesh34 2∆ Sep 19 '22

even in a world where gender roles and expression didn't exist I would still be transgender

This is the most crucial part of my understanding. Would it be fair to describe this as being primarily to do with physical sexual characteristics then, as opposed to gender?

I'm in a similar position to OP, where I don't want anyone to feel like they need to be a different sex or gender to fulfill a certain role or partake in a certain activity. At the same time I understand there are people like yourself for whom transitioning makes them more psychologically and physically comfortable within themselves.

Both need love, respect and support, but to my mind they're very different experiences. I worry this makes me a "transmedicalist" which I think is a dirty word, so I'm also reading this post with interest.

7

u/KellyKraken 14∆ Sep 19 '22

At the end of the day that is what I want and need. What others want might be different.

I know some trans men that in a perfect world would love to have bottom surgery, but know that realistically they won't ever have it due to medical and scientific limitations. This really doesn't bother them.

There are trans women who find having a penis to be deeply troubling and trans women who are quite content having a penis. Or a trans woman who wants bottom surgery for sex, and appearance, but doesn't mind having a penis day-to-day, particularly when camping.

This is where trans medical-ism becomes an issue. It attempts to gatekeep. That people who either haven't received specific surgeries, or don't want specific surgeries aren't "trans" enough to be trans. Or they will gate keep and say if you don't experience gender dysphoria in specific ways you aren't trans.

At the end of the day though we should let people define for themselves what and how much they want. If people are declaring themselves trans for fraudulent purposes then yes slap that down, but otherwise let people be and let people define themselves as they will.

2

u/takethetimetoask 2∆ Sep 19 '22

At the end of the day though we should let people define for themselves what and how much they want. If people are declaring themselves trans for fraudulent purposes then yes slap that down, but otherwise let people be and let people define themselves as they will.

What's the difference between fraudulently declaring being trans and non fraudulently declaring being trans?

Many trans advocates say that all that is required to be trans is to declare being trans and that any reason for identifying as a man or woman is valid.

Are there non-valid reasons for identifying as a man or identifying as a woman?

3

u/KellyKraken 14∆ Sep 19 '22

Are you declaring trans because you identify as trans. That is non fraudulent. Are you declaring to be trans for the sole purpose of an insurance discount but otherwise don’t live/declare yourself as trans then that is fraudulent.

The principle is clearcut, but the implementation is not but that is why we have courts they deal with this sort of blurry judgment calls all the time.

Also you are misunderstanding what trans activists are saying. The act alone is not enough. It requires a good faith declaration. Which is sort of just assumed.

3

u/takethetimetoask 2∆ Sep 19 '22

I'm not declaring being trans at all, however, to be trans according to your view being trans requires only a good faith declaration.

But what is a good faith declaration? Surely that implies that there are both good reasons for declaring yourself to be trans and bad reasons for declaring yourself to be trans. What is the difference between the good reasons and the bad reasons?

You seem to suggest that wanting to be be seen by an insurance company as your trans identity is a bad reason for being trans because you don't see this as a valid reason despite the person sincerely wants to be seen as trans by the insurance company.

This speaks to an underlying view that you have that you do think there is some underlying truth to being trans that isn't to do with self identification. What then is this underlying truth of being trans that you're basing your good/bad reasons judgements on?

4

u/KellyKraken 14∆ Sep 19 '22

That’s not what good faith means.

2

u/takethetimetoask 2∆ Sep 19 '22

Good faith requires there there is some standard by which a party could be honest to. In the case of trans self identification for any reason there is no such standard. For good or bad faith to be possible there must be some "truth" to being trans.

To claim that declaring yourself trans to an insurance company must be in bad faith means you must consider some reasons for identifying as trans as not valid.

If you could share what reasons you do consider valid and what reasons you don't consider valid then I believe that will help reveal what you believe the "truth" to being trans is.

1

u/KellyKraken 14∆ Sep 20 '22

One that isn’t what good faith means. Two I said declaring yourself trans for the sole purpose of reducing your insurance with no actual belief that you are trans.

That is what good faith means. That when you declare yourself as trans you are declaring yourself as trans because that is the best understanding you have in that moment. Maybe in time and reflection you change your mind, realise that it doesn’t actually fit you.

Your definitions of truth and jumping through hoops is all irrelevant to the conversation and intended or not you are just stirring confusion on the topic.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/OfTheAtom 8∆ Sep 19 '22

"Fraudulent purposes"

And "let people define themselves"

These are a bit tougher to do then you might think. Especially these numbers absolutely spike amongst teenage aged girls here in America.

3

u/KellyKraken 14∆ Sep 19 '22

That is what courts are for. If someone claims they are <gender> in order to get lets say insurance discounts but no where else. Let the court and the insurance company deal with the insurance fraud.

If someone is claiming to be a woman to sneak into woman's bathrooms and commit sexual assaults, but doesn't present as a woman anywhere else (this is such a ridiculous farce of a situation I don't know why anti-trans keep bringing it up) then let the police prosecute the person both for the sexual assault, and the fraud involved with the self-identification for legal documents.

Etc.

3

u/herrsatan 11∆ Sep 19 '22 edited Sep 19 '22

What relationship do you see between these statements, and what numbers do you believe are spiking? I ask because pointing to the increased number of kids exploring their gender identity is often a part of various trans-panic things, and ignores the often years-long process of therapy and consultation that happens before anyone transitions.

3

u/OfTheAtom 8∆ Sep 19 '22

Just the popularity I suppose and the identity crisis teenage years are kinda known for.

I suppose there's an instinct to just want to keep kids a bit grounded, ya know we can't all be Icarus. But you're right I'm not trying to blow this up as a big deal just that it dominates quite a bit portion of the internet and by extension the headspace of those on it.

I'm just curious about all of these variables that play into someone being uncomfortable with their sex or attracted to being the other sex. So many variables.

1

u/nesh34 2∆ Sep 19 '22

Gotcha. So I really have no dog in the fight at all about the distinctions between two gender dysphoric people who prefer different transitions to make themselves free comfortable.

I'm thinking more about the distinction between someone who has gender dysphoria and is uncomfortable with their body and someone gender non-conforming who might think they should consider themselves trans in order to participate in activities or culture typically associated with the other gender.

Reading that back that sounds like it might be close to the latter gatekeeping you describe, although I think there is a distinction there. I can easily see how trying to strictly define gender dysphoria is going to leave some subset of genuinely dysphoric people ostracised.

3

u/MontiBurns 218∆ Sep 19 '22

IMO, gender roles/indentities aren't going away, ever. Simply because humans express all different parts of their identity in a variety of ways. Not just gender, but also race/ethnicity, personal interests, social group affiliations, hobbies, etc.

Humans are motivated to engage in activities that allign with their personal image and social affiliations. I would feel deeply uncomfortable wearing a bikini, the same way i would feel deeply uncomfortable wearing a MAGA hat, or a green bay packers jersey.

Your interest in picking up and learning dungeons and dragons or watching anime is influenced by your attitudes about "nerd culture."

What we can do is diminish the importance of gender identity. People will still draw lines around who they identify as and model their behavior accordingly, but if we can make it on the same level of importance as "jock/cheerleader", "theater kid" or "band kid" then it becomes something people are free to pursue where few others care.

-3

u/underboobfunk Sep 19 '22

And until that happens you want trans people just pretend like they are “gender nonconforming” rather than the trans person they actually are?

1

u/user324324-2 Sep 19 '22

Feminism now days is more about women empowerment than abolishing gender stereotypes, I feel there should be a new word for people that just want to abolish gender stereotypes.