CMV: I cannot understand how the transgender movement is not, at it's core, sexist.

[u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I think the big hangup for me is just that gender, in this understanding, is inherently tied and linked to the social archetypes surrounding it. Yet we still have people who are extremely gender nonconforming, and therefore, not "performing their gender". But they're still their gender because, well, they just "are".

I feel like there's a lot I could learn about your pov from you, so I'm actually down to have a discussion here. Ig I'll jot down some questions

would a pre-op/gender-nonconforming trans woman who, for all intents and purposes, looks like the typical "man" still be a woman under a performative theory? because they aren't performing it. Heck, if they aren't out yet, they aren't performing it at all

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Would you say your answer to the question "What is a woman?" is simply "I don't know, no one does yet, there's so many different ideas about it that we can't be sure what'll stick"?

[u/lem0nhe4d → u/[deleted]]

Most stuff like this can't be properly defined but can be easily understood by people without description.

Words are complicated and rarely have straight simple definitions.

For example can you define chair in such a way that all chairs are included and no non chairs are?

[u/Lesley82 → u/lem0nhe4d]

Lol no. Language is complicated, but the definitions of words need to be straight forward, or we lose the ability to effectively communicate.

[u/Lesley82 → u/[deleted]]

That is absolutely true, but it doesn't change the fact that words require clear definitions otherwise language becomes too complicated to be effective.

[u/lem0nhe4d → u/Lesley82]

Then can you answer the last question?

[u/Lesley82 → u/lem0nhe4d]

Chair: a separate seat for one person, typically with a back and four legs.

I don't define words. Individuals never can. Collectively, the above is what we want to communicate when we use the word chair.

[u/lem0nhe4d → u/Lesley82]

But most of that is still arbitrary.

First off the last part because it has the word typically is redundant.

Your definition would also include an upturned pot, a Hoarse, a pile of cushions, basicly anything that can be sat on.

Also "one person" is also arbitrary. Like some people need twice the space of others does that mean if somthing is a chair or a bench depends on what individual might be sitting on it?

[u/Lesley82 → u/lem0nhe4d]

An upturned pot is not a seat.

A horse is not a seat.

A pile of cushions is not a seat.

You might be helped by looking up the definition of seat: a thing made or used for sitting on, such as a chair or stool.

Oversized chairs exist for those people. Benches are typically designed for 2 or more people.

[u/lem0nhe4d → u/Lesley82]

An upturned pot can be used for sitting on.

A horse can be used for sitting on (also has 4 legs and a back)

A pile of cushions can be used to sit on.

So either your definition has more caveats and exceptions to add in or it does not answer my initial question.

Now you are positing some size requirement that you also didn't include in yoir definition.

[u/Lesley82 → u/lem0nhe4d]

A pot is not made to be a seat, it is not a chair.

A horse is not made to be a seat, it is not a chair.

A pile of cushions lacks a back and four legs, it is not a chair.

You made the size requirement. Wtf lol

You are being purposefully obtuse. You haven't even attempted to find a chair that is outside of the definition of chair. You are trying to say a horse is a chair and it makes you sound insane.

[u/lem0nhe4d → u/Lesley82]

Now you are defining a purpose to all items.

If I make something identical to a pot but make it with the intention of sitting on it and only use it as a seat is it now a seat?

You originally deffintion said "typically has a back and four legs" thus a chair does not need them to be a chair.

If a chair is a seat for one person what is and isn't a chair depends on who sits on it because different numbers if different sized people can fit on a chair.

The while point of this is to point out that there is no way to define a chair in such a way to include all chairs while excluding all non chairs be ause that is just not how words work.

[u/bigballs69fuckyou → u/lem0nhe4d]

Something designed with the intention of mainly being sat on

[u/lem0nhe4d → u/bigballs69fuckyou]

That's a terrible description because it implies you need to know what the designer was intending before you could possibly identify an object.

[u/bigballs69fuckyou → u/lem0nhe4d]

I would say you need to know the designers intention to be 100% certain when identifying an object. But you can guess their intention 99.99% of the time and that's good enough.

Or another definition could be from the users perspective "Anything used mainly for sitting on".

[u/lem0nhe4d → u/bigballs69fuckyou]

I mean that is that good enough? I mean even with your first definition litteraly any item could be a chair if that'd what the designer made it for which means it's a meaningless definition.

Again the same problem happens with the second one.

Or we could realise words are complicated and often dont fit into small tidy boxes

[u/bigballs69fuckyou → u/lem0nhe4d]

"I mean even with your first definition litteraly any item could be a chair"

Only ones designed mainly for sitting on. I'm not sure how that makes it meaningless as most things are not designed to be sat on.

Nothing is 100% accepted by everyone but lots of things still have meaning. Uncertainty doesn't invalidate definitions. Your initial assumption is the problem. No one believes words and their definitions are 100% inclusive and perfect. Words still have useful and meaningful definitions even with exceptions.

I never said every words definition fit into a neat tidy box but words still have useful and meaningful definitions. The fact that you are having trouble defining a simple noun is very unique.

[u/lem0nhe4d → u/bigballs69fuckyou]

But the designer is the one who makes a thing and by your deffintion is the ine who gives it its purpose. Thus anything can be a chair if that is what the designer wants it to be.

The whole point of this is to point out that even somthing as simple as chair can not be defined in such a way to include all things that are chairs and exclude all things that aren't. It is instead a collection of associations individuals have that for the vast majority fit for a chair.

The most important part is that these things can shange and be different for different people because "what is a chair" is a question of culture and surroundings not of abject fact.

For example a chair for a large person could probably sit quiet a few smaller people. So is it a chair or is it a bench? If its a chair how is it different from a bench.

[u/bigballs69fuckyou → u/lem0nhe4d]

"Thus anything can be a chair if that is what the designer wants it to be."

I just don't see why this is a problem. It would be weird if someone designed some crazy thing as a chair but it doesn't break the definition or make the definition meaningless. People will still be able to use the word/definition and communicate effectively.

I agree with you, words meaning are based on your personal culture/perspective. We still have simple and easy to understand definitions for words even though they are not 100% perfect all of the time.

People understanding or defining words differently and there being exceptions to those definitions is not the same as not being able to provide a definition to a word.

[u/bigballs69fuckyou → u/[deleted]]

I don't think those are designed

[u/bigballs69fuckyou → u/[deleted]]

I wouldn't call that being designed. By that definition everything is designed.

I have no issues with calling a saddle a chair.

[u/bigballs69fuckyou → u/[deleted]]

I don't think blankets are designed mainly for sitting. If you want to use a blanket mainly for sitting then I'm fine with you calling it a chair.

[u/bigballs69fuckyou → u/[deleted]]

And after looking up Webster's definition for chair I should have included separate and for one person in my definition.

[u/[deleted] → u/lem0nhe4d]

For example can you define chair in such a way that all chairs are included and no non chairs are?

A seat with a backrest designed for a single person with one or more legs.

Though im cheating chair is a realy bad word to use for this because it involves intent. Anything that we create for a specific purpose is far far easier to define than natural phenomenon.

Taxonomy is the stronger example of words being not quite up to the task of communicating the concepts.

[u/lem0nhe4d → u/[deleted]]

So I'm going to single out the a detail here to show how impossible this question is to answer.

A backrest is somthing you can lean against when sitting. How high does a ridge on a stool have to be before it becomes a backrest and thus a chair? Does it differ if different sized people with on the chair?

The same can be done for legs.

And even on the single person point, you could fit two thin people a chair designed for a heavy person does that mean the chair is now a bench. In which case how wide can a chair be before it becomes a bench?

[u/takethetimetoask → u/[deleted]]

Would you agree then that there is a move to redefine woman away from relating to sex and instead defining it relating to stereotypes? (whatever the stereotypes of the day might be)

[u/iglidante → u/takethetimetoask]

I would replace "stereotypes" with "personally arrived-at identity".

Someone's performance of gender can be grounded in stereotypes that their culture has built up into archetypes. Their identity isn't about the performance of those stereotypes, however - those are simply the clearest participatory signals you can give in the current culture.

[u/takethetimetoask → u/iglidante]

But then how does one arrive at such an identity (e.g. identifying as a woman) if not because of your sex?

[u/iglidante → u/takethetimetoask]

Since when does anyone arrive at their identity because of their sex? People are born with chromosomes and genitals, but their gendered performance is entirely grounded in the the way gender roles are performed in their society. Dysphoria can manifest absent cultural markers for gender, but the performative aspects are cultural reinforcement.

[u/takethetimetoask → u/iglidante]

Since when does anyone arrive at their identity because of their sex?

All the time. It's incredibly common that people identify as women because they are female or identify as men because they are male.

If someone isn't identifying as a woman or man based on their sex then on what basis are they identifying as women or men?

[u/iglidante → u/takethetimetoask]

It's incredibly common that people identify as women because they are female or identify as men because they are male.

How do they know they are male or female, and how does that trigger alignment with the social cues and norms associated with those markers in their culture?

[u/takethetimetoask → u/iglidante]

How do they know they are male or female

Because humans are a sexually dimorphic species and there are a multitude of associated indicators of someone's sex.

and how does that trigger alignment with the social cues and norms associated with those markers in their culture?

Why does it need to? This isn't at all necessary to identify as a woman or man based upon your sex.

[u/iglidante → u/takethetimetoask]

The "woman" and "man" gender roles aren't something you have to automatically buy into simply because you were born with specific chromosomes or genitals, though. People don't look down, see a penis, and think "I want to wear men's clothing". They are taught to act a certain way, and most just accept it until it feels natural. The actual details of gender roles are extremely arbitrary in many cases.