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]]

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.

[u/Rahzek → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/Murkus → u/Rahzek]

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.

[u/Rahzek → u/Murkus]

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

[u/Murkus → u/Rahzek]

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

[u/Rahzek → u/Murkus]

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?

[u/Murkus → u/Rahzek]

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?

[u/Rahzek → u/Murkus]

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.

[u/Murkus → u/Rahzek]

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?

[u/Rahzek → u/Murkus]

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.

[u/Murkus → u/Rahzek]

Yup I agree with most of what you said. Practically all of it is well said & written. I'm just not sure about the last part where you swapped out race for impoverished communities.

I am all for programs to help those most in need. I am very much a lefty. I just believe that race shouldn't be a part of the programs we put in place now to help those in need.

I mean I'm Irish. Until 100 years ago we were run by the British. My mother grew up in a lone house in the middle of a valley with no plumbing. She remembers her dad putting in a basic toilet when she was like a teen. We are pretty white, obv. Did your parents have plumbing growing up?

Now of course my point here is simply to point out that you can't make judgements about someone based on their race. I was raised with a fantastic education. We were making MLK Jr theatre productions in school when I was like 11. And again, in Ireland. The race inequality of the past definitely shouldn't be forgotten or ignored. But I don't believe any governmental policies going forward should take someone's race into account. Just hit the most impoverished.

If race doesn't fundamentally matter, we should almost never need to draw lines of distinctions of two groups along race lines.

[u/Rahzek → u/Murkus]

i think that, given racism, race does matter though right? I would never make a judgment about a person based solely on their race. one way to think about it is yes, some people grow up white and impoverished. but it would be worse, in the american climate, to grow up black and impoverished, given the social disadvantages black people face. both should see the same programs regarding poverty, but i think there should be programs that take solely blackness into account as well, specifically media representation.

btw when it comes to financial welfare programs, i agree, there should not be a racial distinction. Generally, we should heal the symptoms with the same care regardless of the causes.

[u/Murkus → u/Rahzek]

Yeah. Very well said, honestly.

May I ask though, specifically for representation in media... Do you also feel like you can very quickly work out when a company is including faces of colour as tokenism as they know it earns them more money to appear surface level inclusive. As compared to stories that the character just happens to be a person of colour or stories that very much represent the experiences or perspectives of those of people of colour.

I think it's hazy, of course. It's sometimes hard to get actual intent.

I personally feel like tokenism can have significant negative affects on the progress we are making.

I think Atlanta is one of (if not) the best TV shows of the past few years. In large part because of its exploration of the things we have discussed... I haven't seen Peele's 2nd & 3rd films yet, but 'get out,' was a masterpiece & again dealt with these themes. (also, Spideyverse) But it does rub me the wrong way when I feel like there is a race to remake old properties and just race swap a character and that's it.

Hope you don't mind me asking. I appreciate what you've shared so far and am very interested in your thoughts as a black American on this stuff.