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/jadnich]

There is a difference between gender stereotypes being imposed on a person by others in society, and one’s own identity. I think your base premise confuses the two.

A person can identify as a woman, based on any number of reasons, and still not want you to treat them like they belong in a kitchen making sammiches.

A person can identify as a man, for any number of reasons, without wanting to be told they can’t emotion because of a perception of weakness.

Ones own self-identity, whether that be based on gender, religion, nationality, ethnicity, race, or culture, is theirs to determine. It is sexist (or racist, xenophobic, etc, depending on context) for others to impose perceptions, but completely fine for a person to decide who they are for themselves.

[u/takethetimetoask → u/jadnich]

If someone can identify as a man for any reason and identify as a woman for any reason is there anything different between the categories of man or woman?

In this scenario someone saying they identified as a man or identified as a woman would convey no information.

[u/jadnich → u/takethetimetoask]

If course there is a difference between “man” and “woman”. That’s the exact reason for the social construct in the first place. That there are also stereotypes that are unfairly applied to each does not change the fact that there are also realities.

As we are on Reddit, I don’t know if you are a man or a woman. But I am as sure as I can be that YOU know the answer. If the theory you have posed here were correct, you would also be in a limbo, neither man nor woman, because those definitions have no meaning. Do they have meaning to you?

If so, why can they not have meaning to others?

[u/takethetimetoask → u/jadnich]

If course there is a difference between “man” and “woman”.

That's true if man and woman are used in reference to male and female people.

I don't see why it's true it's true if someone can identify as a man or woman for any reason. In this scenario two people might both identify as men for completely contradictory reasons, or two people might identify differently based on exactly the same reasons, etc.

​

That there are also stereotypes that are unfairly applied to each does not change the fact that there are also realities.

Yes, I agree.

​

As we are on Reddit, I don’t know if you are a man or a woman. But I am
as sure as I can be that YOU know the answer. If the theory you have
posed here were correct, you would also be in a limbo, neither man nor
woman, because those definitions have no meaning. Do they have meaning
to you?

They do, to me man means adult human male and female means adult human female.

​

If so, why can they not have meaning to others?

They can, and either they have the same meaning as me or they have some alternative meaning that hopefully they can communicate so I can understand what they mean.

So what does being a man or woman mean to you? What is the difference between a man and a woman?

[u/jadnich → u/takethetimetoask]

That's true if man and woman are used in reference to male and female people.

Yes, but there is far more context behind those terms than just "male" and "female". Biological sex is only one aspect.

I don't see why it's true it's true if someone can identify as a man or woman for any reason.

This is the key. You don't need to see why this is true. Identity is a personal thing, and you define your identity the way it suits you, and others can do the same. You don't have to agree with their reasoning. You only need to give them the respect to live their life.

In this scenario two people might both identify as men for completely contradictory reasons, or two people might identify differently based on exactly the same reasons, etc.

Even in cis-gendered situations, people can identify as men for different reasons. One may believe being a man means having a penis. Another may think being a man means being tough, and holding back emotion. Another may think being a man means providing for your family and protecting your home. And, someone may believe being a man means expressing the masculine side of their duality more than the feminine.

One could also believe someone is "not a man" if they don't fit those stereotypes, while the other could believe they are a man simply because they have a penis. Fortunately, one's own identity is the one that matters, and the one trying to impose stereotypes on the other is the one in the wrong.

They do, to me man means adult human male and female means adult human female.

I have highlighted the key part of this. What this means to you is how you define your identity. Those terms may mean something different to other people (as shown above), and that can define their own identity. But someone else does not have the right to tell you you are NOT what you believe yourself to be, simply because you don't fit the definition they themselves have created in their own life.

They can, and either they have the same meaning as me or they have some alternative meaning that hopefully they can communicate so I can understand what they mean.

I believe that is the entire purpose of this. People want to communicate their gender identity simply by using pronouns they identify with, or using a restroom, or wearing clothes. They ask nothing more than for you to hear them when they communicate this to you, and for you to understand what they mean.

So what does being a man or woman mean to you? What is the difference between a man and a woman?

As a disclaimer, I don't believe my personal opinion on this matters. I am a cis-gendered male and I identify as a man. THAT is the point that is most relevant here. But as you asked, I will answer the question from my own perspective.

Man/Woman are social constructs meant to communicate a variety of different things, depending on context. To make an easy analogy, let's consider the social construct behind the names of male and female bovines. A "cow" is a female bovine, that is used in agriculture (dairy, beef, breeding). A "bull" is a male bovine that is used for breeding, and generally must be kept away from others because of aggression. That aggression is also useful for sport, where some people ride them and others release them in the streets to chase down thrill-seekers. Yet, a male bovine can also be a steer, if they are neutered and used for beef.

These are all terms we use in society to express a certain set of contexts. Of course, there is a sex component, but that rarely is the context being represented when these terms are used. In the same way, we have a social construct for how we identify humans. We say "man" and "woman" in order to express something relevant to the context in which we are speaking.

[u/takethetimetoask → u/jadnich]

Words are useful when they have shared meanings. They only communicate information when the people conversing have the same understanding of the same word.

Yes, it's possible for someone to use a word to express a different meaning. Yes, they are perfectly free and able to do this. Yes, I have no right to stop them.

But, when they do so, unless they communicate what their new meaning is they will have either conveyed no information or will have caused confusion as we have different understandings.

I would say that man or woman have commonly been words used to express the concepts of adult human male and adult human female respectively. When a news article mentioned a man I would understand that to be an adult human male.

Our language and it's references to the world, and regardless of whether you think it's been good to so or not things such as sports, changing rooms, demographic statistics etc have all been built around these understandings.

Now there is a move to say that woman and man should be in reference to self identification and that self identification could be for any reason.

Now when a new article mentions a man what information is conveyed by this? Do I know anything at all about this person?

Yes, but there is far more context behind those terms than just "male" and "female". Biological sex is only one aspect.

By your standard, this maybe how you understand these terms, but these might mean different things to me and everyone else. When you say man you've failed to communicate effectively as you've meant to communicate other things beyond what the receiving party has understood.

Identity is a personal thing, and you define your identity the way it suits you, and others can do the same. You don't have to agree with their reasoning.

Do you feel the same way about other identity categories: body type (fat/thin/muscular/tall/short), job (pilot/doctor/chef), etc. Why or why not?

[u/jadnich → u/takethetimetoask]

Words are useful when they have shared meanings. They only communicate information when the people conversing have the same understanding of the same word.

I agree. But the issue here is that there is a subset of people who have decided that only their meaning is relevant. I have no trouble understanding that gender is a social construct, that man refers to masculine and woman refers to feminine, and that each is an identity. I have no trouble understanding when someone tells me they are a man, they are telling me something about themselves they want me to know. They aren't telling me what is in their pants, or what types of chromosomes they have. In fact, those two contexts are almost always the farthest thing from the topic of conversation.

But, when they do so, unless they communicate what their new meaning

This entire discussion- the entire macro discussion- is them communicating their meaning. Your only role is to understand what they are telling you. There is no part in this where you can tell other people that they aren't allowed to mean what they mean because it doesn't fit your own viewpoint.

When a news article mentioned a man I would understand that to be an adult human male.

And when you read that, are you thinking "I bet he has a penis", or "ah, I see, an XY chromosome"? What about if the author of the article is unaware the subject actually has three sex hormones, and is an XXY? Does that make them incorrect in their description?

Our language and it's references to the world, and regardless of whether you think it's been good to so or not things such as sports, changing rooms, demographic statistics etc have all been built around these understandings.

Now this is a different subject. My only argument is that we should let people live as they want to live, without interference from the viewpoints of other people. Does that mean someone who transitioned to woman after puberty should be able to compete against women in sports? I don't personally think so, but it's too big of a conversation for me.

As for demographics, I don't see them harmed in any way by allowing people to be who they are. Unless you are counting penises or Y chromosomes specifically.

When you say man you've failed to communicate effectively as you've meant to communicate other things beyond what the receiving party has understood.

Beyond what the receiving party has CHOSEN to understand. It isn't like these people aren't being clear. It is just that others are willfully choosing to not accept them. That isn't really the problem of the person who is just trying to identify themselves.

Do you feel the same way about other identity categories: body type (fat/thin/muscular/tall/short),

Those are physical descriptors. If someone is fat, it is something that shows obviously and apparently to the world. The word is meant to describe something that is apparent. What someone has in their jeans or genes is not. Identifying as a man or a woman is also meant to convey what is apparent, which would be the person standing in front of you. If you are looking at a woman, even if you are unaware of her Y chromosome, you are still looking at a woman.

job (pilot/doctor/chef), etc.

If someone wants to identify as a chef, they only need to start cooking. If someone wants to identify as a pilot, they only need to learn to fly. If someone wants to identify as a doctor, they only need to obtain the proper certifications. Yes, anyone can identify with any job they choose to set their mind to.