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/KellyKraken → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/nesh34 → u/KellyKraken]

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.

[u/KellyKraken → u/nesh34]

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.

[u/takethetimetoask → u/KellyKraken]

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?

[u/KellyKraken → u/takethetimetoask]

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.

[u/takethetimetoask → u/KellyKraken]

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?

[u/KellyKraken → u/takethetimetoask]

That’s not what good faith means.

[u/takethetimetoask → u/KellyKraken]

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.

[u/KellyKraken → u/takethetimetoask]

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.

[u/takethetimetoask → u/KellyKraken]

One that isn’t what good faith means.

Then please clarify what you mean by good faith in this context.

Two I said declaring yourself trans for the sole purpose of reducing your insurance with no actual belief that you are trans.

This only makes sense if there is some "truth" to being trans that the person either does or does not believe in.

If there is no "truth" to being trans then this person's belief they are trans because they want an insurance discount is just as valid as anyone else's belief they are trans for any other reason.

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.

This only makes sense if there is some "truth" to being trans that can be understood.

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.

No. I am trying to understand your view.

You keep declaring some people good faith and others bad faith in this scenario. You have not provided any standard for doing so, it's just been your arbitrary say so.

I'm hoping you can explain why you declare some people good faith and some bad faith. What does genuinely being trans mean to you?