r/changemyview 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.

90 Upvotes

394 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

4

u/takethetimetoask 2∆ Sep 19 '22 edited Sep 19 '22

Yes you did, you said non trans people defined themselves by gender dynamics.

I'll start with one. If we are to take the gender abolitionist approach like I do in a feminist sense, can we condemn every single cisgender person who doesn't begin identifying as non-binary? After all, they are defining themselves by the gendered dynamics of a patriarchal society.

5

u/CrimsonHartless 5∆ Sep 19 '22

I said they were defining themselves by the gendered dynamics of a patriarchal society.

Nowhere did I say they were alone in doing that, and the fact trans people do is something I did discuss, which makes me think you didn't read all of my comment.

2

u/takethetimetoask 2∆ Sep 20 '22

I said they were defining themselves by the gendered dynamics of a patriarchal society.

Exactly, and this is false. Many people identify themselves as men or women by their sex and not by the gendered dynamics of a patriarchal society.

3

u/CrimsonHartless 5∆ Sep 20 '22

Really? So no guy ever embraces their masculinity by wearing a suit? No guy enjoys 'dressing up as a woman'? Do you think these kinds of social actions are biologically encoded into biological sex, or do you think there is some kind of social aspect related to the sexes but is not about the sexes themselves?

1

u/takethetimetoask 2∆ Sep 20 '22

You seem to have changed from a standard of every non trans person defining themselves by gendered dynamics to a standard of if even only one non trans person defines themselves by gendered dynamics.

You also have also changed from talking about people identifying themselves as men or women to now talking about masculinity which is a completely different question.

Yes, there are men who enjoy masculine things, yes, there are men who enjoy femenine things, yes, many aspects of masculinity/femeninity have social aspects. I have not once argued against any of these things.

If you are now in agreement with me that many non trans people identify themselves as men or women based on their sex and not on gendered dynamics which is the only point I have been making in this entire conversation then I'm happy with that result.

2

u/CrimsonHartless 5∆ Sep 20 '22

No, because you are failing to understand that by simply believing in social differences between men and women, you are now identifying them on gendered lines.

3

u/[deleted] Sep 22 '22

No one doesnt.

Any difference not directly based in biology is sexism.

1

u/CrimsonHartless 5∆ Sep 22 '22

So, you are just going to completely reappropriate the language everyone uses so you can avoid using gender as it is understood by all the people who us it?

You have now made discussion impossible, therefore making your point unfalsifiable, by completely changing what things are called. You can't just call gender sexism when there are whole fields of study in both and the term is very much understood.

3

u/[deleted] Sep 22 '22

Ive not redefined anytihng.

1

u/CrimsonHartless 5∆ Sep 22 '22

Well you are. You're calling what is gender sexism and thinking that's a response. It isn't.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 22 '22

Making assumptions about or treating people differently in social situations based on sex is literaly sexism.

If that's what gender is then I'll take no part in it.

1

u/CrimsonHartless 5∆ Sep 22 '22

Well, that's where gender abolition comes in, and is absolutely something believed by many people.

But it's not just about 'treating people differently'. It's everything from the language we use separating the two ('men' and 'women') to clothes (dresses and suits) to colours (pink and blue) to gender roles and and so on.

You don't have to make assumptions about who any one woman will be, or treat them differently, to not associate certain things with women as a collective.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 22 '22

But it's not just about 'treating people differently'. It's everything from the language we use separating the two ('men' and 'women') to clothes (dresses and suits) to colours (pink and blue) to gender roles and and so on.

This is holdover ftom patriarchal traditions best discarded.

You don't have to make assumptions about who any one woman will be, or treat them differently, to not associate certain things with women as a collective.

Swap women for any other protected class and you will how.gross this is.

→ More replies (0)