Both: Would explaining feminist theory using trans activist terms better highlight the discrepancies between the two views on gender?

submitted by SnowAssMan from self.GCdebatesQT

Through the combination of feminists being silenced on the matter, while transgenderism has become mainstream, any discussion between trans activists & feminists with opposing views is fraught with misunderstanding. One way of elucidating those unfamiliar with feminist theory is by using terms that people are more familiar with.

Anyway, here is my attempt at using transgenderism's terms to describe the feminist view.

Everyone is born non-binary. Non-binary people who are female transition socially & biologically into women. This means that all "cis-women" are actually trans-women, while "cis-men" & "trans-women" are actually trans-men.

This would just be a quick, introductory way of outlining the feminist position. Could an approach like this help make things clearer?

all 25 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]CatbugMods allow rape victim blaming in this sub :) 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I feel like this muddies the water. A lot of us object to the terms used by tra because they make it impossible to discuss sex based oppression by denying sex as a category.

Giving in and using their language is giving up something necessary, and it’s not as clear as what’s already there. Woman=adult human female.

[–]SnowAssMan[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Surely using words like 'gender' is what muddies the waters, since trans activists have a completely different concept of gender than feminists do?

I only mean this as an introductory measure for the uninitiated anyway. After establishing the difference in approach you can revert back to more conducive language. I've seen some debates start out with people defining their terms, or using stipulative definitions, but invariably the feminist terms & their definitions are almost immediately forgotten, or disregarded.

[–]CatbugMods allow rape victim blaming in this sub :) 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I just don’t see it as very easy to follow. Cis women are nonbinary now here’s why cis offends many of us and why nonbinary reinforces gender norms.

It seems more clear to just state our point outright. People tend to ignore us regardless of how we phrase things, because we oppose what they want like porn and gendered things and prostituted women.

[–]Porcelain_QuetzalTabby without Ears 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Honestly that's actually an inaccurate use of the term non binary [agender would fit way more] and transition as commonly understood by trans people. Gender is fine to use. Just clarify what aspect of gender you're talking about [roles, identity, expression] when talking to TRAs. If you do that GC feminism is honestly quite easy to talk about in QT terms.

[–]DistantGlimmer 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Gender roles are part of a coercive hierarchy. I don't think you can really talk about gender expression separate from gender roles except maybe if it's in reference to a a specific person. The big thing of GC feminism (at least in the context of trans issues) is the belief that no one has a gender identity.

So I guess you are saying we should always clarify "gender roles" instead of just saying "gender"?

Maybe "agender or gender queer without a belief in gender identity" then? I personally don't believe anyone identifies fully with gender or that trans people fully identifies with the opposite one as I don't see how you can identify through a feeling with a set of stereotypes.

I don't understand what gender identity actually is besides a "feeling" is it based on gender roles at all? Seems like it's QT that needs to clarify their use of these terms.

[–]Porcelain_QuetzalTabby without Ears 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

You actually can. Expression is inward out, roles are outward in. That distinction is honestly quite important. Now you could argue that the expression becomes meaningless if the roles didn't exist. Yes, but that would also mean that patterns in human behavior don't exist, as expression, since it's inward out, could still relate to these patterns.

From your text I assume you think that gender identity literally means identification with a gender role. Which honestly isn't the case. I personally use it as a stand in for the internal cause of gender dysphoria, which is the way most people use it. It has nothing to do with gender roles. Now dysphoria and gender roles have a connection, since gender roles and sex are connected in our current society. That doesn't mean that gender identity [as in the internal cause of dysphoria] is based on these roles.

I personally don't believe anyone identifies fully with gender or that trans people fully identifies with the opposite one as I don't see how you can identify through a feeling with a set of stereotypes.

This isn't at all what this talk is about. I think that's why it's so hard for you guys to actually explain GC theory in QT terms. This distinction, even If you don't believe it exists is really important.

[–]DistantGlimmer 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think the big difference is that from what you write you see gender as some kind of neutral system of roles that people have some kind of internal need to express. I'm not sure where QT thinks gender roles actually come from or why they have them. I know some of you think there is something within the brain which causes gender to be expressed in certain ways.

As a gender abolitionist I would reject all of that. Gender roles are not neutral or internal. They are a coercive hierarchy and system of control which are imposed upon people as children. You could talk about how an individual conforms or does not conform to their assigned gender roles in terms of personal expression (such as a man wearing lipstick to signal not conforming to gender roles) but there is nothing internal about gender. It is imposed. I think maybe this is the biggest point of disagreement between the way GC and QT see gender.

So it sounds like you think that gender identity mainly actually manifests itself in people with dysphoria and other GNC people or people who object to gender roles. A gender-conforming "cis" person would probably not have a sense of gender identity but would simply basically be quite happy going along with the roles that society expects of them and not question it. Someone with dysphoria or someone who strongly objects to many gender roles assigned to them would, in the QT conception, actually be aware of their gender identity because it is different from the one expected of them. Is that correct? That I can at least understand (although I disagree with it).

I'd recommend this video BTW. Just happened to be listening to it this morning but it is directly on topic here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4oplubqS7o

[–]DogeWalker 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

You actually can. Expression is inward out, roles are outward in. That distinction is honestly quite important. Now you could argue that the expression becomes meaningless if the roles didn't exist. Yes, but that would also mean that patterns in human behavior don't exist, as expression, since it's inward out, could still relate to these patterns.

This sounds like an argument that gender roles are innate. If that is your belief, could you explain further?

[–]Porcelain_QuetzalTabby without Ears 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Not sure how you got that? I have specifically stated that gender roles come from the outside, by saying "gender roles are outward in". Thus they aren't intrinsic at all.

[–]DogeWalker 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

But what about the "inward out" expression? I'm talking about this part:

Now you could argue that the expression becomes meaningless if the roles didn't exist. Yes, but that would also mean that patterns in human behavior don't exist, as expression, since it's inward out, could still relate to these patterns.

If gender roles are imposed from the outside, then the argument you propose makes perfect sense: inward-out gender expressions would lose meaning if not moored to the imposed gender roles. I asked for help understanding because it seemed to me that you go against that argument in the next sentence ("Yes, but...")

[–]Porcelain_QuetzalTabby without Ears 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I actually was going against that, because I don't think that inward out expression would be meaningless without gender roles. Why is that? Because patterns exist. I personally think that even if gender roles didn't exist, as in there was no pressure to behave a certain way based on sex, we would still find patterns in people.As in people of a certain sex are statisticly more likely to choose to express themselves in a certain way. Because I think that idols would still exist. Kinda like a dude listening to metal is more likely to have long hair.

[–]DogeWalker 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

But the patterns take so many different forms, I do not believe we can make generalizations so easily. I mean, foot binding was a pattern in medieval China.

[–]tuesday 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Everyone is born non-binary. Non-binary people who are female transition socially & biologically into women.

If "everyone is born non-binary" then that would include females. So your next sentence would read "Females are people who transition socially and biologically into women".

Which is actually a tenet of transgenderism.

So your explanation does the exact opposite of your goal.

Occurred to me that you might not know this, so editing to add: They no longer believe biological sex is real, btw. They think a woman is just... any human person who likes feminine things. Which of course begs the question, how can something be considered a feminine thing when there's no female. Feminine used to mean, things which were associated with female.

Without a female class to attach itself to, the word "feminine" ceases to have any reference, so no longer means anything at all. Same for the word "masculine". Also "butch, manly, girly, boyish" etc. We're all just random people doing various people things in a more or less people kind of way.

[–]SnowAssMan[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Wouldn't I instead need to say: "non-binary people whose sex is female transition socially & biologically into women"?

Yeah, they don't want sex-based language to exist, so instead of describing trans-women as feminine, or male, they say female. I guess that's why they often change the definition of gender incongruence.

Actual definition: gender incongruence is characterized by a marked and persistent incongruence between an individual’s experienced gender and the assigned sex

TA amended definition: gender incongruence is defined as the mismatch an individual feels as a result of the discrepancy experienced between their gender identity and the gender they were assigned at birth

The first you can find here: https://icd.who.int/browse11/l-m/en#/http%3a%2f%2fid.who.int%2ficd%2fentity%2f411470068 The second you get by googling 'gender incongruence' & it's the first thing that comes up. Weirdly, it cites GIRES as it's source, but if you check the GIRES website for the definition, the amendment isn't there, it says sex, not gender.

[–]tuesday 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Wouldn't I instead need to say: "non-binary people whose sex is female transition socially & biologically into women"?

That's better, maybe. And yet... If female or male is a thing that anybody can be, then by what criteria would someone be either one?

I think it's pretty obvious that what they're trying to do here is avoid dealing with the gc response whenever a male transactivist says "woo i'm a woomum here me rawr". (you already know what that is of course, but for the lurkers, the gc response is "define woman please".)

Thank you very much for doing this exercise. Very thought provoking... as the gc side is getting more and more clear, and even more precise at unpicking their convoluted wordsalad, instead of doing what a normal person would do at this point, which is fess up and admit their reasoning is flawed, they dig in deeper, just triple-down until they basically get food poisoning from that word salad.

[–]DogeWalker 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Everyone is born non-binary. Non-binary people who are female transition socially & biologically into women. This means that all "cis-women" are actually trans-women, while "cis-men" & "trans-women" are actually trans-men.

Here's my interpretation, for comparison:

The vast majority (over 99%) of people are accurately observed to be either female or male. Some people take artificial hormones or undergo genital surgeries, but those actions do not change the person's sex.

Which is more clear?

[–]SnowAssMan[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

The vast majority (over 99%) of people are accurately observed to be either female or male. Some people take artificial hormones or undergo genital surgeries, but those actions do not change the person's sex.

That doesn't impart the same information. It barely imparts any useful information at all. Wouldn't the 99% include people who later transition? It doesn't sound that way though. The action of medically transitioning doesn't change a person's gender either.

[–]DogeWalker 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

That doesn't impart the same information. It barely imparts any useful information at all.

What information got left out?

Wouldn't the 99% include people who later transition? It doesn't sound that way though.

Yes, when I said "some people," that definitely includes people from 99% of the population. Sorry if the wording was unclear.

The action of medically transitioning doesn't change a person's gender either.

I agree, but to me, "gender" means "gender roles" or stereotypes. The action of medically transitioning doesn't change a person's religion, either. What's your point with that statement?

[–]SnowAssMan[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

It leaves out the information on gender that I gave.

Whether they medically transition or not they are stuck with their sex & their gender (both of which were given to them via biology & socialisation respectively).

[–]DogeWalker 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I still don't understand what crucial facts were omitted. From what I can tell, both of our statements allude to gender, since we both mention that some people transition. Also, that was only one of two questions.

[–]Porcelain_QuetzalTabby without Ears 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Honestly that's actually an inaccurate use of the term non binary [agender would fit way more] and transition as commonly understood by trans people. Gender is fine to use. Just clarify what aspect of gender you're talking about [roles, identity, expression] when talking to TRAs. If you do that GC feminism is honestly quite easy to talk about in QT terms.

[–]SnowAssMan[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Agender & non-binary is the same thing. Non-binary is an umbrella term. Agender people see gender as being two categories which represent the extremes, while there is a massive neutral zone, where they reside, while other non-binary people view gender as a spectrum, without a neutral zone, where every trait that exists registers to some degree on the masculinity &/or femininity scale. These latter non-binary people place themselves somewhere in the middle too. Those are two perspectives of the same thing.

I believe, however that non-binary encompasses even more than these two views, like gender fluid people, for instance are also considered non-binary. But, as far as I know, the majority take of either of the two views I outlined above.

Gender identity isn't actually fine to use, since QT believe that a person's gender identity & their sex sometimes don't match. GC say it's your sex that informed your socialisation into your gender identity. And that coming out as a different gender identity than the one you were raised as, would be like saying that your mother tongue is a different language from the one you were raised with.