GC: What are your arguments against "lesbians and trans men are men in women's bodies" and "gay men and trans women are women in men's bodies"?

submitted by CuteAsDuck from (self.GCdebatesQT)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

the bigger problem is with your contention that because some people have some physical characteristics more commonly associated with or frequently found in the opposite sex, but which are not at all definitive of sex - such as short stature, high voice and slight build - then of course those people view the world as the opposite sex sees it

But those people don't necessarily view the world as the opposite sex sees it. It wouldn't make sense that something only like short stature, high voice or slight build, or even a combination of those sorts of things, could make a person see the world the way the opposite sex sees it, because of course they cannot be the opposite sex and therefore not experience the world that way. It would take much more for a person to be convinced they see the world and themselves that way, or I would hope at least. I do believe, however, that it wouldn't be the wildest thing to say that the sum of a person's perception based on those attributes might lead to them having more perceptual kinship with one sex than the other. I realize this is a bit fanciful, but I hope that what I'm saying is a bit more clear. I think you nearly understand my point, but I haven't quite found the right words or phrasing to fully get this across.

Which brings us back to stereotypes - & one-dimensional ones at that. The only way someone could come to such conclusions is if they have a very narrow view of what the two sexes are like in terms of thoughts, feelings & personality. Which suggests to me that growing up and in adult life as well said person has not had much IRL contact with a wide variety of human beings of both sexes - and that in the case of those persons he/she has met & interacted with, there's not been all that much in the way of deep, probing discussions that provide a window into other persons' inner lives and how they truly think & feel about things & how they experience the world.

My guess is, someone who comes to these conclusions did not grow up in crowded household/family with a lot siblings & other assorted relatives always about, that they haven't spent much or any time caring for younger siblings or kids, & their childhood & adolescence also didn't involve a lot of spending time with other families, or in other households/situations where they'd be exposed at close range to all sorts of kinds of grownups & kids alike.

You might be right! That could explain much for a person who comes to such conclusions...

I see you constantly making the case that it's reasonable for people to become convinced that their perceptions, thoughts and feelings are the same as or very similar to the opposite sex - and that they themselves are the opposite sex - based on a whole bunch of stuff apart from the defining characteristics of sex itself

I kind of think it's hilarious, because life really can be strange like that. It's downright silly and absurd, yet I do find it reasonable. And despite my quirks, I would like to think myself a reasonable, rational person.

That's a good point about height, too, I wish I'd have thought of a better example first. I had an idea to use different color M & Ms, but I don't want that to sound too dumb nor get lost in details again so I'm trying still to think of better examples.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I think the flaw (for lack of better word, sorry) in your theory is that any female typical feature on a man or male typical feature on a woman is the opposite of the expectation. And because it’s the opposite, they don’t elicit the same reactions or responses that they would on a person who is the sex typically associated with the feature(s). Does that make sense? Meaning, it’s the very fact that they aren’t the sex typical of whatever feature that makes their experience different. A man with “moobs” is gonna be mocked or considered overweight, a woman with big breasts is often considered a positive thing in society (and the point where a man has “moobs” is still not comparable to the point where a woman is considered as having big breasts, if that makes sense?). Conversely, a woman with a “flat chest” is often mocked or deemed less desirable (ex: the “itty bitty titty committee” thing 🙄).

People are held to the physical standards of their sex, so having a feature normally associated with the opposite sex makes them an outlier, rather than giving them a kinship to the opposite sex- because those features would be unremarkable and likely go unnoticed when they are on a person of the sex they are attributed to. Kevin Hart, for example, he’s the average height for women. But since he’s a man, his height is always a punchline. Look at the height of basketball players, to use that example again- female basketball players average in height somewhere between 5’6-5’10. Male basketball players are often well over 6ft. Allen Iverson is 6ft and was considered a short player (there are shorter players too, to be fair).

It’s the very fact that they aren’t the sex associated with whatever feature that isolates their experience and perception (rather than connecting them with the opposite sex), as well as how they are perceived by others. So a woman with a typically male feature is going to be considered and possibly treated as “different”, where it’s typical and unremarkable for a man, and vice versa. And again, it’s worth noting that the point where it becomes atypical on the opposite sex than the expected is always going to be a point where it’s standard on the associated sex.

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

I think the flaw (for lack of better word, sorry) in your theory is that any female typical feature on a man or male typical feature on a woman is the opposite of the expectation. And because it’s the opposite, they don’t elicit the same reactions or responses that they would on a person who is the sex typically associated with the feature(s). Does that make sense? Meaning, it’s the very fact that they aren’t the sex typical of whatever feature that makes their experience different.

I'm trying very hard not to get too wrapped up in semantics or nitpick words, because what I've been trying to describe is a paradox that I think you're actually finding the words to (good on you! And thank you! 😊). A feature or attribute could be not sex-typical for a person, and indeed because it isn't sex-typical it would cause that person to be unable to experience it as the opposite sex does, yet embodying that feature means they appear to be sharing a feature more common to the other sex, which may be pointed out by others by doing things such as teasing. The person isn't really experiencing something the way the opposite sex does, but others, whether maliciously or not, point out the commonality.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Responding a lot, sorry, can’t sleep and finally figured out how to word what I couldn’t earlier...

Re you looking for better examples: imo, This thread reminds me of tra/qt arguments (not your points, just the conversation in general). The idea that “women can have penises” or “men can have vaginas” or even the “you can’t know what genitals someone has” thing that tras love to say- they say those things because they know that we expect certain parts or features on people based on sex, and they want to diminish that expectation. A person attracted to men may have a preference for a particular penis size- but whether you like ‘em big or small, you still expect there to be a penis when you get naked with them. A penis that’s smaller/larger than you may prefer may be disappointing, but a vagina instead of a penis is a whole different situation for the vast majority of people. When we see articles or coverage of TW athletes, people who oppose TW participation in female sports always point out the height and build of the TW- because those features being pointed out are associated with males.

I don’t think it matters what example you find, it’s always going to be a feature that’s associated and expected with the opposite sex, and it’s that factor, rather than the feature itself, thats going to inform someone’s experience and perception.

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

Not to sound callous, but I'm glad for the insomnia, because you're better wording what I'm trying to say as well.

I was actually thinking of the other discussion of athletes and trying to reconcile what I saw as inconsistencies of logic: that sex influences total biological development resulting in differences between female and male bodies in nearly every way, but the way that bodies can vary and defy expectations is a given that makes it difficult or impossible to say something like "being tall is a male attribute" because a woman may be tall too and be just as much a woman as any other and truly perceive things as only a woman can. So, to tie this back to the original post's statement of LGB people having sexual inversion (hopefully using that correctly), part of it is a convincing that someone like an extremely homophobic homosexual person could be convinced that their own features or attributes provide evidence that they mentally/spiritually are the opposite sex. There is no real sexual inversion except that created by one's own self, and to be able to convince oneself something like that about themselves, I imagine it would take looking for every bit of supporting evidence one could find and willfully misinterpret as proof that they are a heterosexual member of the opposite sex "trapped" in the body of the "wrong" sex.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 8 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

I think that the “sexual inversion” that you’re talking about is something that would occur on any body by chance. I don’t see how that would be a trans specific thing, which is what your initial comment seemed to suggest. Rather, it would be a thing that just happens to some people based on genetics/what features they inherited from their parents, and that if someone happened to be trans, they’d interpret as a sign they were meant to transition. But the way you phrased your first comment gave me (and I think a few of us) the impression that you were saying that this was a phenomenon that occurs specifically in trans people.

However, I don’t think having developed some typically opposite sex features is ever going to mean someone naturally developed so many of those features that they are a able to really see themselves as a member of the opposite sex. I just don’t know what features someone could develop that would logically support that. I think that people who transition have a mental health issue, but I think someone convincing themselves that because one to a few features on their body is more aligned with the opposite sex means they are trapped in the wrong body would be more deeply mentally ill than the average dysphoric person. There’s just no feature typical of a woman that a man can naturally develop (or vice versa) that I think would reasonably justify that thought process.

Yes secondary sex characteristics can vary- that’s why they are secondary, and we define and observe by primary. Still- someone would have to develop significantly more secondary features typical of the opposite sex than their own for it to make sense that having those features changes their perspective and experience in life, unless they were several mentally ill. And even then, them convincing themselves doesn’t do much to make the idea in their head a logically sound one. I understand what you’re saying now, but initially it did sound as if you were implying that trans people, specifically children, somehow have the possibility of naturally developing physically more in line with the sex they’ll eventually want to transition to appear as, and that doing so informs their perspective. That doesn’t seem to be what you’re saying now. Now it sounds like you’re saying that a trans person may cling to any feature(s) they naturally developed that is typically associated with the opposite sex as a sign or proof that they were meant to transition, even though the rest of their body and features are typical of their sex?

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

I think that the “sexual inversion” that you’re talking about is something that would occur on any body by chance. I don’t see how that would be a trans specific thing, which is what your initial comment seemed to suggest. Rather, it would be a thing that just happens to some people based on genetics/what features they inherited from their parents, and that if someone happened to be trans, they’d interpret as a sign they were meant to transition. But the way you phrased your first comment gave me (and I think a few of us) the impression that you were saying that this was a phenomenon that occurs specifically in trans people.

No, I didn't mean that as a trans-specific thing, thank you for picking up on that and clarifying.

However, I don’t think having developed some typically opposite sex features is ever going to mean someone naturally developed so many of those features that they are a able to really see themselves as a member of the opposite sex. I just don’t know what features someone could develop that would logically support that. I think that people who transition have a mental health issue, but I think someone convincing themselves that because one to a few features on their body is more aligned with the opposite sex means they are trapped in the wrong body would be more deeply mentally ill than the average dysphoric person. There’s just no feature typical of a woman that a man can naturally develop (or vice versa) that I think would reasonably justify that thought process.

I don't think those features alone, no matter how numerous, could cause a person to see themselves as the opposite sex, either. I think that things like that might help convince a person in light of other circumstances and events and experiences, all things interplaying to eventually tip the scales in favor of transsexualism, but a slew of physical features alone would likely never be enough to do that. If that were to happen, I agree, they would likely be more mentally ill than the average dysphoric person.

Yes secondary sex characteristics can vary- that’s why they are secondary, and we define and observe by primary. Still- someone would have to develop significantly more secondary features typical of the opposite sex than their own for it to make sense that having those features changes their perspective and experience in life, unless they were several mentally ill. And even then, them convincing themselves doesn’t do much to make the idea in their head a logically sound one. I understand what you’re saying now, but initially it did sound as if you were implying that trans people, specifically children, somehow have the possibility of naturally developing physically more in line with the sex they’ll eventually want to transition to appear as, and that doing so informs their perspective. That doesn’t seem to be what you’re saying now. Now it sounds like you’re saying that a trans person may cling to any feature(s) they naturally developed that is typically associated with the opposite sex as a sign or proof that they were meant to transition, even though the rest of their body and features are typical of their sex?

I don't think the features themselves actually affect the perception, but rather society's reaction to those features and the judgement and interpretation by others that affect the perception of just having those features. And I'm sorry for probably causing even more confusion now, but I am actually saying both, because I think both ideas are actually the same: one is the objective perception, one is the subjective perception. They are the same thing, but the interpretation differs between the outside observer and the observed. The outside observer will rightfully see a mental illness, the observed will not. They may come to understand that they have a mental illness, but so long as they maintained the conviction of a cross-sex identity, they will never be able to see their illness as the outside observer does--I would think if they could, they would probably not be able to maintain such an identity as strongly as they do.

I sort of understand the lucidity that might actually be able to occur. To have a moment of such security to relieve homophobia entirely that it wouldn't really matter whether they were a woman or man, and in fact could be OK with openly acknowledging one's sex and one's sexual orientation. An LGB person comes to have peace with themselves. I'm not sure how much of a cross-sex identity might be resolved in the case of transsexuals, but perhaps the worst parts of the illness could be. Personality would remain, but the illusion would disappear. But that's just curious wondering on my part.