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 -  (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.