[Discussion] How do trans women feel like women?

submitted by deity from self.GenderCritical

They've never been a woman how can they feel like something they know nothing about?

all 18 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]Minerva 16 insightful - 1 fun16 insightful - 0 fun17 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

It's all just a vulgar mix of sex stereotypes, spirituality (having a "female soul" or whatever), and circular logic with them. No matter- if a man says he is something, no one is allowed to question him. That's how we got where we are now.

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If the trans movement has taught me anything, it has taught me the ridiculous lengths that men will go to oppress women. So much so that they deny reality.

[–][deleted] 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Through Autogynephilia (a fetish, not a feeling): https://www.peaktrans.org/autogynephilia/

Or Gender Dysphoria (a psychological disorder, not a feeling): https://www.feministcurrent.com/2019/12/12/whats-current-former-staff-say-nhs-is-over-diagnosing-children-with-gender-dysphoria/

Or straight-up imagination, social contagion, role-playing, suggestibility, or delusion (not feelings).

Because, as you said, they're not biologically women, so by definition they can't know what being a woman feels like. And it's doubtful that there's some kind of universal "innate feeling" of being a woman. "Female" is a biological reality. There's all kinds of socially constructed gender baggage that goes along with that biological reality, depending on culture, but again -- there's no monolithic "feeling" of being a woman.

[–]courage2courage 9 insightful - 3 fun9 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

What do you mean? Everyone can be a woman now! According to the UN, women are "limitless and formless". Others believe women to be a "loose, shifting constellation". With such clear definitions, why wouldn't a penis-haver feel as though they too were a woman?

This Twitter thread is a great resource for other opinions on the definition of women: https://twitter.com/HJoyceGender/status/1272799100426207232 Because after all, the definition of women is merely the opinion of men.

[–]littlerbear 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

They can't. It's part of the delusion that goes along with being trans. They don't have the body, they don't have the socialization, so all they can base their 'feels' on is what they've observed. From reading some of their posts, it almost seems like they've never even had a conversation with a woman. It's as if they believe that their mothers floated around on some glittery cloud of perfume all day. It's truly odd.

[–][deleted] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I don't even know what they mean when they say they feel like women, I don't go around with a mystical womanly feeling and I've never heard of any woman who has either. We are women because we were born that way.

It's interesting that they say they feel like women, yet, they don't seem to relate with women at all, when we tell them we fear men, that we feel unsafe and uncomfortable letting men into our spaces, they don't relate to that or take it seriously, because they are men. If they really did feel like women, they'd know that that is the feeling that we have: the fear of men.

[–]jelliknight 3 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 5 fun -  (0 children)

I don't go around with a mystical womanly feeling

You don't? ~glitters femininely~

[–]Spikygrasspod 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

I've seen the "norm relevancy" view discussed by TRAs, and I think we should discuss it, too. I think we should consider their best argumenst, not their silliest ones. So the norm relevancy view is a bit more sophisticated than the "I knew I was a woman because I liked dresses and dolls" view. Basically the norm relevancy idea is that trans males felt from a young age that gendered expectations relating to men didn't apply to them, and gendered norms relating to women did apply to them. They use this to explain why they don't really have male socialisation. It was aimed at them but didn't 'hit the target,' as it were. But it honestly sounds like rebellion against constricting gender norms to me. Why can't someone who feels alienated by the norms relevant to their sex just be a gender-non-conforming man or woman? I, too, felt alienated by the norms that apply to women. Am I a trans man because many of the feminine expectations lobbed at me bounced off my glowering steely exterior? I don't think so. I would love to hear everyone's thoughts on how male and female socialisation works even if you reject it explicitly. Personally, my intuition is that explicit rejection of gender roles doesn't and cannot combat gendered socialisation because it occurs at a sub-conscious level.

[–]jelliknight 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I agree, that's what they mean. It's their best argument, but it's still stupid.

Feeling a preference for or natural affinity with the opposite sex's stereotypes, roles, and expectations isn't the same as feeling like the opposite sex. It also doesn't have anything to do with altering physically characteristics or entering opposite sex spaces. It's just a totally normal and expected outcome of a society that arbitrarily defines half of all human experiences as feminine and the other half as masculine.

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

That is a very useful way of looking at it, thank you. So is it right to say you think that trans people are simply gender non-conforming people who (incorrectly) think they need to change their physical, legal or social sex in order to reject/change their gender?

[–]Anna_Nym 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I think there's more to it than that. For the old-school transsexual, there is a very powerful dysphoria associated with their bodies. I think some people have that dysphoria because of unresolved trauma, and some may have it because of hormonal influences that we currently don't understand. That was where the now-out-of-favor "born in the wrong body" explanation came from.

To me, this seems like a subcategory of body dysmorphia, although I think trans people hate that categorization. But I've never read a coherent explanation for how it differs, other than that people want the treatment to be changing their body rather than reconciling with their body (whereas that is not the recommended path for eating disorders or people who want to be blind/deaf/etc.)

And then there are the later-in-life transitioning Caitlyn Jenner types, who are completely gender conforming. Some of these are clearly fetishists. I don't know if it's really that simple that all are, though. I have to go by anecdote here since Blanchard's work is old, and I don't know of any contemporary researcher trying to update it. But for some of the people I've known, it's more of a sadness... a sense that they won't ever be valued as a man or a woman but they may be valued if they transition. It's not dolls and dresses, but beauty and compassion.

[–]Spikygrasspod 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I feel empathy for that sadness. I daresay many of us feel sadness, either fleeting or more insistent, at not being 'good enough' women or whatever. The size and spread of the diet industry should be proof of that.

It would be good to have a lot more research on dysphoria/dysmorphia. I might be persuaded, with evidence, that we should treat at least some people differently on the basis of a sound diagnosis. But since the current gender talk lumps all manner of self-identifying people together with a smaller number of people with severe dysphoria, gives them all the same name, and forbids us to distinguish between them because it's 'gatekeeping' and offensive.... well that makes it difficult, because we either have to say 'yes' to all, or 'no' to all.

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

Yes, your last sentence is really the issue to me, too.

Also, I am genuinely happy to treat someone as they want to be treated--pronouns, names, and all--in one to one interactions. I am not happy to have my needs, lived experience, and identity erased or have history rewritten. Woman is a biologically sexed term. Gender roles have been attached to it, but no culture anywhere that I am aware of have seen the gender roles as the primary definition of "woman/man" rather than the sex. Even in cultures that have third or fourth genders, those are still based on recognizing the reality of biological sex. And it is not a coincidence that there are way more examples of cultures that have a third gender that allows a biological male to assume a female social role than there is of the reverse. So I will use she/her, but I am not going to pretend that "woman" means anything other than adult human female to validate someone's desired identity. (well, I'm not going to pretend in the privacy of my own mind... I am a big coward, so even commenting on this message board is a toe step towards the courage to start saying this outside of my own mind.)

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

Yes, they are sexist gender non-conforming people.

We have to be clear on how we define things. Gender in this context is the set of roles, rules, and expectations imposed upon each sex (women = wear heals, be caring, enjoy baking, men = be aggressive, wear drab clothing, enjoy cars), but are not innate to that sex. I.e. 'women have babies' is part of female biology not feminine gender.

Sexist people believe that gender is innate. Non-sexist people believe that it's arbitrary. The latter are correct as we can see gender vary across times and cultures, sometimes becoming totally inverted. Examples being leggings and heels for men in the middle ages, blue for girls and pink for boys, kilts (skirts) for men in scotland etc.

People who don't conform to the gender of their sex BUT believe that gender is innate are transgender. People who don't conform to the gender of their sex and don't believe gender is innate are...just regular people. People who DO totally conform to the gender of their sex are either extremely rare coincidences, or live in a sexist society and are having to make an effort to alter their natural traits, preferences and abilities to fit the current arbitrary gender expectations.

[–]Anna_Nym 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I agree. GNC people are still socialized according to their sex. Socialization occurs through negative reinforcement as well as positive reinforcement. Socialization is the interaction of personal actions with other's reactions, so it is not something that ever happens only according to internal perspectives of self.

It also seems inconsistent with the current activist claims that trans isn't about the gender binary. But if gender expectations or socializations aren't what are defining man/woman, then how can there be significance to whether a person feels more belonging with gendered norms belong to one sex or the other? In my pre-peak days, this bothered me a lot. I could never square the claims of gender transgressiveness with the reality of gender conformity.

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

I think you're right about the negative reinforcement and the fact that socialisation happens with others, not by oneself. I actually often felt like the stupid stereotypes of girls that I saw didn't apply to me because I wasn't 'like that' (I thought I was an individual exception... it took me much longer to realise the whole thing was BS). This didn't stop me from developing a lot of gendered behaviours. I mean, there are so many. And it's easier to reject the explicit messages, but harder to reject the subtle ones, which are manifold. To say my socialisation didn't affect me because I didn't consciously endorse it would be to say I'm the only animal here that doesn't respond to behavioural conditioning.

Yeah, there are trans people who value the gender binary because they want to change categories, not destroy the categories. But obviously non-binary folks want to escape the categories (like many of us... no idea why I would need a special dispensation for that, though). Maybe being non-binary is a way to make an individual escape while still 'respecting' i.e. leaving intact the gender categories for those who want them. I don't know. I know that two key values of that community are inclusiveness and respecting/validating people's identities. That means you might sometimes be in a position where you have to validate, say, two identities that are based on two conflicting views about gender. It's easily done, though. Just say "TWAW, NBPAWTSTA"

[–]Anna_Nym 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I've seen many theorize that non-binary identities are a way of personal gender abolishment in a time when people have lost the belief in actual gender abolishment as a possibility. I don't really know because while I have many acquaintances who identify as non-binary, I'm not socially allowed to question them about it. However, what they do say seems to me like conflating masculine with male/man and feminine with female/man (but yet, they would never say a butch trans woman is invalid, so it's not 100% consistent even at that level).

When I originally started seeing non-binary used as an identity, it was actually very coherent and IMHO, healthy. It was used by trans-identified people who were not in denial of their biological sex. It referred to the fact that through medical transition, their bodies mixed features of both biological sexes. So they recognized that estrogen and breast implants/other forms of surgery did not turn them into biological females but felt that it also removed them from the category of biological male, which is something I can agree with. IIRC, these were the type of advocates who pushed for and won legal recognition of non-binary. But apparently that legal recognition was based on self-ID instead of medical reality, and non-binary identities lost that medical grounding.

I've started to find it all a little insulting. Do people who identify as non-binary actually think the rest of us go around in perfect happiness conforming to our proscribed gender roles and stereotypes? Do they really think "woman" is just a set of gendered expectations with no underlying biological reality? And if so, how do they think women's oppression was enforced on women? (also, why aren't they advocating for the removal of female/male separation in prisons and sports if they truly believe there is no biological need for the separation? Wouldn't that solve the obvious problem of accommodating non-binary identities?)

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

I didn't know non-binary used to be used in that way. That's interesting, thank you.

As for how it's used now... yes, it has the potential to be a little insulting. It sometimes seems to mean "I'm not like other girls"... as though the rest of us are.

Yeah, I don't know what they think will ultimately happen if we ignore biological sex and categorise people by self-identity. If everyone did that, sex based rights and categories would collapse, even though our need for them would still exist. But of course only a smallish number of people are identifying in and out of these categories, so this debate could go on for a long time before the downsides of ID-based definitions become apparent to everyone.