QT but all can comment - How would you refute the argument that The phrase "transwomen are women" presupposes that there is a cultural role for women to fill? by DistantGlimmer in GCdebatesQT

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

I feel like this comment is super revealing about your priorities.

Care to elaborate?

QT but all can comment - How would you refute the argument that The phrase "transwomen are women" presupposes that there is a cultural role for women to fill? by DistantGlimmer in GCdebatesQT

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

Turning woman from a physical descriptor into a “gender” that can be used by anyone makes it worse for females who are prescribed that gender.

It doesn't though. Allowing people to identify as whatever gender they choose for themselves would lead to less people being forced/prescribed a certain gender from birth. That's a natural implication. It normalizes identity-based gender, not expression-based gender.

I’m really not sure how else to say it unless you don’t understand how naturalizing gender harms females, then I feel like you need to get a better understanding feminism before engaging with these topics.

I feel pretty comfortable engaging in these topics, as they not only affect me but I have a heavy interest in feminism, feminist theory, literature, etc. If I wasn't, I wouldn't bother coming here to engage with a form of feminism I do not fully understand/am not willing to completely prescribe to. Besides, I don't engage in topics that I'm not particular knowledgeable in, or make conclusions without having a reasonable level of understanding of these topics.

but if you take an existing category, then you are making it about something other than sex

It's evidently more than sex, even in its current definition. Even so, there's no harm induced by an individual identifying as a woman and going about their lives. So long as that individual does not demand conformity to gender roles for other women to be valid as their gender nor claiming to speak for all women's experiences, there is no harm.

making them about sex avoid them being about gender (as much as that is possible)

I would agree with this if we didn't live in a gendered society. I would also argue making them about sex is unpragmatic in the linguistic sense. Either way, we will have to move on from this out of disagreement.

reinforces gender so it seems like it is moving us in the opposite direction of gender abolishion and making like more difficult for females and males, especially those of us who are gender nonconforming. I feel like many of my beliefs on this subject have a lot to do with being a feminine, gay child.

Again, I'm not reinforcing gender roles, I'm in direct opposition to it. A society using identity-based gender is far closer to the end goal of a postgenderist society than one using expression-based gender.

People believing in gender roles as natural hurts GNC kids the most.

Yes, which is how most people view and describe gender in the current sense, unfortunately. Ideally, we would eliminate this completely, but we don't live in an ideal world.

QT but all can comment - How would you refute the argument that The phrase "transwomen are women" presupposes that there is a cultural role for women to fill? by DistantGlimmer in GCdebatesQT

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

That could true, but I don’t think it makes sense to harm females just so aspects of my life would be understood slightly better.

But how are females harmed?

There is nothing about gender identity which naturalizes gender roles. Even if 100% of trans people conformed to gender stereotypes, I would only take issue with the specific individuals which did so claiming their identity was rooted in such conformity and/or claimed there was a specific gender expression required to be one gender or another.

The entire conceptualization of gender identity is rooted "you are X gender because you identify as such". Nothing about the promotion of this in the social sense amplifies gendered associations. In fact, it openly opposes the current gender dichotomy. It is a transitory step in the process of developing a postgenderist society. Eliminate gendered associations, then abandon gender completely over time.

The issue you mentioned:

If you change the social meaning of words, it will change the way things are recorded, like in the examples I provided

Is something which can be resolved by not redefining the sex dichotomy (male/female), something which the modern trans movement is seeking and has been seeking to accomplish. This is why we're seeing so much confusion about sex, gender expression, and gender identity right now. Which is evident given the spike in social awareness of trans people.

Second, I disagree with the notion that man/woman are used to refer to sex in the current sense. Perhaps in the broadest sense, these terms refer to a combination of sex and gender; however, the amount of weight in the defining traits of the terms vary drastically in various regions.

For example, in the US South, pretty much anyone with long hair and a feminine to androgenous-leaning-feminine appearance typically might be called a woman (or refered to with she/her) regardless of their sex and regardless of their gender identity. Meanwhile, other areas are more accepting of both gender nonconformity and of gender identity (i.e. preferred pronouns). Other regions may place more weight on sex to define what a man or a woman is.

I would argue neither these physiological nor sociocultural bases should refer to gender. Simply put, gender identity is a temporary solution as we transition from a society which is heavily rooted in the gender dichotomy to a postgenderist one. Sex can remain the same, I don't think its unfathomable that male/female could be 100% correlative with sex, and man/woman could be 100% correlative with gender identity.

The question becomes: "Well, why can't people just be themselves without any of these labels?"

The answer is that I think it's unreasonable to think that people are going to change their way of thinking about gender and sex overnight. It's going to take centuries to bring about a postgenderist society. In fact, I actually have doubts that a gender-free world might be even possible, given the heavy variance that gender has in different cultures. I worry that gender abolition carries some aspects of colonialism with it, that can irrevocably damage the cultures of different people.

It's a very complicated task, and I think gender identity is an important step in the right direction. It's not the solution, but it's a step in the right direction nonetheless. Although, even with this concept on its own, we can see what happens when gender identity is taken to an extreme legally and socially speaking. For example as your mentioned:

I feel like butch and gender nonconforming women are already experiencing being asked their pronouns or pressured to identify as trans in a way they weren’t years earlier because of the way trans identities reinforce stereotypes

This is incredibly problematic. And I think this is because we are trapped between two definitions of gender socially speaking right now: one that is expression based and one that is identity based. I think this is something that will clear up with time, but also something which deserves to be challenged, especially when we have gender clinics putting young females on cross sex hormones which permanently alter their lives.

Even accomplishing a transformation of gender from gendered associations to gender identity will be a complex transition. So I don't pretend I know all the answers. I just don't support the notion that the QT position on this issue (or at least, my slightly watered down version of it, as I'm not 100% on the QT train) is arbitrarily less effective in defining the nature of sex-based oppression than the GC position on this issue.

QT but all can comment - How would you refute the argument that The phrase "transwomen are women" presupposes that there is a cultural role for women to fill? by DistantGlimmer in GCdebatesQT

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

baggage attached to a word that means nothing other the fact that someone is a female and an adult.

Do you think words can change meanings, or are there specific definitions we should follow prescriptively speaking?

Trying to get rid of the baggage seems like the better thing to do rather make it only about the baggage

My position is the removal of both physiological and socialized concepts attached to gendered terminology. I don't think there's a pragmatic usage to gender as a concept outside of its sociocultural expectations, nor terms such as "man" or "woman," which only exist as a result of living in a gendered society.

especially since you’ve previously said you think there is a biological cause for gender dysphoria

I don't believe there is a biological cause to gender dysphoria, if I said that previously I mistyped. Gender dysphoria is entirely a product of an individual being socialized in a gendered society. I would contrast this with "sex dysphoria" which is more rooted in physiological phenomenon, but might also have some socialized/learned causes as well.

We won’t be able to accurate statistics about these type of violence and be able to correctly identify is because of changing theses words to be about identity rather than sex.

Use "male" and "female" as a means to classify crimes and violence. My position is for identity-based gender in the social context, not in the legal context. There are ways to aggregate this data appropriately under this proposition, and I don't see how this is any more or any less accurate or more obscure than any GC take on this particular issue.

If you try to make woman about something other than being a female it will make it harder for females

But the question is how? I've mentioned in previous comments on this thread that I do not support self-id based legislation and I strongly advocate for using terms such as male or female in specific contexts (medical, crime stats, violence, prison systems, etc). Only in the social context would these terms (like man and woman) be based in identity. I'm failing to see where things become more obscure in terms describing sex-based oppression.

That being said, I'm not female so I will never have a complete understanding of such oppression; however, in the sense of describing it as an issue, I don't see how QT is more or less accurate than GC in this particular position I have taken.

I would go further to argue that GC actually obscures the oppression many trans individuals face in society, in the sense that their oppression is analyzed from the birth sex of the individual, which isn't always reflective of the lived experiences of said individual. Therefore, if we're talking about obscurity and inaccuracies, I would argue QT does a better job at avoiding such obscurities.

QT but all can comment - How would you refute the argument that The phrase "transwomen are women" presupposes that there is a cultural role for women to fill? by DistantGlimmer in GCdebatesQT

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

But the point is, if feelings are the basis of it, then they are volatile, imprecise and subjective.

Yes, you’re correct! Nothing about gender has or ever will be precise. It’s a bunch of made up, subjective bullshit. I absolutely agree.

Someone identifying as something they are not because "it feels good for them" can bring lots of harm to others. Whether laws are involved or not.

Even if you could provide concrete examples of harm induced by accepting a person (socially) as the gender they identify as, it would not outweigh the harm that gender (in its current form) has caused and will cause. Not only this, but I can point to the plethora of research which suggests that the well-being of transgender people is greatly improved when we accept them socially as the gender they identify as. Harm reduction is incredibly vital to the end goal of gender abolition.

The issue you seem to be experiencing here is not with an identity basis for gender, but with legal and legislative policy being changed to revolve around gender identity.

I will never be able to just accept something that is visible incorrect and that I know it' s incorrect because "it feels good for that person".

This sentence is incredibly problematic. Gender is not physiologically or biologically conceptualized, therefore there is not an objective basis to one’s gender and there is no “visible” incorrect nature of being one gender or another. Are you really unironically going for the feels-over-reals line of reasoning here? “I know it’s incorrect” is one of the most dogmatic things I have heard coming from a supporter of GC ideology.

Except the idea that "it feels good, so let me do it" can be applied to literally anything. Why exactly you think sex would be spared is beyond me.

“It feels good, so let me do it” is an oversimplification of my position, though. The primary reasoning for acceptance of one’s gender based on self identification is the social utility that it provides over gender based on expression/stereotypes.

Sex has a specific social utility that far outweighs any kind of benefit “self-identified sex” (???) might potentially offer. Gender does not offer any social utility as an oppressive force; however, because it is a social construction, we can shape it in such a way that is least harmful as we fight for gender abolitionist causes.

Except womanhood is not a gender but a sex.

I’d rather not get into the prescriptivist language aspect of this discussion. It doesn’t go anywhere. Long story short: Terms like “man” and “woman” wouldn’t exist in a postgenderist society.

Plus, even if it were, words exist to describe something.

Yes, words certainly are used to describe something, but they are also used for the purposes of social utility. If “woman” and “female” are the same, I would go as far to argue that having both terms is completely unpragmatic, and we should select one or the other in our social usage. I would be more inclined to believe “female” should be used over “woman” in the sense that “female” is more closely associated with biological and physiological phenomenon, and therefore would provide more social utility in a post-gender society.

But everything else is exactly the same. They just took the next step.

No, they extrapolated ideas from gender identity and are applying them to biological sex. Gender being replaced with gender identity and sex being replaced with “sex identity” (???) is not comparable, as I described above, based on social utility that each of these terms provides in separate contexts.

No, the best thing would be to get rid of it entirely

Right, that’s why I said:

“Pragmatically speaking, it would be far better to live in a society with identity-based gender rather than one with expectation-based gender, as one is far closer to the goal of gender abolition than the other, and clearly offers a level of social utility to the happiness, well-being, and productivity of individuals.”

I am not saying identity-based gender is the end goal, just that it is better than living in an expectation-based gendered society. This is the same issue I take with the whole “Trump vs Biden” debate I have with people on the left. We have two attainable choices right now and in this very moment. Evidently, Biden is objectively better than Trump. Similarly, identity-based gender is objectively better than expectation-based gender (because of social utility). Harm reductionism is incredibly vital to this discussion.

Not to mention, the self-id gender doesn' timply the abolition of the expectation gender at all

Yes it does. Self identification of gender is entirely rooted in “if you identify as X gender, you are X gender”. There is no implication of gendered associations in that. The goal is to replace expectation-based gender with identity-based gender. Right now, we’re in an awkward state of being in between these two conflicting bases of gender, because trans rights are only more recently hitting the mainstream.

Because it' s not useful for anyone except gender cultists.

As mentioned before, the social utility of accepting trans people as the gender they identify as far outweighs any kind of potential harm that might possibly come about from identity-based gender.

It is in fact incRedibly harmful for pretty much everyone.

What are some concrete examples of harm induced by identity-based gender, that outweighs the benefits it has compared to the current status quo regarding gender? Also, these concrete examples need to be something directly induced by identity-based gender, not something caused by the TRA desire to redefine sex or to make self-identification part of legislation and law, as those are completely separate issues.

QT but all can comment - How would you refute the argument that The phrase "transwomen are women" presupposes that there is a cultural role for women to fill? by DistantGlimmer in GCdebatesQT

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

If you remove the ability to discuss sex by taking the words away to describe an adult female or a female child, we aren’t able to talk about the problem and organize against it.

If "woman" is about sex there wouldn't be so much talk about "socialization" playing such a heavy role in what it means to be a woman. My position is that terms such as "woman" and "man" would not exist in a postgenderist society, because they are solely dependent upon the sociocultural and historical understanding of gender which exists in one place or another. Therefore, it would be not only more pragmatic, but also more accurate to use "female" in relation to sex and sex-based oppression.

It also obscures who is doing the harm and who is being harmed.

Not really? What specifically can I not accurately explain about the concept of sex-based oppression from the perspective of QT which is an obscurity compared to that of the GC perspective? (Aside from personal experience, which I do not have with regard to sex-based oppression)

Please explain how anyone other than some subset of trans people (and I say subset because I don’t see how it would benefit me or others like me) would benefit. Why can’t people just be how they are rather than have to assign themselves a box?

We live in a heavily gendered society, I don't think anyone disagrees with this. This is due to the fact that gender is expression-based and expectation-based. This is harmful to everyone who lives under it, because we are restricted from being who we are. That being said, gender abolition should be a long term end goal; however, the ends don't always justify the means.

Culturally speaking, society is not ready to let go of gender in its entirety. This is why we have this clash of identity vs expression in gender right now, and confusion around gendered language and conflations of these ideas with biological realities. Most people in society currently would not be willing to drop the social construction of gender because they have been socialized to believe we need it. Therefore, an adverse reaction to things such as gender abolition.

Wouldn't it be easier to work with identity-based gender, where anyone can be who they are and ascribe whichever label they wish for themselves, to reach the long term goal of gender abolition? Pragmatically and from a harm reduction perspective, this seems to be most ideal.

QT but all can comment - How would you refute the argument that The phrase "transwomen are women" presupposes that there is a cultural role for women to fill? by DistantGlimmer in GCdebatesQT

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

I don't think trans women must conform to some arbitrary state of femininity to be women, nor do I care if they conform to femininity so long as they are not saying they are women because of their conformity or claiming women must be feminine to be women (which, unfortunately, seems to be what many trans people are arguing).

Culturally speaking, we live under a societal structure where women are defined by femininity. I'd like to dismantle these gendered associations. Even with the elimination of these gendered associations, I don't think trans people are magically going away. While I do believe much of gender dysphoria is a product of being socialized in a gendered society (especially the aspects related to gender expression), I also support the notion there is a biological basis for the aspects of gender dysphoria related to distress around physiological characteristics.

At the end of the day, a world where a person chooses their gender based on their own sense of identity is far more ideal than the one we currently live in, where females are heavily conditioned in femininity regardless of their identity or their preferred gender expression. This doesn't mean we should have self identification laws (disagree with those absolutely - they should be based on sex), just that a person's gender (socially speaking) should simply be based on what they decide for themselves rather than some arbitrary characteristic of socialization.

QT but all can comment - How would you refute the argument that The phrase "transwomen are women" presupposes that there is a cultural role for women to fill? by DistantGlimmer in GCdebatesQT

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

The only data you have is reports of trans people' s words. That is not objective or concrete in the fucking least.

I have more than just reports of trans people's words. I have mortality rates, literal statistical facts seen continuously across the vast majority of academic literature.

Now, where is your data showing harm against everyone else? You cry about being "harmed" but can't exemplify a single example. Your data doesn't exist, your entire argument is based in feelings. You are the epitome of the feels-over-reals caricature.

I don' t care if it hurts trans people

Awesome. According to you "minorities don't matter" just as I mentioned earlier. Mask off. Or not really, you've been this way the whole conversation.

You can' t know it because it' s never happened

Wait this works in my favor. You're admitting to having no data on the claim you're making. Therefore, the social utility brought about to 0.6% of the population is justified, unless you can prove that there is more harm done to everyone else.

QT but all can comment - How would you refute the argument that The phrase "transwomen are women" presupposes that there is a cultural role for women to fill? by DistantGlimmer in GCdebatesQT

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

My preferences in music don' t need to be acknowledged or respected by anyone, though

Let's not pivot from the original point. You asked what it was based on, and I provided you the explanation: feelings. If it "feels right" for a person to identify as mayonnaise-gender, awesome. Socially speaking, let's regard them as such. No harm involved.

But a person identifying as a woman not only asks/requires third parties to play along, they also seek inclusion in social gatherings limited to women.

Well, I would advocate for spaces and gatherings exclusive to females, making it explicitly and clearly based on sex. Because a female could identify as mayonnaise-gender, and they still need a place to pee and would still need social support/resources for being female. In other words, a male identifying as a woman would not allow her to have access to exclusively female spaces/gatherings.

pretend that a man is a woman

Well no, if we live in a society which uses self identification as a basis for gender, then that "man" would indeed be a woman. No pretending involved.

I can' t accept "because I say so" as an explanation. That' s the same thing they are doing now.

Not really the same thing though. What's happening now is gender identity becoming part of law and sex being redefined, which is not my position.

Also, why can't you accept it? Perhaps it's because we live in a gendered society that places an expectation on individuals that you must be or act a certain way in order to be one gender or another.

I presume you're a gender abolitionist (essentially the only valid feminist position regarding gender). If that's the case, pragmatically speaking, it would be far better to live in a society with identity-based gender rather than one with expectation-based gender, as one is far closer to the goal of gender abolition than the other, and clearly offers a level of social utility to the happiness, well-being, and productivity of individuals. Gender abolition will take centuries. If that's the case, why not make it as useful as possible to people in the meantime?

Why do you think this is going to change?

The reason it has is because of the insanity over redefining sex and legislating self identification laws; in other words, things that are not intrinsic to self identification of gender.

Once again, I don't care what the current standard is, as that's not my current position. I've only advocated for the social transformation of gender to that of gender identity rather than gendered associations and expectations. I've said nothing about law or about redefining sex which are demands of TRAs and not myself.

QT but all can comment - How would you refute the argument that The phrase "transwomen are women" presupposes that there is a cultural role for women to fill? by DistantGlimmer in GCdebatesQT

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

If it' s bullshit, then it should be treated as such. It shouldn' t be used as the basis of social interactions.

Right. But unfortunately, we live in a gendered society, not a postgenderist one. Gender abolition is going to take centuries. In the meantime, we should be modifying the social construction of gender to be least oppressive, and least harmful.

So trans people first, fuck all the others. Who cares if saying things you don' t believe brings harm to anyone, the well being of trans people comes first!!!!!

Given your inability to provide concrete examples thus far, you aren’t able to make this argument. Transgender people would benefit from an identity-based gendered society, GNC people would benefit, natal women and natal men would benefit, literally everyone would benefit from a transition away from expression-based gender to identity-based gender.

No, the issues I would be experiencing would be based on having to say things I don' t want to say. And pretending to believe things I do not believe in.

Why are you so triggered right now? Good grief. Nobody is forcing you to do anything. Like I said several times, I’m against self identification legislation, which includes things like compelled speech/misgendering. You can do whatever you want, you can choose to misgender trans people if you’d like, however, you’d be epistemologically incorrect in a world which accepts gender is rooted in self identification.

I am not talking about gender, I am talking about sex. A woman is a person who belongs to a certain sex category. A male who identifies as a woman is not a woman.

Got it. Unironic feels-over-reals. “Woman” would not exist in a postgenderist society. “Man” would not exist in a postgenderist society. They are entirely products of a gendered society.

Do you think a male who identifies as a woman is female?

No. A male who identifies as a woman, is a woman, but not female.

It only brings social utility to the 0, 6% of the population.

Is your argument really “minorities don’t matter”? Really? Given your inability to show how it negatively impacts the other 99.4% of the population, I absolutely support something which brings social utility to 0.6% of the population.

I choose to shape it in a way in which gender is considered bullshit and treated as such, instead of something that should be played along with.

That’s good, fuck gender. Unfortunately, we don’t live in a gender-free society, and it matters to almost the entirety of the population. These labels matter significantly to people. Hence why gender abolition is centuries away. Furthermore, why harm reduction through identity-based gender should be undertaken in the meantime.

Yes, they would: they would describe what they have always described, which is an adult human fe/male.

I’m not interested in GC prescriptivism. Moving on from this aspect of the discussion.

They aren' t the same

Perfect. You can stop right there! You’re right.

The productivity and happiness you are talking about are limited to the ones of people who would give a damn about this.

I’m sick of repeating myself, so see above points on social utility.

I would definitely not be happy in a world where I have to call a man a woman.

I am strongly against compelled speech, so we can end this aspect of the discussion. My position does not include demanding people by force to gender trans people correctly. That being said, I don’t care, sorry. The “harm” of your limited unhappiness does not override the harm induced by not accepting transgender individuals in the social sense, as well as the transition to identity-based gender.

You are talking to someone who doesn' t vote in AMerican elections, but if she did, she wouldn' t vote for either candidate. I don' t believe harm reductionism should be a goal in these specific cases. Destroying both systems and replacing it with something else would be better, and I would fight for that.

I’m inclined to agree that a brand new system is ideal; however, we don’t have that option right now. We have to look at the material conditions of this very moment, not some utopian future. While we can hope for a better world, we have to accept the conditions we are a part of, and that includes understanding that harm reduction in electoralism is the only thing we can do in that regard. Of course, I’m for direct political action and the like, but it is self evident that Trump is a worse candidate than Biden. Therefore, we can do both: harm reductionism and fighting for something better. I appreciate your consistency, though.

What I meant is that using one doesn' t mean that the other is going away. Just that some people will use it.

Oh no, it absolutely does. Gender being the binary of men/masculinity and women/femininity is not compatible with gender identity. Identity-based gender is not a binary. And of course only some people will use it at first. You think it’ll be easier to detach people completely from gender right away? Of course not.

And I said before, this is your own opinion based on the fact that you want it to happen.

It’s a fact-of-the-matter that the social utility of socially accepting trans people as the gender they identify as outweighs any kind of potential harm that might come from identity-based gender. Of course, you have yet to provide a concrete example of “harm” induced by gender identity which is inflicted upon most people.

You don' t have concrete examples of it being beneficial either.

I love how your argument has now succumbed to “no u”.

You have 0 concrete examples, 0 data backing your claims. Meanwhile, if you’d like to, I can provide you a plethora of research which directly shows that trans people are positively impacted by being socially accepted. Meanwhile, you’d need to present evidence that there is evident harm against everyone else that somehow outweighs the harm not accepting trans people would cause.

QT but all can comment - How would you refute the argument that The phrase "transwomen are women" presupposes that there is a cultural role for women to fill? by DistantGlimmer in GCdebatesQT

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

Yeah, but based on what? How can I feel which gender mostly represents me?

Feelings. That's it, it doesn't need an explanation, just like if I asked why you liked a certain type of music the more I asked "Why?" about the specifics of your music preferences, it would become unexplainable.

there won' t be a need for self-id

Well that's up for society to decide, right, based on what social utility gender as a manner of identification offers people. I would say the impracticalities of having feelings-based gender would ultimately lead to it becoming less used over time (as you said, why have these labels if they aren't useful to socially classify individuals?).

QT but all can comment - How would you refute the argument that The phrase "transwomen are women" presupposes that there is a cultural role for women to fill? by DistantGlimmer in GCdebatesQT

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

Which I completely agree with. But how do you plan to do it? Because right now, the plan TRAs are pretending to have is that if we respect gender as a sacred thing

Yeah I don't care about TRAs, anyone demanding we change laws or redefine sex terminology is an idiot and I'll call them out of that crap.

I don't think we shoud treat gender as "sacred". I believe that social constructions are intended to provide us with a level of socual utility in the real world. For example, while age is technically a social construction (but still based in a characteristic of reality), we use it because it provides us with a level of social utility which justifies our usage of it. I don't think gender in its current state provides such a purpose at all.

While self identification of gender still isn't the end goal, it certainly is an improvement upon (and provides more social utility than) the oppressive force gender is today. People are free to pick a gendered label which they feel most closely represents them. However, as soon as this starts being reflected in law, I oppose it. As soon as it starts redefining sex rather than gender in any capacity, I oppose it. That being said, I do support the social redefinition or gender (but not sex or sexual orientation).

Right now, however, we are there, in which we have, for example, dudes in a relationship calling themselves lesbians and being validated instead of being attacked for sexism, homophobia and appropriation. Because identification is seen as something nobody should criticize.

Yeah that's bad. If it makes you feel any better about this discussion, I will openly admit that I am a homosexual male. There we go, I don't desire to redefine sex or sexual orientation. I'll oppose anyone who tries to do so. I don't think the concept of gender identity is flawed, but that it's current advancement in law and it overwriting the concept of sex is incredibly dangerous and not the way to go about it. It should be something reflected in social usage, not legal usage or in relation to sex.

All that being said, it would be cool if we could talk about this idea itself rather than TRAs, who are vehemently in opposition to the idea I am proposing.

QT but all can comment - How would you refute the argument that The phrase "transwomen are women" presupposes that there is a cultural role for women to fill? by DistantGlimmer in GCdebatesQT

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

Yeah, so eliminate ageism, not age. Eliminate classism, not jobs. Eliminate ableism, not disabilities. Eliminate race, not ethnicity. Similarly, eliminate gender, not sex.

Sexual orientation? Same. Do you think that pretending that anyone can be a lesbian has somehow destroyed homophobia? We are now at a point in which lesbians are told that they are bigots if they don' t accept males as sexual partners. Great job!!! Why is it that I am supposed to believe that pretending that men can be women will be more successfull?

This is a bit off topic, but okay. I already pointed out that sex and therefore sexual orientation is not what I would like to change. Gender is what I would like to change.

QT but all can comment - How would you refute the argument that The phrase "transwomen are women" presupposes that there is a cultural role for women to fill? by DistantGlimmer in GCdebatesQT

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

We're talking about gender. Age, profession, and disabilities are observable realities (just like sex is).

Gender is not based in observable realities, it is an arbitrary construct designed with oppressive intentions. Therefore, we can redefine it and eventually eliminate it.

QT but all can comment - How would you refute the argument that The phrase "transwomen are women" presupposes that there is a cultural role for women to fill? by DistantGlimmer in GCdebatesQT

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

No, it would be completely unrestricted based on the wide spectrum of identities such a concept would allow.

QT but all can comment - How would you refute the argument that The phrase "transwomen are women" presupposes that there is a cultural role for women to fill? by DistantGlimmer in GCdebatesQT

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

Oh no don't get me wrong. Currently, gender is based on cultural and social norms revolving around masculinity and femininity. I'm just saying I don't like that, because it's oppressive, especially to females (and to trans and GNC people for that matter). Making it a matter of self identification (not legally, but socially) would remove this idea of conformity vs non-conformity, gendered associations, and gendered socialization.

QT/Trans/TRA - What reciprocal courtesy or labor do you extend to GC who will honor your pronouns? (but everyone can comment) by divingrightintowork in GCdebatesQT

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

but why would you call me a TERF, hypothetically?

Given our short conversation thus far, I don't see a reason to. The term is almost always used disparagingly, and I'd rather not be blatantly disrespectful to people I don't even know on the internet.

I do not think most GC individuals are able to be classified as "TERFs" because most GC individuals aren't really transphobic, at least from my interactions with them.

That being said, I think that (occasionally) some GC folks fall back on or use transphobic rhetoric and fear-mongering, in which case I would refer to those specific individuals as transphobic, and therefore "TERFs". Basically, not all rectangles (GC) are squares (transphobes).

using "woman" to refer to females would be the courtesy

I suppose I agree. Generally, I refer to both natal and trans women as women, as a courtesy and also as part of my understanding of gender (which we probably have disagreements on). I more so meant "natal" as a replacement for "cisgender" as I understand not all natal women identify with that label (rejection of gender identity conceptually, the term's associations with stereotypes/conformity). Usually, I only do this when I'm clarifying whether I'm referring to the category of natal women, or trans women.

Arguably even calling you a trans woman is a courtesy, rather than a transman or transmale.

This gets complicated and we probably disagree fundamentally on some specific terminology and ideas here, though as I mentioned, I don't demand anyone call me a certain thing if they don't want to. I do think it's a kind thing to do (to use preferred pronouns, refer to someone as the gender that they identify as), but I don't necessarily think it's disrespectful, if that makes any sense.

Although, if we're being technical, I would even simultaneously call myself a transsexual male and a transgender woman.

QT/Trans/TRA - What reciprocal courtesy or labor do you extend to GC who will honor your pronouns? (but everyone can comment) by divingrightintowork in GCdebatesQT

[–]transwoman 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

People should be free to call me (and other trans people) by whatever pronouns they feel like. I would sincerely appreciate someone choosing to use she/her in reference to me, but I don't expect it of anyone. Therefore, I don't feel a need to offer something in exchange. If you'd like to call me he/him or a TiM or a man or whatever, go for it, I don't really care 🤷‍♀️

That being said, out of courtesy to GC individuals, I avoid using that 4 letter acronym that begins with a "T" in reference to GC people. I also use "natal" when referencing individuals who are not transgender or transsexual. So in a way, I suppose there are some reciprocations in terms of language used.

Both: Why do people keep saying "biologically a man"? There is a word for that: male. Then there are others that say "biologically male" – um, but that's what male is. What other types of 'male' is there? by SnowAssMan in GCdebatesQT

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

Hard to believe I know, but feminist theory & scientific consensus > your uninformed opinion

Ironic.

Both: Why do people keep saying "biologically a man"? There is a word for that: male. Then there are others that say "biologically male" – um, but that's what male is. What other types of 'male' is there? by SnowAssMan in GCdebatesQT

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

I already know you reject all sources in favour of whatever springs to your mind. Where are your sources?

If by "reject all sources" you mean, acknowledging that appealing to the Great Holy Dictionary and Our Lord and Savior Wikipedia for defining terminology in fallacious by nature, then yes, I reject your so-called "sources".

(btw, no one was asking for the definition of trans-woman, but woman, how many more times???)

I'm using the definition of "trans woman" as an example to your entire argument. If you were to say "The dictionary says trans women are women, therefore they are women" that would be fallacious reasoning. Similarly, arguing that "The dictionary says woman means adult human female, therefore trans women cannot be women" would also be fallacious. The entire argument vests itself in prescriptive use of the dictionary. If we can't move past this point about the dictionary (which you vehemently choose to rest your entire argument on), then there is no point to continuing this discussion.

All that being said, we can only inductively reason what Beauvoir might think about the transgender movement today, therefore (unless you bring her back from the dead to prove your argument) no one is going to come on top of this discussion regarding her writings. It is purely hypothesizing what her beliefs of trans people might be today, which is extrapolated from literary works.

To what? To what??? Spit it out already! Or don't you know? Why do you take issue with 'adult human female' as a definition, when there is no alternative?

Notice how you've blinded ignored my definition this entire time. I've explicitly defined gender as a combination of expression and identity. Therefore, woman is currently defined by both femininity and identity. However, I don't support the notion that women must be feminine, therefore, identity is all that remains. In other words: a woman is a person who identifies as a woman, because there is no biological basis to being a woman, nor should there be a mandated role of "woman" for people to adopt. This is what we are seeking to get rid of, we both agree that expectations of femininity must go.

This is exactly like taking to an MRA

Acknowledging that extrapolating the beliefs of a dead person's writings in the modern context can only be inductively reasoned, and therefore, cannot ever be a complete fact-of-the-matter makes me a men's rights advocate? Notice I've yet to throw an ad hominem your way.

Have a great day. I'm not really interested in this conversation anymore.

Both: Why do people keep saying "biologically a man"? There is a word for that: male. Then there are others that say "biologically male" – um, but that's what male is. What other types of 'male' is there? by SnowAssMan in GCdebatesQT

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

So the dictionary, Wikipedia, Simone de Beauvoir et al are all trumped by something you pulled out of your arse?

I’m going to split my response up into a couple of sections, and the longer sections will have a TLDR at the end because I realized that I wrote way too much in response to a few of your points.

Dictionary, Wikipedia

As mentioned earlier, Merriam-Webster defines “trans woman” as a woman; however, this doesn’t actually matter, as the dictionary is not something to be used prescriptively. Words are defined by the socio-cultural context by which they are used. Similarly, to say a woman is an “adult human female” because “the dictionary says so” is fallacious reasoning by the nature of how the usage of grammar in the prescriptive sense functions linguistically speaking.

Wikipedia works in an identical fashion as any dictionary. Wikipedia cannot be used prescriptively. Wikipedia also defines “trans woman” as a woman. This does not prove that trans women are indeed women, as that argument would be logically fallacious; likewise, pointing to Wikipedia which states that a woman is an “adult human female” as evidence that this is the case is also fallacious.

TLDR: Prescriptive use of a dictionary (including Wikipedia) is a logically fallacious line of reasoning, and therefore holds no value when discussing the descriptive use of words.

Simone de Beauvoir

As for Simone de Beauvoir, her perspective on gender identity and the acceptance of transgender individuals can only be concluded in terms of inductive reasoning. This reasoning can go both ways, but neither argument for or against her alleged support of transgender people can be concluded with absolutely certainty; unless, of course, the scientific community has created a way to bring back people from the dead, in which case we could ask Beauvoir directly. That being said, here is my inductive understanding of Beauvoir’s writings:

Beauvoir would have no issue with transgender people adopting the social roles of the gender they identify with, and, effectively, becoming said gender; this is seen through her claims that there is no biological basis to being one gender or another, her writings expressing how the freedom of natal girls/women is restricted by the social role of “woman”, which is imposed on them by society, and her expressive support for the idea that males and females are socialized differently in a gendered society.

Beauvoir would likely support trans women adopting the social role of “woman” (and therefore, becoming a woman) because (1) males are not socialized to regard womanhood in a positive light (and therefore, the desire trans women have to become women does not stem from societal demand), (2) she argues that gender is not confined to any kind of biological reality (and therefore, the desire trans women have to become women have nothing to do with their state of being male), and (3) if transcendence from gendered norms is the end goal that Beauvoir desired, she would have no issue with trans women becoming women (as the desire to do so stems from the unrestricted freedom that males have and are socialized to hold, based on the previous two points).

Beauvoir would also likely support trans men adopting the social role of “man” (and therefore, becoming a man) because (1) she regards femininity as a restrictive force leading natal girls/women to be unable to pursue personal freedom, (2) Beauvoir often regarded female masculinity as a more fulfilling means to achieving personal freedom compared to female femininity (as femininity is imposed upon females by gendered society), and (3) if transcendence from gendered norms is the end goal that Beauvoir desires, she would have no issue with trans men becoming men (as the desire to do so stems from the need to break from restrictive femininity and pursue masculinity, which is the more fulfilling role in this gendered society).

TLDR: It can be inductively reasoned that Beauvoir would support the validity of transgender women and transgender men because of her belief that there is no biological basis to being one gender or another, her argument that males and females are socialized differently by a gendered society, and her writings which argue that that socio-cultural demand for females to conform to femininity leads them to be incapable of pursuing personal freedoms and fulfilling life.

Definition of “Gender”

The definition of gender as being a socio-cultural norms (gender expression) and social/gender identity is not something that was created out of thin air. It is a phenomenon that regards the socio-cultural and historical conceptual understanding of gender as the means that defines it. It is descriptive of what gender is, rather than prescriptive.

As for evidence that gender is a combination of gender expression and gender identity, we can look at the mass social movements that are happening right now. In the US, we have Black Lives Matter protests advocating for police/prison reform, legal protections for women, and social acceptance of trans people as the gender they identify as. This movement is unprecedented. Never before have we seen such widespread support of trans people in protests and in mainstream culture. We are seeing a massive shift in language while we are simultaneously questioning our understanding of gender conceptually speaking. Give it maybe a decade at most, and it is highly probably that will see dictionary definitions like “adult human female” be changed to reflect the reality of what gender descriptively is in the social context: expression, and identity. We’ve already seen a shift in language for definitions like “trans woman” and “trans man” so it doesn’t appear as if it will be much longer before the dictionary definitions don’t reflect the argument you’ve made thus far.

TLDR: Gender is partly expression and partly identity. We see this in the historical and socio-cultural usage of gender as a means to oppress females, but also a cultural phenomenon and means of social identification. That being said, we are seeing a upward trend in support of this idea, and affirmation of transgender people as the gender they identify as (and therefore are).

It's feminism's aim to rid our culture of gender

Absolutely, it certainly is. Therefore, we should eliminate the social demand to adopt the social role of one gender or another, and accept transgender people as their gender, as their acceptance is one of the primary steps we can take to eradicate gendered norms, expectations, and demands.

You claim that in such a post-gender world gender would still exist as some nebulous, non-specific, undefinable entity.

A postgenderist society would not come into fruition until gender identity is also abandoned due to its unpragmatic nature, which can only occur with the eradication of societal demands of conformity to certain gender expression. That being said, the most efficient manner to eliminate mandated gender expression is to accept transgender people, as their accept directly implies that there is no biological or societal objective truth to gender. It is simply a nonsensical idea used to oppress females, but by accepting trans people, we are removing that motive that is induced by gender in its current state. With that all being said, I’d much rather live in a purely gender-identity-based society where people have the personal freedom to pursue the gender they most identify with rather than one than forces conformity based on arbitrary expression, most prevalent in harming females.

Both: Do you think increasing time on the internet has contributed to more people identifying themselves as trans/nb etc.? by DistantGlimmer in GCdebatesQT

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

I suppose I was a little too vague in my last comment. Allow me to clarify on that point.

I usually make a distinction between gender dysphoria, and "sex dysphoria". Gender dysphoria is a description of distress someone experiences due to a conflict of their gender identity and their sex, while "sex dysphoria" is the distress someone experiences due to a conflict with their "internal" (for lack of better word) sex and their birth sex.

Gender dysphoria is a product of living in a gendered society (socialized behavior), and we would no longer have individuals with gender dysphoria in a genderless society. I do believe that sex dysphoric individuals would still exist in a genderless society, since it is strictly a sex-based distress being experienced.

In essence, sex dysphoric symptoms are innate, while gender dysphoric symptoms are a product of being socialized in a gendered society.

The act of having a gender identity that is not typically associated with your sex (i.e. a male identifying as a woman), makes you are transgender (alleviating gender dysphoric symptoms). So if you believe yourself to be a woman, and your birth sex is female, you would not qualify as transgender.

Meanwhile, if you pursue some form of medicalized treatment (i.e. a male pursuing female hormone replacement therapy), then you are transsexual (alleviating sex dysphoric symptoms). Generally, transsexual individuals also tend to be transgender, such as a male identifying as a woman, but also pursuing hormone therapy or surgery.

Both: Why do people keep saying "biologically a man"? There is a word for that: male. Then there are others that say "biologically male" – um, but that's what male is. What other types of 'male' is there? by SnowAssMan in GCdebatesQT

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

If the definition of woman isn't "adult human female", then what is the definition of woman?

I already defined it. Gender is based in two things: expression (cultural) and identity (personal). In the social context, "woman" is directly defined/associated with femininity. Eliminating this cultural demand for specific expression leaves gender identity alone, still separate from sex. In essence, "woman" would be purely based as a personal identity, rather than a mandated expression we are socialized to adopt.

Gender is a social construct: true or false?

I already answered this as well. By outlining gender as being partly expression and partly identity, I'm directly implying that it is a social construction.

gender still ends up being femininity, not 'woman'.

We analyze the historical and cultural understanding of gender to determine its usage and its meaning. Historically, gender is a combination of both gender expression and identity. If gender expression (and hence socialization) is the problem you are saying we must address, we are in agreement. What will remain after eradicating the expectation of specific gender expression, however, is gender identity.

Both: Do you think increasing time on the internet has contributed to more people identifying themselves as trans/nb etc.? by DistantGlimmer in GCdebatesQT

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

I think whether a person is trans (or not trans) is an innate trait; however, it's evident that environmental factors can lead someone to believe they are trans even if they are actually not, such as with those who detransition after some time. That being said, I would argue that, technically speaking, the internet has evident impacts on whether someone identifies as trans, but not on whether someone actually is trans.

Both: Why do people keep saying "biologically a man"? There is a word for that: male. Then there are others that say "biologically male" – um, but that's what male is. What other types of 'male' is there? by SnowAssMan in GCdebatesQT

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

Really? What dictionary is that? I've checked several dictionaries & haven't come across that definition yet.

Merriam-Webster defines "trans woman" as "a transgender woman : a woman who was identified as male at birth"

The difference between our lines of reasoning here, however, is that I don't blindly prescribe to this definition I've provided simply based on the fact that its written in the dictionary.

The dictionary isn't equivalent to the Bible. The "social usage" of 'woman' reflects the dictionary definition

I did not say the dictionary itself is equivalent to the Bible. The issue is the manner by which you are using the dictionary. Your argument prescriptively rests upon the dictionary, just as religious individuals might use the Bible to justify what is truth, and just as homophobic individuals use different forms of the definition of "marriage" to argue against the legalization of homosexual marriage. It is completely fallacious reasoning. The entire line of reasoning falls apart as soon as one provides even just a single instance of a dictionary definition differing from the definition it depends on. It also falls apart on its own, given that the dictionary is not always reflective of reality. To vest one's worldview in the dictionary definitions of words (or any specific text, for that matter) is to erase all nuance of social and cultural context which significantly influences how we use and apply meanings to words and ideas.

we wouldn't use/make words like "two spirit", "ladyboy", or "trans-woman"

"Two spirit" and "ladyboy" are terms reflective of variance in gender expression (albeit even that is an oversimplification, especially for the former). While this is an aspect of gender in the expressive sense, it is not reflective of gender as a whole. We can have words denoting variant forms of gender expression, while also "woman" not meaning "adult human female". They aren't somehow mutually exclusive ideas.

"Trans woman" is a descriptive term for a woman who is transgender. Trans is the short form of transgender. Transgender is an adjective to describe a person with a gender identity (outside of gender expression) which is not typically associated with their sex (i.e. 'woman' is typically associated with 'female', 'man' is typically associated with 'male'). Therefore, a trans woman is a woman of the male sex. That's it, it's pretty simple.

Gender is a social construct, right? Therefore femininity is gender & adult human female i.e. 'woman' isn't a gender since it's not a social construct.

This is a non-sequitur. How does gender being a social construct make woman suddenly mean "adult human female". All you've done thus far is say The Great Holy Dictionary is truth, and therefore your argument is valid.

There are two aspects to the socially constructed concept of gender:

1) Gender expression: Masculinity and femininity. You're not wrong to say that masculinity and femininity play a role into the concept of gender, but they themselves are not genders. They are behaviors, traits, and characteristics typically perceived to be associated with one gender or another. When a GNC woman goes about her day, someone might mistakenly refer to her as a man (based on gender expression). This is not reflective of her gender identity nor her sex in any fashion.

2) Gender identity: Man, woman, or whatever else. This is the internal sense of one's gender. It is who one is, regardless of one's sex or gender expression. One could identify as pickle or ice cream genders outside of their sex, and outside of how they dress.

Ideally, we should seek to eradicate masculinity and femininity (I think we agree with this notion). Ultimately, this will leave gender identity in its place.

Both: Why do people keep saying "biologically a man"? There is a word for that: male. Then there are others that say "biologically male" – um, but that's what male is. What other types of 'male' is there? by SnowAssMan in GCdebatesQT

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

I could point to the same dictionary which says that trans women are simply "women who were assigned the male sex at birth". But that would be fallacious by nature, wouldn't it? This reminds me of, "My dictionary says that marriage is a union between a man a woman, therefore, homosexual marriage shouldn't be allowed," or " The Bible says God exists, therefore, he exists".

This idea that the genders are masculinity and femininity is false. Man and woman are genders. Masculinity and femininity (these, alongside personal Identity) are core to the ideas of man and woman, in the sense that their social usage (which is far more valuable to look at than the Great Holy Dictionary for meanings of words) has evolved historically and culturally speaking.

Both: Why do people keep saying "biologically a man"? There is a word for that: male. Then there are others that say "biologically male" – um, but that's what male is. What other types of 'male' is there? by SnowAssMan in GCdebatesQT

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

I think the problem derives from the complicated historical connection between sex and gender, and it's relation to sex-based oppression.

Some people use male and man interchangeably, some people use male as an adjective and man as a noun, some people use then both as a noun where male refers to biological/physical characteristics and where man refers to social/cultural ideas that are extrapolated from said biological characteristics.

I personally strongly support a sex/gender distinction:

1) Sex: Male/female, which can be used as both an adjective (i.e. male/female-bodied) or as a noun (i.e. I am a male/female).

2) Gender: Man/woman, which are exclusively used as nouns (i.e. I am a man/woman).

Both: Do you think social class is a factor when it comes to the types of people who transition? by worried19 in GCdebatesQT

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

I object to the labeling of extremely young children. It's fine for children to experiment. But kids are being told they are the opposite sex

I object to this as well. It should be clear that children shouldn't be told they are the opposite sex, as that wouldn't be based in any kind of reality. However, I have no issue if a child finds that they are trans, and wishes to change their gender identity.

It's not uncommon for GNC young children to want to live as the other sex

Yeah this is absolutely a fair point. I think there's many issues regarding how we determine if someone is trans or not especially when they are young. This isn't a new issue though. The entire basis for things like "gender identity disorder" was rooted, essentially, in sexist stereotypes, which can lead to the side effect of GNC children thinking they need to transition because they're "different" or defy gendered norms.

On the other hand, this basis of gender transition in sexism causes problems for trans people as well. It took me much longer for my therapist to recommend any kind of transition treatment for me because I didn't "exhibit signs" like having stereotypical hobbies and interests typically associated with women.

All that being said, I do think that's an issue that can be addressed by placing a spotlight on more GNC (both trans and non-trans) people rather than those who "conform". This way, people can see that trans women, for example, don't always need to exhibit signs for stereotypical femininity.

I'm a GNC adult woman now. I'm not "cis" because I don't believe in gender identity

I support the idea that gender is all about identity. But I do understand where you are coming from on this issue. When we have people saying being a woman is "having a pink brain," that's a major issue we need to address, because pink and blue brains simply don't exist. We also have trans women claiming they can have periods, or rooting their entire identity in stereotypes and I find that incredibly alarming. Not only is it purely sexist, but it also blurs the lines between sex and gendered stereotypes which I cannot stand behind. It also leads to such complications like young girls being told that because they don't like dresses that they must be a boy. It's certainly an issue with a need to be addressed right away.

Considering this did not happen prior to the mid 2000s, I'd say there's a huge uptick.

I think that there's a few confounding factors we have to consider here though. For example, trans people really didn't start hitting the mainstream until right around that time anyway. Who knows what was happening before this media awareness came about? We can look at specific instances of this occurring, which often become sensationalized by headlines (as does every trans issue now it seems, sigh), but this doesn't constitute a positive upward trend. We can make a guess at best here about an uptick in these instances happening, and certainly social class plays a role (as I agreed with earlier). We'd need to analyze actual data, such as literature and media from pre-2000s and analyze it with that or today. But even that would simply show a positive correlation with media awareness of trans people and a rise in these cases with young children, not a causal relationship.

Both: Do you think social class is a factor when it comes to the types of people who transition? by worried19 in GCdebatesQT

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

Oh gotcha. Well, in that case I'd have to agree with you.

To confirm: it seems you are taking issue with the ability for extremely young children to have easy access to permanent gender transition treatment, not an issue with very young children concluding that they are transgender. Is this correct?

I do take a lot of issue with extremely young children having access to the permanent aspects of transition. Things such as legal documentation isn't permanent, and can be reverted, so I don't really take issue with that in particular.

Is there data showing an uptick in very, very young children who are transitioning at higher rates than in previous years? If so, I'd be interested to see that. I know there are a few stories of parents allowing their very young child to transition through permanent means, but I haven't noticed like a massive uptick in this kind of thing happening.

As for socio-economic class, I still stand by my original perspective. Children coming to terms with being transgender can absolutely be impacted by that, but it wouldn't make the mental and emotional idea of that's who you are go away, regardless of whether you have a label for it.

Both: Do you think social class is a factor when it comes to the types of people who transition? by worried19 in GCdebatesQT

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

I'm a younger generation trans woman. Maybe I could shed some light on this discussion.

I'd have to agree with /u/circlingmyownvoid here. I don't think anyone is "being transitioned". It's a matter of whether or not one is permitted to do so. It took me a year of therapy before I could see a doctor who was aware of trans issues. It took me almost two years to even be able to start hormone therapy. There is certainly a lot of red tape involved, at least here in the US. I understand it may be different in other countries or regions.

As for socio-economic status, I think it's very apparent that this can influence one's decision to transition. I don't think it influences one's identity as a trans person, but rather one's ability to put a label to that identity. For example: I didn't know transgender people were a thing when I was 8 years old and younger, but that didn't eliminate the fact that's who I was, and who I am.

Perhaps if I was oblivious to trans issues for the rest of my life (due to some kind of social, economic, or political barrier), I wouldn't have pursued transition. It's hard to say either way, but the mental and emotional sense of my identity would still exist nonetheless.

Trans people: Do you feel welcomed by the current trans movement? by Rae in GCdebatesQT

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

I feel welcomed so long as I don't comment on behavior in the trans community that I find concerning.

I commented on a post on r/MtF where I said that trans women should just be themselves rather than use performative femininity (and sexist stereotypes) to validate themselves. I then proceeded to get downvoted for it.

Like I can't say "just be yourself, live authentically" now? It's a mess.

Transguy here: Ask me questions by Tawdawh in GCdebatesQT

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

What is your most favorite thing about the trans community, and what is your least favorite thing about the trans community? Do you think there is some validity to the concerns GC has about trans women and single sex spaces? Where do you stand overall, GC or QT?

GC: With the potential for future advancements in medical technology, what does this mean for the immutability of biological sex? by transwoman in GCdebatesQT

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

Right, so the internal reproductive organs of a person are ultimately responsible for what role a person would play in reproduction. So doesn't that mean the role of reproduction is just a subclassification of a primary classification for how we establish male vs female?

GC: With the potential for future advancements in medical technology, what does this mean for the immutability of biological sex? by transwoman in GCdebatesQT

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

Don't feed your head with absurd fantasies

It's just a thought experiment, don't worry. I don't think this would be possible in any of our lifetimes, if at all.

Therefore there are only two sexes and even so called intersex persons are either males or females (see this video).

Thank you for this information. I'll check out the video!

I don't think I disagree with anything you've said, obviously the human body in relation to sex is much more complicated than we could probably ever imagine. But when we're talking about sex classification, there are certainly specifically outlined characteristics that we consider that are observed at birth. Things like external/internal genitlia are usually the most apparent of these, even if we don't know the chromosomes of the child immediately.

GC: With the potential for future advancements in medical technology, what does this mean for the immutability of biological sex? by transwoman in GCdebatesQT

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

I am curious about your perspective, and would love to hear more if you're willing to go into detail ☺️

I understand the idea of sex being observable roles a person can play in reproduction, however, I think I'm still not understanding how this can be detached from physical characteristics of one's biology.

As in, if there are observable roles to be played, we must ask, "how do we determine what role a person plays in reproduction?" The answer must lie in the reproductive organs a person has which allow them to take on said roles to begin with.

I'm interested in how a person who lacks the ability to reproduce would fit into this idea. The issue only seems to solve itself in my mind if I turn to the reproductive organs which are responsible for the concept of these observable reproductive roles.

GC: With the potential for future advancements in medical technology, what does this mean for the immutability of biological sex? by transwoman in GCdebatesQT

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

Right, but we already agree that sex is immutable as it stands in the present reality. We're just talking in a hypothetical situation where we can change all the signifiers we use for sex.

How does the extensiveness of a change invalidate the mutability of something? If it's possible to change, regardless of extensivity, doesn't that make it mutable?

GC: With the potential for future advancements in medical technology, what does this mean for the immutability of biological sex? by transwoman in GCdebatesQT

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

Thank you for your input ☺️

When I created this post, I should have made mention of gendered socialization, as I agree with all the commenters that have talked about this in that no medical or surgical process could ever create that kind of socialization. I suppose I was primarily trying to focus in on the immutability of sex, and not anything gender-related.

I would not classify someone who was born female and someone who had a "complete" sex change in the same category, but I do think it makes the idea that "sex is immutable" a little more ambiguous. The primary reason I wouldn't classify them in the same category is that even in a genderless society (a society without gendered socialization), we would always have a level of "sexed socialization," since male and female bodies are just naturally different, which would naturally lead to differing paths of socialization. Is this a distinction you would also agree with?

GC: With the potential for future advancements in medical technology, what does this mean for the immutability of biological sex? by transwoman in GCdebatesQT

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

Thanks for your response ☺️

I agree with you, there are 2 total sexes, which is based on the number of gametes humans are capable of producing, and that this idea in itself wouldn't change regardless of technological advancements.

I suppose what I meant by "ambiguous" is that sex is currently understood to be immutable, but this immutability becomes less clear in this particular thought experiment. So if, somehow, we reached a level of medical advancements which allowed us to change all the sex characteristics of a person, do you think that person would "become" a member of the opposite sex, or would they remain the sex that they were born as?

GC: With the potential for future advancements in medical technology, what does this mean for the immutability of biological sex? by transwoman in GCdebatesQT

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

Wow, this was a really detailed response! You're awesome 😅

I think I agree with you in a lot of places here, especially the idea that perhaps sex as a classifier isn't always going to be accurate of the correct medical care someone will need. As a trans woman myself, I can attest to that from experience with my doctor. My doctor's office is not designed for people like me, who will still need a prostate cancer screening one day in the future, but also will need a breast cancer screening as well. I think this is something that can be improved over time, and I like the idea of having specific notes like "has had vaginoplasty" or "is on a course of female hormones".

I've considered the idea of some aspects of sex being bimodal, whereas others are binary. I feel the same way in that I think it would be kind of harmful to classify people as "more female" or "more male" than others. It almost puts people's sex into a hierarchy, and I feel that can be dangerous in a world that's already rooted in sexism. It's almost a way for the patriarchy to enforce more expectations on those who are female.

It's understandable that these kinds of thought experiments might seem useless. In fact, this question doesn't really matter at the end of the day because we're talking about something that won't be possible in our lifetimes, if it becomes possible at all. Of course, if medical technology comes to a point where this is possible, we should definitely be applying all said resources to help people in need, such as those with chromosomal disorders as you mentioned. Trans people are (usually) healthy and shouldn't be the top priority by any means.

GC: With the potential for future advancements in medical technology, what does this mean for the immutability of biological sex? by transwoman in GCdebatesQT

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

I agree, I don't necessarily think it's a possibility, but it's still interesting to think about. In a world where it was possible, I'm not sure if I would classify someone who changed their sex as someone who was born of that same sex. I've always been under the impression that sex is observed at birth (and often while in the womb as well).

Many commenters have mentioned socialization, which I definitely agree with 100%. In a society with gendered socialization, that's not something we could medically create without some kind of way to modify human consciousness and thought, but that gets a little too sci-fi for the discussion at hand, I think.

Anyways thanks for taking time to respond, I appreciate your input ♥️

GC: With the potential for future advancements in medical technology, what does this mean for the immutability of biological sex? by transwoman in GCdebatesQT

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

I agree that it's definitely not something that would come anytime soon, if ever. It's more of a thought experiment, I suppose, given the uncertainty of what is to come in terms of future medical technology. Certainly there are far better ways that we could be applying medical and scientific resources that could potentially lead us to "complete" sex changes, especially given the amount of people who unnecessarily suffer in current society.

I agree with your assessment of gendered socialization, which is something a "complete" sex change wouldn't really be able to change. A 60 year old natal man could get one of these sex changes, but all of the socialization as a man would remain.

GC: With the potential for future advancements in medical technology, what does this mean for the immutability of biological sex? by transwoman in GCdebatesQT

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

That's true. That philosophical framework you outlined of something that simply "is" rather than something that was surgically/medically created seems to fit into my understanding of how we already classify people into the two sexes. That makes a lot of sense to me. Thank you.

GC: With the potential for future advancements in medical technology, what does this mean for the immutability of biological sex? by transwoman in GCdebatesQT

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

Thank you for your response! ♥️

I think this whole discussion topic starts to get a little strange, especially since we don't know what will be possible with future medical technology. I think that sex is observed at birth, so even if one had the ability to change all of one's sex characteristics, they still wouldn't be identical as someone born as the opposite sex.

That being said, it definitely blurs the lines. I guess my question would be: if we had the ability to change all the characterstics of a human's biology to that of a cat, who are we to say that it isn't a cat? After all, wouldn't they meet the criteria of how we classify and recognize cats? I personally don't think it would ever be possible to do this, as it would require far more than just surgical or medical treatment, but it's an interesting thought experiment nonetheless.

GC: With the potential for future advancements in medical technology, what does this mean for the immutability of biological sex? by transwoman in GCdebatesQT

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

Thanks for you input! Things like skeletal structure are something that probably won't ever be able to change, and it would certainly be easier to just create a whole human from scratch at that point. Also I agree that in a gendered society something like socialization can not be medically/scientifically created, unless we start talking about transhumanism and what that could mean for human conciousness. Just curious, but do you think that in a genderless society (or a society without gendered socialization) that someone who undergoes a medical/surgical process to "become" female is just as female as someone who was born female from birth? Or do you think, on some level, there's a kind of "sexed socialization" that would exist outside of gendered socialization which in turn would make them very different?

GC: With the potential for future advancements in medical technology, what does this mean for the immutability of biological sex? by transwoman in GCdebatesQT

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

That makes a lot of sense. Gendered socialization certainly has impacts on how we develop, and that's not something a medical sex change could create (unless we start getting into trans-humanist territory but that seems a little out of scope). I definitely can see how the potential for "complete" sex changes could actually be a danger, especially for a society rooted in sexism.

GC: With the potential for future advancements in medical technology, what does this mean for the immutability of biological sex? by transwoman in GCdebatesQT

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

That makes a lot of sense to me. I do think we should establish a difference between gendered socialization and sexed socialization, however.

Things such as menstruation at a young age and puberty would likely fit into the category of sexed socialization that could never be eradicated from society, simply because it's based in biological processes. Things such as the male gaze and being sexualized would likely fit into the category of gendered socialization, which could eventually be eradicated by eliminating patriarchal structures and combating toxic masculinity.

I think I agree that even in a genderless society, we would still notice key differences in someone who got a "complete" sex change from male to female compared to someone who is female from birth, just based on biologically based factors of sexed socialization.

Both: What do you like about being a woman or a man? by worried19 in GCdebatesQT

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

That's true, the lines definitely get a little more blurry, especially when people appear as one sex or another. It's good you feel safe though, I hope you don't have to experience that ever ♥️

Both: What do you like about being a woman or a man? by worried19 in GCdebatesQT

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

It's absolutely based in female oppression, which results in trans women and natal women having to be more alert/aware in many situations regarding safety. It's an unfortunate reality that we have to work to combat.

Both: What do you like about being a woman or a man? by worried19 in GCdebatesQT

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

Since transitioning, I have grown much more comfortable with my body and who I am in general. It took a very long time to accept myself and my body (I still have a bit of a hard time being overly critical about my appearance sometimes), but overall I feel happier now, and I feel like I can finally focus on improving other aspects of my life.

Some things I miss about being a man: being taken seriously at my job when I make a suggestion/comment, the feeling of safety walking to my car when its dark outside or late at night, etc.

Both: How can we get more tucute and transmedicalist people on this sub? by Rae in GCdebatesQT

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

Of course! I'm happy to be here! I might see if others I know are interested in joining as well. We definitely need more open discussion, with all different kinds of voices!

Both: How can we get more tucute and transmedicalist people on this sub? by Rae in GCdebatesQT

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

Haha yeah. It was definitely a surprise that it was still available 😂

Both: How can we get more tucute and transmedicalist people on this sub? by Rae in GCdebatesQT

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

Hi! Your username mention worked 😅

Thank you for inviting me, I've been in a few of the threads on here before but mostly just was reading what people had to say.

I know its been discussed before, but I need clarification again - why is Transgender so much different than someone saying they are Transracial? I understood before - gender is not biological, etc. but now with the blurring of biology within this ideology I am confused with this argument. by lunarenergy8 in GenderCritical

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

Hi. I appreciate your kind response! I feel like I might be overstepping with an AMA on a GC forum, I've already offended a few people just by commenting here, so it's probably for the best that I don't do that. But I'm grateful for your respectful response regardless of our disagreements, it means quite a lot ☺️

I know its been discussed before, but I need clarification again - why is Transgender so much different than someone saying they are Transracial? I understood before - gender is not biological, etc. but now with the blurring of biology within this ideology I am confused with this argument. by lunarenergy8 in GenderCritical

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

I'll repeat it again:

I've had a couple of great discussions in this thread with people who took my views at face value and in good faith, rather than extrapolating them into something they aren't

In a discussion about transracialism, outlining the historical oppression of people of color does not undermine the highly apparent historical oppression of females. Talking about one does not mean I'm ignoring the other. So much extrapolation.

I know its been discussed before, but I need clarification again - why is Transgender so much different than someone saying they are Transracial? I understood before - gender is not biological, etc. but now with the blurring of biology within this ideology I am confused with this argument. by lunarenergy8 in GenderCritical

[–]transwoman 14 insightful - 4 fun14 insightful - 3 fun15 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah I definitely think it's problematic (kinda overused word but that pretty much encompasses the issue). Natal women should be able to talk about issues that affect them, and it's extremely messed up that much of the trans movement (especially online) seems to shut down people for talking about the basics of biology and oppression of those who are female. It's understandable that many natal women are hesitant about the idea of trans people (trans women especially), given the history of societal, political, and economic oppression they've faced. Honestly, I think the idea of a transracial person is more convincing than the idea of a transgender person.

But I overall believe that my line of thought for transracial people follows through with transgender people, specifically for those of us who undergo medical treatment or surgical processes. While our natal or "natural" sex might not be the one we wish it was, if socially speaking a trans women is regarded as a woman or a trans man is regarded as a man, I don't see a particular issue with this since gender is largely ambiguous anyway, and a person's sex should be considered an inconsequential part of a person.

Edit: I just noticed you added more to your response, so I'll respond to the second part below:

Yeah I agree that the distinction of "should be" and "is" is very important. I do still stand by my points here however, given the ambiguity of the concepts of race and gender in the social and cultural context.

I know its been discussed before, but I need clarification again - why is Transgender so much different than someone saying they are Transracial? I understood before - gender is not biological, etc. but now with the blurring of biology within this ideology I am confused with this argument. by lunarenergy8 in GenderCritical

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

I was saying that a person's sex should not lead one to be treated differently or othered in society. I was not in any way trying to undermine the lived experiences and oppression of natal women. That sentence highlights an end goal of what should be, that sex should be inconsequential, not that it actually is inconsequential when we're discussing sex-based oppression.

I've had a couple of great discussions in this thread with people who took my views at face value and in good faith, rather than extrapolating them into something they aren't, as you have done. I'm not interested in conversations with those unwilling to have an honest discussion. Take care.

I know its been discussed before, but I need clarification again - why is Transgender so much different than someone saying they are Transracial? I understood before - gender is not biological, etc. but now with the blurring of biology within this ideology I am confused with this argument. by lunarenergy8 in GenderCritical

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

Never did I say that I represented the trans community, in fact I emphasized throughout my comments here that the majority of the trans community is a problem. I expressed my solidarity for the oppression people who are female have experienced for centuries upon centuries, and by emphasizing the significance of systemic racism I did not mean to undermine the experiences of and systemic oppression experienced by natal women, nor make it appear as of lesser importance.

Being trans, I felt I could offer something in this discussion about transgender vs transracial. I respect what GC is doing and had a good discussion with a few people on here, but clearly whatever I say to you will never be good enough, so you will not be one of those people I'm willing to have an open discussion with.

I did not mean to overstep any bounds, and I stated at the start that if I'm not welcome here, that the mods can remove the comment, or ban me from posting. I understand why you lashed out in anger to this, however, and I hope you are able to find peace.

I know its been discussed before, but I need clarification again - why is Transgender so much different than someone saying they are Transracial? I understood before - gender is not biological, etc. but now with the blurring of biology within this ideology I am confused with this argument. by lunarenergy8 in GenderCritical

[–]transwoman 11 insightful - 4 fun11 insightful - 3 fun12 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

I'm not GC myself but I am transgender so I suppose I could shed some light on this distinction between being transgender and being transracial. I know this is a space for GC views and people so if I'm overstepping, please remove my post, I don't mean to invade this safe space.

So I think where GC and QT agree is that there is a distinction between the concepts of sex and gender, where sex represents the biological distinction between those who are male and those who are female, and gender is a culturally and societally influenced concept of expectations, roles, and expressions that are arbitrarily forced upon the 2 sexes through socialization and other environmental factors.

I think the same thing applies to skin color vs race. Skin color is a biological reality, and race is a concept that's culturally and societally influenced and is forced upon people usually based on an arbitrary distinction of a person's skin color and other environmental factors.

That being said, I'm not really aware of the surgical or medical processes by which someone can change their skin color, my mind goes to melanin levels but I have no clue if melatonin levels can be influenced forcibly like that. But assuming that it's possible for someone to change their natural skin color, I don't really see an issue with it. It would be like if someone dyed their hair from naturally brunette to blond. Socially speaking, that person might be regarded as white or black or whatever artificial category created around by the concept of race, and I don't particularly see a problem with this either, as race is ambiguous to begin with anyway.

I think the truth is that we are more hesitant to accept the idea of transracial people due to the massive amount of historical oppression that have been placed on people of color for centuries through imperialism, slavery, segregation, and overall, systemtic racism. But in reality, presuming there are ways to change your skin color through some kind of medical process, I don't necessarily see an issue, since skin color should be an inconsequential part of a person; it's just like someone's hair or eye color. It's a part of that person, and in our racist society it may have shaped how they grew up and lived, but ultimately it's something that in an ideal world shouldn't be something used to oppress people.

I don't know, what are everyone else's thoughts? Sorry this is kinda long 😬

I know its been discussed before, but I need clarification again - why is Transgender so much different than someone saying they are Transracial? I understood before - gender is not biological, etc. but now with the blurring of biology within this ideology I am confused with this argument. by lunarenergy8 in GenderCritical

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

I agree, ethnicity is probably a better word to use. I think the term race is so prevalent simply due to the fact that the United States was built on imperialism and racism, so the language becomes a little unclear.

Thank you for the info regarding skin color as well as examples of those who have. You're right to say that skin color itself shouldn't matter, but it's the arbitrary classifications of ethnicity/race that are the source of the problem.

I also agree that the people who accept transgenderism but not transracislism are probably being intellectually dishonest and inconsistent logically speaking. Both ideas are highly similar, and one cannot be considered without the other, in my mind.

Thank you for reacting kindly to my comment by the way. I appreciate those who are willing to have open discussions, and I think that more discussion like this are needed. People such as yourself who respond in a good faith manner have really changed how I perceive GC as a whole.

I know its been discussed before, but I need clarification again - why is Transgender so much different than someone saying they are Transracial? I understood before - gender is not biological, etc. but now with the blurring of biology within this ideology I am confused with this argument. by lunarenergy8 in GenderCritical

[–]transwoman 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

From what I understand, the concept of "gender" doesn't really exist either. Both race and gender are ideas only very loosely based on something real (skin color and sex) and then taken to an extreme set of stereotypes that isn't based in reality. I still stand by the points I made here because of this cultural and social ambiguity that exists for both gender and race.

And again, it's truly an unfortunate reality that we live in a world where much of the trans movement has become a problem, and I agree with much of what you are saying. Trans women shouldn't be speaking on behalf of natal women's issues, and it's absolutely fair to be frustrated with the fact that so many of them feel like they are entitled to doing so. I stand by with you on those issues. There is certainly a lot of overlap to our perspectives.

Because this isn't the debate Saidit community, I think I've probably have overstayed my welcome at this point. I appreciate you considering my line of thought in good faith, this was a really good discussion ☺️

QT (but anyone who can answer): is there a consensus within the trans movement/liberal feminism on the definition of 'woman'? And what is the source of said definition? by SnowAssMan in GCdebatesQT

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

It is absurd to suggest that performing blackface could somehow liberate anyone from the tyranny of race. Race and gender are similar concepts

This is still a false equivalence. I am not arguing for gender performance, nor is gender performance the same as performing blackface. To compare these two things is to undermine the significance of imperialism and the racism that fueled it. But that's beyond the point, because this is still a straw man of my argument. I am not arguing we should continue using gender in it's current form as sex roles. I am arguing for the redefinition of man and woman as "anyone who identifies as such". I don't know how clear I need to be that this is not the same as maintaining the status quo.

Imagine implying that there is any other aspect of race.

You talk about me apparently twisting your argument, but thus far every person in this thread has done exactly this. How about taking my argument with good faith rather than immediately assuming the worst potential outcome? Your argument would be far more convincing if you didn't assume I'm acting in bad faith.

To be clear, I understand that race is a socially constructed concept. But when I said "the social aspect of race," I was most definitely implying there are other aspects of race, all equally rooted in oppression. There are economic aspects of race, there are political aspects of race.

That being said, this whole blackface/gender argument is still a straw man of my proposed redefinition of gender.

Queer theory is no different, defining "woman" as "whatever we say it is".

The difference is that instead of it being "whatever the patriarchy/men say it is," it becomes "whatever anyone says it is". It becomes a personal matter, rather than one forced upon you. Like I said before, I want ice cream and potato genders.

Women named the root of the problem long ago, without the help of queer theory, when they said that gender is sex-based oppression.

Yup and now we're still just as far from gender abolition as we have ever been so if you want I have a cool theory that redefines gender to be whatever each individual personally wants themselves to be, and frees them of being forced into a specific sex role.

QT (but anyone who can answer): is there a consensus within the trans movement/liberal feminism on the definition of 'woman'? And what is the source of said definition? by SnowAssMan in GCdebatesQT

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

Imagine arguing that white people performing black/brown/red/yellowface if they 'identify' that way would be a pragmatic way to somehow eliminate racism

Imagine arguing that blackface is the same thing as being transgender. A person's skin color is a biological/genetic trait. Gender is not a genetic trait. That is why someone can self identify as a gender and not a skin color. There is a valid argument to be made that the social aspect of race, which is completely arbitrary, could be defined out of existence through circular definitions as well, which just reinforces my argument. If you make a socially constructed idea circular, it has no meaning and therefore no pragmatic value.

at some indeterminate point

Do you have a date and time for the Great Gender Abolition? I don't think so, obviously the idea of when gender abolition happens is going to be arbitrary.

You claim to know gender is harmful and want it abolished, yet you argue for its continued reinforcement

No, I'm arguing to redefine it in a circular manner, which makes it a pointless concept. This is different from maintaining the status quo. I support this circular definition from a pragmatic standpoint as well as a harm reductionist standpoint.

Really these circles are defensive ramparts in front of the social privilege of males, which only exists through the oppression of females.

This is simply not true. I am strongly in favor of gender abolition. I believe we are farther from gender abolition than we have ever been because sex and gender are so often conflated in our society that clings to these terms. The most pragmatic way to remove gender is to make it a circular, useless concept. This would not only remove a great reinforcer of oppression of females, but also allow society to focus on the root of it all: sex-based oppression. Rather than having inconsequential arguments about whether or not we should keep gender.

QT (but anyone who can answer): is there a consensus within the trans movement/liberal feminism on the definition of 'woman'? And what is the source of said definition? by SnowAssMan in GCdebatesQT

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

The dictionary is updated quarterly. There is no reason to accept a made-up, circular, & therefore redundant definition of a word over the dictionary's.

And even though it may very well be updated quarterly, the dictionary does not always take into account the social and societal usage of words. Just because words a defined such a way in the dictionary doesn't mean we use them that way in a social context.

While it seems counterintuitive to accept a circular definition, as that would be unpragmatic, the end goal of accepting said circular definitions is much more pragmatic than leaving them as they stand. You would have to convince me that keeping the current dictionary definition of "man" and "woman" has been more beneficial to the abolition of gender than my definition which takes into account social context and the end goal of gender abolition. So far I'm not convinced.

Yes, they are. They're literally genders.

As I stated before, masculinity and femininity are aspects of gender, they are not genders themselves. Quite literally, when we ask someone's gender we don't say "I am feminine," we say "I am a woman". "Man" and "masculine", "Woman" and "feminine" are inherently connected in a social context, where "man" and "woman" are the categories. Masculinity and femininity are sets of attributes associated with said genders.

I don't know who Jeffrey Star is, but I'm assuming he was conditioned into masculinity & not femininity via socialisation, so his gender would be masculine.

This is going out of bounds of our original discussion so I won't go into too much detail, but socialization isn't a magical force that ends the second you become an adult. People are continuously conditioned across their whole life.

Also his gender would be "man," not masculine. I 100% guarantee if you asked him he would not tell you his gender is masculine because masculine is an adjective not a noun!

All words are culturally contaminated with connotation

So would you accept that the "true" definition of a word is how we actually apply it in a social context, not what the dictionary literally says? If that's the case, let's redefine the concept of gender out of existence.

Again, if male & female can be used, so can their noun forms man & woman.

Man and woman are associated with sex roles and oppression, they are not interchangeable with male and female. But let's assume the dictionary definition's validity for a moment. This makes the terms not only unpragmatic from a social context, but they are also unpragmatic from a literary context because we don't need two words to describe the same exact thing. As a pragmatist, I would like to simplify language by removing unnecessary terms, and if man is the same as "adult male", I see no reason to have that term since "adult male" is a perfectly pragmatic descriptor. Same applies for "woman" and "adult female".

Recognising trans-women as GNC men would actually challenge the concept of manhood to breaking point.

For me to be convinced of this argument, I would need to be convinced that every trans woman and every trans man strictly conforms to stereotypes of their respective gender identity. This simply isn't the case and to assume this just doesn't convince me of your argument. What happens for trans women who still present fairly masculine, but puruse things like medical treatment or surgery which reflect phenotypical/biological aspects of one's body, not sex roles? Are you now saying that we should recognize that said non-conforming trans woman as a woman because that would make them gender non-conforming and challenge the concept of gender?

Social conformity but biological non-conformity of trans-women doesn't challenge femininity

Well of course not, but most trans people (in the context of binary trans people) pursue medical treatment for the purposes of conforming to biological traits, like hormone therapy, as I stated above.

it promotes a biological essentialist view of gender, where femininity is innate.

I am not saying femininity is innate, and I don't care if someone else said it because we are the ones having this discussion. All I am saying is if the genders man and woman are sex roles, then certainly they would need to be removed due to their inherent harm. And the only way to remove them is not to cling onto the terms because of what the dictionary says, but to redefine them in our social usage to make them an unpragmatic construct that can easily be abandoned.

adjectives for the genders: masculine & feminine

nouns for the genders: masculinity & femininity

adjectives for the genders: masculine & feminine

nouns for the genders: man & woman (which are associated with masculinity and femininity, but this doesn't make masculinity and femininity genders)

adjectives for the sexes: male & female

nouns for the sexes: man & woman

adjectives for the sexes: male & female

nouns for the sexes: male & female

Your definitions aren't even accurate as they fail to take into account our social usage of these terms. Nobody says "I am masculine" in response to what their gender is. Male and female are also most definitely used in a noun context all the time, so there is not pragmatic literary usage for man and woman since we already have nouns to describe sex.

Now here's how it should be after gender abolition:

adjectives for the genders: whatever the heck you want

nouns for the genders: whatever the heck you want

adjectives for the sexes: male & female

nouns for the sexes: male & female

My proposed definitions are more pragmatic that yours as I'm eliminating unnecessary terms. Even if we just look at my proposed definitions of sex, these remain unchanged from how we literally use them socially today. The only thing changing is gender.

QT (but anyone who can answer): is there a consensus within the trans movement/liberal feminism on the definition of 'woman'? And what is the source of said definition? by SnowAssMan in GCdebatesQT

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

But now you're conflating sex with gender. Did I ever say that someone with a penis isn't male, trans or not?

While it seems counter-intuitive to redefine gender from "sex roles" to be based on self identification (as this makes gender seem arbitrary and unclear), it is the exact direction we should go in to abolish gender. If we want to get rid of something, we need to make sure nobody can find any pragmatic value in that thing. If gender is based solely on self identification, and we have pickles and ice cream genders, then evidently society will come to a point where there is no need for gender to exist.

In this redefining of gender, biological sex remains what it is today. I never proposed any changes to this. If you'd like to argue about how we classify biological sex and how we should do so, I think that would require a completely different thread, as we are strictly talking about redefining gender and gender abolition.

QT (but anyone who can answer): is there a consensus within the trans movement/liberal feminism on the definition of 'woman'? And what is the source of said definition? by SnowAssMan in GCdebatesQT

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

I'm not sure what's imprecise about my language. I define gender and sex as two completely separate things that are arbitrarily linked for the purposes of sex-based oppression alone. Why would I intentionally replace the world "gender" with "sex" in my last reply if these things are not remotely synonyms? "Sex roles" and "gender" could be swapped interchangeably, but of course I want to make sex roles meaningless too, that still fits into my argument. Here are the current definitions of gender as they exist today in a social sense:

1) Gender: A socially constructed categorization of sex roles, expressions, stereotypes, and expressions.

2) Biological sex: A biological categorization based roughly on chromosomes, phenotypical/secondary sex characteristics, external genitalia, gamete production, and reproductive anatomy (male/female)

Currently, the only "pragmatic" use for the concept of gender is to oppress women, trans people, and gender non-conforming people. To me, this isn't truly pragmatic because oppression should definitely not be considered of use to society in any manner. To many, however, it is pragmatic because they mostly benefit from this system (i.e. natal men).

Because of this, I am proposing a solution that, over time, would remove this subjective pragmatic use of gender in its current state as an oppressive force. My solution is to redefine gender out of existence. Make it a circular definition for all I care, as long as it goes away, I could not care less how it is defined. Here is my proposed new definition, since I apparently wasn't clear enough before:

1) Gender: A person's identity in relation to the pronouns said person describes themselves with (Example: A woman is someone who identifies as a woman. A man is someone who identifies as a man).
2) Biological sex: Unchanged

Admittedly, this is a very broad definition, but it is done intentionally. I want the idea of gender to be so abstract that it becomes meaningless and unpragmatic. As I said before, I want ketchup and mustard genders. In this world of gender meaninglessness, biological sex still remains a scientific reality. I am not proposing any changes to biological sex, or saying it isn't real. Sex is immutable, and unchanging.

If you need me to clarify and more terms, I would be glad to. I think most of the contention between gender critical and queer theory is semantics, but I am definitely happy to clarify any confusion in my argument.

QT (but anyone who can answer): is there a consensus within the trans movement/liberal feminism on the definition of 'woman'? And what is the source of said definition? by SnowAssMan in GCdebatesQT

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

Men who think they're women do everything to engage in those sex role stereotypes, in fact, they define themselves by them. This is why men will grow their hair out, wear feminine clothing, makeup and do stereotypical behaviours like hair fllicking and fluttering eyelashes and those horrible selfies.

I'm curious to hear if you would criticize a natal woman for "upholding" these same stereotypes. I'm a trans woman, and I don't define my womanhood on the basis of sex stereotypes. For me it's primarily based on sex dysphoria, and secondary sexual characteristics. It has nothing to do with wearing makeup or wearing dresses or whatever. I like video games, which is a hobby associated with men and boys, but that doesn't change anything for me.

You're also begging the question, because in order for your argument to make sense, I have to assume that all trans women are stereotypically feminine and "do everything to engage in those sex role stereotypes". This is clearly not true, given I'm here right now and I could very easily list you trans women who bypass this caricature that you've made up. You could make the argument that much of the media representation of trans women stereotype femininity, but that's a whole different story (isn't that the patriarchy to blame for that, where the media is propping up the idea that women must be ultra feminine to garner any media attention?).

In fact, transgenderism doesn't want to eradicate gender, at all. It seeks to replace biological sex with sex role stereotypes as the definition of man and woman.

I really don't understand where this idea comes from, as it's a complete straw man of queer theory. All trans people know what biological sex is; it's the whole reason we transition in the first place. The terms "man" and "woman" are already defined as sex role stereotypes in a social context, and this problem was not introduced by trans people, but by the patriarchy. Pragmatically, the dictionary definitions of words do not always define the social usage of said words, so this idea that the dictionary definition of woman is "adult human female" and man is "adult human male" doesn't even really apply to this conversation given that, socially speaking, gender (including the terms man and woman) is quite literally a sexist oppressive force; nothing more, nothing less.

If you ask me, I don't want to replace any terms. I want to eliminate useless, oppressive terms. "Man" and "woman" should be mean "anyone who identifies as such," which is not a sex role stereotype as you claim I am trying to do. This redefinition is what will effectively make gender obsolete.

Today, men don't just engage in femininity. They claim they're women, but like those 80's men, they retain all the power and privilege of men. They don't challenge the sex role stereotypes of femininity. They claim that those sex role stereotypes ARE womanhood.

It is really interesting that you make these broad assumptions about what it means to be trans, while also undermining our own oppression. I don't even really want to get into this discussion because it's far beyond the original point, but non-passing trans people experience tons of discrimination, harassment, abuse, etc for being trans, and passing trans women experience much of the same discrimination and oppression that natal women might experience. That isn't to say that the oppression of trans women and natal women are identical, obviously not, but there are more often than not many, many stark similarities.

Point is, we all know who the men are who the women are. Gender stereotypes aren't going away with transgenderism. They're being upheld more strongly than ever.

Let's redefine the terms man and woman out of existence. Let's have 200 genders until it becomes so pointless to have gender that we stop using it. This can be accomplished with the inclusion of binary and non-binary transgender people in their respective gender identities. I want pineapple and pumpkin genders, I want apple and orange genders, literally anything we can think of to make it a completely impractical concept to even use in our society.

A man can wear a dress and lipstick and he still retains his power and privilege, and that's because everyone still knows he's a man.

This seems like an odd point to throw in, this argument that all trans women can be "clocked" as transgender. Maybe that's true (or maybe not), but then aren't you the one that's saying that women are a sex stereotype if a trans woman doesn't conform to your expectation of 'woman'? What happens when you have a natal woman who is very masculine in terms of their phenotypical expression? The point is that even if you think you "clocked" a trans woman, you can't really confirm that without proof (the trans women or someone else telling you, info from outside source), right?

QT (but anyone who can answer): is there a consensus within the trans movement/liberal feminism on the definition of 'woman'? And what is the source of said definition? by SnowAssMan in GCdebatesQT

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

This is a straw man of my argument. I never stated that biological sex wasn't real, nor that it is a mutable concept. In fact, if you had asked, I would agree with you on this point. And we don't need more words to represent one's biological sex: for that, we already have male and female. "Man" and "woman" are impractical even from a literary sense.

If we agree that biological sex is immutable, and gender is a socially constructed set of sex roles, then why wouldn't you want to remove these by making gender a impractical concept in day-to-day use so we can eventually move passed it in society?

QT (but anyone who can answer): is there a consensus within the trans movement/liberal feminism on the definition of 'woman'? And what is the source of said definition? by SnowAssMan in GCdebatesQT

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

That's the point. I don't want a suitable replacement, and I don't care if it's circular because my goal is to bring society closer to gender abolition. By making gender circularly defined, we are eliminating any pragmatic use of it in a social context. I don't want gender in the dictionary. Besides, just because a word is defined a certain way in the dictionary today doesn't mean that we must adhere to the dictionary tomorrow. Words are not immutable.

Masculinity & femininity are the genders

"Masculinity" and "femininity" are not genders. "Masculinity" and "femininity" are a part of the genders "man" and "woman"; they are not separate entities. If femininity is a gender, should Jeffrey Star use the women's restroom?

"Man & woman" in humans is no different from "billy & nanny"

Trying to say the terms "billy" and "nanny" in goats are comparable to the terms "man" and "woman" in humans is ignoring the social context of why we have these words in the first place. They weren't just extra words we created for fun, they're entirely constructed for the purpose of pushing the narrative that a male must adopt the roles of a man and a female must adopt the roles of a woman. Goats don't have the cognitive capability to oppress each other on the basis of their sex, nor did they invent the words "billy" or "nanny" themselves.

Binary transgenderism supports the view that gender is innate, embracing it sounds like the opposite of gender abolition. If gender abolition is the end goal then non-binary, specifically agender is the way to get there.

Well, it certainly "sounds" like the opposite of gender abolition when you strawman what it means to be a binary trans person. Just because you're "binary" doesn't mean you are "conforming" to a form of masculinity or femininity, it means your gender is one of the two genders established in our culture (where gender is whatever you identify as). I like video games and wearing t-shirts/jeans. Does that mean that I'm not a binary trans woman?

I'm advocating for a world where gender doesn't exist, or at the very least, doesn't matter. This can only be done from a pragmatic perspective. In our current society, for better or for worse, people cling to the terms "man" and "woman" because we have been socialized to accept that having gender is the only way we can coexist. The acceptance of binary trans people would directly lead to the acceptance of non-binary trans people, and then eventually the elimination of gender due to its unpractical usage ("anyone who identifies"). I want people identifying as ketchup and mustard genders one day in the future, if not a full abolition of gender. To me, a useless circular definition for the greater good of society is always and improvement from a sexist, concrete definition.

QT (but anyone who can answer): is there a consensus within the trans movement/liberal feminism on the definition of 'woman'? And what is the source of said definition? by SnowAssMan in GCdebatesQT

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

As you mentioned, the definition that I would use for woman is "anyone who identifies as a woman" and for man it's "anyone who identifies as a man." While some might point to a dictionary to define these words, I think this is a very fallacious argument. We don't derive words from the dictionary, but we create definitions of words and then write the dictionary afterward. The problem with defining "woman" as "adult human female" and "man" as "adult human male" is that it effectively undermines the true sexist purpose of gender in a social context.

As a pragmatist, I see that gender is a social construct that has no other use in society besides to reinforce sexist stereotypes and gender roles, and believe that redefining gender to be based on self identification alone is an highly effective way to eradicate gender and make it a useless concept. In its uselessness, in a pragmatic sense, gender would eventually cease to exist (obviously this would take centuries because well, we're all socialized to accept gender as a concept under patriarchy and it takes a long time to undo all of that). I believe that the inclusion of transgender men and transgender women in the definition of their respective gender is a necessity to the end goal of abolition of gender.