Transgender is it just me that is totally perplexed?

[lazythursday]

Maybe so, but the fact that most people haven't historically faced discrimination only reinforces what I've said. A good proportion of those who bang the identity politics drum the loudest have never faced any kind of discrimination.

Most people? women? I am not a fan of identity politics as in a form of politics that puts identity first and ignores class. But your comment is typical of a frame of mind that has junked all sorts of issues of dicrimination and inequality into a bin marked 'identity politics'.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Does he say collection? There's a difference between saying parts of ourselves are in conflict (the basis of drama, stories, psychoanalysis etc.) and describing the self as a collection of anything. The word suggests to me a deliberate gathering.

"Collection" is my paraphrasing. Goffman suggests it - that we interpollate with facets of identity we want to integrate, but that we also take on identities from our environment, identities we may have to actively dispose of, if we don't agree with/feel right about them. Of course, we're also forever adding new facets to our identities. "Collection" is just an easy way of saying "an ever-shifting, ever-evolving assemblage of identity facets" in this case.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Outside of perhaps a few hundred thousand people for whom identity politics is the main thing in life, I'm not sure that anybody really thinks about their 'identity' or could even describe what it's supposed to be. All I can come up with for myself is 'white male underachieving wanker who doesn't particularly care about it. '

Identity facets:
Sports preference(s).
Music preference(s).
Booze preference(s).
Dietary preference(s).
Religious preference(s) including atheism.

There's five off of the top of my head, besides "race", gender and masturbation status.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Maybe so, but the fact that most people haven't historically faced discrimination only reinforces what I've said. A good proportion of those who bang the identity politics drum the loudest have never faced any kind of discrimination.

"Never faced any..." is kind of a broad brush. IMO it's more accurate to say "will not have faced a sufficient degree of discrimination to have actually suffered by it".

 

[Sunset Tree]

The loudest IDpol proponents are nearly always privileged in terms of social class. Posh university students. Not saying they'll have never faced any kind of identity-based unfairness, but they are not people who are struggling with structural disadvantage.

 

[Red Cat]

"Collection" is my paraphrasing. Goffman suggests it - that we interpollate with facets of identity we want to integrate, but that we also take on identities from our environment, identities we may have to actively dispose of, if we don't agree with/feel right about them. Of course, we're also forever adding new facets to our identities. "Collection" is just an easy way of saying "an ever-shifting, ever-evolving assemblage of identity facets" in this case.

I'm not convinced our sense of self develops in such a conscious way and I don't suppose Goffmann's theory was so blunt as to suggest that we develop our identity by conforming to the main social classification systems.

 

[Sunset Tree]

In my limited recollection of studying sociology, Goffman was all about how we have multiple social roles and follow certain scripts depending on which role we're performing at the time. Is that the same as multiple identities?

 

[Red Cat]

In my limited recollection of studying sociology, Goffman was all about how we have multiple social roles and follow certain scripts depending on which role we're performing at the time. Is that the same as multiple identities?

I don't think of a social role as an identity in that we all consciously play social roles that don't always conform to our sense of who we are, we're aware of the gap between internal and external, but that may have been what Goffmann meant by social identity? (not my area)

 

[Sunset Tree]

I don't think of a social role as an identity in that we all consciously play social roles that don't always conform to our sense of who we are, we're aware of the gap between internal and external, but that may have been what Goffmann meant by social identity? (not my area)

I think because we are socialised into these roles and internalise them they can constitute parts of our identity.

I had a quick google because this is quite interesting. There's a few writers who've used Goffman to understand trans experience. About how gender identities have to be negotiated and performed in different contexts.

 

[Red Cat]

I think because we are socialised into these roles and internalise them they can constitute parts of our identity.

I had a quick google because this is quite interesting. There's a few writers who've used Goffman to understand trans experience. About how gender identities have to be negotiated and performed in different contexts.

I suppose I was thinking of adult social roles where we are often conscious of a gap between self and role. But yeh, we're internalising right from the beginning when we identify with people in our families, their roles or functions, and they become part of us.

 

[Red Cat]

I think because we are socialised into these roles and internalise them they can constitute parts of our identity.

I had a quick google because this is quite interesting. There's a few writers who've used Goffman to understand trans experience. About how gender identities have to be negotiated and performed in different contexts.

I do think it would be good if we could follow some of these tangents without it being seen as a diversion that takes away from the importance of the issue.

 

[co-op]

The questions assume that trans people and trans women in particular promote patriarchal ideology. They assume that TERF bigotry against trans people constitutes “challenging” that ideology. They assume that there is a universal female social conditioning which all women assigned female from birth are subjected to and which shapes all women in similar ways. They assume that trans people usually or even always describe themselves as having some sort of gendered spirit trapped in the “wrong bodies”. All of these are highly ideological claims and all of them are false.

For someone who throws around the accusation of dishonesty you're very ready to set up views that neither I nor anyone else has expressed and claim that they are what we're saying. That's pretty dishonest of you Nigel.

I can't be bothered to go through each individual lie and point out that I have neither said it nor think it but I think quite a few people have been following the thread closely enough to know what you're doing.

But I'll respond to this post because it's shorter than the huge Christmas Day message.

Good example of your dishonesty first, you say "the questions assume that trans people and trans women in particular promote patriarchal ideology" - nope absolutely not, never said it, know well that it's not true. The question was when 'trans people do promote stereotypical gender binaries as natural, is critiquing that transphobic?' - it seems to me obvious the answer is 'no', yet of course that accusation happens, I've direct experience of it on these boards. Of course this makes anyone who has some grounding in feminism raise at least an eyebrow. Why wouldn't it? Denouncing someone as a transphobe for criticising gender stereotypes that underwrite patriarchy is a classic example of the silencing of women.

Second you say - "They assume that there is a universal female social conditioning which all women assigned female from birth are subjected to and which shapes all women in similar ways"

Well yes guilty I do basically think that (allowing for the fact that you've slightly overdone and simplified it). It's pretty intrinsic to anything beyond basic liberal legal-equality feminism that it's likely to be true. Do you think feminism has any foundation in anything beyond legal equality? Believe me a lot of people do actually believe this.

Thirdly you say "They assume that trans people usually or even always describe themselves as having some sort of gendered spirit trapped in the “wrong bodies”"

I can't speak for the "they" you say have this view, just for myself but yes this has been an extremely common narrative that I've heard and from other posters responses it looks like that's quite common. I got flamed pretty heavily as being a transphobe for saying this didn't make sense to me on these boards a couple of years ago. You certainly didn't pop up on the previous thread to denounce it, quite the reverse you just called me a terf for saying it. Now just a couple of years later you're tossing it casually on the scrapheap as just another example of TERF transphobiery. In some ways that's progress because it seems that quite a few people, including you, now acknowledge it's a pretty difficult thing to make sense of. But it makes you look pretty shabby to me - even by the normal standards of trot 180 degree strategic about-turns.

More generally you adopt this Olympian disdain towards anyone who doesn't follow whatever microsect CC you are speaking for, anyone who questions it is dismissed as a weird historical dead end that you can sneer & mock out of court. I think that's unlikely to be the case. I have no idea of how representative U75 is of anything but it's really noticeable that you have posted many dozens of times on this thread and have barely received a single 'like', nor have you found much agreement with your posts. Many of the posts I have put up have got 15-20 likes and the questions I have asked you have been echoed. Of course I get that it's a pretty shallow measure and for sure I didn't start posting on this topic because I was courting popularity, on the contrary I knew full well I was likely to get a lot of grief. But the multiple posters who have agreed with what I have posted on here represent a really wide range of posters with many hundreds of thousands of posts between them and many years of posting. I think that suggests that your 'historical dead end' analysis may be as crap as your understanding of the whole topic.

Get your head around this; I don't consider myself a terf, nor do I endorse the views of a large number of the rad fems on this topic. But I really detest the kind of snidey ganging up that some self-described trans-defenders like you indulge in. It's pathetic.

 

[co-op]

Here's the kind of transwoman Nigel Irritable thinks has just got it all wrong, but luckily he can set them right and point out they're just a terf

(click on tweet for the thread)

 

[krtek a houby]

The loudest IDpol proponents are nearly always privileged in terms of social class. Posh university students. Not saying they'll have never faced any kind of identity-based unfairness, but they are not people who are struggling with structural disadvantage.

Are there any stats for these posh/privileged university students,just out of curiosity?

Also, let's say there's the annual Pride marches. I always believed we were a mix of LGBT people from all walks of life, joining together, despite any perceived class divisions. Is that unity/idpol/mindless optimism,in your view? Genuine question.

 

[kabbes]

I suppose I was thinking of adult social roles where we are often conscious of a gap between self and role. But yeh, we're internalising right from the beginning when we identify with people in our families, their roles or functions, and they become part of us.

I think Goffman’s point was that there is no “self” separate from the roles we take on. If you view identity as transactional, constructed via relations rather than being something intrinsic, then when we assume a role that leads us to interact with others in a particular way, that results in us assuming an identity along with that role. We don’t just “act out” the role, we become it.

I found it quite a compelling idea, to be honest. It is consistent with a broader rejection of brain/mind dualism and also links a social psychological perspective with a behaviourist one (i.e. the self is the sum of our social behaviours)

 

[Sunset Tree]

Are there any stats for these posh/privileged university students,just out of curiosity?

Also, let's say there's the annual Pride marches. I always believed we were a mix of LGBT people from all walks of life, joining together, despite any perceived class divisions. Is that unity/idpol/mindless optimism,in your view? Genuine question.

I wouldn't view the pride marches as identity politics no. Cross-class solidarity against genuine issues around sexuality, gender, race etc doesn't mean identity politics. This has been discussed quite a lot on the identity politics thread if you're interested. Critiquing identity politics doesn't mean diminishing genuine struggles of oppressed minorities.

The posh students thing is just my observation tbh. Identity politics has flourished within universities and student politics. You can just see the class markers of a lot of the people involved a mile away.

 

[Cloo]

Things have been interestingly illustrated yesterday by kerfuffle over Lewis Hamilton's castigating of his nephew for wearing a dress

Some trans campaigners were suggesting if people were unhappy about his comments, they ought to donate to a charity support trans kids and their families, which was immediately leapt upon by others going 'Hah! These people oppose someone saying a boy can't wear a dress, but are implying a boy wearing a dress is trans so they are reinforcing the idea that dresses are for girls because they say trans women are girls!' Which I think is bollocks sophistry, although I still say the 'kids expressing themselves outside gender norms' should be separate from the trans issue although it is related in some ways. Anti-trans types (whether TERFS or right-wing media) confuse this support from the trans community of non-gender-conforming kids as a cult of demanding kids transition, which of course it isn't, it's just intended I think as a general show of support.

 

[Sue]

Things have been interestingly illustrated yesterday by kerfuffle over Lewis Hamilton's castigating of his nephew for wearing a dress

Some trans campaigners were suggesting if people were unhappy about his comments, they ought to donate to a charity support trans kids and their families, which was immediately leapt upon by others going 'Hah! These people oppose someone saying a boy can't wear a dress, but are implying a boy wearing a dress is trans so they are reinforcing the idea that dresses are for girls because they say trans women are girls!' Which I think is bollocks sophistry, although I still say the 'kids expressing themselves outside gender norms' should be separate from the trans issue although it is related in some ways. Anti-trans types (whether TERFS or right-wing media) confuse this support from the trans community of non-gender-conforming kids as a cult of demanding kids transition, which of course it isn't, it's just intended I think as a general show of support.

Or maybe it's a just a young child playing dress up, nothing more, nothing less, and talking about 'non-gender conforming kids' in this context is way OTT?

 

[Red Cat]

I think Goffman’s point was that there is no “self” separate from the roles we take on. If you view identity as transactional, constructed via relations rather than being something intrinsic, then when we assume a role that leads us to interact with others in a particular way, that results in us assuming an identity along with that role. We don’t just “act out” the role, we become it.

I found it quite a compelling idea, to be honest. It is consistent with a broader rejection of brain/mind dualism and also links a social psychological perspective with a behaviourist one (i.e. the self is the sum of our social behaviours)

I hate behaviourism. And 'the self is the sum of our social behaviours' sound almost actuarial.

I prefer to think of self rather than identity, although of course selves are always in a process of being and becoming in relationships, including in the womb. But there is also such thing as temperament. And I believe we have very complex inner worlds that aren't only understandable in terms of theories that suggest a kind of mirror or replica of the outside.

Brain body dualism isn't satisfying but we just don't have theories that are able to get over that in a very convincing or practical way. Which then leaves us with ideas about humans that may sound like secular versions of religion, but so be it. I think novels and theatre tell us more about ourselves than most psychology.

 

[Cloo]

Or maybe it's a just a young child playing dress up, nothing more, nothing less, and talking about 'non-gender conforming kids' in this context is way OTT?

I don't think gender non-conforming is 'OTT', although maybe gender 'non-conforming behaviour' might be better in this instance, it's not a medical label or anything, it's just a way of describing kids behaving in ways society doesn't consider typical of their gender as far as I know, a shorthand for 'tomboys and boys that like to wear dresses'.

Yes, I agree it is just a boy wearing a dress but society has unfortunately politicised it.

NB, I find it fascinating that we have a generally non-offensive word for 'boyish girls' but no accepted phrase for the opposite that I'm aware of. I feel there is still this massive monolith of an idea that femaleness is shameful that we need to get over. Tomboys might be considered a bit odd but they're not generally considered shameful, whereas a girlish boy is still, as Hamilton thinking his comments were acceptable illustrates, looked upon as an embarrassment. This shame at femaleness seems to be at the heart of so many issues around gender and misogyny.

 

[co-op]

NB, I find it fascinating that we have a generally non-offensive word for 'boyish girls' but no accepted phrase for the opposite that I'm aware of. I feel there is still this massive monolith of an idea that femaleness is shameful that we need to get over. Tomboys might be considered a bit odd but they're not generally considered shameful, whereas a girlish boy is still, as Hamilton thinking his comments were acceptable illustrates, looked upon as an embarrassment. This shame at femaleness seems to be at the heart of so many issues around gender and misogyny.

It's at the heart of a patriarchal concept of gender. It is the problem, everything else is just symptoms.

 

[Red Cat]

I don't think gender non-conforming is 'OTT', although maybe gender 'non-conforming behaviour' might be better in this instance, it's not a medical label or anything, it's just a way of describing kids behaving in ways society doesn't consider typical of their gender as far as I know, a shorthand for 'tomboys and boys that like to wear dresses'.

Yes, I agree it is just a boy wearing a dress but society has unfortunately politicised it.

NB, I find it fascinating that we have a generally non-offensive word for 'boyish girls' but no accepted phrase for the opposite that I'm aware of. I feel there is still this massive monolith of an idea that femaleness is shameful that we need to get over. Tomboys might be considered a bit odd but they're not generally considered shameful, whereas a girlish boy is still, as Hamilton thinking his comments were acceptable illustrates, looked upon as an embarrassment. This shame at femaleness seems to be at the heart of so many issues around gender and misogyny.

If strength gets categorised as masculine and weakness as feminine of course people will feel humiliated. Hence why it's not that tricky to understand how a racing driver who works in very 'masculine' world where it's highly probable he feels he can't be in touch with anything about himself he deems 'feminine', gets a bit anxious about his nephew wearing a dress, and shows the world what a man he is by mocking his nephew on video.

It's not specifically a trans issue at all.

 

[mojo pixy]

Certainly in my experience I know many women who say I was a real tomboy when I was young... but hardly one man who says I wad really girly when I was young... Now I come to think about it the difference is quite stark.

 

[weepiper]

Certainly in my experience I know many women who say I was a real tomboy when I was young... but hardly one man who says I wad really girly when I was young... Now I come to think about it the difference is quite stark.

Because being 'like a girl' is used as an insult to boys from the very beginning. You throw like a girl. He kicks a ball like a girl. You going to let a girl beat you? Stop crying like a little girl. Etc etc etc. Lewis Hamilton is doing the exact same thing, and like all the others who do it not thinking once about what he's saying to the girls in the room at the same time.

 

[mojo pixy]

Because being 'like a girl' is used as an insult to boys from the very beginning. You throw like a girl. He kicks a ball like a girl. You going to let a girl beat you? Stop crying like a little girl. Etc etc etc.

I'm well aware of this, I got it myself at school and I'm being very careful not to do or say anything that devalues girls or femininity to my little boy.

 

[kabbes]

I hate behaviourism. And 'the self is the sum of our social behaviours' sound almost actuarial.

I prefer to think of self rather than identity, although of course selves are always in a process of being and becoming in relationships, including in the womb. But there is also such thing as temperament. And I believe we have very complex inner worlds that aren't only understandable in terms of theories that suggest a kind of mirror or replica of the outside.

Brain body dualism isn't satisfying but we just don't have theories that are able to get over that in a very convincing or practical way. Which then leaves us with ideas about humans that may sound like secular versions of religion, but so be it. I think novels and theatre tell us more about ourselves than most psychology.

I don’t have a view on behaviourism yet — ask me in a year! But I am interested in where the crossover occurs between different models of reality. Those crossover points probably start to hint at the wider truth.

One thing I am not fond of, though, is metaphysical explanations for things that really just kick the can down the road. Why do we do something? Because genetics! Or because brain! Or because environment! Because some indefined essence! But none of these things explain, they just push the problem along to the next level. It just becomes the problem of the homonculus.

 

[co-op]

If strength gets categorised as masculine and weakness as feminine of course people will feel humiliated. Hence why it's not that tricky to understand how a racing driver who works in very 'masculine' world where it's highly probable he feels he can't be in touch with anything about himself he deems 'feminine', gets a bit anxious about his nephew wearing a dress, and shows the world what a man he is by mocking his nephew on video.

It's not just strength vs weakness but the entire range of human behaviours that get gendered in our society. A key one for a male racing driver is 'competence' vs 'incompetence' (obviously the former is male. the latter female) - particularly where this relates to cars. Women can't drive properly, FACT.

 

[co-op]

gets a bit anxious about his nephew wearing a dress, and shows the world what a man he is by mocking his nephew on video.

The tragedy is that he isn't really 'showing the world' what a man he is; he's showing himself. No one knew that his nephew put on a dress until Lewis told them all - there was literally no public stigma to purge at all. But still he had to post the clip, to purge himself.

Collectively men police male behaviour and women police female (as a general rule). But individually, my god we police ourselves. Tragic.

 

[krtek a houby]

I wouldn't view the pride marches as identity politics no. Cross-class solidarity against genuine issues around sexuality, gender, race etc doesn't mean identity politics. This has been discussed quite a lot on the identity politics thread if you're interested. Critiquing identity politics doesn't mean diminishing genuine struggles of oppressed minorities.

The posh students thing is just my observation tbh. Identity politics has flourished within universities and student politics. You can just see the class markers of a lot of the people involved a mile away.

What are class markers? This is the first time I've heard this term. But then, there's a lot of "new" terminology about these days.

 

[Red Cat]

I don’t have a view on behaviourism yet — ask me in a year! But I am interested in where the crossover occurs between different models of reality. Those crossover points probably start to hint at the wider truth.

One thing I am not fond of, though, is metaphysical explanations for things that really just kick the can down the road. Why do we do something? Because genetics! Or because brain! Or because environment! Because some indefined essence! But none of these things explain, they just push the problem along to the next level. It just becomes the problem of the homonculus.

No, they don't explain but form part of a picture that may always remain unclear. An appreciation of process and interrelationship is more helpful. And not mistaking models for essences.