Transgender is it just me that is totally perplexed?

[mojo pixy]

I imagine you've been called worse in your time.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

I’d rather be criticised on my words and actions than my identity though.

 

[mojo pixy]

Yeah, fair enough. I am being facetious. A bit.

 

[Athos]

In this context, not trans is just a synonym for default / normal. That IMO makes it less useful than the term cis.

I also think it's OK to say, I don't see myself as cis. I also think it's OK to not talk about it. The term exists for people who do want to.

I completely agree. But my point was that's an ideological position. There's no linguistic necessity for 'cis' any more than there's a linguistic necessity for, say, a word that means 'not a butcher'.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

Pedantry point: Trans is an adjective so more accurately would be there not being an antonym of orange, vain or psychopathic (I actually wasn’t thinking about Trump).

 

[smokedout]

Pedantry point: Trans is an adjective so more accurately would be there not being an antonym of orange, vain or psychopathic (I actually wasn’t thinking about Trump).

Or bad, good, cold or hot.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

Or bad, good, cold or hot.

Interesting that those arguing against gender binaries also argue in favour of them.

 

[smokedout]

Interesting that those arguing against gender binaries also argue in favour of them.

cis/trans is not a gender binary.

 

[smokedout]

I'd leave the pedantry to Pickers if I were you.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

cis/trans is not a gender binary.

An antonym of something creates a binary.

 

[spanglechick]

An antonym of something creates a binary.

Noooo.


Light and dark are antonyms, but they don’t stop a spectrum existing in between.

 

[MochaSoul]

Maybe there's a difference between transphobia as a psychological condition and transphobia as a political idea

1. So... we go from pathologising gender non conformity in some individuals to pathologising gender orthodoxy in others?

I do read my friend's fear as extreme (even if I don't blame her for it) but I also read it as a fear of men, rather than a fear of transwomen, expanded to them only via a sex based definition of "man" rather than a gender one. I don't see it as more or less irrational (for want of a better word) that such a fear might be compounded by not being confident in identifying which is which or having to rely on others for disclosure.

2. To me, this doesn't sound like transphobia being confined to the political sphere.

Sexual attraction is a complex phenomenon, and of course there is lots of individual variation. I certainly do not expect every cis queer woman to swoon over me. And if it were only a small percentage of cis dykes who were not interested in trans women at all, I would write it off as simply a matter of personal preference. But this not a minor problem—it is systemic; it is a predominant sentiment in queer women’s communities. And when the overwhelming majority of cis dykes date and fuck cis women, but are not open to, or are even turned off by, the idea of dating or fucking trans women, how is that not transphobic? And to those cis women who claim a dyke identity, yet consider trans men, but not trans women, to be a part of your dating pool, let me ask you this: How are you not a hypocrite?...
... My purpose in writing this piece is to highlight how cis dykes’ unwillingness to consider trans women as legitimate partners translates directly into a lack of community for queer-identified trans women.

That feels profoundly invasive to me and I'm not a lesbian. I'd not take kindly to being urged to sleep with white people supposedly to prove racism opposition credentials or my commitment to welcoming all races into shared spaces. I shudder to think how that kind of thinking can be used to manipulate less confident or assured minds especially young minds and especially young women's minds.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

Noooo.

Light and dark are antonyms, but they don’t stop a spectrum existing in between.

You got me. Although, nobody considered the spectrum when barking cis at me.

 

[MochaSoul]

For one thing, you can properly and meaningfully legislate for what people do (i.e. what they say to a trans person - if it crosses the line into abuse, or about trans people - if it amounts to e.g. incitement), but can't for what they think (i.e. how someone conceives of sex/gender).

I should have been more specific I guess. I was putting myself in my friend's place actually. Should healthcare be withheld from my friend because she has a fear of men? Could/should the law intervene in her case?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

An antonym of something creates a binary.

Not really, or at least if it's true, it is only trivially true. Any category A has 'not-A' also as a category, otherwise it isn't meaningful. And binaries don't have to be opposites: male and female are not opposites in any meaningful way.

Your earlier example of psychopaths is illuminating here, perhaps. We don't have a word for 'not-psychopath'. To be a psychopath is to be a problem for the rest of us. There are terms for such things as 'not-autistic' and 'not-trans' because, perhaps in a ham-fisted way, people are trying to move away from certifying these conditions as a problem for the rest of us - to create a more accepting situation where they're accepted for what and who they are. We have no desire to do that for someone like a psychopath, so few of us would have a problem with calling non-psychopaths something like 'normal'. That we may not be so comfortable calling non-autism spectrum or non-trans people 'normal' is surely because of our attitude towards autistic or trans people, because we do not seek to other them - we actively seek not to other them. And there's a judgement there - who should we other, who should we not - and for societies as a whole, those who are othered has changed over time. Gay people are no longer othered by the state or increasingly by general society, as the obvious example.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

Not really, or at least if it's true, it is only trivially true. Any category A has 'not-A' also as a category, otherwise it isn't meaningful. And binaries don't have to be opposites: male and female are not opposites in any meaningful way.

Your earlier example of psychopaths is illuminating here, perhaps. We don't have a word for 'not-psychopath'. To be a psychopath is to be a problem for the rest of us. There are terms for such things as 'not-autistic' and 'not-trans' because, perhaps in a ham-fisted way, people are trying to move away from certifying these conditions as a problem for the rest of us - to create a more accepting situation where they're accepted for what and who they are. We have no desire to do that for someone like a psychopath, so few of us would have a problem with calling non-psychopaths something like 'normal'. That we may not be so comfortable calling non-autism spectrum or non-trans people 'normal' is surely because of our attitude towards autistic or trans people, because we do not seek to other them - we actively seek not to other them. And there's a judgement there - who should we other, who should we not - and for societies as a whole, those who are othered has changed over time. Gay people are no longer othered by the state or increasingly by general society, as the obvious example.

So rigid binaries are useful, until they’re not. The thing with language is it’s organic. Ham fisted changes gets people’s backs up as far as I can tell.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

So rigid binaries are useful, until they’re not. The thing with language is it’s organic. Ham fisted changes gets people’s backs up as far as I can tell.

Yes, language is organic, and a bunch of people discussing a particular issue have found the term cisgender meaningful and useful. It means 'not-trans' but in a way that offers no judgement on being trans.

If someone has a go at you for being a cis het male, for instance, take them to task for what they say, but I'm guessing that you wouldn't dispute the validity of the terms 'het' or 'male' as meaningful terms.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

Yes, language is organic, and a bunch of people discussing a particular issue have found the term cisgender meaningful and useful. It means 'not-trans' but in a way that offers no judgement on being trans.

If someone has a go at you for being a cis het male, for instance, take them to task for what they say, but I'm guessing that you wouldn't dispute the validity of the terms 'het' or 'male' as meaningful terms.

They’re meaningful to describe me. Also to dismiss my views from a particular perspective. I haven’t seen cis used in any other setting yet.

 

[Athos]

Noooo.


Light and dark are antonyms, but they don’t stop a spectrum existing in between.

But that's at odds with idea that 'cis just means not trans' which many assert. If it's accepted that some people are neither cis nor trans, and nobody is labelled as either who doesn't want to be, that's fine.

 

[Athos]

I should have been more specific I guess. I was putting myself in my friend's place actually. Should healthcare be withheld from my friend because she has a fear of men? Could/should the law intervene in her case?

I think women like your friend have a right to ask to be examined by someone of the same sex and gender as them.

 

[SpookyFrank]

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/12/2...rights-review-amid-right-wing-press-backlash/

Government kicking the issue into the long grass apparently.

The Gender Recognition Act does not regulate who is permitted to use gender-segregated spaces, but much of the coverage of the issue has inaccurately claim that reforms would give more people permission to enter female toilets.



But in the light of the news, anti-transgender campaigners are now calling for the review to be scrapped entirely.

Tory MP David Davies, a strong opponent of transgender equality, called on Greening to axe the plan to avoid giving rights to people who are “effectively cross-dressers”.

Delaying reform will not make anyone safer, nor will it salve the wounds of those who find themselves personally harmed by someone else's identity. All it will do is prolong a situation where trans folk are obliged to wade through all sorts of bureaucratic indignities just to get to a point most of us are born at.

Anyone who is happy with this development wants to take a look at who they're lining up alongside, ie the gutter press and the tory right. And then maybe ask themselves if dashing the hopes of transgender people is likely to actually resolve any of the issues involved to anyone's satsifaction, or restore society to an imaginary past time of comfortingly rigid dichotomies.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

They’re meaningful to describe me. Also to dismiss my views from a particular perspective. I haven’t seen cis used in any other setting yet.

You've not been looking very hard then. There were lots of examples given on the 'cis' thread that you posted many times on. People discussing trans issues in a sensible, reasoned way, using cis and cisgender in their discussions.

 

[smokedout]

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/12/2...rights-review-amid-right-wing-press-backlash/

Government kicking the issue into the long grass apparently.



Delaying reform will not make anyone safer, nor will it salve the wounds of those who find themselves personally harmed by someone else's identity. All it will do is prolong a situation where trans folk are obliged to wade through all sorts of bureaucratic indignities just to get to a point most of us are born at.

Anyone who is happy with this development wants to take a look at who they're lining up alongside, ie the gutter press and the tory right. And then maybe ask themselves if dashing the hopes of transgender people is likely to actually resolve any of the issues involved to anyone's satsifaction, or restore society to an imaginary past time of comfortingly rigid dichotomies.

Indeed, a campaign spearheaded by the Tory right and based on misunderstanding and outright lies about what had been proposed. To stop a change that could have made a huge difference in the lives of a small number of people and as the experience of other countries suggests would barely have been even noticed by anyone else. Gender neutral passports now off the cards as well. Not the proudest day in the history of gender critical feminism, or those who believed their lies. David Davies must be pissing himself though.

 

[TopCat]

You've not been looking very hard then. There were lots of examples given on the 'cis' thread that you posted many times on. People discussing trans issues in a sensible, reasoned way, using cis and cisgender in their discussions.

Your labelling was smug and patronising.

 

[andysays]

Indeed, a campaign spearheaded by the Tory right and based on misunderstanding and outright lies about what had been proposed. To stop a change that could have made a huge difference in the lives of a small number of people and as the experience of other countries suggests would barely have been even noticed by anyone else. Gender neutral passports now off the cards as well. Not the proudest day in the history of gender critical feminism, or those who believed their lies. David Davies must be pissing himself though.

Can you explain how, in your opinion, the Gender Recognition Act would have made gender neutral passports any more 'on the cards' than they are currently.

It appears to me (although I'm open to reasoned persuasion otherwise) that an Act which focusses on enabling some people to have their new or non-birth gender legally recognised would do absolutely nothing for those of us seeking a less gender determined society or, on a personal level, who wish not to be defined by our gender and/or to have our behaviour proscribed and our social and other relations with others influenced by anyone's gender expectations, and (and this bit is crucial) don't see any reason why it should be necessary for anyone to "identify" in any particular way or go through a legal (non) gender recognition process in order to achieve this.

 

[smokedout]

Can you explain how, in your opinion, the Gender Recognition Act would have made gender neutral passports any more 'on the cards' than they are currently.

GRA reform would be necessary for gender neutral passports, and there were hints this might be included in the consultation especially as the government is facing an awkward court case over the issue.

It appears to me (although I'm open to reasoned persuasion otherwise) that an Act which focusses on enabling some people to have their new or non-birth gender legally recognised would do absolutely nothing for those of us seeking a less gender determined society or, on a personal level, who wish not to be defined by our gender and/or to have our behaviour proscribed and our social and other relations with others influenced by anyone's gender expectations,

How would the proposed amendments have proscribed your personal behaviour anymore than it is already? And the act you are talking about happened in 2004. what was proposed was to make it less intrusive and bureacratic.

and (and this bit is crucial) don't see any reason why it should be necessary for anyone to "identify" in any particular way or go through a legal (non) gender recognition process in order to achieve this.

Of course you don't, you aren't trans and are not prepared to accept what trans people tell you about their lives. Things like being harrassed at customs because your gender presentation doesn't match your passport or being humiliated and interrogated about your sex when trying to open a bank account will never affect you. So why should you care?

 

[bimble]

I had another one of those semi-arguments with the boyfriend about this the other day and he said something that I found helpful: When I hear 'trans women are women' I've been taking it as a sort of philosophical statement, or an ideological position, making me want to know what the word women means then. He said that this is to hear it wrong and totally out of context because 'trans women are women' is actually a sort of placard / banner in response to trans women's treatment by society, its a demand to be treated as women not a statement about platonic categories type thing. So (he said) the statement is 'just' a response to conditions, a demand for justice and fair treatment, and to read it the other way, as I've been doing, is as stupid as responding to 'Black Lives Matter' as if the people saying it think other colours of lives don't matter.
I found it kind of helpful anyway.

 

[Sunset Tree]

I had another one of those semi-arguments with the boyfriend about this the other day and he said something that I found helpful: When I hear 'trans women are women' I've been taking it as a sort of philosophical statement, or an ideological position, making me want to know what the word women means then. He said that this is to hear it wrong and totally out of context because 'trans women are women' is actually a sort of placard / banner in response to trans women's treatment by society, its a demand to be treated as women not a statement about platonic categories type thing. So (he said) the statement is 'just' a response to conditions, a demand for justice and fair treatment, and to read it the other way, as I've been doing, is as stupid as responding to 'Black Lives Matter' as if the people saying it think other colours of lives don't matter.
I found it kind of helpful anyway.

That is an interesting way to look at it. It makes sense. Sometimes I wish people would communicate more clearly though. It's like when someone says 'fuck white people', but when you challenge them they say it's actually a statement about structural racism not an attack on individual white people. Maybe should communicate it better in the first place and avoid a lot of conflict.

For me it would depend on the context. In a serious philosophical discussion about the nature of womanhood placard slogans aren't so helpful or appropriate. In other contexts I can see how it is useful.

 

[smokedout]

Just for reference there's info on how to apply for a gender recongition certificate at: Obtaining Your Gender Recognition Certificate – Gender Identity Research & Education Society

It is hugely bureacratic, especially given all the other things that need to happen like changing your name and then details with banks, tax, benefits etc. It is also potentially quite expensive. Would it really have been such a disaster to make this a bit easier?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Your labelling was smug and patronising.

While you have contributed fuck all to this debate beyond abuse. You've been a fucking disgrace.