Transgender is it just me that is totally perplexed?

[8ball]

Is something 'innate' also necessarily timeless and permanent? Or can it mean simply, originating from within the self?

Usually it is considered the former. Though you can have an innate tendency towards something, which later develops given the right triggers.

 

[Miranda Yardley]

I implied my opinions on the matter well enough, I think.
Which is that conflating the case of one fantasist with a much more complex issue is a bit insulating

That doesn't explain why its different.

 

[kabbes]

Is something 'innate' also necessarily timeless and permanent? Or can it mean simply, originating from within the self?

What is the self? Where does it come from? How do feelings originate from it?

 

[SpookyFrank]

What is the self? Where does it come from? How do feelings originate from it?

Doesn't really matter does it? As long as we accept that it feels like we have a self and it feels like that self feels things.

 

[Miranda Yardley]

It's all smoke and mirrors, afaics because until someone can quantify it we might as well be talking about nothing.

Yes, it's nothing more substantial than thoughts and feelings. Have you read this? What Is it Like to Be a Bat? - Wikipedia

 

[littlebabyjesus]

LOL.

Thing is, the article you linked to on the last page answers this. I presume you agree with the authors that the explanation of gender identity is that it is something that begins with gender assignment and then develops with each of a myriad interactions from that point on, to cristallise as 'I girl' or 'I boy' at some point between 18 months and 3 years old? And that there follows a period of working out exactly what that means.

None of the above applies to race. We are not assigned a race at birth that is then reinforced by each interaction. Children can remain blissfully unaware of race for a very long time as long as it is not pointed out to them. Whatever your view on the development of gender, it is an entirely different beast.

 

[8ball]

I still have no idea what qualities this "inner sense of man or woman" is supposed to have.

None at all. I have zero fucking idea. And no one can explain it. It's SO FRUSTRATING. If one is going to say that some has a particular quality, then one should fucking be able to state what that quality fucking is.

It's all smoke and mirrors, afaics because until someone can quantify it we might as well be talking about nothing.

It's tricky, but we all have senses of things that are hard to accurately describe.
The lack of concrete understanding was exactly the thing that Rachel Dolezal tried to exploit in order to get herself off the hook.

 

[8ball]

That doesn't explain why its different.

Actually it pretty definitively does.

 

[JimW]

Is something 'innate' also necessarily timeless and permanent? Or can it mean simply, originating from within the self?

Innate means inborn, same root as natal etc, so assumed that was the claim

 

[8ball]

Yes, it's nothing more substantial than thoughts and feelings. Have you read this? What Is it Like to Be a Bat? - Wikipedia

Those people who say they can cure gay people use similar arguments to this.

 

[Athos]

I'm your messenger boy now?

Exactly how long is the history of "transracialism"? And does the reality of "race" have the same status of the reality of biological sex, or the reality of gender in your mind?

Have you read 'In Defence of Transracialism' by Rachel Tuvel? It makes a case by analogy, whilst explicitly rejecting the idea that race and sex are equivalent, or socially constructed in identical ways.

 

[kabbes]

Doesn't really matter does it? As long as we accept that it feels like we have a self and it feels like that self feels things.

It matters hugely if you are invoking it as an explanation for the origin of an identity. It's a metaphysical explanation that just shifts things back one step. "Where does it come from?" "It comes from the self." "OK, well then where does the self come from?" "It just is". You are essentially postulating an atheist version of God.

I would say that the self is formed as a socialised construction, which is put together via a set of identity elements, modelled behaviour and other pieces of psychological creation. Elements that derive from the self are therefore derived in truth as a result of these "self"-forming socialisations. There is no such thing as "innate", only the consequences of environment acting on chemicals.

 

[Miranda Yardley]

Thing is, the article you linked to on the last page answers this. I presume you agree with the authors that the explanation of gender identity is that it is something that begins with gender assignment and then develops with each of a myriad interactions from that point on, to cristallise as 'I girl' or 'I boy' at some point between 18 months and 3 years old? And that there follows a period of working out exactly what that means.

None of the above applies to race. We are not assigned a race at birth that is then reinforced by each interaction. Children can remain blissfully unaware of race for a very long time as long as it is not pointed out to them. Whatever your view on the development of gender, it is an entirely different beast.

I offered that paper as background to someone who was incapable of offering a definition of gender identity. As I explain above, what transgenderists mean by 'gender identity' is slightly different, that they 'feel' they have an 'inner sense' of being a woman or a man. I think what the author describes in that piece as 'gender identity' has more in common with concepts of female or male socialisation than what transgenderists mean by 'gender identity'.

Note the definition in the Yogyakarta Principles is circular and in part based on stereotypes http://yogyakartaprinciples.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/principles_en.pdf:

Gender identity is understood to refer to each person’s deeply felt internal and individual experience of gender, which may or may not correspond with the sex assigned at birth, including the personal sense of the body (which may involve, if freely chosen, modification of bodily appearance or function by medical, surgical or other means) and other expressions of gender, including dress, speech and mannerisms.​

 

[MochaSoul]

Is something 'innate' also necessarily timeless and permanent? Or can it mean simply, originating from within the self?

Beauvoir said "One becomes woman". I see it more as one comes to terms with being [seen, treated as, compelled to act as] as woman. Little things, big things, bigger things that shout at one "lesser", "confined to", "not allowed", "liable to", "unable to", etc, etc, not including periods and the pains that accompany them, worry about pregnancy, fear of infertility, motherhood, etc, etc, etc. Whereas before my conversation with my friend (which I have described here earlier) I welcomed the whole spanner in the works of patriarchy that the very existence of transgender people represent, I'm not so sure now. Now I fear, the very principles behind being a transgender woman, passing as woman, are a threat to an awful lot of the gains so many before me struggled for me to, today, be able to say I have come to terms with being woman within and in spite of the patriarchal world I find myself in. Not by virtue of them being transgender women. By virtue of the claims on gender they make.

 

[Miranda Yardley]

Those people who say they can cure gay people use similar arguments to this.

Really, no.

 

[8ball]

Have you read 'In Defence of Transracialism' by Rachel Tuvel? It makes a case by analogy, whilst explicitly rejecting the idea that race and sex are equivalent, or socially constructed in identical ways.

No, sounds like a bit of a "compare and contrast"...

 

[Miranda Yardley]

Have you read 'In Defence of Transracialism' by Rachel Tuvel? It makes a case by analogy, whilst explicitly rejecting the idea that race and sex are equivalent, or socially constructed in identical ways.

That was a great piece of writing by Tuvel.

 

[Miranda Yardley]

It matters hugely if you are invoking it as an explanation for the origin of an identity. It's a metaphysical explanation that just shifts things back one step. "Where does it come from?" "It comes from the self." "OK, well then where does the self come from?" You are essentially postulating an atheist version of God.

I would say that the self is formed as a socialised construction, which is put together via a set of identity elements, modelled behaviour and other pieces of psychological creation. Elements that derive from the self are therefore derived in truth as a result of these "self"-forming socialisations. There is no such thing as "innate", only the consequences of environment acting on chemicals.

A lot of claims made in transgender ideology are metaphysical, strangely some of these claims are supported strongest by atheists.

 

[Athos]

No, sounds like a bit of a "compare and contrast"...

It's worth a read.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I offered that paper as background to someone who was incapable of offering a definition of gender identity. As I explain above, what transgenderists mean by 'gender identity' is slightly different, that they 'feel' they have an 'inner sense' of being a woman or a man. I think what the author describes in that piece as 'gender identity' has more in common with concepts of female or male socialisation than what transgenderists mean by 'gender identity'.

Note the definition in the Yogyakarta Principles is circular and in part based on stereotypes http://yogyakartaprinciples.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/principles_en.pdf:

Gender identity is understood to refer to each person’s deeply felt internal and individual experience of gender, which may or may not correspond with the sex assigned at birth, including the personal sense of the body (which may involve, if freely chosen, modification of bodily appearance or function by medical, surgical or other means) and other expressions of gender, including dress, speech and mannerisms.​

Doesn't really change my point re transracialism. I'm guessing that you brought up Dolezal because many people who argue that transwomen should be viewed as women will then also argue that Dolezal is delusional. At which point, I'm guessing, you can go 'aha! inconsistency'. But I reject the idea that there is an equivalence between the two situations, and I suspect that you probably do as well if you're honest about it, given the links you have provided.

 

[elbows]

Now I fear, the very principles behind being a transgender woman, passing as woman, are a threat to an awful lot of the gains so many before me struggled for me to, today, be able to say I have come to terms with being woman within and in spite of the patriarchal world I find myself in. Not by virtue of them being transgender women. By virtue of the claims on gender they make.

I would like to understand these fears and threats better. I know some of this stuff reaches across quite a range of things already discussed, but I for one still feel quite blind about much of this. All help appreciated, especially if it takes a different angle, uses different examples or different language to stuff thats already well-trodden here.

 

[kabbes]

No, sounds like a bit of a "compare and contrast"...

What is wrong with compare and contrast? It illuminates an awful lot.

 

[Athos]

But I reject the idea that there is an equivalence between the two situations...

On what grounds?

 

[Miranda Yardley]

Doesn't really change my point re transracialism. I'm guessing that you brought up Dolezal because many people who argue that transwomen should be viewed as women will then also argue that Dolezal is delusional. At which point, I'm guessing, you can go 'aha! inconsistency'. But I reject the idea that there is an equivalence between the two situations, and I suspect that you probably do as well if you're honest about it, given the links you have provided.

This is piece referenced above by Athos In Defense of Transracialism

 

[littlebabyjesus]

On what grounds?

see post 4233

My objection is actually stronger than that, but I'm not going to repeat what I've posted before, some of which is speculation on my part about where gender comes from.

 

[FabricLiveBaby!]

It's tricky, but we all have senses of things that are hard to accurately describe.

"Its REALLY hard to explain/tricky" doesn't and cannot cut it for me. It snacks of the bullshit religious indoctrination they (the school) attempted to put me through in Catholic school.

Any difficult questions were met with "eee, well it's complicated" and when that didn't cut it "Don't be a doubting Thomas" (a very bad thing).

This all smells the of same shit. And I can't help smelling it. I really tried to get on the "progressive" band wagon, but the similarities became too overwhelming.. The refusal to answer tricky questions, the dismissal of non belief as something bad, and then the ostricisaion and accusations afterwards if you refuse to lie "YOU HATE GOD. YOU AREN'T TRYING HARD ENOUGH TO FEEL HIM!"

The lack of concrete understanding was exactly the thing that Rachel Dolezal tried to exploit in order to get herself off the hook.

And this is something else that niggles... why is one example (Dolezal) exploitation of lack of understanding, but the other (Gender Identity) not when the mechanism is *exactly* the same?

From what I can see one is a result of a kind of knee-jerk progressivism, and the other a result of hierarchical exploitation (racial exploitation) not being around long enough (10,000 years is the estimate of gendered exploitation IfiRC) in human history for the idea of racial identity as innate to be taken as something as given.

Becuase OF COURSE women have womany identities (OBVIOUSLY) but it's racist to say certain races do (RACIST).

 

[Athos]

see post 4233

I'm on my phone, so posts aren't numbered. Would you mind quoting it, please?

 

[bimble]

On what grounds?

He's repeated it plenty of times. His idea is that the two are different because every child grows up with an awareness of gender roles whilst it is possible to imagine a child growing up with no idea that such a category as race exists at all. I think this is a bit threadbare as an argument tbh but that's it far as I can tell.

 

[Pickman's model]

That was a great piece of writing by Tuvel.

what do you think so great about it (on the off-chance you're not being ironic here, given the criticisms levelled at the article)?

 

[8ball]

What is wrong with compare and contrast? It illuminates an awful lot.

I wasn't saying there was anything wrong with it.