Transgender is it just me that is totally perplexed?
- Thread starter The Flying Pig
- Start date
- Status
8ball
Decolonise colons!
Part of the problem is that both sides have red lines as to what is on the table and what isn’t, which is an impasse in itself, but it becomes even more confusing when the terminology is all over the place.
VP’s post about gender presentation was interesting, but while I can understand what gender presentation is, gender identity is still something that seems foggy to a good many of us.
elbows
Well-Known Member
I heard a rumour that its an energy.
First para of your previous as I said -- unless you're not including me with transphobes which really isn't clear:
Confused? Oh Nigel, I do love it when you patronise me like that.
My concerns are that valid views and concerns on both sides are not being listened to by the other to the detriment of both. This is all relatively new stuff with a lot of things to be considered. Further debate around how this can be accommodated on both sides is essential. Trying to shut down debate seems the worst possible way of approaching this. That seems to be the tactic at play alas.
And if that makes me a transphobe in your eyes, then fuck it.
As to trashpony's views -- i haven't time to go back and she exactly what she said. As reported by you, it's not something I would say myself.
well presentation is about the aesthetic and identity is the sense of self, sometimes it's closely linked, sometimes not so much
MochaSoul
It's being enslaved of your own free will
The joys of possessing a vagina.
And yet India and several countries in South America have far more visible trans populations than most of the 'first world'.
8ball
Decolonise colons!
I'm not too sure why people are presenting in ways that are at odds with their sense of self, though (unless they're doing it in a way that isn't really their choice, as in one of VP's examples).
And I don't quite get what the 'sense of self' is - it's a useful shorthand but there seem to be lots of problems with it. Take non-binary. I think you said gender was as varied as consciousness. Doesn't that make almost *everyone* non-binary?
well yes because binary is just a oversimplification of a spectrum, if it's a spectrum then no true binary can exist
some people just like the way something looks thats all, if you grown up complicated then shits gonna be complicated
8ball
Decolonise colons!
Sometimes spectra are defined as a single dimension between poles, but I agree, gender expectations are such an odd bag of things that putting them on a line seems absurd. Agree with your second point too. Everyone should have more choice about what they can like, do etc.
Though as someone who's still fuzzy on what "gender identity" is, this seems basically like an argument for just dropping the word "gender" from the term and people just having identities.
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
You are the one who declared yourself confused. I just agreed with you.
Sue said:
What are the “valid views” on the transphobe side of this discussion that aren’t being listened to precisely?
Sue said:
I wouldn’t want you to miss out on the opportunity to clarify your views, so I looked it up for you. Here’s the full statement:
“Telling people things that they know aren't true and keeping telling them that until they think their perception is wrong. So: telling a woman that a man in a dress is actually a woman and that she's mad and crazy and bigoted and wrong for believing that += gaslighting.”
That was post 6843 on this thread. Just for good measure, she followed it up with:
“You can identify as a fucking unicorn for all I care. You're not one”
Which was post 6846.
So, is this description of trans women as men in dresses, followed by the standard right wing comparison with absurd invented identifications, bigoted?
Jonti
what the dormouse said
how about, gender is the attributes and expectations laid upon one by others, based on ones sex. It's also part of the personality ~ the psychological adjustments and negotiations in response to that imposed gender.
dunno about gender identity
Vintage Paw
dead stare and computer glare
It's pretty impressive how you manage to completely ignore the women who disagree with you and find your bile disgusting.
how about, gender is the attributes and expectations laid upon one by others, based on ones sex. It's also part of the personality ~ the psychological adjustments and negotiations in response to that imposed gender.
dunno about gender identity
forget that i mistread it
8ball
Decolonise colons!
how about, gender is the attributes and expectations laid upon one by others, based on ones sex. It's also part of the personality ~ the psychological adjustments and negotiations in response to that imposed gender.
dunno about gender identity
I agree - my point was that I’m also foggy on gender identity but I think that’s because we’re sometimes using the term differently. Good to be able to separate it from gendet presentation, though that seems to be not about “presenting a gender” as I originally thought, but those parts of external presentation that happen to fit into the preconceived boxes.
Meaning your gender presentation could be a mosaic of elements, rather than mapping to a binary or even a spectrum.
In terms of valid views on both sides, read the thread. Actually *read it* and consider the views given rather than put your fingers in your ears and assume you know best or that if people don't agree with everything you say or ask questions that they're bad people. Who knows, you might even learn something!
I've clarified my views on @trashpony’s comments. If you want to know more about her views, I suggest you ask her.
I think most people have asked for definitions of shit but that was pointless providing cus the threads so shit
like when someones saying gender it'd at least be helpful to state what kind of gender they are talking about whether thats gender roles or gender identity cus those two get confused the most imo and gender presentation is a totally different thing as well
but i am tired
Vintage Paw
dead stare and computer glare
It's pretty bonkers, isn't it, to think that by accepting trans women and letting them live in a way that is true to the way they feel, it's somehow meant to follow that we'll all stop caring about fgm and rape and the pro-choice movement and so on. I'm not sure how that line of thinking goes. YES BUT FGM!!!11!!! Yes but fgm what? It's fucking awful.
It reads like something right out of the alt-right playbook. "Why are you wasting your time on the gender pay gap or on locker room talk when there are women being raped in Africa?" Classic misdirection and whataboutery to disguise a nasty, vile agenda.
It reads like something right out of the alt-right playbook. "Why are you wasting your time on the gender pay gap or on locker room talk when there are women being raped in Africa?" Classic misdirection and whataboutery to disguise a nasty, vile agenda.
Nigel Irritable
Five, Ten, Fifteen Years
I've read the views of the transphobes in detail. I'm asking which of their views you think are "valid" but aren't "being listened to". For some reason you seem reluctant to answer.
Similarly, you haven't clarified whether you think trashpony's comments were bigoted. I understand that they aren't comments you would make yourself, but that isn't what you were asked.
Mation
real life adventure worth more than pieces of gold
You may have read them but you patently haven't listened to the concerns raised. Thus far you've shown no interest in debating (and have even said so a number of times) or in the views of anyone who doesn't agree with you so I'm not too sure why you're suddenly so keen. Personally, after 200+ pages of this, I've absolutely lost the will.
Whether you agree with @trashpony’s comments or not (and as i said i don't ) it might be informative if you tried to find out why she made them.
Treacle Toes
Time
.... a fair enough request I suppose. Is trashpony doing similar in terms of why people disagree with her?
This is odd Sue isn't it? ... You claim it would be informative but don't say why...perhaps you could? Because she being a woman/natal/cis/woman won't be enough though I think because many of us have posted to show our concerns are absolutely not 'centred' and we do, like you admit to, disagree.
I don't know, you'd have to ask trashpony. (I'm not quite clear why people are asking me about her views or expecting me to know what she does or doesn't think or do -- bit weird really.)
I always think it's informative to know how people arrived at their views on things, especially if you don't agree with them. Gives you insight into their concerns/fears and helps inform how you might go about addressing them.
It also sometimes raises things you haven't really considered and helps you clarify your own views.
Eta Back in the day when I was a union rep in an unrecognised workplace, I had quite a lot of Eastern European colleagues who were virulently anti-union. It was a bit weird because most of them were sound but would take any opportunity to slag it and us off. Some of my fellow reps were like 'fuck them', I wondered why as it seemed pretty universal.
So I asked a couple I knew reasonably well in a non-confrontational manner what the problem was. Turned out in the Soviet Union, unions were run by the state and seen as being a tool of management/oppression and they assumed that's what we were about.
So once we knew what the problem was, we could start to explain that that's not what we were about. And in fact it was completely the opposite in an unrecognised workplace with a massively anti-union management. Ultimately quite a lot of them signed up.
Should we have just gone 'fuck it' or tried, as we did, to find out why they thought what they thought and then address their concerns? Pretty basic stuff no?
Last edited:
Vintage Paw
dead stare and computer glare
Usually when we want to find out why transphobes are transphobic, why homophobes are homophobic, why racists are racist, why sexists are sexist, it's so we can use that knowledge to change society so people don't become transphobic, homophobic, racist, or sexist. So yes, perhaps it is useful to understand why trashpony is transphobic. It would help us move forward to a better world.
Wilf
Slouching towards Billingham
I agree with all of that. I think the different bits of our identity and our real world experiences are crucial in terms of building any kind of politics that is worthwhile and effective. It's crucial because it allows us to think about different types of oppression and different sources of oppression - and it, genuinely, allows us to relate the political to the personal. I happen to still believe in class analysis, the state and exploitation, so it follows that for me class politics has the potential for relating those experiences and building movements. But as anarcho type I also think prefigurative politics is important, not just as a way of behaving and organising, but also as a day to day conduit for people's complex needs and experiences. S'pose I'm waffling and doing anarchist politics 101, but I think it's worth saying all that because the 'trans v terf' thing doesn't seem to display much of it. To reduce both sides grievances to a ridiculous level, I recognise that trans people want recognition and rights - and that some feminists resist any kind of breach of gender/sexual definitions. But then so much of the battle seems to be fought within existing inequalities, categories and defintions. Seems to me the only people being really challenged in this battle are actually radical feminists and trans activists - not the gruesome nature of our wider society in the way it deals with gender, sexual violence or indeed identity. There could also, it seems to me from the outside, just be a bit more common decency.
Sorry, that ended up being longer than I thought... and so to finally answer your question. The tweet I quoted said everyone should attend the march with an 'INTERSECTIONAL MINDSET'. That's the thing I object to, Intersectionality as a movement towards entirely self defined and subjective notions of oppression, which then build into a tightly boundaried self ownership of the terms of debate, notions of offence and the like. Not so much Crenshaw's original ideas, more the reality that parts of the left have become, a managed left with gatekeepers. Something divorced from social forces. Suppose I'm arguing along the line of things Kenan Malik has said about multiculturalism, that as it became established parts of it became more conservative and tied into power, but also more willing to offer up an image of idealised minority and religious groups. The irony is, I'm not hostile to subjective notions of identity - nor am I hostile to feminists saying that the combination of biology and gender oppression means we should keep woman as a 'clear' category (that's big of me, I know
). It's just where does either side go with those definitions that seems less productive.
Vintage Paw
dead stare and computer glare
That's a thoughtful post, Wilf.
I think for some of us, there is no issue with there being a 'clear' category of cis woman and one of trans woman, under the broader umbrella of 'woman'. An indication that we share much, but there are of course things that differ. For most purposes, 'woman' is enough. And of course, there are plenty of other reasons we might put another adjective in front of woman if the situation required it (disabled, British, gay, whatever). Acknowledging trans women as being under the broader woman umbrella doesn't stop cis women from campaigning on things specific to them (and indeed many trans women want to stand arm-in-arm with them, fighting with them as their allies). Making space for trans women under the umbrella of all women doesn't mean there will no longer be any acknowledgement of fgm, or expectations around child rearing, of marital rape, of access to abortion services (as implied up thread).
I think for some of us, there is no issue with there being a 'clear' category of cis woman and one of trans woman, under the broader umbrella of 'woman'. An indication that we share much, but there are of course things that differ. For most purposes, 'woman' is enough. And of course, there are plenty of other reasons we might put another adjective in front of woman if the situation required it (disabled, British, gay, whatever). Acknowledging trans women as being under the broader woman umbrella doesn't stop cis women from campaigning on things specific to them (and indeed many trans women want to stand arm-in-arm with them, fighting with them as their allies). Making space for trans women under the umbrella of all women doesn't mean there will no longer be any acknowledgement of fgm, or expectations around child rearing, of marital rape, of access to abortion services (as implied up thread).
Mation
real life adventure worth more than pieces of gold
I've seen so many tortuous and overly complicated definitions of intersectionality and terrible consequences that the definitions apparently lead to. I really don't get why it's hard to grasp simply as recognising the different sources of oppression and the fact that they interact, in order to make common cause with other oppressed people.Sorry, that ended up being longer than I thought... and so to finally answer your question. The tweet I quoted said everyone should attend the march with an 'INTERSECTIONAL MINDSET'. That's the thing I object to, Intersectionality as a movement towards entirely self defined and subjective notions of oppression, which then build into a tightly boundaried self ownership of the terms of debate, notions of offence and the like. Not so much Crenshaw's original ideas, more the reality that parts of the left have become, a managed left with gatekeepers. Something divorced from social forces. Suppose I'm arguing along the line of things Kenan Malik has said about multiculturalism, that as it became established parts of it became more conservative and tied into power, but also more willing to offer up an image of idealised minority and religious groups. The irony is, I'm not hostile to subjective notions of identity - nor am I hostile to feminists saying that the combination of biology and gender oppression means we should keep woman as a 'clear' category (that's big of me, I know
And also calls those it deems not oppressed ‘privileged’ based on what identity boxes they tick. Sounds like the perfect tool for building solidarity across the class.
- Status
Similar threads
