Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Transgender is it just me that is totally perplexed?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Why are people talking about gender expression still?

It's almost as if trans people's instance that our condition is nothing to do with gender expression is being utterly ignored.
[..]

For me, when you explain that being trans has nothing to do with gender expression it leaves me feeling totally clueless about what trans does mean. That's a bit difficult for me, the fact that I just don't get it, but doesn't make it your job to satisfy my curiosity and explain things to me so that i can feel like I do fully understand.

I would like to know though, does it matter to you either way whether I (cis person) understand what it means to be trans - or does it actually only matter that I respect you as a person and treat you how you wish to be treated ?
 
I think wanting to understand can feel very controlling and oppressive. However, treatments sought cost money, and may be harmful. It is a social issue.
 
Why are people talking about gender expression still?

It's almost as if trans people's instance that our condition is nothing to do with gender expression is being utterly ignored.

But I'm used to that. The least listened to voice in any discussion about trans now is the trans person's voice.

And I didn't pick up on it earlier but I think it was trashpony that said something like even women have health issues on HRT. Obviously then I'm not a woman. Just been told there loud and clear!!!

Way to go! Could you make this thread more toxic for trans people?

As for my health, I'm fucking healthy thankyou. I have asthma. I'm autistic. Other than that I'm a very healthy 51 year old woman and I don't need anyone concern except that of my doctors.

Fed up with the gaslighting, the erasure, the fake concern and the toxic transphobic language that goes on in these discussions, because at the heart of your concern are cis people's feelings. And that's it.


And this is exactly why I made my (overly diplomatic) post about solidarity earlier on. Both Weepiper and Trashpony posted about experiences in their own or their children's lives, and rather than attempt to see how much you may have in common with them, you choose to go on the attack. You clearly didn't read Trashpony's post properly - as has been pointed out, she did not say 'even women'. And your refusal to engage with other women posters looks a lot like a blanket dismissal of other women's experience.
 
I guess there's two approaches to the constraints gender puts on everyone (but which some feel much more acutely than others): first, to reject gender altogether i.e. to say that playing with dolls isn't a female thing; or, secondly, to allow people to choose which aspects of that system of constraint apply to them i.e. to allow males who play with dolls to identify as girls.

On the face of it, the former looks preferable, particularly to those who argue that the latter reinforces the the system which underpins women's oppression. But, that places a big burden on trans people, asking them to suffer whilst the vast majority of cis people often do little to challange gender.

As a cis man, I think the best I can do to balance the long-term need to move beyond gender against the immediate goal of compassion for the suffering of trans people, is to respect trans people's gender identity, whilst trying to break down the idea of gender e.g. by setting an example for my kids that it's possible for people of either sex to behave how they want.

But, I disagree with some trans people that my respecting their gender identity requires me to accept uncritically all their ideas about gender, or how society should react to every trans issue. Indeed, in many instances, I think challenging those ideas is necessary as part of that second goal (and other concerns). But, given the shit they get, any such disagreement should be done sensitively and respectfully. And that, sometimes, it's more important not to take up every point of disagreement, because of the risk of undermining that general solidarity.

Trans people aren't saying "I liked playing with dolls as a child so I must be a woman" though. Rejecting gender stereotypes should be beneficial for everyone, cis and trans; it only becomes harmful to trans people when you (one) start using that reasoning to invalidate someone's gender because "men/women can do that too" or insist that they're just cis and gnc.

Gender stereotypes might be harmful and a social construct, but we haven't succeeded in getting rid of them yet. We all, cis people and trans people alike, have to live with them and make choices every day about what extent we adhere to the expectations attached to our gender. There are many different reasons someone might make the choice to go along with or against a particular expectation. It's a double standard; a cis woman wears a dress, high heels & makeup and it's her choice (and rightly so - many years ago I used to make the mistake of confusing contempt for the stereotype with contempt for those who were "stupid" or "weak" enough to go along with it, and it's bollocks), but a trans woman wearing the same outfit is reinforcing stereotypes and contributing to the oppression of women. Yet a trans woman deemed "not feminine enough" is told she's actually a man!

By all means let's stop enforcing that gender crap - that doesn't mean stopping individuals from doing anything that happens to conform though.
 
and doctors are trained to look at that. The treatments are not harmful for most people but can impact on some conditions and have rare side effects occasionally, but doctors are trained for that and checks are frequent and rigorous, and this needs to be balanced against the suffering and possible harm/ health effects of doing nothing. Even in my case I reached 45 and realised I've been living an empty, unfuffiled and miserable life. I was ready to die, wheras transitioned trans people generally do well, are successful and pretty much as happy as they would have been if they'd been cis. Please don't keep building the negative up into something that it isn't. Think about the negative that happens if nothing is done - people don;t do this enough.

I said that we have a responsibility to take into account the potential harm of treatment which means the attempt to understand is necessary. That would also be the case for not intervening.
 
Of those three, I'd say the last is hugely important. The only other ape that pair-bonds is the gibbon, but gibbon males and females are the same size, which is what you normally find in animals that pair-bond, so we're doubly unusual in that respect. Humans are very likely to have evolved pair bonding from some situation along the line back to our common ancestor with bonobos/chimps where it was not the case, and we're not as strict about it as gibbons, even now. This study suggests that pair-bonding in primates evolved as a means to prevent male infanticide. I'm always a little wary of studies that run models in case the assumptions of the models are off in some small but crucial way, but it's an interesting finding. The evolution of monogamy is quite a thorny issue, generally.

Another difference would be division of labour. It was once thought that bonobos didn't hunt in the way chimps do. It's now known that they do hunt, but unlike chimps, bonobos hunt in mixed-sex groups. There is very little division of labour by sex role in bonobos.
I can well believe that pair-bonding in primates evolved as a means to prevent male infanticide. Its gender expression would have been profoundly unhelpful to Australopithecus. Pair bonding was undoubtedly part of the evolutionary transition to Homo.

The adorable Meerkat has the highest rate of murder in mammals, mostly infanticide, but in their case we're talking female gender expression.

And so we arrive back at "for the overwhelming span of human history prior to the creation of class women were not oppressed by men if you ignore the occasional raid for wives by men from neighbouring villages".

This is not human gender expression, female squaddies would find the very idea of a raiding party for husbands absurd. You'd never get them interested. It's just Dawkin's cold calculus at work. As JBS Haldane said "I would to save two brothers or eight cousins". Related men will die (not willingly, but their genes don't care about that, they care only about themselves and to work with each other) for each other. This is why men can find the idea of such raids interesting. The important thing is, that's nothing to do with their individual unique genders.

At some stage in our evolution the squaddie gender type emerged, willing to risk death for unrelated men or women and their children. That's an impressive feat, made possible only by decoupling the squaddie gender type from biological sex. Incidently squaddies can be very likeable.

Gender types didn't all spring into existence at once. The decoupling that gave us human gender as we understand it here was one of the benefits of our encaphalisation. Human gender has released us from the horrors of gender expression.
 
Last edited:
Trans people aren't saying "I liked playing with dolls as a child so I must be a woman" though. Rejecting gender stereotypes should be beneficial for everyone, cis and trans; it only becomes harmful to trans people when you (one) start using that reasoning to invalidate someone's gender because "men/women can do that too" or insist that they're just cis and gnc.

Gender stereotypes might be harmful and a social construct, but we haven't succeeded in getting rid of them yet. We all, cis people and trans people alike, have to live with them and make choices every day about what extent we adhere to the expectations attached to our gender. There are many different reasons someone might make the choice to go along with or against a particular expectation. It's a double standard; a cis woman wears a dress, high heels & makeup and it's her choice (and rightly so - many years ago I used to make the mistake of confusing contempt for the stereotype with contempt for those who were "stupid" or "weak" enough to go along with it, and it's bollocks), but a trans woman wearing the same outfit is reinforcing stereotypes and contributing to the oppression of women. Yet a trans woman deemed "not feminine enough" is told she's actually a man!

By all means let's stop enforcing that gender crap - that doesn't mean stopping individuals from doing anything that happens to conform though.

Yes. That's essentially my position. (The dolls thing was crude shorthand; I don't think boys who like dolls grow up to think they must be women, of course.)
 
Last edited:
you will never understand. You don;t need to. Drives me mad people who are attempting to empathise with something they have no experience of. Can't be done. Listen and accept. Accept that we are in pain and we need help.

I was talking about understanding as something more wide-ranging than empathising. I don't know of any other mental distress that is responded to by services only on the basis of empathy.
 
this is utter bullshit. I'm really not refusing to engage with women. I'm refusing to engage with transphobia. I don;t even know if half the posters on here are men or women. I'm pretty sure Athos is a man though.
Weepiper was writing about her experience as a young woman, and you dismissed her experience out of hand.

That wasn't transphobia, that was one woman telling another woman about her experience.
 
Clair De Lune 's post a couple of pages back, I've been trying to let it soak in a bit what she said about how sometimes you just have to accept that you don't understand a thing and that your not understanding it doesn't make it any less true or less real.
I think basically for me thats the nub of it: I'm in the habit of feeling entitled to understand or relate to something so if I can't get the answers I want that will fully satisfy my curiosity that's difficult and uncomfortable, its hard to just accept that I don't get it. In this case - re what does it mean to be trans, what does it consist of- I reckon its my 'job' to just accept that I may never get it, that's just how it is and I have to be ok with not understanding it basically, which is a little bit hard because i'm not used to making that effort, putting my desire to make sense of it to one side and accepting my ignorance. Probably just stating the blindingly obvious sorry.
:) A dear friend of mine (who happens to be trans) taught me that. She gets people shouting at her in the street 'are you a man?' 'are you a sex change?' and when she just smiles and doesn't respond they get angry and say ' I just don't understand??' and she says 'so what? what is there to get? you don't have to understand'

I'm in the don't fully understand camp, so I appreciate the confusion and wanting to make it fit in a way that makes sense. The bit I have come to fully accept is that my son is a boy and my best mate is a woman. There is no doubt there for me anymore. Do I treat them differently than I did before? Nope cos I don't believe in that.
 
It's a cliche but you'll only seek enlightment by engaging with me not just seeking to attack me, trip me up or make up lies.
Stella, it feels very much like you're not listening to/engaging with people on the thread. Which it is absolutely your right to do. But please don't accuse people of doing things they haven't, like trashpony (for example) who clearly didn't say what you claimed she did.

Maybe you need to step away for a bit if this thread is making you feel bad?
 
The concern on here is fake because the only people who have asked if I'm ok - in relation to the increased dysphoria that I'm experiencing now by discussing this stuff are other trans people.

That might be because you've alienated a lot of others with dishonest name-calling.

And yet so many demand that I engage with you so you understand.

This is dishonest; nobody demands that.

It's a cliche but you'll only seek enlightment by actually engaging with me not just seeking to attack me, trip me up or make up lies I have to answer.

This is dishonest; nobody is attacking you.

I'm not going to let you ruin my weekend.

Good. Nobody wants that. I'm glad you're taking responsibility for your own wellbeing.

It's clear from the way you other me and demand that I "engage with women" that you don't accept me as a woman.

This is dishonest. I accept you as a woman, always have, and have been at pains to say so.

Until that happens I can't discuss anything with you because you will always use my "maleness" to attack me.

This is dishonest; nobody here had done that.

I thought carefully whether to say 'dishonest' or 'untrue', given you might genuinely believe what you say. But, you're a grown woman, so it's incumbent on you to check what you say, before you say it, even if feels that way, especially when slinging accusations at others. Being repeatedly reckless with the truth crosses the line into dishonesty.
 
Last edited:
T

It's clear from the way you other me and demand that I "engage with women" that you don't accept me as a woman. Until that happens I can't discuss anything with you because you will always use my "maleness" to attack me.

What i actually said was 'engage with OTHER women'.

I accept you fully as a woman, but that does not mean that I don't have the right to point out that you dismissed the experiences of other women, when at the same time you are calling for acceptance of your own experience.
 
For me, when you explain that being trans has nothing to do with gender expression it leaves me feeling totally clueless about what trans does mean. That's a bit difficult for me, the fact that I just don't get it, but doesn't make it your job to satisfy my curiosity and explain things to me so that i can feel like I do fully understand.

I would like to know though, does it matter to you either way whether I (cis person) understand what it means to be trans - or does it actually only matter that I respect you as a person and treat you how you wish to be treated ?

I'm not the poster you quoted but I can give another trans person's perspective on this if you're interested.

I'm not a ... whatever kind of scientist looks at this stuff (?) I'm not one of them so I don't know if this is right, but something that made a lot of sense to me when I read it in a discussion was the idea that gender ROLES etc are a social construct, but having some kind of internal gender identity is inate. (I think that was touched on earlier in the thread, a suggestion that there's a genetic element?). As a side note, I do wonder whether it's even possible to get rid of gender roles etc completely or whether the best we can hope for is stereotypes that are much less harmful, not linked to oppression etc and not enforced.

So anyway, you have your internal gender identity which is who you are; gender roles which is what society says [gender] should do; and gender expression which is how you express your identity through manipulation of the roles available. They're not entirely separate things, but gender expression and identity aren't linked in a simple, x=y way.

To give a personal example, I didn't choose to transition so I can lift weights and do martial arts and have short hair. I could, and did, do all of those things as a (often gnc) woman. Being masculine or feminine wasn't the problem - being a woman was the problem, for me. I chose to transition because my body on testosterone is so, so right and wonderful and having breasts is just wrong. I chose to transition because as far back as age 4 I remember looking at the boys, or later men, and having a feeling that I should be there. Not because of anything they were doing, just a certainty that I should be in that group too.

There's a thousand little things I could list and none of them are specifically what determines my gender, but they all add up to a bigger picture.

Some of the "masculine" stuff I do is unconscious; I just do it without thinking and always have done. Some is a choice but unrelated to gender expression; I do it because I want to, not because it makes me male or female. Some is a choice and related to gender expression; I do it because it's easier, or I don't want to draw attention to myself at that moment, or to avoid being read as female.
Same with "feminine" things. Some are unconscious; I just do them without thinking. Some are intentional; I do them because it's who I am or what I want to do. Some I do intentionally because fuck nonsense gender bullshit.

Cis people do the same thing. We can all choose how and to what extent we use gender expression & roles/stereotypes to express our gender. They only express gender though, not determine it.
 
The concern on here is fake because the only people who have asked if I'm ok - in relation to the increased dysphoria that I'm experiencing now by discussing this stuff are other trans people.

On this thread, which I've followed closely, I'm pretty sure this is the first you've mentioned that you're experiencing increased dysphoria. How could anyone show concern for something you haven't mentioned? :confused:

I'm sorry if you find various posters' attempts to engage to be 'demands'. I'm pretty sure they're not intended to be. But you yourself have failed to engage several times now, to the extent of badly misrepresenting two other posters as you go on the attack. I've yet to see you acknowledge that. This is not all everyone else's fault.
 
I'm not the poster you quoted but I can give another trans person's perspective on this if you're interested.

I'm not a ... whatever kind of scientist looks at this stuff (?) I'm not one of them so I don't know if this is right, but something that made a lot of sense to me when I read it in a discussion was the idea that gender ROLES etc are a social construct, but having some kind of internal gender identity is inate. (I think that was touched on earlier in the thread, a suggestion that there's a genetic element?). As a side note, I do wonder whether it's even possible to get rid of gender roles etc completely or whether the best we can hope for is stereotypes that are much less harmful, not linked to oppression etc and not enforced.

So anyway, you have your internal gender identity which is who you are; gender roles which is what society says [gender] should do; and gender expression which is how you express your identity through manipulation of the roles available. They're not entirely separate things, but gender expression and identity aren't linked in a simple, x=y way.

To give a personal example, I didn't choose to transition so I can lift weights and do martial arts and have short hair. I could, and did, do all of those things as a (often gnc) woman. Being masculine or feminine wasn't the problem - being a woman was the problem, for me. I chose to transition because my body on testosterone is so, so right and wonderful and having breasts is just wrong. I chose to transition because as far back as age 4 I remember looking at the boys, or later men, and having a feeling that I should be there. Not because of anything they were doing, just a certainty that I should be in that group too.

There's a thousand little things I could list and none of them are specifically what determines my gender, but they all add up to a bigger picture.

Some of the "masculine" stuff I do is unconscious; I just do it without thinking and always have done. Some is a choice but unrelated to gender expression; I do it because I want to, not because it makes me male or female. Some is a choice and related to gender expression; I do it because it's easier, or I don't want to draw attention to myself at that moment, or to avoid being read as female.
Same with "feminine" things. Some are unconscious; I just do them without thinking. Some are intentional; I do them because it's who I am or what I want to do. Some I do intentionally because fuck nonsense gender bullshit.

Cis people do the same thing. We can all choose how and to what extent we use gender expression & roles/stereotypes to express our gender. They only express gender though, not determine it.

Interesting. I think the only potentially controversial bit is the idea that gender is innate. Can you understand why, for women in particular, there's a reluctance to accept this without sufficient scientific evidence, given that the idea of innate psychological/behavioural differences between the sexes (and the content of some of those differences) has long been a tool for the oppression of women?

Personally, as a man, it's less of an issue for me, so I'm happy to subscribe to a model where gender identity = gender (not least of all because the harm to trans purple that can arise from not doing so). But, unlike too many trans people, I wouldn't seek to stop women having the discussion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom