Transgenderism against materialism?

[Elysian]

Many people believe so. What do you think?

Marxists are supposed to accept material reality and then proceed from there. Does T cntradict this?

[NewLeft]

What the fuck are you talking about? Yes, transgendered people physically exist.

[Caj]

Is this thread for real? Transgenderism has absolutely nothing to do with Marxian materialism.

[Positivist]

If we are to believe that transgendered individuals are born this way then it is their neurological and therefore material reality so no conflict really.

[the Leftâ„¢]

Marxist materialism has more to do with institutions, ideas, laws, beliefs, ideologies etc are all products of material relations(superstructure-- substructure? isnt this materialism? dunno). Transgenderists would agree, saying that sexuality and gender are constructed based on social convention( not necessarily class interest though maybe this is where they would disagree). Could be wrong though im an ignorant prick

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Is it just me, or does the OP sound like trolling?

[dodger]

I n c o r r i g i b l e !!!!

beastly boy........I do regret giving you the benefit of the doubt.....so there.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Marxists are supposed to accept material reality and then proceed from there. Does T cntradict this?
Are you arguing biological essentialism as materialism?

[Rafiq]

No one has ever said this.

[Rusty Shackleford]

No one has ever said this.
actually everyone and their mother has said this. its pretty much common knowledge. It was first penned by Oscar Wilde in 1866 "This concept of materialist socialism by some German nazi guy Karl Marx is completely against Transgenderism. I mean, c'mon man, if my rock feels more like it was meant to be, or is more inclined to being, a hammer then let it be! This 'Marxist' (for lack of a better word) materialism is just bollocks!"

[Ostrinski]

How did I glance over, see the thread was in OI, and know it was Elysian that said this?

[roy]

Many people believe so.

Who? :blink:

[MustCrushCapitalism]

Please tell me this is an April Fool's Joke.

[hatzel]

News just in: dying your hair is idealist!

What this thread should actually be called is "Elysian's attempts to justify his thinly-veiled bigotry against leftism?" or perhaps "Elysian's entire history of posts on this forum against common sense?" Unlike those questions, though, the answer for this thread is 'very obviously not.'

[Lilith]

Are you arguing biological essentialism as materialism?

To be perfectly frank, though, and ignoring the poor attempt at trolling by the original poster, it does seem that a lot of transgender folk do fall back on what are essentially biological determinist arguments. After all, the whole concept of being a woman trapped in a man's body, or vice versa, does seem to rely on certain notions of gender essentialism, does it not?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Marxists are supposed to accept material reality and then proceed from there. Does T contradict this? Trans folks exist, organize, articulate their social and political interests, and are oppressed... so they are materially real in society. Pretty simple.


To be perfectly frank, though, and ignoring the poor attempt at trolling by the original poster, it does seem that a lot of transgender folk do fall back on what are essentially biological determinist arguments. After all, the whole concept of being a woman trapped in a man's body, or vice versa, does seem to rely on certain notions of gender essentialism, does it not?

Yeah I agree with this on a level. While I have nothing but support for anyone identifying, expressing, or altering their body, in ways that make them feel more complete and happy, I also think that the idea of inherent gender differences to the extent that popular ideas of gender (men and from marz women from venus, etc) make them out to be is unconvincing.

But still regardless of the biological element or questions of inherent gender, socially this group exists in this society because of the way gender is constructed. They face oppression as a group and their demands are even thrown under the bus by mainstream gay rights organizations. Afterall, I also think race as we know it is a social construct, but that won't stop a cop from pulling someone over based on this construct, so immaterial concepts and ideas can still have a real-world and material impact.

[Elysian]

Let me explain. A transgender person feels he's a woman trapped in a man's body. His male body is a biological reality, whereas his view (that he is a woman) has no objective reality corresponding to it except for his 'feelings' ... and feelings are not evidence. He feels he's a woman and therefore he's a woman (even when biological reality points otherwise)?

[Positivist]

Let me explain. A transgender person feels he's a woman trapped in a man's body. His male body is a biological reality, whereas his view (that he is a woman) has no objective reality corresponding to it except for his 'feelings' ... and feelings are not evidence. He feels he's a woman and therefore he's a woman (even when biological reality points otherwise)?

The thing is feelings don't spontaneously generate. They come from the brain which very much does exist. So the feelings of a transgendered person do have a material basis, and a powerful one as the brain is the ultimate director of human activities.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Let me explain. A transgender person feels he's a woman trapped in a man's body. His male body is a biological reality, whereas his view (that he is a woman) has no objective reality corresponding to it except for his 'feelings' ... and feelings are not evidence. He feels he's a woman and therefore he's a woman (even when biological reality points otherwise)?

"Feelings" vs. biological evidence is besides the point in this case. If someone could feel this way and dress and present themselves as a different gender with no social consequence, then this would be an non-issue and nobody would really care. The material reality is quite different because the dominant ideology treats people according to this ideology's "feelings" about what is proper behavior and attitudes for specific gender roles and so people who do not fit neatly into these categories are materially impacted.

Being mistreated in prison because you are trans, being harassed or mistreated by medical facilities because you are trans or just identify with your non-birth gender, are all real effects of the way gender operates and is constructed in modern society.

[scarletghoul]

First of all, nothing that exists can be 'against materialism'.

Anyway .. Signifiers are material, and gender identity is a construct of the symbolic order, though it goes into the imaginary too.

Transexualism, resulting from the contradiction between the constructed gender identity and the anatomical sex, is then a contradiction between two things whose basis is material (though it does require the subject to adopt the gender roles as ideals). When people identify as transexual it would mean that the gender identity conquers the anatomical sex and changes it, rather than the other way around which is probably far more common- the contradictory gender identity being suppressed.

Transgenderism is a little different, but my general point about gender arising from material contradictions and being enforced by material signifiers is true for that too.

The subject is central here but completely grounded in material happenings

[Rafiq]

Let me explain. A transgender person feels he's a woman trapped in a man's body. His male body is a biological reality, whereas his view (that he is a woman) has no objective reality corresponding to it except for his 'feelings' ... and feelings are not evidence. He feels he's a woman and therefore he's a woman (even when biological reality points otherwise)?

I don't think having feelings disproves HM

[scarletghoul]

His male body is a biological reality,
Wrong; its only a 'male body' - with all the connotations that you want attached to the word 'male' - because society has designated it such. of course the willy etc are biologically there, but masculinity is more than that, isnt it. having a 'male body' is very much designated by society, and the fact that you presuppose it as completely biological shows that you need to look into where gender comes from a little bit more

whereas his view (that he is a woman) has no objective reality corresponding to it except for his 'feelings' ...
O rly ?? so these 'feelings' just drop from the sky for no apparent reason, an alien apparition soiling the purity of objective reality ? not the case bro. People identify with a particular gender for real reasons. most of the time its the one everyone tells them they are becuase of the signifier or lack of signifier between their legs, but occasionally it's not. Even so, there are still reasons for it. There are countless theories as to what reasons precisely; honestly i dont know. But the point is the gender identity has a basis in the material reality of our society.

[Revolution starts with U]

A little off topic but..

One time I wore a skirt OVER my pants AS A JOKE!.... and people still looked at me like I was a huge weirdo. The idea of gender is so deep, I still sometimes (tho I try not to, and apologize when I catch myself) joke with my friends that they "cry like a girl." I haven't for like 2months, but still..

People use "his" for any general story they tell as well. Gender runs as deep as the Marianas.

Idk what this really has to do with the discussion. I just want to point out (as someone who only came to realize it in the last 2 years) how ingrained gender is in society. As Scarlet above me pointed out; we even assume that certain sexes have to be certain genders, and that if someone goes against that, it's just a "feeling," not a biological drive they have.


@op; nothing can go against true materialism, if it really happens. That's what materialism is all about, saying that the things that happen... happen. If you heal the blind and raise the dead and walk on water, that is material phenomena, even if we don't have a material explanation.

[The Jay]

I'm not sure that you realize how illogical that view is. It's based upon the premise that there is some objective manner in which a male or female ought to act or feel when this is not the case whatsoever. Sexual preference, in my opinion, is mostly, even almost entirely, based upon their biology; therefore, blaming their biology for not fitting into an arbitrarily set cultural norm is silly. Does that clear it up a little?

[Elysian]

Thanks for the all responses. It has been so enlightening.

One doubt, though. Since there is no way to determine gender, what's stopping a person from changing his gender on a daily basis - male today, female tomorrow, male the day after tomorrow, and so on?

[Landsharks eat metal]

One doubt, though. Since there is no arbitrary way to determine gender, what's stopping a person from changing his gender on a daily basis - male today, female tomorrow, male the day after tomorrow, and so on?

Why would that need to be stopped? What's wrong with identifying as multiple genders? People like that exist, and it's ridiculous to say it's any more right or wrong than anybody else's identity.

[gorillafuck]

One doubt, though. Since there is no arbitrary way to determine gender, what's stopping a person from changing his gender on a daily basis - male today, female tomorrow, male the day after tomorrow, and so on?that person would be gender fluid.

and yeah, the existence of transgender people doesn't disprove the concept of material reality. I have no idea how that would work.

[Elysian]

that person would be gender fluid.

and yeah, the existence of transgender people doesn't disprove the concept of material reality. I have no idea how that would work.

Normally, if a person makes a claim, he has to provide evidence. If man claims to be a woman, where's his evidence?

[The Jay]

Normally, if a person makes a claim, he has to provide evidence. If man claims to be a woman, where's his evidence?

Prove that you like or dislike apples. You can't ask for evidence of a person's gender other than their word. In the future there may be evidence in the sense of brain patterns and hormones but we're not at that point. Just take people's word at face value in such a (currently) subjective matter.

[Sasha]

Normally, if a person makes a claim, he has to provide evidence. If man claims to be a woman, where's his evidence?

Why do they need to proof anything? Since we accept that people regardless of gender, sex, race, sexual preference etc etc. are equal why should we demand proof of any of these things.
And stop saying "his", its considerd offensive, a person who want to be identified as a women should be addressed in female or neutral language.

[NewLeft]

Normally, if a person makes a claim, he has to provide evidence. If man claims to be a woman, where's his evidence?
You are a man, correct? Where's your evidence that you're a man.

[Elysian]

You are a man, correct? Where's your evidence that you're a man.

Anatomy.

[Elysian]

Anyway, my only concern is this: a man, call him Mr. X, thinks he's Cesar. Another man, call him Mr. Z, thinks he's a woman.

How are the two cases different? Neither party can prove their claim, and if anything evidence (anatomy in the latter case) points in the opposite direction.

[NewLeft]

Anatomy.

if a person makes a claim, he has to provide evidence.
I don't see any evidence. ;)

[gorillafuck]

because gender is a social construct different from biological sex.

[Elysian]

I don't see any evidence. ;)

I just provided evidence - anatomy.

[Elysian]

because gender is a social construct different from biological sex.

So if a person claims to be Cesar, we must accept it as well?

[gorillafuck]

being Cesar is not a social construct. Cesar is a specific person, not an abstract concept like gender.

[Elysian]

being Cesar is not a social construct

How else can one determine male/female, if not through anatomy?

[gorillafuck]

How else can one determine male/female, if not through anatomy?sex and gender are two different things. one can have their biological sex be different from their gender, i.e. biologically female but male gendered.

[Elysian]

sex and gender are two different things. one can have their biological sex be different from their gender, i.e. biologically female but male gendered.

So does gender exist or not? If it exists, how is one to determine it? If it doesn't exist, how one can belong to any gender?

[gorillafuck]

gender doesn't physically exist but as a concept it exists. and someones gender is determined basically by what their brain tells them they are.

[Elysian]

gender doesn't physically exist but as a concept it exists. and someones gender is determined basically by what their brain tells them they are.

A black person could say he feels white, that's what his brain tells him. What then? Race is a social construct as well, so must he undergo surgery and become white?

[NewLeft]

A black person could say he feels white, that's what his brain tells him. What then? Race is a social construct as well, so must he undergo surgery and become white?
Whiteness is not simply appearance, it's your culture.

[gorillafuck]

A black person could say he feels white, that's what his brain tells him. What then? Race is a social construct as well, so must he undergo surgery and become white?that's a fair point. but the issue is that gender identity disorder is documented and known to be a very real thing, and I don't believe what you're talking about is, which I might guess is because races do not have complimentary (well, "complimentary") roles in society the same way that genders do.

[#FF0000]

A black person could say he feels white, that's what his brain tells him. What then? Race is a social construct as well, so must he undergo surgery and become white?

I wouldn't stop him.

I mean, this actually happens already, but uh, probably for very different reasons.

[Revolution starts with U]

Yes black people just feel black, regardless of the color of their skin.

1) Blackness only exists as a concept inside of a mind that can differentiate and identify; without mind there is no awareness and colors/differences are irrelevant.

2) Their skin is almost never black, but instead dark brown (Flava Flav anyone?). Did you mean to say brown people? Ok, they are brown. But that's merely a difference in tone, carrying none of the other differences which comes with being "black" in capitalist society.

[The Jay]

Elysian, you ignored my argument. I don't think that you can counter it.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

After all, the whole concept of being a woman trapped in a man's body, or vice versa, does seem to rely on certain notions of gender essentialism, does it not?
The whole "x trapped in a y body" is such a quaint concept of being trans.

[Lilith]

Could you elaborate?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

So does gender exist or not?
I believe gender does exist, even if a large part of it is a social construct. What's wrong is our society, which operates on the concept of a gender binary, and has traditionally had rigid rules for each gender.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Could you elaborate?
You're using an outdated concept of being trans that was derived from medical gatekeepers needing to pathologize it as "gender dysphoria," a concept that doesn't match how many transpeople experience their gender.

[Lilith]

Wait, so if it isn't the case that transpeople feel that their gender doesn't correspond with their biological sex, then why do many seek sex change operations?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Wait, so if it isn't the case that transpeople feel that their gender doesn't correspond with their biological sex, then why do many seek sex change operations?
I never said transpeople don't "feel that their gender doesn't correspond with their biological sex," I said the specific formulation of "x being trapped in a y body" isn't necessarily the case.

[Thug Lessons]

Normally, if a person makes a claim, he has to provide evidence. If man claims to be a woman, where's his evidence?

It's a statement of identity. If you demand evidence in a case like this, it's akin to demanding evidence that someone is a Christian.

[Thug Lessons]

Anyway, my only concern is this: a man, call him Mr. X, thinks he's Cesar. Another man, call him Mr. Z, thinks he's a woman.

How are the two cases different? Neither party can prove their claim, and if anything evidence (anatomy in the latter case) points in the opposite direction.

That not a very good argument because no one can give evidence in these cases. The real Caesar wouldn't have any more evidence to support the claim that he's Caesar than the mental patient. Identities are decided by social consensus, not by inherent property.

[Thug Lessons]

People change identities all the time. They move from one political or religious affiliation to another, they immigrate to new countries and become e.g. an American instead of an Italian, they even change their names. If a judge is willing to grant your request, you can literally become Julius Gaius Caesar. I don't see any reason claims of gender identity should be treated differently.

[Luís Henrique]

First of all, nothing that exists can be 'against materialism'.

So religion and idealist philosophy do not exist?

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

that's a fair point. but the issue is that gender identity disorder is documented and known to be a very real thing, and I don't believe what you're talking about is, which I might guess is because races do not have complimentary (well, "complimentary") roles in society the same way that genders do.

But is it a disorder? Why?

And how are genders complementary? Sexes certainly are, but genders? Are there only two genders? Why? And why should genders relate to sex? And in what way, if any, they do?

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

I believe gender does exist, even if a large part of it is a social construct.

I wonder how being a social construct would be in any way contrary to existing.


What's wrong is our society, which operates on the concept of a gender binary, and has traditionally had rigid rules for each gender.

Or are genders simply those rules?

Luís Henrique

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Does anyone here believe it is impossible for a person to have a genuine commitment to changing their sex?

I think it is merely a question of autonomy, not materialism.

[Revolution starts with U]

So religion and idealist philosophy do not exist?

Luís Henrique

Does the existence of them contradict materialism?

[Luís Henrique]

Does the existence of them contradict materialism?

At very least it shows that materialism is not obvious.

But they certainly contradict materialism, even if their existence doesn't, and they are against materialism, which was the contention.

Luís Henrique

[Sasha]

So, if a man puts on a dress and says, "I now identify as woman," from that point on, the person is a woman? Seriously? Surely that cannot be. Or have I misunderstood something?

Are you of the opinion that there should be any legal, social, economic, political or any other difference in rights or duties between men or women?
I can't think of any so why should there be a problem with that?
Left alone that I want to abolish all codified law I see no reason why even liberal capitalist law should not even be gender/race/etc neutral (and in fact almost all is already).
In a ideal world I would even want to do away with the whole concept of male/female but I understand that would be hard but I have yet to see a argument why there should be any legal or social hurdle between identifying as male one day, female the next and neutral the day after that. Except maybe sports but even there I think the difference should in general be weight classes and not male/female. You know why women are considerd worse at basketball than men? Because they tested it in intersex games the reactionarys will say. What they won't tell you is that professional woman basketball is played with a lighter ball for some ridiculous reason and during the intersex games in question they used of course the male standard. Chance it around and the women will kick the mens but. I have a ton of examples like that.

Long story short:
It's like the opening sentences from startrek that went from "where no man has gone before" to "no human has gone before" to eventually "no one has gone before".
It's a thing called progress, I believe leftists strife for it.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Are there only two genders?
Some societies have traditionally recognized more than two genders. IIRC, there was a First Nations tribe in the Pacific Northwest which traditionally recognized eight genders.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Or are genders simply those rules?
Possibly, and to a certain degree.

[Luís Henrique]

Some societies have traditionally recognized more than two genders. IIRC, there was a First Nations tribe in the Pacific Northwest which traditionally recognized eight genders.

Was that a better arrangement? Is having eight different sets of rigid rules better than having just two different sets?

And how did those eight genders relate to the two biological sexes, if at all? Could people change their gender, if they so wished? Was it possible that someone was socially labeled as a member of one gender, but felt as really pertaining to one of the other seven? Or as not belonging to any of them?

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Possibly, and to a certain degree.

In which case, the point should be the abolition of genders, shouldn't it?

Luís Henrique

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

In which case, the point should be the abolition of genders, shouldn't it?

Why? No doubt that concepts of gender should be carefully examined, but abolished?

[black magick hustla]

I think "sex" and "gender" are both historically contingent anyway. I don't think the difference between men and women is as biologically clearcut, there are also levels of testosterone, estrogen, how some men have more "feminine" qualities due to physical features, some women have big clits, etc.

[Luís Henrique]

Why? No doubt that concepts of gender should be carefully examined, but abolished?

What use should we have for arbirtrary and rigid rules that dictate our behaviour?

Luís Henrique

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Was that a better arrangement? Is having eight different sets of rigid rules better than having just two different sets?
I guess it would depend if one fell into one of the six additional categories or not. It allowed for more diversity, certainly, but was it enough? Possibly not.


And how did those eight genders relate to the two biological sexes, if at all?
It's been a couple decades since I read about this, but I recall there were four genders for each biological sex.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

In which case, the point should be the abolition of genders, shouldn't it?
The socially constructed part of gender, certainly, but I'm not convinced gender is entirely a social construct.

[Thug Lessons]

The socially constructed part of gender, certainly, but I'm not convinced gender is entirely a social construct.
Hmm. Perhaps it isn't, perhaps it is. My own intuition is that, when you peel everything away there won't be any definitive biological feature to point to and say, "There it is! Gender!". But that said, this is only an intuition, and the science simply isn't there to support either strong social constructivism or evopsych explanations.

[Luís Henrique]

I guess it would depend if one fell into one of the six additional categories or not. It allowed for more diversity, certainly, but was it enough? Possibly not.

But were they "additional" genders, meaning that two of them were similar to our own "Western" or "Judeo-Greek" genders?


It's been a couple decades since I read about this, but I recall there were four genders for each biological sex.Ah, so I suppose it was not the case that any of these genders had people from both biological sexes?

How did these genders interacted with reproduction? If, for instance, members of one of the masculine genders could only legitimately mate members of one of the feminine genders, then this order seems to be potentially more, and not less, oppressive than our own. Plus, how were people lumped into these genders? Was gender hereditary?

And what was the social status of these genders? Were they all equal, or (as I suspect) some were privileged while others were underprivileged?

Luís Henrique

[eyeheartlenin]

...I have yet to see a argument why there should be any legal or social hurdle between identifying as male one day, female the next and neutral the day after that...

I would have thought that materialism included some kind of commitment to objective reality, rather than fantasy.

Apparently not.

And I would be fascinated to know what "...male one day, female the next, and neutral the day after that," has to do with class struggle or the proletariat.

The challenges and oppression faced by lesbians and gay men are real, but what this thread is talking about, is something else, I think.

I just cannot understand how straight guys who wanna wear dresses part-time (are straight guys really oppressed?), constitutes any part of Marxism or the class struggle. With respect, it just all seems so a-political.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I would have thought that materialism included some kind of commitment to objective reality, rather than fantasy.
Is a binary gender system "objective reality"?


The challenges and oppression faced by lesbians and gay men are real, but what this thread is talking about, is something else, I think.
But the challenges and oppression faced by trans people aren't real? I beg to differ. Trans people are the most oppressed group under the LGBT banner.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

And what was the social status of these genders? Were they all equal, or (as I suspect) some were privileged while others were underprivileged?
I really need to find my notes from back then, because you have raised some really excellent questions which I'm unable to answer.

[Sasha]

I would have thought that materialism included some kind of commitment to objective reality, rather than fantasy.

Apparently not.

And I would be fascinated to know what "...male one day, female the next, and neutral the day after that," has to do with class struggle or the proletariat.

The challenges and oppression faced by lesbians and gay men are real, but what this thread is talking about, is something else, I think.

I just cannot understand how straight guys who wanna wear dresses part-time (are straight guys really oppressed?), constitutes any part of Marxism or the class struggle. With respect, it just all seems so a-political.

I agree, it should be a personal choice free of politics. But (white male) politicians keep on politicising it. Case in point, a trans person here wanted to change the name and gender on their university proof of graduation. This was not allowed. Give me one good reason why that shouldn't be allowed if they already legally changed their name and gender.

[Ned Kelly]

I just came across this and this may be the dumbest thread topic I have ever encountered, kudos.

[Luís Henrique]

Hmm. Perhaps it isn't, perhaps it is. My own intuition is that, when you peel everything away there won't be any definitive biological feature to point to and say, "There it is! Gender!". But that said, this is only an intuition, and the science simply isn't there to support either strong social constructivism or evopsych explanations.

My feeling is that there are some definitive biological features one could point and say "There it is! Gender!" But also, that, on a closer look, such "definitive biological features" of gender are no more than just biological sex.

In other words, I think that there are two different levels: biological sex, and social sexual roles. And that the attempt to intersect a third different level, that of "gender" can only lead to either a psychologisation of sex or (much, much more probably), to a naturalisation of oppressive sexual roles.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

...I have yet to see a argument why there should be any legal or social hurdle between identifying as male one day, female the next and neutral the day after that...
I would have thought that materialism included some kind of commitment to objective reality, rather than fantasy.

Apparently not.

And I would be fascinated to know what "...male one day, female the next, and neutral the day after that," has to do with class struggle or the proletariat.

The challenges and oppression faced by lesbians and gay men are real, but what this thread is talking about, is something else, I think.

I just cannot understand how straight guys who wanna wear dresses part-time (are straight guys really oppressed?), constitutes any part of Marxism or the class struggle. With respect, it just all seems so a-political.


But the challenges and oppression faced by trans people aren't real? I beg to differ. Trans people are the most oppressed group under the LGBT banner.

Well, what psycho is talking about is certainly a very different thing than transexuality. Indeed, it is almost the opposite of transexuality: transexuals are people who very strongly identify with one of the biological sexes (or the sexual roles attributed to it), so much that living under the identity of their own biological (and "mistaken) sex is a major source of suffering. People who would like to have different sexual identities each day may be oppressed, but their approach to sexual identities is quite different from that of transexuals.

(Indeed, if I were a transexual, I would probably hold a quite dim view of these people; they would seem to downgrade my own serious trouble into a matter of nonchalance, and somewhat legitimate eyeheartlenin's reaction.)

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Case in point, a trans person here wanted to change the name and gender on their university proof of graduation. This was not allowed. Give me one good reason why that shouldn't be allowed if they already legally changed their name and gender.

In fact, it is clearly disruptive of the legal system. And I hope the courts will tell them that as soon as possible.

Luís Henrique

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Indeed, if I were a transexual, I would probably hold a quite dim view of these people; they would seem to downgrade my own serious trouble into a matter of nonchalance, and somewhat legitimate eyeheartlenin's reaction.
Well, I am a transwoman, and I have no problem whose those whose gender is mutable. I also reject how being trans has been pathologized, and "my own serious trouble" results from living in a gender binary system where biological sex and gender must be congruous, which is also true for those whose gender is mutable.

One of the problems in the broader T community is that some post-op transpeople look down on pre-op or non-op transpeople, and some post-ops, pre-ops, and non-ops look down on non-transsexual T people. All this does is enforce the gender binary, and divides those with a vested interest in smashing it.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

What use should we have for arbirtrary and rigid rules that dictate our behaviour?

Why should gender concepts necessarily be "arbitrary and rigid rules" as opposed to something more amenable to individual circumstances?

I'm also curious as to you think we should proceed in challenging current conceptions of gender, beyond the obvious of course.

I'm more inclined to think that as long as nobody gets hurt when transgressing "arbitrary and rigid rules that dictate our behaviour", one's gender is whatever one wants it to be.

[Luís Henrique]

Well, I am a transwoman, and I have no problem whose those whose gender is mutable. I also reject how being trans has been pathologized, and "my own serious trouble" results from living in a gender binary system where biological sex and gender must be congruous, which is also true for those whose gender is mutable.

Well, there are people who like the contradiction between biological sex and "gender", and they are a quite diverse lot, for "genders" are quite exaustive lists of how people should be, in relation to their biological sex. They prescribe nearly everything, from what kind of people you should be attracted to, to whether you should have a job or instead stay at home and take care of kids, etc.


One of the problems in the broader T community is that some post-op transpeople look down on pre-op or non-op transpeople, and some post-ops, pre-ops, and non-ops look down on non-transsexual T people. All this does is enforce the gender binary, and divides those with a vested interest in smashing it.

It reinforces the "gender binary" by proposing an infinite multiplication of "genders", ie, of oppressive sets of invasive prescriptions on human sexuality (and beyond sexuality indeed). That's why I argue the point is the abolition of such prescriptions, ie, the abolition of "genders".

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Why should gender concepts necessarily be "arbitrary and rigid rules" as opposed to something more amenable to individual circumstances?

I'm also curious as to you think we should proceed in challenging current conceptions of gender, beyond the obvious of course.

I'm more inclined to think that as long as nobody gets hurt when transgressing "arbitrary and rigid rules that dictate our behaviour", one's gender is whatever one wants it to be.

But the point of arbitrary and rigid rules of behaviour is exactly to hurt people when they transgress them. You actually cannot enjoy a free sexual life while the rest of mankind is busy trying to pigeon-hole you into an acceptable category, and it doesn't matter whether the acceptable categories are two or seven hundred-fifty eight.

Luís Henrique