Transgenderism - educate me

[Alonso Quijano]

SORRY IF THIS OFFENDS ANYONE
(I'm truly seeking answers, and if my wording seems insensitive you, let me know)

So, I'm a male. I consider myself as such purely because of my biology. Whether I act as a man or not, I am still a man. As I see it. I am aware that I can be judged as feminine by people, but that doesn't change my identity. I don't see how I can be a female without being biologically one, and I don't see what good it would do me, honestly.

The thing is, honestly, and I know it might sound very bigotted: I simply don't understand transsexual people. I don't judge them, I just don't understand them. I kind of have a problem with the point of view that you have some gender role, and that if you act as opposed to what society tell you - that means you should have another set of genitalia.

But I also reject the label "cisgendered". I have at many times felt different from most males, and have identified more with women. So what? That doesn't make me a female. And what about my "masculine" characteristics? Should I abandon them?

My question is: Why should a person choose a gender (other than their biological sex) to begin with?

I've heard from male-born trans people that they "don't feel male", for example. Yeah, so? What does it even mean, "to feel male"? I have always admired femininity as it is usually defined. But will a transition really make a woman? Will it make me understand what being a woman in today's world is? How can someone born a man, who struggles to be accepted as a woman, understand the struggles of women at all?

As feminine as I may seem, I don't know what it's like to be afraid to walk in the dark as my female friends tell me. I don't know what it's like to be harrassed everytime I want to go out. I don't know what it's to try and be creative and hear comments about my boobs, while a male artists gets more serious criticism not referring to his looks. I don't know what it's like to feel less of a woman if my breasts don't grow when I'm 17. I don't know what it's like to be shoved an artifical image of beauty down my throat.

That being said, obviously everyone's free to do what they want. I'm against discrimination towards any group of people, definitely against violence and hatred - but that's also why I don't think of transwomen as "real women", and of transmen as "real men", as transphobic as it may sound, and I do apologise if anyone is hurt.

But I don't see how wearing skirts or make up, or how having an operation, makes you a woman. You can't "switch sides". You can't become a woman when you're 40, having undergone nothing that women have to go through. I've sometimes wanted to be a woman. But I never thought I was, in any way. You can't be "a woman trapped in a man's body". I didn't shop for my first bra, I never had my period - and never had to worry does it make me less of woman if it doesn't come - there's a difference between wanting to be a woman and being a woman.

I'm in favour of breaking that gender binary line. But when Iggy Pop dressed up as a woman and said it isn't shameful because there's nothing shameful about being a woman - that was my favourite thing in the history of cross-dressing.

Also, to make it clear: I think it can be supercool to walk out dressed like a woman should dress (according to Vogue magazine, that is...) when you're a man. I just don't think you actually defy the gender roles by "switching" to the other role.

My question is: I've been described feminine in my behaviour. Why should my identity revolve around that, instead of just accepting that some people see it weird, and rejecting the notion the I have to behave somehow?

[Oenomaus]

First of all, the term "trangenderism" is problematic in the sense that it presents transgender people as adherents of some sort of explicit political ideology (similarly to how "socialist" bigots used to talk about "homosexualism", the alleged bourgeois misogynist ideology).

That social gender and biological sex are separate is an empirical fact - complex gender expression is something that has a rich history. This does not mean that you must adopt a particular gender expression, of course. I don't see what there is to "get" about complex gender expressions - people are happier in another preformative social role, and take it up instead of the one people assign to them based on their genitalia.

Nor do all women have the same sort of experience - are women who have never shopped for a bra somehow less women?

Of course, to communists the important thing is material violence against transgendered and transsexual people, and how it is connected to the conditions of the reproduction of the proletariat, the traditional family unit etc.

[Alonso Quijano]

First of all, the term "trangenderism" is problematic in the sense that it presents transgender people as adherents of some sort of explicit political ideology (similarly to how "socialist" bigots used to talk about "homosexualism", the alleged bourgeois misogynist ideology).
Point taken. However I don't present transgender people as adherents of an ideology, rather people who believe in gender identity that's different to a biological one, to follow some lines that I challenge.
Basically, what "transgenderism" means to me is the belief that:
1. You are born biologically male/female.
2. You have a mental state that is male/female, which is not dependent on your body.
3. If you don't fit your supposed gender-role - that means you were born with the wrong genitalia.


That social gender and biological sex are separate is an empirical fact - complex gender expression is something that has a rich history. This does not mean that you must adopt a particular gender expression, of course. I don't see what there is to "get" about complex gender expressions - people are happier in another preformative social role, and take it up instead of the one people assign to them based on their genitalia.
But social gender is a social invention, as evident in the term itself, and it does have its roots in biological sex. If social gender has nothing to do with biological sex, why sex-change? Why identifying with a group that's already defined by its anatomy?

I have a problem with this gender discourse thing because it forces me to choose an identity I don't feel a part of. It almost ignores my choice not to choose. What's more, it blames me for not saying trassexual people as "real men" or "real women" for not accepting their definiton of male/female.


Nor do all women have the same sort of experience - are women who have never shopped for a bra somehow less women?
No, not at all, but if you notice what I wrote earlier:

I didn't shop for my first bra, I never had my period - and never had to worry does it make me less of woman if it doesn't come


Of course, to communists the important thing is material violence against transgendered and transsexual people, and how it is connected to the conditions of the reproduction of the proletariat, the traditional family unit etc.
Definitely, then when talking about the traditional family unit we force people to take up identities that don't truly matter in a communist society.

The issue should be gender roles, in my opinion. You can't solve violence towards men who identify as women before you solve violence towards women, and before you solve the problem of men not being allowed of acting "feminine". If a feminine acting men have to choose a different identity, that's a symptom of the problem, not a solution.

Also, is this gender identity really important in our daily lives? Is that what defines us? Not politics, taste in music, humour, work, interests? What I don't get is the need to create new identities instead of just ignoring the old ones, and fighting discrimination where you see it. I don't see any reason to adopt a new gender identity.

[Quail]

Have you ever read any articles written by transgender people? It might help you to understand how they feel if you read something from their perspective. I can't think of anything to recommend off the top of my head, but I try to read articles written from a variety of perspectives.


Basically, what "transgenderism" means to me is the belief that:
1. You are born biologically male/female.
2. You have a mental state that is male/female, which is not dependent on your body.
3. If you don't fit your supposed gender-role - that means you were born with the wrong genitalia.
I don't think this is correct. First, there isn't a total male/female binary when people are born - many people are born with chromosomes other that XY/XX, and many people are born with genitalia that don't fit neatly into "male/female." Secondly, there is evidence (http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/01/26/scans-show-difference-in-transgender-brains/) that transgender people have a different brain structure to other people who were born as male/female (meaning a transgender person would have a brain structure associated more with their gender identity than their biological sex). Also, it's not as simple as not fitting into a gender role. There are masculine people and feminine people but that's not necessarily related to their gender identity.
I like this diagram:
http://itspronouncedmetrosexual.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Genderbread-2.1.jpg

[Alonso Quijano]

I have read, Quail, and that haven't convinced me. You're more than welcome to recommend me reading material.

I personally think that my brain structure is feminine if there is such. I just refuse to accept it as identity. I think my brain structure is female, if it's possible. Still, that doesn't change me being male. And I don't want to adopt a trans identity, because having a female brain might have helped my identity shape up, but it isn't my identity.

The thing is, I can probably fit into the "female born as male" category. But how does this identity help me? I am born with my genitalia and my body. Changing it wouldn't help me.

I don't want to be accepted as a female, I want to be accepted as a human being.

Thank you for your response.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

[Oenomaus]

Point taken. However I don't present transgender people as adherents of an ideology, rather people who believe in gender identity that's different to a biological one, to follow some lines that I challenge.

Basically, what "transgenderism" means to me is the belief that:
1. You are born biologically male/female.
2. You have a mental state that is male/female, which is not dependent on your body.
3. If you don't fit your supposed gender-role - that means you were born with the wrong genitalia.

Not all transgender individuals believe this; in fact, I think these notions of "men trapped in women's bodies" and vice versa are tantamount to attempts to pathologise transgender individuals.


But social gender is a social invention, as evident in the term itself, and it does have its roots in biological sex.

"Social invention" makes it sound like gender is somehow nonexistent - but obviously it's an actual, existing social reality. Something being social does not make it unreal.


If social gender has nothing to do with biological sex, why sex-change? Why identifying with a group that's already defined by its anatomy?

A complex gender identity is not the same as transsexuality - individuals can be perfectly happy as biologically male women, for example. But if someone would be happier with another set of gonads, why not?


I have a problem with this gender discourse thing because it forces me to choose an identity I don't feel a part of. It almost ignores my choice not to choose.

How does the existence of a transgender identity "force" you to choose anything?


What's more, it blames me for not saying trassexual people as "real men" or "real women" for not accepting their definiton of male/female.

With due respect, you are to blame because you do not accept the preformative role someone has assigned to themselves, with spurious reasons (gender has never been identical to sex in most societies). It is, at the very least, dismissive.


Definitely, then when talking about the traditional family unit we force people to take up identities that don't truly matter in a communist society.

The issue should be gender roles, in my opinion. You can't solve violence towards men who identify as women before you solve violence towards women, and before you solve the problem of men not being allowed of acting "feminine". If a feminine acting men have to choose a different identity, that's a symptom of the problem, not a solution.

They don't have to choose "a different identity". There are plenty of "feminine" males who nonetheless chose to identify as men. Conversely, biological males who identify as women do not need to be "effeminate".


Also, is this gender identity really important in our daily lives? Is that what defines us? Not politics, taste in music, humour, work, interests? What I don't get is the need to create new identities instead of just ignoring the old ones, and fighting discrimination where you see it. I don't see any reason to adopt a new gender identity.

Then don't. No one is forcing you to do so. And people don't really get to choose what defines them. Society does that for them. As long as transgendered and transsexual people are subjected to systematic violence, their identity as trans* people will be more important than "humour, work, interests" in a political sense.

[Landsharks eat metal]

I personally don't really see what you're worried about. You seem to be just fine with your birth sex. Personally, I was born female and identify as male. My body causes me great distress, as does the way it causes me to be perceived. I have thought of killing myself over it. Some days when I wake up I forget that my body is the way it is and I start freaking out because I have the wrong parts. I am a transgender male [not that I'm saying all trans people have to have the same sort of feelings about themselves or anything]. However, I'm not particularly masculine, but that doesn't make me less of a man. True, my socialization is different than most men, but it's not your experience that decides identity [even though it can contribute, I guess].

People seem to think that masculine=man and feminine=woman, all the time, even people in the trans community. That leads to some people feeling pressured to identify as trans because they don't perfectly fit gender roles, which seems pretty regressive to me. I've seen girls claim to be genderqueer only because they don't like skirts and makeup, and we're somehow still telling them that all girls should be into that sort of thing. Non-binary identities do exist, but it's not really a case of being not masculine enough to be a man or feminine enough to be a woman.

In regards to your not feeling the need to identify as a gender, I have actually heard that a lot from cisgender people I talk to. Some of them don't understand the feelings I've had because they've never had to fight to be recognized for who they are, and they've never had the feeling of being so uncomfortable with themselves and what everyone expects them to be, at least not in the same sense as I have. But these people, if asked in a group of people to divide up by men and women, would not hesitate to go to the group that matches their birth sex. Some cis people in my life seem to think that I walk around constantly thinking nothing but I'm a man and because they don't think about it that much, I must not think they're really the gender they are or something like that.

But really. You seem fine not identifying as female so don't. And fuck anyone who tries to push you into being something you're not.

[Art Vandelay]

I personally think that my brain structure is feminine if there is such. I just refuse to accept it as identity. I think my brain structure is female, if it's possible. Still, that doesn't change me being male. And I don't want to adopt a trans identity, because having a female brain might have helped my identity shape up, but it isn't my identity.

If you choosing to identify as male/female/whatever works for you, then more power to you; in that same vein, if someone chooses to identify as a gender which is different from their biological one, then that's what they should do. Its really no one else's business and they don't have to justify their identification as male/female/whatever to anyone else.


The thing is, I can probably fit into the "female born as male" category. But how does this identity help me? I am born with my genitalia and my body. Changing it wouldn't help me.

Perhaps it wouldn't. Its not something I've ever gone through, so I really have no idea. What I do know, is that it helps alot of other people.


I don't want to be accepted as a female, I want to be accepted as a human being.

As does everyone else and accepting/respecting someone as a human being, inherently includes accepting/respecting their gender identification.


In regards to your not feeling the need to identify as a gender, I have actually heard that a lot from cisgender people I talk to.

That's actually really weird you mentioned that, cause that was something that I was thinking about the other day, the fact that I've never really conceived of myself as male. I know that probably sounds weird, but I've never really considered myself male, despite knowing that I am one and not identifying as anything else. I guess I just conceive of myself as 'mr.populi' and don't attach any gender roles to that.

[Alonso Quijano]

Not all transgender individuals believe this; in fact, I think these notions of "men trapped in women's bodies" and vice versa are tantamount to attempts to pathologise transgender individuals.



"Social invention" makes it sound like gender is somehow nonexistent - but obviously it's an actual, existing social reality. Something being social does not make it unreal.



A complex gender identity is not the same as transsexuality - individuals can be perfectly happy as biologically male women, for example. But if someone would be happier with another set of gonads, why not?



How does the existence of a transgender identity "force" you to choose anything?



With due respect, you are to blame because you do not accept the preformative role someone has assigned to themselves, with spurious reasons (gender has never been identical to sex in most societies). It is, at the very least, dismissive.



They don't have to choose "a different identity". There are plenty of "feminine" males who nonetheless chose to identify as men. Conversely, biological males who identify as women do not need to be "effeminate".




Then don't. No one is forcing you to do so. And people don't really get to choose what defines them. Society does that for them. As long as transgendered and transsexdxual people are subjected to systematic violence, their identity as trans* people will be more important than "humour, work, interests" in a political sense.
Now saying people who aren't masculine should be transfer redersd to me as whele...

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

[Landsharks eat metal]

Now saying people who aren't masculine should be transfer redersd to me as whele...

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

What does this mean??

[Sabot Cat]

Goodness, there's a lot of concepts to unpack here.


SORRY IF THIS OFFENDS ANYONE
(I'm truly seeking answers, and if my wording seems insensitive you, let me know)

I appreciate this disclaimer and your civil tone, for what it's worth.


So, I'm a male. I consider myself as such purely because of my biology.

Or rather, because of cultural classification systems based upon certain biological features.


Whether I act as a man or not, I am still a man. As I see it. I am aware that I can be judged as feminine by people, but that doesn't change my identity.

This is true, and I don't think concepts like "feminine" or "masculine" are especially descriptive or helpful, as one can surmise little about the behavior of two groups of 3.5 billion people.



I don't see how I can be a female without being biologically one, and I don't see what good it would do me, honestly.


Again, there is the concept of "biology". The brain is a part of the body, and mental states are physical; I believe you're conceptions of these matters are distorted by the specter of Cartesian dualism.


The thing is, honestly, and I know it might sound very bigotted: I simply don't understand transsexual people. I don't judge them, I just don't understand them. I kind of have a problem with the point of view that you have some gender role, and that if you act as opposed to what society tell you - that means you should have another set of genitalia.

(1) There is a distinction between gender roles, which are conceptualizations of self that are dependent on gender and pertain broadly to life in largely negative ways due to our patriarchal society, and gender, which is a system of affiliation that can be minimally based on distinctive cultural symbols.
(2) Not all trans people say the one must change ones genitalia to be a certain gender. I would argue vehemently against such views if they were presented to me.


But I also reject the label "cisgendered". I have at many times felt different from most males, and have identified more with women. So what? That doesn't make me a female. And what about my "masculine" characteristics? Should I abandon them?

Cisgender simply means that you affiliate with the gender that you were assigned to at birth. Nothing more, nothing less.


My question is: Why should a person choose a gender (other than their biological sex) to begin with?

Herein lies the critical flaw of your argument. Trans people don't "chose" to be trans, they have something known as "gender dysphoria". Gender dysphoria is when you are depressed, too often to the point of suicide, because the gender everyone thinks you are isn't what you feel yourself to be. The best remedy for gender dysphoria is for the trans person to present themselves as the gender they affiliate with, whilst receiving acceptance as that gender by others.



I've heard from male-born trans people that they "don't feel male", for example. Yeah, so? What does it even mean, "to feel male"? I have always admired femininity as it is usually defined.


Because you asked, and I apologize for being extremely personal here: it means that every time I realize that other people conceive of me as male, and maybe always will, I sometimes wish to stop existing. I just want to stop living entirely, because I can't bare the thought that people can be so wrong about who I am. But then I realize that if I were to die now, people would be mourning someone I never was, and then I reach a whole other level of fucked up and sad.


But will a transition really make a woman?

No, affiliation does, because gender is a system of affiliation.


Will it make me understand what being a woman in today's world is? How can someone born a man, who struggles to be accepted as a woman, understand the struggles of women at all?

Aside from empathy and research, being a woman makes you understand the struggles of women. Even if you don't feel trans women are women, they may be commonly treated as women and thus have first-hand experiences about being that gender.


As feminine as I may seem, I don't know what it's like to be afraid to walk in the dark as my female friends tell me. I don't know what it's like to be harrassed everytime I want to go out. I don't know what it's to try and be creative and hear comments about my boobs, while a male artists gets more serious criticism not referring to his looks. I don't know what it's like to feel less of a woman if my breasts don't grow when I'm 17. I don't know what it's like to be shoved an artifical image of beauty down my throat.

I would wager that a greater portion of trans people are more aware of this than cis people (especially cis men), which is the privilege that you are enjoying here in not knowing what all of this is like.


That being said, obviously everyone's free to do what they want. I'm against discrimination towards any group of people, definitely against violence and hatred - but that's also why I don't think of transwomen as "real women", and of transmen as "real men", as transphobic as it may sound, and I do apologise if anyone is hurt.


It's alright I guess.


But I don't see how wearing skirts or make up, or how having an operation, makes you a woman.

It doesn't; if wearing skirts and make up was something that most men did, it would be something of a symbol of affiliation for maleness, and I would thus avoid those. But one is what one affiliates as, because there is no "deeper" system of classification than the one people use in every day life, that disregards the properties of a naked body in favor of the symbols before them.


You can't "switch sides". You can't become a woman when you're 40, having undergone nothing that women have to go through.

You're entirely correct, because trans women were essentially always women.


I've sometimes wanted to be a woman. But I never thought I was, in any way. You can't be "a woman trapped in a man's body". I didn't shop for my first bra, I never had my period - and never had to worry does it make me less of woman if it doesn't come - there's a difference between wanting to be a woman and being a woman.

So you're saying that we classify genders based on the aggregate of their life experiences? In every day life, do you quiz people about their periods and their bra buying experiences, or do you take notice of what gender they're visually affiliating with and then use that as a basis for your assessment?


I'm in favour of breaking that gender binary line. But when Iggy Pop dressed up as a woman and said it isn't shameful because there's nothing shameful about being a woman - that was my favourite thing in the history of cross-dressing.

Also, to make it clear: I think it can be supercool to walk out dressed like a woman should dress (according to Vogue magazine, that is...) when you're a man. I just don't think you actually defy the gender roles by "switching" to the other role.


It's not about "defying" gender roles. It's not about being "trendy", or acting as a vehicle of political protest. It's about mitigating depression, and preventing one's own suicide (in the United States, there's a reported 41% attempted suicide rate among trans people (http://transequality.org/PDFs/Executive_Summary.pdf)).


My question is: I've been described feminine in my behaviour. Why should my identity revolve around that, instead of just accepting that some people see it weird, and rejecting the notion the I have to behave somehow?

In fear of being blunt I can only say that the answer is "Because gender doesn't work like that."


That's actually really weird you mentioned that, cause that was something that I was thinking about the other day, the fact that I've never really conceived of myself as male. I know that probably sounds weird, but I've never really considered myself male, despite knowing that I am one and not identifying as anything else. I guess I just conceive of myself as 'mr.populi' and don't attach any gender roles to that.


Cis people have genders, they just don't have to suffer for or because of them quite as much as most trans people, and sometimes they can remain blissfully ignorant of them on a personal identification level (though they're likely to recognize the institutional and cultural implications). To use a cliched and imperfect example, I'm white. I don't "feel" white, and I hardly notice my race at all. That's because I don't have to notice it.


Basically, what "transgenderism" means to me is the belief that:
1. You are born biologically male/female.
2. You have a mental state that is male/female, which is not dependent on your body.
3. If you don't fit your supposed gender-role - that means you were born with the wrong genitalia.

I don't believe you represent the philosophy of gender as commonly held by trans people very accurately.

Disputes with premises one and two:
(A)Mental states are dependent on one's brain.
(B)Brains are biological in nature, as they are a part of one's body.
(C)Thus the dichotomy between "biologically" male/female and "mental state of" male/female is false.

Disputes with premise three:
(A)Gender roles isn't the most salient feature of defining a person as trans; it's one's reactions to one's birth-affiliation gender affiliation as perceived by others that defines gender dysphoria.
(B)The importance genitalia is forced into the picture here, and is indicative of a classification system based on expedience that excludes trans people.



But how does this identity help me? I am born with my genitalia and my body. Changing it wouldn't help me.

A brain is a part of your body, Descartes was a shoddy philosopher, dualism is counter to common sense, etc. etc.


I don't want to be accepted as a female, I want to be accepted as a human being.


All females are human beings obviously, so you would be accepted as one either way. Aside from that, if you don't have gender dysphoria or any wish to affiliate with a gender that you weren't assigned to a birth, then you are a cis person.

[BIXX]

Now saying people who aren't masculine should be transfer redersd to me as whele...

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

Wat

On a more serious note, in a post-revolutionary world where gender roles do not exist, i.e. no gender is expected to act a certain way, do you gender will exist? Or will it's form have changed? Furthermore, what do you think the role of sex changes will be? Do you think the idea of gender will have transferred to be more based in what genitalia you have, but still changeable through sex changes?

I have a hard time conceptualizing gender in a post-gender role world, so could someone who is more informed on the matter explain it to me?

I personally spend a lot of time wondering about gender, and since I've been more in contact with the queer community, I've wondered how someone would realize what they identify as. I wondered if it was more based in the fact that they didn't feel like they fit I to the gender roles prescribed to them (like me) or if it was something deeper, which lead to me wondering if maybe I would one day "realize" (I don't know a better term) that I was not a man.

The answer I've received from a poster on this board is that it is something deeper. Which makes sense. I don't know. I feel guilty, often, for having these questions.

To the OP: you seem to be trying to delegitimize genderqueer folks' identity. But maybe that is just me. But I'd recommend that you stop trying to advocate that "seeing as you don't feel the need to identify specifically as anything else, others shouldn't either". I (and a bunch of others) tire of oppression really quick, so I wouldn't recommend continuing it.

[Ele'ill]

gender identity is a spectrum not really a set of limited multiple choice bullet points (although a temporary general list/chart like this can be created)

I'm not gonna post the image as an image cause it's huge but this is an example of how its an umbrella

http://img.docstoccdn.com/thumb/orig/108909209.png

[Landsharks eat metal]

gender identity is a spectrum not really a set of limited multiple choice bullet points (although a temporary general list/chart like this can be created)

I'm not gonna post the image as an image cause it's huge but this is an example of how its an umbrella

http://img.docstoccdn.com/thumb/orig/108909209.png
Good informational picture for OP, except I think I'd argue that crossdresser, transvestite, and drag queen/king shouldn't be on there since they're not really genders, more behaviors, engaging in which does not automatically make one trans.

[Sabot Cat]

gender identity is a spectrum not really a set of limited multiple choice bullet points (although a temporary general list/chart like this can be created)

I'm not gonna post the image as an image cause it's huge but this is an example of how its an umbrella

http://img.docstoccdn.com/thumb/orig/108909209.png

Not to be contrarian, as I agree with your overall point, but I dissent from many of the claims presented in this chart; One's psychological states are of a physical character, gender affiliation is gender, I don't agree with their second definition of transgender because it's too broad so as to make the term fail to be denotative, and most people who crossdress are cisgender.

[Ele'ill]

I don't agree with everything on that diagram either and haven't really found a diagram where I do agree with everything but I think it's useful for what the OP was interested in

[Art Vandelay]

Cis people have genders, they just don't have to suffer for or because of them quite as much as most trans people, and sometimes they can remain blissfully ignorant of them on a personal identification level (though they're likely to recognize the institutional and cultural implications). To use a cliched and imperfect example, I'm white. I don't "feel" white, and I hardly notice my race at all. That's because I don't have to notice it.

Oh I certainly wasn't trying to argue that cis-gender people don't have genders, as I said I'm male. But I see the point you're making and that helps put what I was alluding to, into its proper context. Thanks.

[Was tun, wenn's brennt?]

I simply don't understand transsexual people.

I think your entire post can be summed up with that one statement. And to that I would respond: so? I don't see why that should matter at all. Maybe you can't understand because you're not a member of the group that you don't understand. Would your understanding make their personal decision
more valid in your eyes?

You talk of not thinking of them as real men or real women, but, could you really tell the difference? There's a really neat picture that shows a a nude trans-woman and a nude trans-male juxtaposed. The only well to tell that they are transgender is that their original genitals are still intact. This was interesting to me because I was attracted to the trans-woman, until I saw the penis and realized it was a trans-woman and had her transformation been completed before the picture was taken, I never would have known the difference. And I'd be lying if I said I wasn't more attracted to the female (with the penis) than the male (with the vagina).

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

SORRY IF THIS OFFENDS ANYONE
"I'm going to say some transphobic stuff, sorry if this offends anyone" just doesn't cut it, especially not in a revolutionary forum. You say you're seeking answers. I don't really see you asking many questions, but you seem to think you already have the answers, thus you declare trans people aren't "real" men or women. So take your pseudo-apology and shove it.

[Orange Juche]

Good informational picture for OP, except I think I'd argue that crossdresser, transvestite, and drag queen/king shouldn't be on there since they're not really genders, more behaviors, engaging in which does not automatically make one trans.

There are crossdressers, transvestites, and drag queens/kings who do identify as transgender because of such, however. I tend to think we shouldn't deny them the ability to define themselves.



I don't agree with their second definition of transgender because it's too broad so as to make the term fail to be denotative, and most people who crossdress are cisgender

Most, I think, would probably agree themselves and identify as cisgender, although for the ones who choose to use the term trans (and there are ones who do) I don't think we should deny them that.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Nor do all women have the same sort of experience - are women who have never shopped for a bra somehow less women?
Not to mention, trans women experience having to buy a bra for the first time.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I have a problem with this gender discourse thing because it forces me to choose an identity I don't feel a part of. It almost ignores my choice not to choose.
The existence of trans people forces you to choose an identity? How? If you see yourself as a man, no trans person is going to argue with you or demand you choose another gender identity.


If a feminine acting men have to choose a different identity, that's a symptom of the problem, not a solution.
There are plenty of feminine-acting men out there who are just fine with being men. So, again, what are you talking about?


I don't see any reason to adopt a new gender identity.
Here's a simple solution for you: don't. You act like trans people are trying to force you to do something you don't want to, using it as a reason to deny the actual lived experience of gender that trans people have.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I know that probably sounds weird, but I've never really considered myself male, despite knowing that I am one and not identifying as anything else.
For cis gender people, their biological sex and gender identity are congruent, so it's nothing they've ever had to think about, and thus their gender identity may even be invisible to them.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I am born with my genitalia and my body. Changing it wouldn't help me.
So don't change it. The problem here seems to be that you're viewing trans people through your own experience as a cis person (and I don't care if you accept that label or not, it simply means someone who isn't trans), and coming to some erroneous conclusions about trans people. Then you claim the right to say we're not "real" men or women because our experience of gender is different than yours, and you can't seem to grasp that your experience of gender isn't the only valid one.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

As feminine as I may seem, I don't know what it's like to be afraid to walk in the dark as my female friends tell me. I don't know what it's like to be harrassed everytime I want to go out. I don't know what it's to try and be creative and hear comments about my boobs, while a male artists gets more serious criticism not referring to his looks. I don't know what it's like to feel less of a woman if my breasts don't grow when I'm 17. I don't know what it's like to be shoved an artifical image of beauty down my throat.
That's nice, but trans women do have those experiences, even if many of us have them later in life than cis women do.

[Orange Juche]

So don't change it. The problem here seems to be that you're viewing trans people through your own experience as a cis person (and I don't care if you accept that label or not, it simply means someone who isn't trans), and coming to some erroneous conclusions about trans people. Then you claim the right to say we're not "real" men or women because our experience of gender is different than yours, and you can't seem to grasp that your experience of gender isn't the only valid one.

You know, I'm willing to bet if this thread were about a minority that it were less publicly acceptable to condemn, moderators would have done or said something by now. I can virtually guarantee it. And I find that interesting.

[Art Vandelay]

For cis gender people, their biological sex and gender identity are congruent, so it's nothing they've ever had to think about, and thus their gender identity may even be invisible to them.

If you go back and re-read my posts in this thread, you'll see that I've already conceded this point and in fact thanked the person who brought it up, since it was not a realization that came naturally to me, given my gender identity.

[Art Vandelay]

You know, I'm willing to bet if this thread were about a minority that it were less publicly acceptable to condemn, moderators would have done or said something by now. I can virtually guarantee it. And I find that interesting.

And I think you're speaking about things that you know not of. In fact, its probably the first time I've ever heard the argument put forth that the revleft ba isn't quick enough to take administrative action. What you most likely fail to realize, is that there is a process which the ba goes through, with most posters, before they take administrative action. On top of that, there has recently been two rather heated and lengthy threads (dealing with issues exactly like this), in the CU forum, on how to deal with certain posters who may, or may not be, ignorant of the reactionary nature of the arguments they put forth. So no, as much as I disagree with certain decisions of the ba (and obviously the arguments put forth by the op), there is really nothing 'interesting' or 'peculiar' about this phenomenon. And personally, I simply hope that if this person is genuinely interested in proletarian politics, that they come around to proper radical views, before they are banned.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

If you go back and re-read my posts in this thread, you'll see that I've already conceded this point and in fact thanked the person who brought it up, since it was not a realization that came naturally to me, given my gender identity.
Oh, I wasn't being critical of you there, just agreeing with you by saying how I think the process goes.

[Art Vandelay]

Oh, I wasn't being critical of you there, just agreeing with you by saying how I think the process goes.

That was, in all honesty, my bad; I tend to read things in an antagonistic fashion sometimes, even when the comment isn't meant in that way. I hope I didn't come across as too much of a jerk; it says more about me than anything else. Regardless, as it was pointed out to me, the fact that I don't conceive of myself as any particular gender on a day to day basis (despite knowing I'm male), stems from the fact that I'm not forced to. And as elementary as I'm sure that sounds to most people, its a new and enlightening realization to me.


There are plenty of feminine-acting men out there who are just fine with being men. So, again, what are you talking about?

Word. That probably describes me best and I kinda happen to like that aspect of myself.

[Quail]

You know, I'm willing to bet if this thread were about a minority that it were less publicly acceptable to condemn, moderators would have done or said something by now. I can virtually guarantee it. And I find that interesting.
I left the thread/post alone yesterday on the assumption that the OP came from ignorance. I have done the same with other posters who have expressed questionable viewpoints in other threads because it's not unusual for people to come to this forum with reactionary views and then change them.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

That was, in all honesty, my bad; I tend to read things in an antagonistic fashion sometimes, even when the comment isn't meant in that way.
That's okay. Tone can be hard to read on the Internet. I've done that more than once myself. :)


And as elementary as I'm sure that sounds to most people, its a new and enlightening realization to me.
It's a positive change in consciousness when we realize something new like that, whether it's about class, gender, race, etc.

[Alonso Quijano]

Not all transgender individuals believe this; in fact, I think these notions of "men trapped in women's bodies" and vice versa are tantamount to attempts to pathologise transgender individuals.



"Social invention" makes it sound like gender is somehow nonexistent - but obviously it's an actual, existing social reality. Something being social does not make it unreal.



A complex gender identity is not the same as transsexuality - individuals can be perfectly happy as biologically male women, for example. But if someone would be happier with another set of gonads, why not?



How does the existence of a transgender identity "force" you to choose anything?



With due respect, you are to blame because you do not accept the preformative role someone has assigned to themselves, with spurious reasons (gender has never been identical to sex in most societies). It is, at the very least, dismissive.



They don't have to choose "a different identity". There are plenty of "feminine" males who nonetheless chose to identify as men. Conversely, biological males who identify as women do not need to be "effeminate".



Then don't. No one is forcing you to do so. And people don't really get to choose what defines them. Society does that for them. As long as transgendered and transsexual people are subjected to systematic violence, their identity as trans* people will be more important than "humour, work, interests" in a political sense.
Note accepted but yes the pole here ask me for an itdentity that I simply con't have. And what you write here is one of the many reasons I hate identity politics.

[Alonso Quijano]

Not to mention, trans women experience having to buy a bra for the first time.
But not as part of their youth, with their didn't choopse.


The existence of trans people forces you to choose an identity? How? If you see yourself as a man, no trans person is going to argue with you or demand you choose another gender identity.


There are plenty of feminine-acting men out there who are just fine with being men. So, again, what are you talking about?


Here's a simple solution for you: don't. You act like trans people are trying to force you to do something you don't want to, using it as a reason to deny the actual lived experience of gender that trans people have.
While forced to feel male, ot transmale, ot cicsmale - I fell non of those.
And I don't anything - that's my whole ppint.
I'm also not ashamed of anythign - so where'ts te denial?

[Alonso Quijano]

I left the thread/post alone yesterday on the assumption that the OP came from ignorance. I have done the same with other posters who have expressed questionable viewpoints in other threads because it's not unusual for people to come to this forum with reactionary views and then change them.
If it woudlnd't be out of ignornace I woudln't write "EDUCATE ME". Of cousre I'm ignorant on the subject, I'm nod deying it.

[BIXX]

Note accepted but yes the pole here ask me for an itdentity that I simply con't have. And what you write here is one of the many reasons I hate identity politics.

Are you a man?

This is being asked for your own educational experience, not just out of the blue.

[Ele'ill]

But not as part of their youth, with their didn't choopse.

I don't understand what you're getting at here



While forced to feel male, ot transmale, ot cicsmale - I fell non of those.
And I don't anything - that's my whole ppint.
I'm also not ashamed of anythign - so where'ts te denial?If you don't feel you are anything mentioned thus far in this thread you might want to look into other people's similar experiences with gender identification (by searching around on the web maybe although I understand that it's what you're doing here). If you do a google search for list of gender identifications you will see a lot of gender identifications and people talking about them and people being unsure. There are also a lot of people who are sure but they aren't forcing you do accept anything about yourself.

[Alonso Quijano]

Are you a man?

This is being asked for your own educational experience, not just out of the blue.

Yes, a man who hates being a man until accepting his body.

[Alonso Quijano]

I don't understand what you're getting at here


If you don't feel you are anything mentioned thus far in this thread you might want to look into other people's similar experiences with gender identification (by searching around on the web maybe although I understand that it's what you're doing here). If you do a google search for list of gender identifications you will see a lot of gender identifications and people talking about them and people being unsure. There are also a lot of people who are sure but they aren't forcing you do accept anything about yourself.
I'm glad for the r resposnes in this thread.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

[Sabot Cat]

Yes, a man who hates being a man until accepting his body.

I'm not saying being trans is easy, and there is certainly a lot to think about before embracing that aspect of yourself if you are, but: you don't have to be a man if you don't want to be one. Gender is based on affiliation, defined by your outward expression of culturally intuited symbols like your name or clothing or what have you. The whole of the things that make up gender are essentially things within your control, and there is nothing that binds you to manhood other than your preferences.

Unless you mean that you don't want to embrace womanhood, but you still don't like the consequences and attendant circumstances of being a man, which is an entirely different thing that has nothing to do with being trans. Some people misconstrue transness as a lack of preference of the expectations that come with that gender, or a superficial interest in the perceived benefits (a 'grass is greener' kind of deal). And I don't want to disclude anyone who feels that may be trans, considering that entire discourse being filled with things that make one "truly trans" (including the OP if applicable), but these are generally not what motivates people to define themselves as a gender they weren't assigned to at birth. The entire ordeal most trans people have to experience in just being trans, including the difficulties in employment, pay, education, housing, etc., I believe is enough to make it clear that trans people have different motivations.

Most people who become trans do so on the basis of consistently negative moods that seem to have no source from without. Inexplicable depression, pain, emptiness, and a kind of wistful feeling akin to homesickness are much more common than the aforementioned shallow interest in the consequences of being another gender, and these mentally unhealthy frames of mind are what trans people must face for a lifetime if they chose to remain identified with their birth-assigned gender.

But why should they? I see no reason why anyone should deal with that kind of psychical torment when relief for it is attainable. Gender is essentially a culturally mediated system like our financial and political systems; it is subject to our wills and our needs, and if our need is to express ourselves as a gender that we weren't assigned to at birth, we should very well do so.

[BIXX]

Yes, a man who hates being a man until accepting his body.

Why do you hate being a man? Is it due to your genitalia, your role in society, what?

You see, most people who are genderqueer, as far as I understand, it's not just not liking being a man or woman. People who are genderqueer actually have constant internal conflict due to the difference between their body or role in society and the way they identify.

But seriously, what do you care if they identify in a different way than how thy were born? It's not your business.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

What I find interesting is the role that physical aspects play in our "identity", and what "identity" is. I don't think that there's a real good ontology of identity that has been laid out that can fit the understanding of gender issues. I feel that we should tackle what we mean by identity, and how (a) social and (b) biological factors influence identity. Is it reductionist to accept one particular identity over and above another? What does it mean to "identify" as a woman or a man, and can this differ amongst people with different psychological states? Is there a need to associate masculinity with the male body or femininity with the female body? What role does the body really play in identity? Can we really reduce identity to biological factors or to social factors alone? Also, how do social and biological factors interact with one another? It seems that there are no clear cut answers to any of these questions, and trying to give one might step on the personal narrative accounts given by people with different gender identities.

I don't think that these questions have been sufficiently answered, or are glossed over in the public discourse on these issues. But some folks in this thread have made some interesting attempts at answering some of these.



Again, there is the concept of "biology". The brain is a part of the body, and mental states are physical; I believe you're conceptions of these matters are distorted by the specter of Cartesian dualism.


Uhm I don't think Cartesian Dualism has anything to do with the subject. Descartes talked about a universal substance - Mind - which isn't gendered at all. Mind is one simple substance. Descartes thought the brain was a part of the body, he just did not associate mind with brain in the way we do today because of his substance dualism.


(1) There is a distinction between gender roles, which are conceptualizations of self that are dependent on gender and pertain broadly to life in largely negative ways due to our patriarchal society, and gender, which is a system of affiliation that can be minimally based on distinctive cultural symbols.
(2) Not all trans people say the one must change ones genitalia to be a certain gender. I would argue vehemently against such views if they were presented to me.
This is a very interesting pair of points which I would agree with. Although on the first one - do you think gender or gender roles are more or less socially defined than the other?



You're entirely correct, because trans women were essentially always women.
This is a problematic statement as it plays to gender essentialism. Men and women are not "essentially" different from one another. There is no "feminine essence" and no "masculine essence". Femininity and masculinity are social roles laid out by a society. Whether or not people identify more with one or the other is another issue.

If we start talking about "women" as essentially women and "men" as essentially men we've gone back a century in the gender rights discourse in claiming that there are distinct personality types between the two sexes that are usually reducible to their bodily differences (usually, of course, because transsexuals would be an obvious exception).



Cis people have genders, they just don't have to suffer for or because of them quite as much as most trans people, and sometimes they can remain blissfully ignorant of them on a personal identification level (though they're likely to recognize the institutional and cultural implications). To use a cliched and imperfect example, I'm white. I don't "feel" white, and I hardly notice my race at all. That's because I don't have to notice it.
Do you think gender is a social institution, or something biological?



A brain is a part of your body, Descartes was a shoddy philosopher, dualism is counter to common sense, etc. etc.
What's your beef with poor Descartes? Yeah Descartes was wrong about dualism but dualism was so convincing and lasted so long in Western philosophy precisely BECAUSE it fits our basic common sense view that we have a consciousness with ideas that interacts with this other substance, mind. I also don't think he's really responsible for strict sex/gender dualism, which predates the period of modern philosophy.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

What I find interesting is the role that physical aspects play in our "identity", and what "identity" is. I don't think that there's a real good ontology of identity that has been laid out that can fit the understanding of gender issues.

But there totally is! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_Trouble)

[Sabot Cat]

What I find interesting is the role that physical aspects play in our "identity", and what "identity" is. I don't think that there's a real good ontology of identity that has been laid out that can fit the understanding of gender issues. I feel that we should tackle what we mean by identity, and how (a) social and (b) biological factors influence identity. Is it reductionist to accept one particular identity over and above another? What does it mean to "identify" as a woman or a man, and can this differ amongst people with different psychological states? Is there a need to associate masculinity with the male body or femininity with the female body? What role does the body really play in identity? Can we really reduce identity to biological factors or to social factors alone? Also, how do social and biological factors interact with one another? It seems that there are no clear cut answers to any of these questions, and trying to give one might step on the personal narrative accounts given by people with different gender identities. I don't think that these questions have been sufficiently answered, or are glossed over in the public discourse on these issues. But some folks in this thread have made some interesting attempts at answering some of these.

Not to be rude to the OP, but I think this is a much better way to begin a conversation about gender from a standpoint of curiosity. I'll try to develop my positions further, but I don't believe I can tackle all of your questions adequately without doing more research.


Uhm I don't think Cartesian Dualism has anything to do with the subject. Descartes talked about a universal substance - Mind - which isn't gendered at all. Mind is one simple substance. Descartes thought the brain was a part of the body, he just did not associate mind with brain in the way we do today because of his substance dualism.


Right, which is the point that I dislike. Mind and Matter are not distinct substances. Minds are material, and Descartes is complicit in confusing the matter (so to speak).This distinction is carried into the discourse about gender, with the relevant problems I highlighted.


This is a very interesting pair of points which I would agree with. Although on the first one - do you think gender or gender roles are more or less socially defined than the other?


Gender roles are more socially malleable and ephemeral than gender itself, so I suppose I would say that the latter is more socially defined.


This is a problematic statement as it plays to gender essentialism. Men and women are not "essentially" different from one another. There is no "feminine essence" and no "masculine essence". Femininity and masculinity are social roles laid out by a society. Whether or not people identify more with one or the other is another issue.

If we start talking about "women" as essentially women and "men" as essentially men we've gone back a century in the gender rights discourse in claiming that there are distinct personality types between the two sexes that are usually reducible to their bodily differences (usually, of course, because transsexuals would be an obvious exception).


I meant "essentially" in the sense of "pretty much", and I don't accept your slippery slope argument, but I concede the point. Gender isn't essential; it's participatory. I'm still hesitant to label trans women as youths as "men" or "boys"; the factors of coercion and assignment I believe are relevant when one considers that "affiliation" implies a certain level of choice. Are people who are baptized as babies as Catholic really "Catholic", before they can develop a sensible opinion about it? Are Jewish people who were forced to renounce their religious beliefs in Medieval Europe for fear of death really "Christians"? Perhaps gender affiliation is more about one's opinions about one's self, than other people's perceptions of one's self, much like one's religious opinion. These are interesting questions, and I thank you for raising them.



Do you think gender is a social institution, or something biological?


It's a socially mediated system of affiliation, historically derived from and conflated with a cultural reception of biological characteristics related to sex.


What's your beef with poor Descartes? Yeah Descartes was wrong about dualism but dualism was so convincing and lasted so long in Western philosophy precisely BECAUSE it fits our basic common sense view that we have a consciousness with ideas that interacts with this other substance, mind. I also don't think he's really responsible for strict sex/gender dualism, which predates the period of modern philosophy.

I don't just despite his metaphysics, but also his epistemology. Cartesian skepticism and rationalism helped to engender a sort of blank slate thinking about the entire world, lending more credence to numerous systems of presuppositional apologetics and fideism. This is in stark contrast to Pyrrhonian skepticism and classical empiricism, which accepted the experiential world from which all of the axioms that Descartes relied upon to lend meaning to the words he used. But all of this is neither here nor there.

As well, I'm not saying he's responsible for making that dualism popular; that ball would be squarely in Plato's court. However, Descartes extolled the virtues of such a metaphysical system, and in a way that makes more sense to people than the Platonic theory of forms, serving as an influential force for the prevalence of this contrast in Western thought. However, the global and ancient nature of such philosophical notions shows that they're determined by more than just the thoughts of a few famous philosophers, so I concede that I might be criticizing Descartes a little too harshly.

[Alonso Quijano]

I'm not saying being trans is easy, and there is certainly a lot to think about before embracing that aspect of yourself if you are, but: you don't have to be a man if you don't want to be one. Gender is based on affiliation, defined by your outward expression of culturally intuited symbols like your name or clothing or what have you. The whole of the things that make up gender are essentially things within your control, and there is nothing that binds you to manhood other than your preferences.
Thing is, I honestly don't know what and if I wanna be.

My "hatred of men" comes to me as self-criticism of a group I'm part of. I'm not sure I want to criticise it from the outside. Anyhow, it would be an entire different experience. Like criticising racism against Arabs in Israel, and talking about racism against Jews in Europe. I always think it's highly important that criticism will come from those deemed priviledged. Also, isn't it possible that I wouldn't "hate" manhood in a communistic society?


Unless you mean that you don't want to embrace womanhood, but you still don't like the consequences and attendant circumstances of being a man, which is an entirely different thing that has nothing to do with being trans. Some people misconstrue transness as a lack of preference of the expectations that come with that gender, or a superficial interest in the perceived benefits (a 'grass is greener' kind of deal). And I don't want to disclude anyone who feels that may be trans, considering that entire discourse being filled with things that make one "truly trans" (including the OP if applicable), but these are generally not what motivates people to define themselves as a gender they weren't assigned to at birth. The entire ordeal most trans people have to experience in just being trans, including the difficulties in employment, pay, education, housing, etc., I believe is enough to make it clear that trans people have different motivations.
I embrace womanhood. It's not about some circumstances.


Most people who become trans do so on the basis of consistently negative moods that seem to have no source from without. Inexplicable depression, pain, emptiness, and a kind of wistful feeling akin to homesickness are much more common than the aforementioned shallow interest in the consequences of being another gender, and these mentally unhealthy frames of mind are what trans people must face for a lifetime if they chose to remain identified with their birth-assigned gender.
Well, that's a great answer to my question.


Why do you hate being a man? Is it due to your genitalia, your role in society, what?

You see, most people who are genderqueer, as far as I understand, it's not just not liking being a man or woman. People who are genderqueer actually have constant internal conflict due to the difference between their body or role in society and the way they identify.

But seriously, what do you care if they identify in a different way than how thy were born? It's not your business.
To begin from the ending - it's not my business. It's my interest and I think it's good for society as a whole to be better to fully understand its individuals. I never in any way said or at least intended to say that they're wrong doing whatever they do, and if that's how it came out - I deeply apologise.

It's difficult to explain what I hate about it. I wouldn't want a different body, kind of like I think my nose is ugly but still wouldn't change it.

I generally hate the notion of "real men". When I hear female friends say they hate women, I tell them that if they heard everything males said in their youth to one another, they'd despise them much more. I can try to be friends with someone I didn't get with at first meetings, but to me a guy who sees women as objects, or something to manipulate, or second-class human beings, is the worst.


What I find interesting is the role that physical aspects play in our "identity", and what "identity" is. I don't think that there's a real good ontology of identity that has been laid out that can fit the understanding of gender issues. I feel that we should tackle what we mean by identity, and how (a) social and (b) biological factors influence identity. Is it reductionist to accept one particular identity over and above another? What does it mean to "identify" as a woman or a man, and can this differ amongst people with different psychological states? Is there a need to associate masculinity with the male body or femininity with the female body? What role does the body really play in identity? Can we really reduce identity to biological factors or to social factors alone? Also, how do social and biological factors interact with one another? It seems that there are no clear cut answers to any of these questions, and trying to give one might step on the personal narrative accounts given by people with different gender identities.

I don't think that these questions have been sufficiently answered, or are glossed over in the public discourse on these issues. But some folks in this thread have made some interesting attempts at answering some of these.
Greatly worded.


Not to be rude to the OP, but I think this is a much better way to begin a conversation about gender from a standpoint of curiosity. I'll try to develop my positions further, but I don't believe I can tackle all of your questions adequately without doing more research.
That's not rude. I'm the one who was rude.

[BIXX]

It's difficult to explain what I hate about it. I wouldn't want a different body, kind of like I think my nose is ugly but still wouldn't change it.

I generally hate the notion of "real men". When I hear female friends say they hate women, I tell them that if they heard everything males said in their youth to one another, they'd despise them much more. I can try to be friends with someone I didn't get with at first meetings, but to me a guy who sees women as objects, or something to manipulate, or second-class human beings, is the worst.

Ok, you see, I get that. I think it's common for leftists who come from a privileged group (the bourgeoisie, men, white people, straight people) to feel guilty because (in the past) those people have oppressed everyone else. However, this is the ultimate negative effect of identity politics. I think it's important to do three things:

1. Recognize that you are not responsible for the oppression that others like you may have committed/are committing.

2. Recognize that you are privileged, and be aware that because of that, you should not be trying to liberate others, but help them liberate themselves. Your role is not a savior.

3. Try to be as non-oppressive as possible.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Right, which is the point that I dislike. Mind and Matter are not distinct substances. Minds are material, and Descartes is complicit in confusing the matter (so to speak).This distinction is carried into the discourse about gender, with the relevant problems I highlighted.


True but at the same time substance dualism does seem to make any kind of essential inborn gender role seem more absurd, since women and men are the same "mind" with mild bodily differences.



I meant "essentially" in the sense of "pretty much", and I don't accept your slippery slope argument, but I concede the point. Gender isn't essential; it's participatory. I'm still hesitant to label trans women as youths as "men" or "boys"; the factors of coercion and assignment I believe are relevant when one considers that "affiliation" implies a certain level of choice. Are people who are baptized as babies as Catholic really "Catholic", before they can develop a sensible opinion about it? Are Jewish people who were forced to renounce their religious beliefs in Medieval Europe for fear of death really "Christians"? Perhaps gender affiliation is more about one's opinions about one's self, than other people's perceptions of one's self, much like one's religious opinion. These are interesting questions, and I thank you for raising them.
Yeah I think the issue of what it is to identify as x or y and whether that identification says something "essential" and therefore "eternal" about us or whether it's something that is frivolous, or whether it is neither, to be interesting. It seems that the narrative of many transsexuals seems to indicate that this identity is something neither essential nor arbitrary and accidental. I wonder too if there are multiple possible causes for transsexuality and whether that changes the relationship with "gender" and "sex" and so on.


I don't just despite his metaphysics, but also his epistemology. Cartesian skepticism and rationalism helped to engender a sort of blank slate thinking about the entire world, lending more credence to numerous systems of presuppositional apologetics and fideism. This is in stark contrast to Pyrrhonian skepticism and classical empiricism, which accepted the experiential world from which all of the axioms that Descartes relied upon to lend meaning to the words he used. But all of this is neither here nor there.

As well, I'm not saying he's responsible for that dualism; that ball would be squarely in Plato's court. However, Descartes extolled the virtues of such a metaphysical system, and in a way that makes more sense to people than the Platonic theory of forms, serving as an influential force for the prevalence of this contrast in Western thought. However, the global and ancient nature of such philosophical notions shows that they're determined by more than just the thoughts of a few famous philosophers, so I concede that I might be criticizing Descartes a little too harshly.Yes Cartesian skepticism has some issues which Pyrrhonian skepticism doesn't. In particular, I think its quest for certainty can lead to problems when we become certain of the existence of something that doesn't really exist (like the distinction between mind and body). At the same time, even though it was mistaken, it was historically significant in setting Europeans to the task of trying to rationalize the world. Rationalism was flawed but a lot of good came out of it. Spinoza, who was a Cartesian through and through, gave an account of rationalism even more sophisticated which did not rely on substance dualism.

In my mind it wasn't really Descartes who caused the problems with his thought but Cartesians who simply weren't willing to question aspects of the thought of their intellectual hero.


But there totally is! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_Trouble)

I'm somewhat familiar with the works of Butler but as far as I can tell though her ideas are useful there's still a lack of clarity on many issues.

[Sabot Cat]

True but at the same time substance dualism does seem to make any kind of essential inborn gender role seem more absurd, since women and men are the same "mind" with mild bodily differences.

I never looked at that way, although I would like to somewhat tangentially note that there wouldn't be such controversy in helping people with problems that are psychological, which are physical, if there wasn't such a sharp dichotomy in place between the two.


Yeah I think the issue of what it is to identify as x or y and whether that identification says something "essential" and therefore "eternal" about us or whether it's something that is frivolous, or whether it is neither, to be interesting. It seems that the narrative of many transsexuals seems to indicate that this identity is something neither essential nor arbitrary and accidental. I wonder too if there are multiple possible causes for transsexuality and whether that changes the relationship with "gender" and "sex" and so on.

There is also the curious fact that most cis people don't realize that they're participating and identifying as genders too. Although trans people are more visibly active in their gender expression, cis people don't just passively receive categorization on the basis of "biology" or what have you; recognition of this similarity is something I feel to be fundamental to understanding gender as a whole.


Yes Cartesian skepticism has some issues which Pyrrhonian skepticism doesn't. In particular, I think its quest for certainty can lead to problems when we become certain of the existence of something that doesn't really exist (like the distinction between mind and body). At the same time, even though it was mistaken, it was historically significant in setting Europeans to the task of trying to rationalize the world. Rationalism was flawed but a lot of good came out of it. Spinoza, who was a Cartesian through and through, gave an account of rationalism even more sophisticated which did not rely on substance dualism.

I really enjoy the works of Spinoza, but I can only imagine how much greater he would have been if he would have been free of the ideological legacy of Descartes (on the same token, perhaps he would've just made lenses and never bothered with philosophy if not for the thinker, but I digress). However, I maintain that the rationalist tradition is one of the largest stumbling blocks for liberal intellectuals who could become revolutionaries, because they believe in intuitively known concepts like God-given rights, when rights aren't given by God but by people, and shouldn't be maintained in all scenarios if we're trying to confer the most benefits to the most people.


In my mind it wasn't really Descartes who caused the problems with his thought but Cartesians who simply weren't willing to question aspects of the thought of their intellectual hero.


Perhaps, but many of these problems were there from beginning. Didn't misunderstand me though, I have appreciation for Descartes in some aspects, but I just dislike the philosophical malaise that he helped bring forth which lingered and lingers for centuries after his death.


Thing is, I honestly don't know what and if I wanna be.

Whatever happens, I sincerely hope that you'll be happier when you figure it out. :)


My "hatred of men" comes to me as self-criticism of a group I'm part of. I'm not sure I want to criticise it from the outside. Anyhow, it would be an entire different experience. Like criticising racism against Arabs in Israel, and talking about racism against Jews in Europe. I always think it's highly important that criticism will come from those deemed priviledged. Also, isn't it possible that I wouldn't "hate" manhood in a communistic society?

I'm not sure what you're saying here, but I think other posters covered it.


I embrace womanhood. It's not about some circumstances.


Do you embrace womanhood for yourself, I mean? I'm sort of confused, I'm sorry.


Well, that's a great answer to my question.


Not a problem~


That's not rude. I'm the one who was rude.

Mm, I think you were and are pretty civil through and through; don't beat yourself up over it at least.

[Alonso Quijano]

Whatever happens, I sincerely hope that you'll be happier when you figure it out. :)

Thanks :)


I'm not sure what you're saying here, but I think other posters covered it.

What I mean is that sometimes the most important criticism comes from the inside. Therefore, as being privileged I can use my privilege to protest more strongly. If I give up those privileges, I fear I might also give up the fight. If all men who despise chauvinism stop identifying as men, wouldn't that just give the vocals more points in their fight to equate being a man with being a macho?


Do you embrace womanhood for yourself, I mean? I'm sort of confused, I'm sorry.

Well, I didn't mean it that way, but since you ask - if people say I'm feminine, I say thanks. It only really hurts me if straight women say they're not attracted to me because I'm "not a real man" (which have happened, at times).


Mm, I think you were and are pretty civil through and through; don't beat yourself up over it at least.

Yes, but I did cause some offence in the beginning, which I shouldn't have caused. I don't beat myself up over it - experience is part of learning, so is making mistakes.