Transgender people and the "naturalness" of gender

[jake williams]

Here's a tricky one. The basic idea is that a fundamental concept behind the struggle for rights for transgender people is that they're sort of "naturally" that gender. This, however, suggests that a whole slew of gender concepts are somehow innate - which I think threatens a substantial portion of feminism.

How do we reconcile this?

[Kukulofori]

It's a scientific fact that male and female brains are different, and trying to mix a female brain with a male body or vice versa is sort of a round peg/square hole situation.

[Plagueround]

Here's a tricky one. The basic idea is that a fundamental concept behind the struggle for rights for transgender people is that they're sort of "naturally" that gender. This, however, suggests that a whole slew of gender concepts are somehow innate - which I think threatens a substantial portion of feminism.

How do we reconcile this?

Hmmm...hopefully I can put this in a way that makes sense. Forgive me if it doesn't.

Transgender people feel they are a particular sex, but they have been born with the wrong body to represent that sex. It does not threaten feminism because it does not suggest that all behaviors that men or women exhibit are a matter of gender or physical sex. I would think there is a difference between consciously and subconsciously perceiving oneself to be male or female and wishing to have a "matching" body, and the notion that patriarchal ideas of "feminine" and masculine" are genetically inherent.

On that note, if a transgendered person feels the need to exhibit rolls stereotypically associated with the gender they identify as, that does not mean it stems from a "truth" about the way a gender is supposed to act so much as how they've been raised to perceive that gender as acting.

[KC]

There is a difference between feeling like you are a different sex than a different gender. Genders are constructed, whereas sex is not.

[Plagueround]

There is a difference between feeling like you are a different sex than a different gender. Genders are constructed, whereas sex is not.

For some reason, I knew I was missing something when I was writing this last night...and this would be it. While I was still on the right track, I suppose my word usage was a bit vague. I was rather tired and couldn't think straight. :lol:

[jake williams]

There is a difference between feeling like you are a different sex than a different gender. Genders are constructed, whereas sex is not.
If genders are constructed than a person can't feel like they're the "wrong" gender naturally - or more specifically, they can't feel like there's a "right" gender naturally.

[bcbm]

A brief look at the Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender) for "Transgender" would've answered this question for you.

[jake williams]

A brief look at the Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender) for "Transgender" would've answered this question for you.
I trawl Wiki extensively and regularly. What exactly are you referring too?

[bcbm]

These three uses of the word:


"Of, relating to, or designating a person whose identity does not conform unambiguously to conventional notions of male or female gender roles, but combines or moves between these."[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender#cite_note-oeddraft2004-0)



"People who were assigned a sex, usually at birth and based on their genitals, but who feel that this is a false or incomplete description of themselves."[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender#cite_note-usi-1)

"Non-identification with, or non-presentation as, the sex (and assumed gender) one was assigned at birth."

Nothing here suggests an innate concept of gender, just that they don't identify with the gender or possibly the sex (it can be either) assigned to them or perhaps any gender at all.

[jake williams]

Except that many (or at very least some) transgender people do identify, say as women with traits that some feminists don't think are natural in women.

[ifeelyou]

Except that many (or at very least some) transgender people do identify, say as women with traits that some feminists don't think are natural in women.

Do you mind naming who you're referring to when you say "feminists"? There are so many different kinds with different points of view. For example, take Marjorie Garber who wrote Vested Interests: Cross-Dressing and Cultural Anxiety. She argues that cross-dressers (who she defines as transvestites, transexuals, drag queens, transgendered folks, etc.) function as a site of "thirdness," which challenges the traditional and simple man-woman dichotomy. What's more, she contends that thirdness can trigger a "category crisis." This type of psychological crisis (which can result from an encounter with cross-dressers) occurs when people start to see just how permeable the border between "man" and "woman" is and how anyone can cross to the other side or become something else, something third.

Different cultures, throughout history, have made room for third genders. For example, the hijra of India, the two-spirit of numerous Native American cultures, the cutoi of Thailand, etc. etc.

Judith Butler, another feminist, finds value in transgenderism. For her it symbolizes just how constructed and performed all gender is, including "man" and "woman." No gender is "natural."

[Module]

Individuals may feel like they relate more to one particular sex, and so their desire to belong to this group, for example, a man who longs to be a woman, finds themselves desiring the female gender role over the male one.

Regardless, before I can give a better reply, what 'gender concepts' are you suggesting are innate?
And how would these 'innate gender concepts' undermine the notion of gender equality?
Do you think feminists suggest people are 'socialised' into having peen or vag? 'Gender difference' does not equal 'gender inequality'.
I would say that was a very important part of any serious feminist ideology.

[jake williams]

I will get back to you both shortly.

[bcbm]

Except that many (or at very least some) transgender people do identify, say as women with traits that some feminists don't think are natural in women.

I'm not sure what exactly you're saying here, if you could elaborate.


Do you think feminists suggest people are 'socialised' into having peen or vag? 'Gender difference' does not equal 'gender inequality'.

Gender is social, sex is biological. They're not interchangeable.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

If sex is biological, then transexuals don't exist. The folks who undergo cosmetic surgeries and hormonal therapy are transgender.
amirite?
k thanks bye

[Module]

Gender is social, sex is biological. They're not interchangeable.Yes, I was making a point.
If, as jammoe says, transgendered people prove some 'gender characteristics' to be 'innate' then they would cease to be a part of 'gender' and become 'sex'.
Feminism does not rest on the idea that every difference between men and women is a result of socialisation.
Let alone that such differences must be 'cured' to achieve gender equality.

[TC]

Here's a tricky one. The basic idea is that a fundamental concept behind the struggle for rights for transgender people is that they're sort of "naturally" that gender. This, however, suggests that a whole slew of gender concepts are somehow innate - which I think threatens a substantial portion of feminism.

How do we reconcile this?

I agree, it does attack, and without an analytically coherent theory the entire foundation of feminism. How do we reconcile it? We don't try to because the position is frankly incorrect and uses an essentialist patriarchal concept of gender.

Instead we come up with better arguments for the rights of transgendered people. The fact that they're not naturally the opposite gender because no one is naturally gendered, people come to be gendered socially. This should in no way undermine their ability to adopt the apperearence and cultural tropes of the opposite sex; on the contrary the observeration that gender is socially constructed ought to enable everyone whether they're transgendered or not to do what they want without being restricted by their biological sex.

This is the much more radical, progressive and leftist view of gender and its a *better* argument for transgendered (and, incidentally, women's and gays') rights than the essentially "i like pink not blue so i must have a truely pink mind" argument. That argument appeals to the old fashioned belief that people's sex limits their psychology and behavior rather than the way they've been socialized as a result of their sex.

[jake williams]

I'm not sure what exactly you're saying here, if you could elaborate.
I'll use an example, but I really want to emphasize that I don't think this is an isolated case - neither in the specific phenomenon, nor the person experiencing it, ie. there were other examples with the one individual, and there are other similar individuals. Neither is the transgender community a homogeneous entity, quite the opposite, but nevertheless I do think you find this type of phenomenon.

There was a story about a kid born as a boy but, among other things, identifying with one of the Disney princesses. I don't think anyone should identify with any Disney character, but the princesses are a special example of the subordination of women and I don't think this should be viewed as the person just naturally being "female" because I don't think Disney princesses are representative of anything naturally female.


Do you mind naming who you're referring to when you say "feminists"?
Well me if I must give a name, myself - but I certainly doubt I'm the only one who objects to, say, Disney princesses.


"thirdness"
Again stressing the diversity of the community, I think you will find some objection by a number of people that they represent a "thirdness", or at least reject the idea that they form a third (or fourth) gender. Different categories I guess, but the general impression I get (? not knowing a lot/any transgender people I'm going on impression) is that a lot of people genuinely want to assimilate into a specific gender and forget about it, damn their "thirdness".


Different cultures, throughout history, have made room for third genders. For example, the hijra of India, the two-spirit of numerous Native American cultures, the cutoi of Thailand, etc. etc.
I'm a little uncomfortable with this because while it's better than "two" for a number of reasons, it presents a number of the same challenges and I don't like the idea that we have to so rigidly characterize, and compartmentalize, gender and individual's genderedness so rigidly.


Judith Butler
I tried Judith Butler. I gave up. She's interesting and I think intelligent (?) but I generally don't know what she's on about.


Regardless, before I can give a better reply, what 'gender concepts' are you suggesting are innate?
Well I'm not suggesting they're innate, I'm saying there's a suggestion that they are and this suggestion is challenging. But as for the general idea of your question, ie. "examples", there's one above. The idea that transwomen might have a meaningful and "natural" affinity for pink might be anothe. I'm pissing in the dark here, I'm just trying to give a general idea of what I'm talking about.


And how would these 'innate gender concepts' undermine the notion of gender equality? ... 'Gender difference' does not equal 'gender inequality'. ... I would say that was a very important part of any serious feminist ideology.
Except that I believe that a lot of the whole idea of the female gender is constructed to subordinate women. There might be some sort of inherent "separate-but-equal-ness" to it, although to me stressing that point is precisely the type of feminism that isn't serious, and at any rate it raises its own concerns. But the differences we're talking about aren't "equal". The "girls" section in a toy store is not "equal" to the implicitly boys' section, and Disney princesses are not equal to Disney princes.

[jake williams]

Yes, I was making a point.
If, as jammoe says, transgendered people prove some 'gender characteristics' to be 'innate' then they would cease to be a part of 'gender' and become 'sex'.
You're suggesting a different sort of definitional system than I work with. You're saying that if something is different between men and women biologically then it's by definition a part of sex, and if it isn't then it's by definition part of gender. I don't think that's useful, but it does make all of this very difficult to talk about.


Feminism does not rest on the idea that every difference between men and women is a result of socialisation.
No, but some of the major differences, and a lot of the ones that a number of people view as fundamental immutable differences, are - some of the most important ones, too.


Let alone that such differences must be 'cured' to achieve gender equality.
See above. A lot of what is taken to be "feminine" is used by a system of power to subordinate women.

[bcbm]

If sex is biological, then transexuals don't exist. The folks who undergo cosmetic surgeries and hormonal therapy are transgender.


No transsexuals have the physical characteristics of their preferred sex, hence the different term.


If, as jammoe says, transgendered people prove some 'gender characteristics' to be 'innate' then they would cease to be a part of 'gender' and become 'sex'.

How do they prove that? I haven't seen anything from transfolks or allies that suggests they believe gender to be innate; they recognize gender as a social construction however many trans people perceive themselves differently than the gender typically socialized towards them based on their biological sex.



There was a story about a kid born as a boy but, among other things, identifying with one of the Disney princesses. I don't think anyone should identify with any Disney character, but the princesses are a special example of the subordination of women and I don't think this should be viewed as the person just naturally being "female" because I don't think Disney princesses are representative of anything naturally female.

The idea that transwomen might have a meaningful and "natural" affinity for pink might be anothe.

While trans people may identify with images, behaviors, etc not typically associated with their socialized gender (they also may not), the feelings certainly go deeper than that and I think this example is a bit insulting really.


Again stressing the diversity of the community, I think you will find some objection by a number of people that they represent a "thirdness", or at least reject the idea that they form a third (or fourth) gender. Different categories I guess, but the general impression I get (? not knowing a lot/any transgender people I'm going on impression) is that a lot of people genuinely want to assimilate into a specific gender and forget about it, damn their "thirdness".

There are many "thirds" or rather people who do not identify with any gender, including some people born intersex and even trans people who may identify with a specific gender may not pick up everything traditionally associated with that.


I'm pissing in the dark here

So... do some research?

[jake williams]

While trans people may identify with images, behaviors, etc not typically associated with their socialized gender (they also may not), the feelings certainly go deeper than that and I think this example is a bit insulting really.
I don't totally understand your comment here. The notion that there are more superficial aspects (as well as less superficial aspects) of gender identity doesn't have normative content and can't be an "insult". I don't understand how it's insulting.


There are many "thirds" or rather people who do not identify with any gender, including some people born intersex
Again, the diversity of the community. This isn't relevant to the larger issue I'm raising. I'm just saying that a "third" isn't a "solution" in the way it's often framed - that I really feel some people almost imply that the only reason gender is a challenge in our society is that we don't have a set and solid "third". This is false.


even trans people who may identify with a specific gender may not pick up everything traditionally associated with that.
People who "may identify with a specific gender but [don't] pick up everything traditionally associated with that" - that means everyone, not a specific segment of the trans community but every single person who identifies with a specific gender.


So... do some research?
I don't think it's necessary to include an extensive and rigorously researched list of examples to raise the issue that there's a challenge here - that some transgender people (I'm mostly talking about transwomen, but you could make parallel points) argue that certain things are innate for them as part of the gender they feel "naturally" aligned to, but which feminists (we could even just say "some people" if "feminists" is too baggagey) argue aren't "natural" for cisgendered women (again, or parallel). I think this fact is actually rather obvious, and I'm suprised that this is so heavily disputed.

[TC]

Individuals may feel like they relate more to one particular sex, and so their desire to belong to this group, for example, a man who longs to be a woman, finds themselves desiring the female gender role over the male one.

Regardless, before I can give a better reply, what 'gender concepts' are you suggesting are innate?
And how would these 'innate gender concepts' undermine the notion of gender equality?

[quote]
Do you think feminists suggest people are 'socialised' into having peen or vag? 'Gender difference' does not equal 'gender inequality'.

No, but those are sex differences not gender differences: the fact that "having peen or vag" determines their social relationship to each other isn't biological its socio-political/economic and the fact that they think that "having peen or vag" determines their psychology and behavior rather than the social relations it creates is the result of being socialized as gendered.

[TC]

Feminism does not rest on the idea that every difference between men and women is a result of socialisation.
No but it does rest on the idea that social and psychological differences between men and women are the result of differing social treatment. The number of people conforming to a given personality type might be distributed differently between the two sexes for reasons not attributable to socialization but its impossible to know to what extent this is true because all men and women live in a social context.

In any case, feminism entails the claim that psychology and behavior are not defining characteristics of sex and no psychological or behavioral trait will define someone as a real man or real woman as genitalia and chromosomes do.

[ifeelyou]

I'll use an example, but I really want to emphasize that I don't think this is an isolated case - neither in the specific phenomenon, nor the person experiencing it, ie. there were other examples with the one individual, and there are other similar individuals. Neither is the transgender community a homogeneous entity, quite the opposite, but nevertheless I do think you find this type of phenomenon.

There was a story about a kid born as a boy but, among other things, identifying with one of the Disney princesses. I don't think anyone should identify with any Disney character, but the princesses are a special example of the subordination of women and I don't think this should be viewed as the person just naturally being "female" because I don't think Disney princesses are representative of anything naturally female.


Well me if I must give a name, myself - but I certainly doubt I'm the only one who objects to, say, Disney princesses.


Again stressing the diversity of the community, I think you will find some objection by a number of people that they represent a "thirdness", or at least reject the idea that they form a third (or fourth) gender. Different categories I guess, but the general impression I get (? not knowing a lot/any transgender people I'm going on impression) is that a lot of people genuinely want to assimilate into a specific gender and forget about it, damn their "thirdness".


I'm a little uncomfortable with this because while it's better than "two" for a number of reasons, it presents a number of the same challenges and I don't like the idea that we have to so rigidly characterize, and compartmentalize, gender and individual's genderedness so rigidly.


I tried Judith Butler. I gave up. She's interesting and I think intelligent (?) but I generally don't know what she's on about.


Well I'm not suggesting they're innate, I'm saying there's a suggestion that they are and this suggestion is challenging. But as for the general idea of your question, ie. "examples", there's one above. The idea that transwomen might have a meaningful and "natural" affinity for pink might be anothe. I'm pissing in the dark here, I'm just trying to give a general idea of what I'm talking about.


Except that I believe that a lot of the whole idea of the female gender is constructed to subordinate women. There might be some sort of inherent "separate-but-equal-ness" to it, although to me stressing that point is precisely the type of feminism that isn't serious, and at any rate it raises its own concerns. But the differences we're talking about aren't "equal". The "girls" section in a toy store is not "equal" to the implicitly boys' section, and Disney princesses are not equal to Disney princes.

Great! If you have no other feminists that you can mention lets narrow the conversation down to YOU. We can talk about specifics and YOUR opinions, but refrain from incorporating "feminists" into the picture if you're talking about yourself.

[bcbm]

I don't totally understand your comment here. The notion that there are more superficial aspects (as well as less superficial aspects) of gender identity doesn't have normative content and can't be an "insult". I don't understand how it's insulting.

Maybe I was reading too much into it, but it seems like there was a suggestion of trans women adopting that label because they like the color pink or some Disney princess, which was what I found insulting as it seems to devalue their judgment of themselves. As I said, being trans is a feeling much deeper than feeling "affinity with the color pink."


Again, the diversity of the community. This isn't relevant to the larger issue I'm raising. I'm just saying that a "third" isn't a "solution" in the way it's often framed - that I really feel some people almost imply that the only reason gender is a challenge in our society is that we don't have a set and solid "third". This is false.

Well obviously it isn't a solution, but your point before was that thirds are marginal and that most identify with one of the binary gender options and that this was somehow problematic?


People who "may identify with a specific gender but [don't] pick up everything traditionally associated with that" - that means everyone, not a specific segment of the trans community but every single person who identifies with a specific gender.

Well yeah, but you're talking about assimilation as though the idea of becoming one gender implies some negative baggage that has to come along with it- hence the talk of disney princesses, etc.


I don't think it's necessary to include an extensive and rigorously researched list of examples to raise the issue that there's a challenge here

Well, one lightly researched and cited example probably wouldn't be too much to ask for, so we don't keep ending up with...


that some transgender people (I'm mostly talking about transwomen, but you could make parallel points) argue that certain things are innate for them as part of the gender they feel "naturally" aligned to

... vague shit like this which doesn't really tell us anything.


I think this fact is actually rather obvious, and I'm suprised that this is so heavily disputed.

Okay, we could make this discussion simple. Do some transfolk have a sense of gender that is at odds with the scientific definition? Probably. Is this a "challenge" to feminism? No, it just means they're wrong.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

No transsexuals have the physical characteristics of their preferred sex, hence the different term.

No, they only have the appearance of their preferred sex. If sex is biological, then the sex of a man who decided to surgically change into a woman is still male. His gender may be female. But his biological sex remains unaltered. Unless one day it becomes possible to mess with peoples' genetic structure.

[bcbm]

No, they only have the appearance of their preferred sex. If sex is biological, then the sex of a man who decided to surgically change into a woman is still male. His gender may be female. But his biological sex remains unaltered. Unless one day it becomes possible to mess with peoples' genetic structure.

The term may not work in the most technical sense, but it fits the purposes of the different aspects of trans-identity.

[Glenn Beck]

I agree, it does attack, and without an analytically coherent theory the entire foundation of feminism. How do we reconcile it? We don't try to because the position is frankly incorrect and uses an essentialist patriarchal concept of gender.

Instead we come up with better arguments for the rights of transgendered people. The fact that they're not naturally the opposite gender because no one is naturally gendered, people come to be gendered socially. This should in no way undermine their ability to adopt the apperearence and cultural tropes of the opposite sex; on the contrary the observeration that gender is socially constructed ought to enable everyone whether they're transgendered or not to do what they want without being restricted by their biological sex.

This is the much more radical, progressive and leftist view of gender and its a *better* argument for transgendered (and, incidentally, women's and gays') rights than the essentially "i like pink not blue so i must have a truely pink mind" argument. That argument appeals to the old fashioned belief that people's sex limits their psychology and behavior rather than the way they've been socialized as a result of their sex.

This was a triumph. :thumbup1:

It seems to me that feminism always tried to liberate women from the social limitations placed on what behaviors they could exhibit "naturally" from riding bicycles to holding jobs to voting to controlling their own reproduction. How this is in any way incompatible with doing the same for males who deviate from the socially delineated boundaries for that categorization (which are usually "naturalized" just as those for women) I am at a loss to understand.

Once the limitations on what female behavior is considered "natural" begin to be exposed as false or arbitrary it seems a logical next step to do the same for all such limitations. Like Alfred Kinsey said "the only unnatural sexual position is the one you cannot physically perform". I think an expression of gender or sexuality could potentially be unhealthy or harmful under certain circumstances, but given that gender is produced by socialization I question whether any gender expression can be considered more or less natural than another.