Am I missing something ???

[xFreya]

Yeah most of the time people think there are more unchangeable biological differences between AMAB and AFAB people than there is. A lot of people think HRT is an unnatural medication to grow breasts when it actually changes a lot of your biology. Your gene expressions, metabolism, muscles and fat distribution, probably some things about your brain etc.

[RobynTx]

I am I. It's all an opinion.

[Michelle_P]

Well, much of the "issue" comes from confusing sex and gender.    Try this on for size:

I am a human being.
I suffer from gender incongruity, a mismatch of gender between parts of myself.
I seek medical aid in reconciling this incongruity.

This would be me.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sarah.VanDistel]

I have a very difficult time believing that someone who is currently living full-time and eventually planning on living in complete stealth still thinks of themselves as a "man... with a very feminine soul/mind".

Trans women are biologically women in the way that matters most - our brains.  Our mentality, our minds, our very souls are female. 

Claiming that you are "way too realistic" to accept yourself as female tells me that you have a lot to learn about what it means to be trans.  Are you implying that trans women who don't subscribe to your view are less realistic?  That we are living in a fantasy?  Honestly, it feels like a thinly veiled insult.

Dear echo7,

Apparently, OP is not the only one who has a lot to learn... For instance, accepting that there is no one standard view of what "to be a transwoman" means. It means different things to different people and no, you're not more "right" than OP. She's just expressing how she lives it and expressing her dismay at discovering that different people view being a transwoman as very different concepts... Does that make OP less trans? No, it doesn't.

Perhaps did you take the words of OP a bit too literally. I'm sure when OP says that she's "biologically male", she really wants to say that she's genetically male. But biology is more than genetics and in our case, there's increasing evidence that it has to do with in utero brain development and exposure to maternal hormones, which indeed seems leads to a brain with some structurally female features.

What's the most important? Your genotype or your mind? You assume it's the mind, but you should not be so quick assuming... Because that's an insult, and not really thinly veiled, at those who make the choice not to transition. You're saying they are not trans. Again, the answer to this question depends on individual opinion. For me and probably the largest part of this community, it would be the later (mind). But if someone tells me that she feels a girl but prefers to somehow try to suppress those feelings in order to live in accordance to their male genotype, they're welcome to do so. To each her own. They aren't less trans because of that.

Now, although OP was innacurate in saying that transwomen are "biologically male", you're certainly not more accurate in saying that they are. "What are we, biologically?" is actually a very silly question to which the only reasonable answer would be: a bit of both. We are clearly not just males trying to look like females because, as you've so eloquently said, "our mentality, our minds, our very souls are female." However - and I'm sorry for ruining your idyllic picture - neither are we just females... No matter how you tackle the question, your karyotype will ALWAYS show XY [maybe in some very remote future, there will be technology to change that also... but the fact that you took the first breath in this world as a phenotypical male will forever remain engraved in the space-time fabric].

What OP meant (had you exerted a little bit more perspicacity, you'd have come to the same conclusion) is that although she feels as womanly as a ciswoman, she can't honestly deny she's genetically a male. This is evident and irrefutable. It's a fact. I didn't feel insulted, at all. I'm even very comfortable with the notion. And believe me, the fact of thinking like this don't make OP or me less of a woman than you.

Now, dare I ask: do you feel insecure when someone reminds you of who you are, genetically? It shouldn't, because as you say, the mind is what matters the most. Why should you be bothered, right?

No hard feelings.

Peace & Hugs, Sarah

Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk


P.S.: Note to the police: I saw your post about your patrolling this area, AFTER I published this post... I hope I haven't infringed any laws, officer. [emoji16] If so, accept my most honest excuses. S.V.D.

[Sophia Sage]

...there is no one standard view of what "to be a transwoman" means. It means different things to different people and no, you're not more "right" than OP. She's just expressing how she lives it and expressing her dismay at discovering that different people view being a transwoman as very different concepts... Does that make OP less trans? No, it doesn't.

The category of "trans" is not a very distinct category, certainly not in today's world.  For some of us, it's a temporary category, one indicating the presence of gender dysphoria and/or a narrative of transition, rather than a fixed identity.  For others, it's immutable. 

I tend to think that "trans" is a socially constructed category, emergent from the individual interior experience of gender dysphoria... but no longer dependent on that interior experience, given the myriad non-dysphoric people who traverse the gender binary themselves.  But even if we restrict ourselves to binary transitioners, I'm still in the "socially constructed" camp, for "coming out" as trans (not to mention transition itself) is ultimately a ritual, the purpose of which is change one's social categorization.

Conversely, consider the experience of someone who is gender dysphoric but never comes out -- they will never have the social experience of "being trans," with all its attendant wonders and horrors. 

Perhaps did you take the words of OP a bit too literally. I'm sure when OP says that she's "biologically male", she really wants to say that she's genetically male. But biology is more than genetics and in our case, there's increasing evidence that it has to do with in utero brain development and exposure to maternal hormones, which indeed seems leads to a brain with some structurally female features.

What's the most important? Your genotype or your mind? You assume it's the mind, but you should not be so quick assuming... Because that's an insult, and not really thinly veiled, at those who make the choice not to transition. You're saying they are not trans.

I disagree with statements like "biologically/genetically male."  Someone born with an XY genome but also complete androgen insensitivity will be assigned female at birth -- with a vagina, not a penis.  They will grow and develop like other women, other than being infertile.  Other than by expressing a desire to not be gendered female, she will experience a woman's life.

The categories of male and female were not created by genetics or any kind of biological "essence."  These categories (which is actually true of all categories) are created by people, mostly subconsciously.  Categories are patterns, and the patterns we perceive do not have mass, nor do they have energy.  Something that has no mass and no energy doesn't exist.

Now, when we take "trans" as a socially constructed category (not to mention a category lacking in a singular "image" or "schema" that we have for our "basic-level categories" like men and women and fish and chairs, but rather rooted in narrative disclosure) we also eliminate the problem of what someone does with their life after coming out.  If you come out, if you perform that ritual, you enter trans social space.  Some people will transition and transsex, and leave that category behind.  Others will transition, but for narrative or physiological reasons will continue to occupy trans space.  And even those who don't transition, for whatever reason, will still be "trans" to those who understand their narrative. 

So what really matters?  Ultimately, our interiority, and our social spaces.  This is about as realistic as it gets.  To focus on "biology" or "genetics" or even upbringing when it comes to gendering ourselves is a mistake.  A philosophical and epistemological mistake. 

There are no essences.  There is only the here and now.

What OP meant (had you exerted a little bit more perspicacity, you'd have come to the same conclusion) is that although she feels as womanly as a ciswoman, she can't honestly deny she's genetically a male. This is evident and irrefutable. It's a fact.

Until we "measure" a genome we can't honestly say what's in there at all, at all.  We just don't know, even though probability will lead to some very accurate guesses.  And even if the chromosome is measured, the results on that particular chromosome only say that one has XX or XY genes there (or something else entirely).  But these results aren't categorical indicators of gender!  They are conventionally taken as such -- and convention indicates a social construction.  And as we see with CAIS women with XY genes, that social convention is mistaken.

Here's what's realistic:  We will be gendered, by ourselves and by others. That gendering will be predicated on a combination of voice, face, body, social skills, narrative, and documentation. And, of course, one's personal interior truth.  Now, if there is such a thing as "essence" then I'd say it's commensurate with "personal interior truth" first and foremost.  I myself respect that interior truth above all.  And I refuse to let other peoples' misunderstanding of how categories actually work to undermine that truth.  I refuse to let a "conceptual framework" imprison me.

[xFreya]

I think I am not allowed to post links here so I'll try to summarize what I read about genetic differences between sexes. I am not a scientist (yet  ) but I am interested in this stuff. so correct me if I learned anything wrong.

So of all our chromosomes existence or lack of Y chromosome normally determines sex. In that Y chromosome about just 13 genes (we have about 20 thousand in total) don't exist in X chromosomes. I don't know what all of those do but I think the important one is the SRY gene. It turns undifferentiated gonads to testes. Testes produce testosterone and anti-müllerian hormone. These hormones inhibit the development of female reproductive structures and initiate male primary structures instead. Before that everything start the same, regardless of your chromosomes, penis and clitoris are homologues, so are labia majora and scrotal skin, prostate and skene gland etc. If your SRY gene is corrupt you will develop female. If you are completely insensitive to androgen you will develop female. Or you may have other intersex conditions, probably depending on a lot of factors. Being trans might probably be one of them too. (your brain may develop the other way for whatever reason)

So you can potentially go either way regardless of your sex chromosomes because those genes already exist on your other chromosomes (not sex chromosomes) or the one X you have.

I was also wondering if XX females will be more receptive to some of these things because well they have two of some genes. I read that one X chromosome is silenced, it is inactive. But about 150 genes appearently evades this inactivation. So maybe cis women get some of these in "higher doses".

Other than that hundreds or thousands of genes are turned on or off by your hormone levels. You can alter these with HRT.

So if I understand things right, even when it comes to genetics you can change a lot more than you can't.(gene expressions) I am not even sure whether it would make a big difference if we could make our chromosomes XX somehow. (after we are born)

As I look more into these things it doesn't make sense to me to use strong words like biological female/male or even genetic female/male in the cases of trans or intersex people. But to each their own.

[Sarah.VanDistel]

The category of "trans" is not a very distinct category, certainly not in today's world.  For some of us, it's a temporary category, one indicating the presence of gender dysphoria and/or a narrative of transition, rather than a fixed identity.  For others, it's immutable. 

I tend to think that "trans" is a socially constructed category, emergent from the individual interior experience of gender dysphoria... but no longer dependent on that interior experience, given the myriad non-dysphoric people who traverse the gender binary themselves.  But even if we restrict ourselves to binary transitioners, I'm still in the "socially constructed" camp, for "coming out" as trans (not to mention transition itself) is ultimately a ritual, the purpose of which is change one's social categorization.

Conversely, consider the experience of someone who is gender dysphoric but never comes out -- they will never have the social experience of "being trans," with all its attendant wonders and horrors. 

I disagree with statements like "biologically/genetically male."  Someone born with an XY genome but also complete androgen insensitivity will be assigned female at birth -- with a vagina, not a penis.  They will grow and develop like other women, other than being infertile.  Other than by expressing a desire to not be gendered female, she will experience a woman's life.

The categories of male and female were not created by genetics or any kind of biological "essence."  These categories (which is actually true of all categories) are created by people, mostly subconsciously.  Categories are patterns, and the patterns we perceive do not have mass, nor do they have energy.  Something that has no mass and no energy doesn't exist.

Now, when we take "trans" as a socially constructed category (not to mention a category lacking in a singular "image" or "schema" that we have for our "basic-level categories" like men and women and fish and chairs, but rather rooted in narrative disclosure) we also eliminate the problem of what someone does with their life after coming out.  If you come out, if you perform that ritual, you enter trans social space.  Some people will transition and transsex, and leave that category behind.  Others will transition, but for narrative or physiological reasons will continue to occupy trans space.  And even those who don't transition, for whatever reason, will still be "trans" to those who understand their narrative. 

So what really matters?  Ultimately, our interiority, and our social spaces.  This is about as realistic as it gets.  To focus on "biology" or "genetics" or even upbringing when it comes to gendering ourselves is a mistake.  A philosophical and epistemological mistake. 

There are no essences.  There is only the here and now.

Until we "measure" a genome we can't honestly say what's in there at all, at all.  We just don't know, even though probability will lead to some very accurate guesses.  And even if the chromosome is measured, the results on that particular chromosome only say that one has XX or XY genes there (or something else entirely).  But these results aren't categorical indicators of gender!  They are conventionally taken as such -- and convention indicates a social construction.  And as we see with CAIS women with XY genes, that social convention is mistaken.

Here's what's realistic:  We will be gendered, by ourselves and by others. That gendering will be predicated on a combination of voice, face, body, social skills, narrative, and documentation. And, of course, one's personal interior truth.  Now, if there is such a thing as "essence" then I'd say it's commensurate with "personal interior truth" first and foremost.  I myself respect that interior truth above all.  And I refuse to let other peoples' misunderstanding of how categories actually work to undermine that truth.  I refuse to let a "conceptual framework" imprison me.

Dear Sophia,

It's really late over here (2:20)... I had to think twice before keeping on reading your extensive and erudite answer, let alone answer it! (Instead of tomorrow, I mean.) I just didn't feel up to the challenge! [emoji57]

Still...

You seem to have understood that I said that I focus on "biology" or "genetics" or upbringing when it comes to gendering people. Well... I'm really not sure what led you to believe that. It's not the case. But I also think that no matter how much ignoring biology, genetics and upbringing sounds comforting, that doesn't make them disappear...

I'll conclude my intervention by just saying a couple of things. I promise I'll be succint.

I don't feel a prisonner in a "conceptual framework". Without overcomplicating: I just feel what I feel and I'm fine with it. I'm very well aware that outside of human experience, gender as a category doesn't really exist. Furthermore, there's no way of telling if my experience of feminity is the same as yours or as the girl next door, but for purposes of functionality the social construct agreed upon creates a fuzzy common ground around which people tend to orbit. I'm orbiting around it myself...

However...

Gender, as a category, may be a societal construct, but it has nonetheless its roots in a phenotypical and very objective dichotomy (which in turn has its roots in a genotypical dichotomy). No matter how much reality bending or wishful thinking, these phenotypical and genotypical dichotomies have "mass and energy", they do exist and have probably been around since the early eukaryotes.

Genotypically and phenotypically, I came into existence as a male. But I've always felt this to be a mismatch, because what I feel is much more akin to what society categorized as female. So I am transitioning. I won't forget my past as a physical male. And I'm super cool and comfortable with that.

Hugs and... zzzzzzz... [emoji42]

Sarah



Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk

[Sophia Sage]

To the OP:

1. How I view Trans woman vs them:  In my mind, I am a biological man that has a very feminine soul/mind. Hence transitioning to align my body with my mind. I want to be complete stealth( with few exceptions) but still nothing can change the fact that I am a biological male. Now they view Trans woman as females that were born with deformity ....hence transitioning to correct that. While I wish this was really true  but I know I will never be able to accept that thought process as I am way too realistic for that.

2. Dating: They view males that don't want to go out with them as bigots/discriminating while I just see that as a  preference and nothing wrong with that.

3. Practice non disclosure when it comes to dating: while I do want to be mostly stealth after srs, I believe prospective partners have to know about my trans stAtus before physical intimacy. I do think life would be much easier with non disclosure but that would be very wrong. Those other trans woman think if one is very passable, then non disclosure should be practiced as that makes things very easier. Isn't that a selfish thing though?

Wondering if these ideology is very common in our community or those women were exceptions?

These women are exceptional.  To address their points:

1.  They privilege their interiority, first and foremost.  (As I just wrote at length above, this can be done in an internally consistent and coherent fashion.  It's certainly not conventional in the materialistic somewhat rigidly simplistic West, but it's nonetheless a valid approach, one of many.)  So how this plays out is that "I am a woman" is the core identity, it's what comes first.  "I'm a woman, but my body has betrayed me, so I'm fixing my body," that's a very different thing than starting with, "My body is X or Y, but my mind disagrees, so I'm transitioning."  In the latter case, I'd argue that you're giving your power away by privileging external circumstance (and external concepts of categorization) over personal truth (if your truth is "I'm female" and not "I'm bi-gendered"), but hey, it's your power to do with as you will.

2.  Someone who says they won't date Jews, or Muslims, or atheists... are bigots and discriminating.  Same goes for someone who categorically won't date a woman who is infertile, or a man who isn't rich.  They're discriminating bigots because they are judging people categorically -- rather than taking each individual as a sentient being in their own right, with their own individual flaws and merits, and making a decision based on their attraction or lack thereof to that individual.  Now, most straight people won't find people of the same gender attractive, and most gay people won't find the opposite sex attractive, but this is largely based on accumulated knowledge of one's biological response (physical arousal) -- which happens subconsciously and automatically and in the moment, not as a pre-determined conceptual choice.

3.  I disagree that narrative non-disclosure should be practiced because it's "easier."  It should be practiced as a consequence of one's personal interior truth (one's "soul" for lack of a better word)... insofar as the gendering one receives and expects to receive is correct.  Mind you, if one is pre-op or non-op and tries to go bed with someone without narrative disclosure, that moment of disrobing still counts as "disclosure" even if it's done without words, and this is a very ill-advised way of "coming out" in our current culture.  What would be "wrong" is leading someone to believe that the two of you will make babies together... or dating someone primarily to make babies, for that matter, as the latter reduces a person to a function. 

If you do intend to practice non-disclosure in your day-to-day life, be aware that disclosing to potential sexual partners can lead to unintended disclosure in other milieus -- be it the workplace, in your social groups, what have you.  Which, in turn, can have a material impact on the gendering you receive.

But the more poignant thing to recognize is that disclosure ("coming out") at any point in this journey is a ritual -- functionally, it's a request to be categorized and treated differently than you currently are.  This is necessary if how you're being categorized (which will default to heterosexual and gender norms, among others) doesn't suit you.  So the choice to disclose or not really depends on your own personal truth and how well other people automatically recognize that truth.  If your interior truth is that you are both a kind of male and a kind of female, then you're not going to get the gendering you need unless you're either visibly transgendered (non-passing) or through the rite of disclosure, and likewise if you're on the binary but the gendering you get is wrong -- which is why all transitions begin with "coming out" in some way, shape, or form.  Conversely, if your personal truth is unequivocally on the binary, and the gendering you receive is correct, then disclosure is practically a form of self-betrayal.

And sometimes we have to see for ourselves.  "Know thyself" is easy to say, but we don't always know ourselves until we're informed by our experiences.  I've outed myself before, and it made me feel wrong.  It added to my dysphoria -- no, it invoked my dysphoria.  So now I always let people gender me correctly, and after nearly two decades of this experience, I know there's no going back. 

This was a crucial step in my transsexing -- to stop clocking myself. 

[Sophia Sage]

You seem to have understood that I said that I focus on "biology" or "genetics" or upbringing when it comes to gendering people. Well... I'm really not sure what led you to believe that.

Sorry, Sarah, a lot of my response there should be taken within the context of the OP, and if anything doesn't seem applicable to you personally then please don't take it as such.

However...

However...

Gender, as a category, may be a societal construct, but it has nonetheless its roots in a phenotypical and very objective dichotomy (which in turn has its roots in a genotypical dichotomy). No matter how much reality bending or wishful thinking, these phenotypical and genotypical dichotomies have "mass and energy", they do exist and have probably been around since the early eukaryotes.

Genotypically and phenotypically, I came into existence as a male. But I've always felt this to be a mismatch, because what I feel is much more akin to what society categorized as female. So I am transitioning. I won't forget my past as a physical male. And I'm super cool and comfortable with that.

Now you're talking about history.  Sarah, the past no longer exists.  It's gone.  And yet here you are continuing to embrace it, as well as things like genotypes and phenotypes.  Now, if the gendered implications of that don't make you dysphoric, then more power to you.  Indeed, if the implications are actually important and crucial to your understanding of your personal truth, then disclosure is obviously right for you.

And of course, an understanding of phenotypes is very important during transition -- because it's phenotypes that inform (subconsciously, automatically) the social practice of gendering.  So we do have to pay attention to them (not just the one -- genital configuration -- that was apparent at birth) so that we can change them.  But beyond that, there's no philosophical reason to respect them, unless they're crucial to your personal truth.  After they've been successfully addressed, you might find that the story of your past that you're telling today isn't as relevant to you as it is right now, in the midst of transition.

Me, I no longer care about the conditions of my birth.  They are irrelevant to my life today, having transitioned back at the turn of the century.  Having lived this life for so long... I can say at this point that I really have "forgotten" the past.  Because my memories have changed!  When I think back to when I was like seven years old, the pictures of myself that appear in my head are pictures of a little girl.  And this fills me with joy so I go with it. 

I transitioned to receive female gendering from myself and others... and that gendering in my experience is markedly different than male gendering or "trans" gendering.  I'm living the dream, because I never forgot the truth at the center of my dream (and because I was privileged and lucky enough to have the resources to make it happen).  And now everything has changed in translation. 

It all kind of depends on what the dream is (or was), doesn't it?

[elkie-t]

And so started 1millionth war on proper trans-labels and definitions


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tgirlamg]

And so started 1millionth war on proper trans-labels and definitions


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

....and onward it goes!!!! !!!!!!

[Paige]

Hi all,

I have no problem with any of us having different beliefs on how we relate to our bodies, ourselves and the world.  My problem with the original post was the implication that those of us who didn't view the world as she did were not realistic.  Maybe I'm misunderstanding her point but I think she implied that we who disagree with this point live in some sort of fantasy world not the real world.

I will never be able to accept that thought process as I am way too realistic for that.

Take care,
Paige

[Sarah.VanDistel]

Sorry, Sarah, a lot of my response there should be taken within the context of the OP, and if anything doesn't seem applicable to you personally then please don't take it as such.

However...

Now you're talking about history.  Sarah, the past no longer exists.  It's gone.  And yet here you are continuing to embrace it, as well as things like genotypes and phenotypes.  Now, if the gendered implications of that don't make you dysphoric, then more power to you.  Indeed, if the implications are actually important and crucial to your understanding of your personal truth, then disclosure is obviously right for you.

And of course, an understanding of phenotypes is very important during transition -- because it's phenotypes that inform (subconsciously, automatically) the social practice of gendering.  So we do have to pay attention to them (not just the one -- genital configuration -- that was apparent at birth) so that we can change them.  But beyond that, there's no philosophical reason to respect them, unless they're crucial to your personal truth.  After they've been successfully addressed, you might find that the story of your past that you're telling today isn't as relevant to you as it is right now, in the midst of transition.

Me, I no longer care about the conditions of my birth.  They are irrelevant to my life today, having transitioned back at the turn of the century.  Having lived this life for so long... I can say at this point that I really have "forgotten" the past.  Because my memories have changed!  When I think back to when I was like seven years old, the pictures of myself that appear in my head are pictures of a little girl.  And this fills me with joy so I go with it. 

I transitioned to receive female gendering from myself and others... and that gendering in my experience is markedly different than male gendering or "trans" gendering.  I'm living the dream, because I never forgot the truth at the center of my dream (and because I was privileged and lucky enough to have the resources to make it happen).  And now everything has changed in translation. 

It all kind of depends on what the dream is (or was), doesn't it?

Ah, Sophia!... I'm feeling that debating this very controversial theme will lead to nowhere (or worse, lol). It's intellectually stimulating, but alas not very rewarding in the end.

So let's agree to disagree! [emoji4] As long as each one is happy with her view... Right? I know that I am. I understand (and am glad) that you are. In the end, that's probably what really counts... Are we good? [emoji259]

Hugs, Sarah

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[newgirltx]

Thanks all of you for sharing your perspective on the topic. While I may not agree with everyone I certainly respect it.

As far as my initial post goes, I meant genetic male when I mentioned biological male. Also in my case I identify as a woman in my heart/soul/brain and nothing else but also believe that in this world that's not enough to be not be a genetic male. While I don't identify as a man at all, no amount of surgery or hormones can change the fact that I will always be a genetic male that looks and identifies as a female. In my opinion gender is a social construct but sex isn't.

Now i have only lived 4 months as a female of the total 19 yrs on this planet. Maybe in next 10 years my perspective will change as a matter of convenience  as I move distant from my male life memories. However its only my personal perspective that might change but not the actual fact.

[Sophia Sage]

Ah, Sophia!... I'm feeling that debating this very controversial theme will lead to nowhere (or worse, lol). It's intellectually stimulating, but alas not very rewarding in the end.

So let's agree to disagree! [emoji4] As long as each one is happy with her view... Right? I know that I am. I understand (and am glad) that you are. In the end, that's probably what really counts... Are we good? [emoji259]

Hugs, Sarah

Oh, of course we're good!  *hugs*

[Sophia Sage]

As far as my initial post goes, I meant genetic male when I mentioned biological male. Also in my case I identify as a woman in my heart/soul/brain and nothing else but also believe that in this world that's not enough to be not be a genetic male. While I don't identify as a man at all, no amount of surgery or hormones can change the fact that I will always be a genetic male that looks and identifies as a female. In my opinion gender is a social construct but sex isn't.

Now i have only lived 4 months as a female of the total 19 yrs on this planet. Maybe in next 10 years my perspective will change as a matter of convenience  as I move distant from my male life memories. However its only my personal perspective that might change but not the actual fact.

You're so lucky to be doing this so young!  And I thought I was lucky transitioning in my early 30s.  Anyways, yes, stay open-minded.  Things can change.

Like, your understanding of semantics, for example, and not as a matter of convenience but perhaps one of wisdom.  Of course we don't have the technology today to change our genetics, but perhaps that's not a pipe dream.  Regardless, you might find a difference between thinking you "are a genetic male" -- which is predicated conceptually on being a type of male -- to recognizing that you were never male, despite (likely) having XY genetics.

You aren't obliged to gender your genetics!

[Charlie Nicki]

We are all different. I totally get how you think and I agree.

A lot of transwomen are hung up on the fact that they *need* people to acknowledge they were always women and born as women. And yes, they feel insulted and even discriminated against if somebody says otherwise.

Well, to me, the beauty of being trans is precisely the fact that we were born as the opposite sex yet our identities align as females. I can't deny my biology nor do I want to. BUT, that's only me. You can't expect anyone to share your own concept of identity, so if they feel they were deformed women then just accept it and no need to think much else about it. Each trans person defines what makes them trans and how they see themselves.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[xFreya]

Also in my case I identify as a woman in my heart/soul/brain and nothing else but also believe that in this world that's not enough to be not be a genetic male.

With today's technology you probably can't change your genotype yes, but that may not mean as much as you think. Maybe refer to my earlier post and research yourself if this matters to you. Or just focus on changing your phenotype as much as you can.  If you were a XY female with CAIS would the idea of having a Y chromosome bother you much? Or would you see yourself as a female with a rare condition?

[echo7]

As far as my initial post goes, I meant genetic male when I mentioned biological male. Also in my case I identify as a woman in my heart/soul/brain and nothing else but also believe that in this world that's not enough to be not be a genetic male. While I don't identify as a man at all, no amount of surgery or hormones can change the fact that I will always be a genetic male that looks and identifies as a female. In my opinion gender is a social construct but sex isn't.

I have a difficult time accepting the idea that gender is a social construct.  If that's true, then shouldn't it be possible to 'cure' transgender people by socially conditioning them?

[Michelle_P]

As far as my initial post goes, I meant genetic male when I mentioned biological male. Also in my case I identify as a woman in my heart/soul/brain and nothing else but also believe that in this world that's not enough to be not be a genetic male. While I don't identify as a man at all, no amount of surgery or hormones can change the fact that I will always be a genetic male that looks and identifies as a female. In my opinion gender is a social construct but sex isn't.

Hi, and welcome to Susan's Place!

Gender as a purely social construct was a popular idea in feminist theory back in the 1970s, but it turns out to be pretty misleading.  It still resurfaces occasionally as the basis for a rationale used to claim that transgender persons are 'not real', so look out for that!

Anyway, this turns out not to be the case.  Gender identity appears to have a biological basis.

Now, you might be conflating several 'gender' things.  There is also gender presentation, how we present ourselves to others, gender role, the sort of cultural social behaviors we demonstrate, and gender orientation, who we are attracted to.

Gender identity and gender orientation appear to be rooted in our biology.  (I'm involved in a study of this, in the role of lab rat!  The PhDs are looking at functional low level brain structure and finding interesting differences.)

The biological gender bias comes first. Cultural, and in particular "origin stories" and similar constructs that communicate evolving cultural gender concepts to subsequent generations evolved later.

Manners of dress and speech, hair, correct social behavior and similar items are cultural and often enforced by embellishments of the origin stories.

We know that there is an intrinsic element to gender identity from the accidental work of Dr John Money. He followed patients who through medical accidents following birth underwent involuntary gender reassignment. The patients were reassigned as a result of botched circumcisions and similar mishaps, and their parents were directed to raise the child entirely in the reassigned told. The patients were followed for ten years and Dr Money determined that they were adjusted to their assigned roles.

Dr Money published a paper claiming proof that gender roles were entirely learned. This was immediately accepted by certain parts of the feminist movement that felt this was a scientific proof of equality.  Gender as entirely a learned social role is still a common concept today in some circles.

A follow up on the patients in Dr Money's study, however, turned up some disturbing results.  A significant portion of the patients detransitioned in their teens with some displaying suicidal ideation.

The best known of these is David Reimer, raised as Brenda. This is often referred to as the John/Joan case. It ended badly.

When researched independently, Dr Money's work demonstrated an innate component to gender identity, with the involuntarily reassigned persons often exhibiting symptoms we are all too familiar with.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Money

So, how's that for a greeting?    It can certainly be an interesting topic to think about, but we have to be careful to examine all the facts and not fall victim to some logical fallacies that are used by trans-exclusionary rationalizations that crawl out of the woodwork from time to time.

Anyway, welcome, and I hope you will find Susan's Place to be useful and helpful.

A Cautionary Note:
Much of the content here is visible to the public, so please remember when posting that The Internet Never Forgets, and the various web crawlers and archival sites out there may retain information that you post.

We cannot ensure that any information you share on the site will be protected from public view and/or copying or reproduction. This warning is also listed in the Terms of Service listed below.

Do not share anything on Susan's that you do not want to be public information.

I also want to share some links with you. They  include helpful information and the rules that govern the site.  It is important for your enjoyment of the site to take a moment to go through them

Things that you should read

Site Terms of Service & Rules to Live By	Standard Terms & Definitions	Post Ranks (including when you can upload an avatar)
Reputation rules	News posting & quoting guidelines	Photo, avatars, & signature images policy