A transsexual-free utopia?

[Natasha]

A transsexual-free utopia?

http://eyoki.wordpress.com/2010/08/23/a-transsexual-free-utopia/
by eyoki
8/23/10

Last month i read a column in the Guardian by a trans woman, describing the trials and tribulations of her transition. One of those commenting* suggested however that in a perfect world in which there was no discrimination against women and in which gender wasn't assigned at birth and enforced by 'the State' there would be no transsexuals. No-one would feel the need to have hormone therapy or have surgery in this free, perfect world because there would be no stigma associated with not conforming to the gender stereotypes associated with a person's sex and no association between (physical) sex and (social) gender.

Is this true?

[Epigania]

I've not read the article, but to comment on your response.

In a world where there is no Gender Identity, can you have GID?   To play devil's advocate:  Gender Expression and Gender Identity can be seen as a product of a need to fullfill a role that Society has defined and enforces.   Just because "the state" doesn't define these roles, society does.   An example can be found in the pacific islands that have "3 genders" in their society. 

That's my 2 cents, at least.

[Janet_Girl]

In a transsexual-free utopia, there would still be the social binary sex forms, mostly for reproduction.  There are places in the world were there are three genders.

In an ideal utopia, there would be four genders, a double binary.  Cis men and women, Trans men and women.  Al living in a harmonious sociality.  A utopia is just a dream world.

Maybe one day we will be allowed to true be ourselves without the perjudgiouses.

[spacial]

No, it isn't true.

Our society is based upon individualism. The right of each individual to live as they choose, where legal restrictions are based upon demonstrable social need rather than dogma.

There is no demonstrable necessity for sex based restrictions, legal or social, on clothing for example in everyday life. What the justification of these restrictions boils down to is an insistance that each of us presents ourselves as being appropriately, sexually available.

I read about police officers in the US, for example, making issue with drivers who appear to be female but have M on their licience. The driver has confirmed their identity. If further proof of identity is necessary, then that might be provided. The insistance of the police officer is tantamount to sexual molestation.

If the driver presented with red hair but was listed as being blond, would the same problem arise?

But my outward gender is incompatable with my feelings. It's more than appearance. It smells, it hurts, it affects my behaviour and judgement, (less as I've grown older of course), it makes it difficult for me to relate to others.

That is not a social construct, it is biological.

[rejennyrated]

NO absolutely not. I underwent the medical procedures purely because I disliked my physical form.

I had no illusions or hangups about gender role at all. As a matter of fact if you do a gender role inventory on me you will conclude that like a large percentage of humanity I exist in that middle ground where my behaviour would be broadly deemed acceptable for either sex. In that respect at least I am not all that strongly gendered.

It is only when we come to the physical arena that i have a strong preference for the female form. So whatever the social mores with respect to gender, I for one would certainly have been seeking medical transform.

[Ryuu]

No, because in the case of someone like me, and I'm sure a lot of people, it's more about the "parts" than about gender roles. If I were male bodied, I'd probably wear dresses and makeup.

[RebeccaFog]

The idea of a "utopia" for some people is simply getting rid of groups that offend them and they are too spineless to come out and say it. A true utopia would be if the human race were wiped out altogether.

Have a nice day.

I've been trying to come up with ways to do just that.

I agree with the naysayers here. 

[xAndrewx]

I didn't read the article cause I'm in a rather good mood and don't want to risk upsetting myself but I will look at it later. That said to answer your question I agree with the quote below. I will go through procedures I feel like I want to (ie chest surgery and testosterone) but the important people in my life for the most part see me as me, the rest does not matter. I just hate things on my body because I want to see myself the way I see myself in my head, if that makes sense

NO absolutely not. I underwent the medical procedures purely because I disliked my physical form.

[K8]

I don't think so.  I transitioned mainly for social reasons - to socially be a woman.  But getting the right hormones in my system and the right genital configuration has made a HUGE difference in how I feel that has nothing to do with how I fit into society.  I needed the medical intervention - I just didn't recognize that ahead of time.

In a perfect society, people wouldn't care that some of us are born with the body of one gender and the mind and soul of another.

- Kate

[Miniar]

NO absolutely not. I underwent the medical procedures purely because I disliked my physical form.

I had no illusions or hangups about gender role at all. As a matter of fact if you do a gender role inventory on me you will conclude that like a large percentage of humanity I exist in that middle ground where my behaviour would be broadly deemed acceptable for either sex. In that respect at least I am not all that strongly gendered.

It is only when we come to the physical arena that i have a strong preference for the female form. So whatever the social mores with respect to gender, I for one would certainly have been seeking medical transform.

^ Roughly this.

Except, I'm a bloke ofcourse.