Susan's Place Transgender Resources

From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

QuoteRoyce's friendly but longstanding dispute with William James, known as
"The Battle of the Absolute," deeply influenced both philosophers'
thought. In his later works, Royce re-conceived his metaphysics as an
"absolute pragmatism" grounded in semiotics. This view dispenses with
the Absolute Mind of previous idealism and instead characterizes reality
as a universe of ideas or signs which occur in a process of being
interpreted by an infinite community of minds. These minds, and the
community they constitute, may themselves be understood as signs.
Royce's ethics, philosophy of community, philosophy of religion, and
logic reflect this metaphysical position.

Two non-cisgendered women, one, Elizabeth, is a middle aged post-op who, at least in her mind, is living in "stealth mode." Elizabeth, having had FFS, a BA and of course, SRS, considers herself  highly (99.9%) passable. Although she hasn't been mis-gendered in years, having lived many years in male mode, she still has occasional doubts. The other is Jane, a younger pre-op, who started HRT five years ago but has had no surgeries yet. She is very "pretty" and considers herself 100% passable. Although they do not discuss this, each considers herself "more passable." Liz thinks Jane's very slight brow bossing might give her away and Jane reads Liz as older and "less pretty" than her. They do discuss "passing" in general though and Liz says that although one can think she is 100% "passable," it is impossible to tell because in order to claim that one would have to read the mind of every person they have ever come in contact with. Jane argues that since no one has outwardly mis-gendered her in two or three years, she can assume that she passes 100%.  The question is which one has a more accurate image of the other? Jane's image of Liz or Liz's image of Jane.

I, and Josiah Royce, would argue that neither one's image of the other is correct as neither one's own self-image is correct. We have two people but basically four different constructs: (actually there are infinite constructs but four in this scenario)
1. Liz's self-image
2. Jane's image of Liz
3. Jane's self-image
4. Liz's image of Jane

So, we have four different concepts. None of them can be assumed to be correct as they are all different. How do we determine what the "true and correct" Jane and the "true and correct" Liz is? An earlier Royce would have said that there is an all knowing Absolute Knower that knows the truth. ("God") Later, Royce developed the theory that truth can be determined by an infinite community of minds. Simply stated, this is merely a consensus of (infinite) opinion. 

I think most of us is can find this philosophy comforting as the great majority of us, even in fairly early transition "pass"most of the time. Therefore, we all can be pretty sure that the infinite community of minds sees us for what we are: women.

(Royce and/or James will likely be a question on my mid-term. I doubt that I will use Liz and Jane as examples but using them here has helped me clarify the Royceian philosophy.)

As always, quite an interesting take on things UC ;). It does almost make it seem though, that relentless efforts to pass would just be futile.

@Abracadabra

That is my beliefs en punto.

Most of us that transition are very biased!, we look hard to see the manlike qualities the average person is not going to notice or even care about. 

That can be a huge negative though...  if your chasing the fruit of the perfect female face its impossible.  Not even woman have perfect faces.

Quote from: Abracadabra on September 21, 2012, 10:14:28 AM
And the entire congregation please say... AMEN  ;D

Oh dear, they might need to add another religion in the forum.  >:-)

Philosophically-speaking the very concept of passing raises a fascinating host of issues, since it's such a subjective concept. Passing as what? by whose definition? to whom? in what circumstances? etc, etc, etc. It could almost be taken as a textbook illustration of the way in which 'reality' is a concept created by observers, rather than an absolute, essential, objective truth.

In this particular case, the most sensible, certainly the most practical way of analyzing Liz and Jane's situation is to look at it in purely inductive terms. In other words, they have to reason on the basis of experience, rather than pure, deductive logic (the two are often confused, incidentally: many, maybe all of Sherlock Holmes's 'deductions' actually involve him inducing from experience, rather than deducing by pure logic).

Now, there is a form of passing that the person wishing to pass can know about, which is to say their own experience of going out in the world and either being aware, or not of others perceiving them as cis- or transgender. If they can go about their daily lives without being misgendered, stared at, mocked or, God forbid attacked, then they they have 'passed' in the way that matters most to them.

If they go out every day and always pass, by this definition, then they can reasonably induce from this repeated experience that they are 100% passable ... and that percentage would be lower if it was evident that they were 'clocked', depending how often that occurred.

There is, however, another, unknowable element to passing, which is that both Liz and Jane might actually be failing to pass far more often than they suspect, it's just that people are too polite or reserved to show that they've clocked them. I frequently spot people I suspect are either TV or TS but I would never be so rude as to show that recognition  in a public space, because it would be hurtful and I don't want to out them. So if I clocked either Liz or Jane, they would never, I hope, know that I'd done so.

One might then question whether this second form of passing is significant. After all, people are constantly making judgements about one another: 'he's a creep', 'her pants are two sizes too small', 'I love her shoes', 'he's gorgeous, etc, etc ... silently spotting a persons transgender comes into that category.

One might also question whether Liz and Jane need to stop being so bitchy and  get a life, if that's all they've got to worry about.

And come to that, maybe I should get a life, too!!  :)

Quote from: Carlita on September 21, 2012, 11:10:20 AM
There is, however, another, unknowable element to passing, which is that both Liz and Jane might actually be failing to pass far more often than they suspect, it's just that people are too polite or reserved to show that they've clocked them. I frequently spot people I suspect are either TV or TS but I would never be so rude as to show that recognition  in a public space, because it would be hurtful and I don't want to out them. So if I clocked either Liz or Jane, they would never, I hope, know that I'd done so.

It's not entirely unknowable. It is a factor of presentation. Being seen as a crossdresser requires a certain code of presentation. Fail to present that way and the possibility of being seen as trans reduces to pretty much nil. Simultaneously you increase your chance of being seen as male, of course - because there is no longer any reason to gender you female out of politeness.

If you want to test a hypothesis, in this case "do I pass 100%," you need to place additional stress on the situation in an effort to prove the hypothesis false. Sorry, I guess I'm just a social scientist at heart. Whenever I hear people going on about philosophy, I'm like "where is the data?"

I suggest Jane and Liz present gender-neutral appearances (no makeup, androgynous clothes, no noticeable chest, etc.) in an LGBT space and see what happens. Experiments are fun!

A good way to know you "pass" for mtfs is by NOT passing as male with a flat chest, short male hairstyle hair, and no makeup or anything and male clothing/presentation. (far less pleasant than it seems)

Quote from: Ave on September 21, 2012, 12:10:42 PM
A good way to know you "pass" for mtfs is by NOT passing as male with a flat chest, short male hairstyle hair, and no makeup or anything and male clothing/presentation. (far less pleasant than it seems)

But I like presenting that way...

And, ya, go ahead and say the same thing in one line that I took three paragraphs to write. I won't hate you or anything.

Quote from: Sarah7 on September 21, 2012, 12:17:35 PM
But I like presenting that way...

And, ya, go ahead and say the same thing in one line that I took three paragraphs to write. I won't hate you or anything.

and I present that way too, but the looks and awkwardness of being percieved as a pretend-boy is not my thing :P

"Love me love me say that you love me
fool me fool me...."XD

Are Liz and Jane bound entirely to their own trans* perspectives (or criticisms) and failing to acknowledge the range of cis-female variance (and is this the standard to which they "pass")? Scarlett Johansson vs. Uma Thurman vs. Sandra Bernhard? What about Uma Thurman vs. Cillian Murphy?

Sounds to me like Liz and Jane might be trapped inside the box with Schrödinger's cat. (As are all of us?)

Quote from: Ave on September 21, 2012, 02:05:47 PM
and I present that way too, but the looks and awkwardness of being percieved as a pretend-boy is not my thing :P

"Love me love me say that you love me
fool me fool me...."XD

I guess it depends on where exactly you fall in people's perceptions combined with what your ID situation is. I'm legally/socially female and I'm generally perceived as an andro dyke, so it doesn't really produce much awkward. I pass as a guy about... once a month? And it usually only lasts a few moments because my voice invariably causes them to gender me female. It was more complicated when I was still legally/socially male and being perceived as female regularly.

And I'll get looked at no matter what I do. I'm 6' tall and conventionally attractive. People look. C'est la vie.

How do you want to be perceived, Ave?

And please tell me you are referencing the Cardigans and not Justin Bieber.

Quote from: Sarah7 on September 21, 2012, 03:02:36 PM
I guess it depends on where exactly you fall in people's perceptions combined with what your ID situation is. I'm legally/socially female and I'm generally perceived as an andro dyke, so it doesn't really produce much awkward. I pass as a guy about... once a month? And it usually only lasts a few moments because my voice invariably causes them to gender me female. It was more complicated when I was still legally/socially male and being perceived as female regularly.

And I'll get looked at no matter what I do. I'm 6' tall and conventionally attractive. People look. C'est la vie.

How do you want to be perceived, Ave?

And please tell me you are referencing the Cardigans and not Justin Bieber.

The cardigans of course :D

As for how I want to be percieved, I have NO idea lol. I am legally and socially male, but I changed my name to one that can be taken as androgynous.

But at first, when I started to take hormones a while ago, I suppose I wanted to be exactly where I am now, which is not being able to reliably pass as male. It's not horrible, it's just incredibly awkward at first.

Girls seem to warm up to me though, for some ungodly reason. :p Totally not my target audience -_-'

We don't. Instead we find a quiet corner where we can chastise the wall about the idiocy of female prettiness competitions, the pointlessness of the question and whether the world would be better off without philosophers (said the engineer).