I loaded up fire fox a few moments ago, and lo and behold what is at the top of my news feed but an article in the Economist that is basically just a trans overview for those playing catch up. Not a bad article all in all, seemed to try to be impartial (edit: oops, said partial by accident originally) though I did take exception to one or two things. (It sort of downplayed the level of some TERF rhetoric for one.) But that all aside, what caught my eye was the following line:
"Moreover, young people say that gender matters less than it used to, which sits oddly with the spreading belief that gender dysphoria can be severe enough to justify the upheaval and risks of transitioning."
Personally, I believe it matters, and matters a lot, as I suspect many here do, even if non-binary. This made me start to really think about the attitude of some people though who are, ostensibly as allies, very ambivalent about the value of gender--and I've seen quite a few in the current sub 30 crowd, particularly on the political activist front. But doesn't this, as the article implies, undermine the feelings of those of us who feel strongly about it?
The more I thought about it, the more irked I became, because I hate the idea that someone could tell me they support me, but do so because they don't believe the thing I have such a conviction about truly matters.
I recently watched a TV documentary about an experiment in genderless classrooms. A memorable scene was the permanent humiliation of one little boy who found that he could not do as well as the girls in a fairground test of strength. The experimenters seemed to disapprove of, e.g., girls being encouraged in their love of pink or wearing makeup.
I agree that gender should not be a barrier to ambition but the experiment struck me as a form of cultural terrorism. Children should be allowed to recognise their own true gender but gender exists, biologically and culturally.
We need to separate physical dysphoria and social dysphoria. Gender roles do matter too much in our current society and because too many things are separated by gender, everyday things can amplify the dysphoric feelings.
I think, that in a society where gender roles wouldn't matter at all, we wouldn't go through a transition in the same sense as we think of it now but dyshporia about our bodies would still require medical treatment.
The issue, I think, lies in the word "gender" itself. Its definition is really quite muddled. It used to be defined as a social construct which attributes certain behaviors, personality traits, and styles of dress to males and females (biologically speaking).
So when they say "gender doesn't make a difference", I think they mean that males and females (cis or trans) are not defined by there gendered behavior. In another time a man in makeup would be thought of as not a man because of his chosen style, but nowadays he can still be a man despite his choices.
The tricky part comes in when trans identities become involved. Transgender is a very recent term used to describe all behaviors that transgressed gender norms (so crossdressers and butch women would fall under the category of transgender). But it has sinced morphed into a synonym for transsexual and thus gender is synonymous with sex and... things have gotten all messed up.
That's why I don't like the term transgender. My identity as a woman has little to do with socially-prescribed gender norms and everything to do with my physical body. Post-transition, I engage in male/female behaviors indiscriminately.
However, for some gender (the construct) is the tool they use to present their identity when medical interventions are ineffective/unavailable. So in this way, yes, it does matter.
I think the trans community should go back to dividing sex and gender, because the discarding of the former and the overuse of the latter is causing far too many problems linguistically and leads to contradictions.
I've struggled a lot with this - the idea of gender and what exactly it means.
Part of this stems from having a 6 year old son - he'll come home from school with some form of "girls can't do *blank*" or "that's a boy thing", and my wife and I try very hard to counter those ideas - we don't want him getting caught up in these ideas that he should or shouldn't do something just because he's a boy.
But then when I present as Sarah, I know I tend to lean hyper feminine - makeup, high heels, fitted dresses, etc - and so I find myself feeling the hypocrite. How can I tell my son that he shouldn't think in terms of "that's a boy/girl thing" when my female side fits into so many cliches?
I know a big part of that is me - I over compensate for my male body by going excessively feminine - and that's something I am addressing. But I agree that it is very hard - I just don't know how to reconcile that a lot of the gender stereotypes that I embrace as Sarah are the same stereotypes that I try to mitigate in my son.
We've tried to encourage him to accept that "just because most girls like pink, that doesn't mean all girls like pink, and that boys can't like pink" (for example), but I can't help but feel like I'm getting it wrong.
Sent from my VS988 using Tapatalk
Gender is pretty arbitrary, but sex is pretty firmly set. Its deeply ingrained in our species to identify the sex of other humans to identify potential threats and mates...
Ah the economist.
It sounds like a classic propaganda article, where there is a projection of an idea or ideal based on aspects that we can all readily identify. It then will demonstrate using quotes, or extracts (in context or not), or rhetoric that support their view - in this case gender doesn't matter.
Why would the economist do this? Very simply there is a huge salary gap between the sexes - by claiming it doesn't matter, is giving permission to deny that there is a problem and carry on, business as usual.
By making the case that this is a non-issue also has the side effect of silencing those for whom this is an issue, because who is able to talk about a non-issue, why would you be offended by a non-issue, this is a non-issue, so move along. See how ludicrous that sounds?
As a publication it is very conservative, has a right wing agenda and some considerable bias (like the vast majority of the uk publications), and articles need to be treated with caution.
Rowan
Quote from: Phoenix1742 on November 20, 2017, 01:37:32 PM
I've struggled a lot with this - the idea of gender and what exactly it means.
Part of this stems from having a 6 year old son - he'll come home from school with some form of "girls can't do *blank*" or "that's a boy thing", and my wife and I try very hard to counter those ideas - we don't want him getting caught up in these ideas that he should or shouldn't do something just because he's a boy.
But then when I present as Sarah, I know I tend to lean hyper feminine - makeup, high heels, fitted dresses, etc - and so I find myself feeling the hypocrite. How can I tell my son that he shouldn't think in terms of "that's a boy/girl thing" when my female side fits into so many cliches?
I know a big part of that is me - I over compensate for my male body by going excessively feminine - and that's something I am addressing. But I agree that it is very hard - I just don't know how to reconcile that a lot of the gender stereotypes that I embrace as Sarah are the same stereotypes that I try to mitigate in my son.
We've tried to encourage him to accept that "just because most girls like pink, that doesn't mean all girls like pink, and that boys can't like pink" (for example), but I can't help but feel like I'm getting it wrong.
Sent from my VS988 using Tapatalk
I don't think you're a hypocrite. Like you said. You're overcompensating. Your physical body is so at odds with your sexual identity that you feel the need to dress overly feminine just to express that you are female.
Like I said, gender is a tool for some of us. Early in my transition I was much the same. Everyday I wore makeup and skirts because my physical body was not obviously female.
Quote from: Sno on November 20, 2017, 02:04:30 PM
Ah the economist.
It sounds like a classic propaganda article, where there is a projection of an idea or ideal based on aspects that we can all readily identify. It then will demonstrate using quotes, or extracts (in context or not), or rhetoric that support their view - in this case gender doesn't matter.
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that was what the article was saying. It was just a minor line near the beginning that was referring (accurately I believe) to the growing gender doesn't matter trend in the younger crowd. The article was actually not
that bad, or at least I've read way, way worse. A few parts are questionable (it gives a little more credence to some arguments than I think those of us dealing with the issue would, but within a reasonable margin for someone who doesn't/can't understand), but... I dunno, it didn't make me angry or anything, and wasn't really anti-trans. (Though some parts could be construed as perhaps dismissive of less binary or absolute identities.)
https://www.economist.com/news/international/21731398-more-people-change-gender-they-are-sparking-debate-enrages-some-and-confuses
Some aspects of gender will always matter but maybe gender roles matter less now? Ie they are not as strict in a lot of places. Ideally guys should be able to do feminine stuff and girls masculine stuff and express themselves however they want.
But gender dysphoria isn't about that. Nobody transitions(nor should) to do makeup and wear dresses. That's just TERF thinking. And maybe some trans people explaining themselves in a confusing way. (like mentioning playing with dolls a child etc as a sign of actually being a girl) Although not being able to express themselves as they want might hurt trans people more. eg I did some feminine things pre transition too, but when people judged me for it I would feel more hurt because I didn't even feel as a guy in the first place.
This can be confusing because mostly women will have more feminine interests and expression and men more masculine. But some women might have more masculine style and interests and vice versa for some men, including trans men and women. It's not directly about gender identity.
Gender dysphoria is mostly about our sex/sex characteristics and (for most) being perceived as one gender. Some say why would it matter how you are perceived if there were no gender roles? But that's just shallow. Maybe cis people don't notice it but social interactions differ a lot depending on one's perceived sex and not just sexist behavior. There are more nuanced, possibly evolutionary differences that will always be there.
Not to mention someone who's had dysphoria for a long time will be more sensitive to these. Iirc in the book Whipping Girl the author makes a comparison to someone who has struggled with poverty being more sensitive to spending money even if they are no longer poor. Being misgendered can be annoying for everyone, but for trans people it is more traumatic in a way similar to poverty example.
Gender may not matter to some, but it matters very much to me as a woman, my femininity, my girlishness, is such a big part of my life now, being a woman and just being a girl, living a womanly life, we hear so much about non-binary, it's becoming a stigma if you admitt to being binary, I'm very much a binary female, I've embraced a binary female life that the majority of cis females would shunned and recoil from in horror, maybe because I appreciate my femininity and treasure it, I now live in a very binary relationship with my husband, he does all the man stuff fixing things etc, I do the house keeping cooking and cleaning etc, very therapeutic for me and for my womanhood, some have said I've let down the sisterhood, but doing ''womanly things'' and being a wife to my man has enhanced my life as a woman and the woman that I have become, a binary woman, sorry sisters.
Quote from: Roll on November 20, 2017, 03:54:46 PM
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that was what the article was saying. It was just a minor line near the beginning that was referring (accurately I believe) to the growing gender doesn't matter trend in the younger crowd. The article was actually not that bad, or at least I've read way, way worse. A few parts are questionable (it gives a little more credence to some arguments than I think those of us dealing with the issue would, but within a reasonable margin for someone who doesn't/can't understand), but... I dunno, it didn't make me angry or anything, and wasn't really anti-trans. (Though some parts could be construed as perhaps dismissive of less binary or absolute identities.)
https://www.economist.com/news/international/21731398-more-people-change-gender-they-are-sparking-debate-enrages-some-and-confuses
Hi Roll,
Don't worry sweetie - I'm always cautious when a publication like that publishes articles like this :)
Rowan
The idea there are no or negligible biological differences between men and women is where this has come from. It is part of modern feminist "theory" I see put forward all over the place. I assume it's found its place in the "doctrine" to bolster the idea a woman can do anything a man can do.
Of course if you go down that road then people like us contradict not only the idea there are no biological differences but also that gender is purely a social construct. From my own personal experience I know gender is very much likely to be far more biological than social. I wouldn't have known there was something "different" about me at the age of 6 or 7 in a relatively gender-neutral home environment and extremely restricted outside social environment if that was the case. And if it was, I should have been able to "rationalize" myself into accepting my birth gender. The idea gender isn't primarily innate and/or important to an individual has been shown before to be devastating when forced upon a person. David Reimer's case is a prime example of the human cost of this ideological assumption. The suits/labcoats in charge decided gender was a throwaway social construct and malleable enough to be impressed with ease upon anyone, and were evidently proven wrong.
Paradoxically the same ideology that says it wants to help represent us is also the one that has decided the very nature of our problem isn't a problem, but an illusion.