It's just me

[jackienorth]

Ok but the truth is you are extremely self-involved and every single one of your anectodes is centered on rationalizing your own disordered thoughts. “Listening to trans people” means shit all when you’re dead set on making excuses for your behaviour and deluded concept of self. It’s like listening to someone trying to pass their hallucinations as reality. People will sit there and listen to you but also, nobody’s gonna take it seriously.

I draw from my own experiences as many people do. That doesn’t make someone inherently self-involved, and it’s something pretty universal to anyone who discusses a social issue. It would seem, honestly, kind of silly to discuss such a topic and ignore personal experience. It seems more self-involved to me to think that your opinions on someone else’s body and experiences are more important than their own.

I also don’t claim to be representative of everyone’s experiences; I only really reference my own experiences, as a non-binary trans person, to talk about how I developed my understandings about gender.

In addition, you don’t know me. What behaviour do you think I’m making excuses for? What delusions and disordered thoughts are you implying? I have a pretty solid grasp on reality, and plenty of people take me seriously.

I will note that you came here anonymously, to a relatively inactive blog, with ad hominem arguments and without a solid point. I’m kind of disappointed you haven’t given me anything to refute or discuss.

[chocostaline]

For all I know, there might be genetic (or maybe hormonal) predispositions to dysphoria. It would even kinda suprize me if there weren’t.

But like. I’ve seen transmeds claim that transition is needed for some people because they have a genetic predisposition (in essence, the “male and female brain“ claim “but not the sexist one” (they say)). If it’s biological, we can’t do anything about it, hm? Transition is the only option.

That’s like saying you’re condemned to being depressed if you have a predisposition for that, so you might as well kill yourself right now. Like it’s super dumb. Predisposition means just that. Genes need a certain environment to “express” themselves.

[jackienorth]

But many people who have depression take medication to treat it, and that isn’t a bad thing. You say that admitting you have a predisposition for something means you may as well give up, but it really just means you should be aware of it, and treat it if necessary. Right?

Also, there are environmental factors that can quite literally activate genes. That doesn’t mean that councelling or therapy will, or can, undo that. If someone is predisposed to cancer, then they may not get it - but if they do, councelling isn’t going to make it better just because environment allowed it to happen, rather than it being hard coded.

Further, if dysphoria (as something unchangeable by therapy) doesn’t exist - which you imply - then if someone transitions and isn’t trans, they should be fine after a bit of therapy. It has to go both ways. So even in that case, what’s wrong with transition as a method of treatment if someone thinks it will work for them? There is plenty of evidence of it being actually beneficial.

I am by no means a transmedicalist, I think their views tend to be founded too much in diagnosis, and have too little nuance. This on top of their poor treatment of people they consider “not trans enough” of course. But I do agree that medical transition can be hugely helpful for dysphoria, and I know from experience that it can’t simply be willed away instead.

[dworkin-was-right]

Look into gene culture co-evolution, gene expression is definitely affected by your environment.

But I do agree that medical transition can be hugely helpful for dysphoria

Not as much as it’s harmful, though. There’s no longitudinal studies on what hrt’s effects can be. The people suffering from gender dysphoria who want to undergo hrt or srs, like people with OCD have reasons for feeling the need to do what they do, even if their behavior appears nonsensical to observers. And just because someone developed OCD that doesn’t mean that the need to maintain associated disruptive behavior, that same view should be applied to dysphoria: those with it should be aware of the factors which led to it’s formation and know that negative feeling resulting from your social experience can be addressed in cognitive behavioral therapy.  We also change as we continue to experience life in general, if you’re hanging out with people who reinforce the concept of transitioning as the appropriate treatment and discourage introspection or  receptiveness to differing viewpoints, guess what: your perspective won’t change. 

[jackienorth]

I know that gene expression is affected by our environment, I said as much! I find it fascinating. I just said that it being affected by the environment doesn’t make it any more reversible through therapy. I don’t know what the point you’re getting at is, honestly.

There might be no longitudinal studies on the effects of hormones (when used in this way), but they aren’t the only medications that have this problem. I have, in fact, used some whereby the effects of long term use have not been adequately studied. And some medications where there are known risks, but I stay on the medication just being monitored. We don’t need a different attitude to hormones than any other medication.

You’re suggesting we approach dysphoria in the same way as some other condition? That’s frankly illogical - if you think we should deal with dysphoria differently, then just talk about dysphoria without making analogies that don’t really work. I suspect you’re saying as much because you don’t know much about dysphoria to look at it on it’s own?

With regards to the assumptions you made about me - I don’t hang out with people that express any kind of view on transitioning. I actually have very few trans friends, and generally less than knowledgeable (on this topic) cis friends. Me transitioning is at best neutral within most of my relationships. I have changed a heck of a lot (which I’m proud of) in the 9 years since I worked out I was trans (8 of them without medical transition), but I’m still trans. I have spent time thinking about dysphoria, and I honestly care less and less about how I’m gendered as the days go on - even though that hasn’t changed. Social stuff has never been the big thing for me. I hate the idea of being dependant on medication, whatever the medication, so I’ve always been happy to come off it if necessary, or simply if I see no benefit from staying on it. I question everything, and have a great time doing it.

[dworkin-was-right]

I just said that it being affected by the environment doesn’t make it any more reversible through therapy.

I don’t think I can elaborate well enough how gene expression is affected by culture as an expert in the field of anthropology, so I’m going to link to a post dedicated to the matter.

I don’t think that gender dysphoria is reversible, only that insight can shift perspectives. the more answers one has the more in control one feels. Said sense of control is fundamental to happiness. It’s also a viable alternative to attempts at achieving a sense of control through transitioning.

There might be no longitudinal studies on the effects of hormones (when used in this way), but they aren’t the only medications that have this problem.

That’s no justification for our current culture surrounding transitioning and hrt. The existing short-term consequences and serious long-term risks will be there regardless of how informed those seeking hrt are. 

You’re suggesting we approach dysphoria in the same way as some other condition? That’s frankly illogical - if you think we should deal with dysphoria differently, then just talk about dysphoria without making analogies that don’t really work.

You’re right, Gender dysphoria and OCD shouldn’t be approached the same way but that doesn’t mean that the analogy doesn’t work. An individual suffering from OCD’s behavior serves a psychological need, just as transitioning can for those seeking it.  When I criticize transitioning or hrt, I try to not imply that the recommend course of action is to just “suck it up” because I don’t think all of those experiencing gender dysphoria do so in the same way or for the same reasons. But at the same time, it isn’t inborn, as some view homosexuality to be (even though the matter is complex, and there’s differences between gays and bisexuals as well). My point is that dysphoria is in all likelihood a product of one’s perception and that NONE is born into the wrong body. 

I suspect you’re saying as much because you don’t know much about dysphoria to look at it on it’s own? 

 Then enlighten me then, what is gender dysphoria, as dictated by your own experience? 

With regards to the assumptions you made about me - I don’t hang out with people that express any kind of view on transitioning.

I wasn’t making any assumptions about you.

I hate the idea of being dependant on medication, whatever the medication,

If you chose the hrt route you will be dependent on medication for the rest of your life, though. And there will be unwanted side effects, whether a medical professional is supervising or not. 

[jackienorth]

I don’t think I can elaborate well enough how gene expression is affected by culture as an expert in the field of anthropology, so I’m going to link to a post dedicated to the matter.

I don’t think that gender dysphoria is reversible, only that insight can shift perspectives. the more answers one has the more in control one feels. Said sense of control is fundamental to happiness. It’s also a viable alternative to attempts at achieving a sense of control through transitioning.

Again, I agree with that. I do also believe that there is an element of dysphoria that exists separate to gender as a construct, but that either way we should be working towards a society free of gender as a social category. If it does mean that physical dysphoria stops existing, that’d be great, and if it doesn’t, then that’s fine too and people would be able to access better researched and less stigmatised healthcare. It’s a win-win, in my view.

I will say, I have a lot of insight and control in my own view. I’ve broken down my dysphoria into what’s mere preference or social expectations, versus what persists regardless of those things. Even if the rest of the world continued to see me the same, resolving those things (the latter) would make me more comfortable.

That’s no justification for our current culture surrounding transitioning and hrt. The existing short-term consequences and serious long-term risks will be there regardless of how informed those seeking hrt are. 

First you note a lack of longitudinal studies, and then you point to ‘evidence’ of risk? That seems somewhat contradictory, and your evidence is just a blog post. This is an article summarising the limited data we do have though. The risks are things we go through. I’ve been notified of some of the risks of all the medication I take - one of which I had to research myself and there’s not much data at the doseage I need. I’m aware how medicine works, but if someone can consent to the risks of all of those medications, they can consent to the risks of HRT. In addition, some of the effects that sound scary just bring risks in line with cis folks. Estrogen can cause breast growth and as such obviously increases breast cancer risk (as cis women typically have). Testosterone increases blood pressure, rbc count and hematocrit, obviously increasing heart disease risk (as cis men typically have).

I guess a similar medication we could talk about is birth control medication. People are trying to make it more accessible, access to it is considered essential, people try to destigmatise it. But there are various risks (including increased cancer risk, and stroke/heart attack risk, osteoporosis) with these medications, that people are consenting to when they take them. The solution is not to make them less accessible, right?

It’s also worth noting that stress comes with side effects and risks too, so the trade off isn’t ass simple as risk vs no risk.

You’re right, Gender dysphoria and OCD shouldn’t be approached the same way but that doesn’t mean that the analogy doesn’t work. An individual suffering from OCD’s behavior serves a psychological need, just as transitioning can for those seeking it. When I criticize transitioning or hrt, I try to not imply that the recommend course of action is to just “suck it up” because I don’t think all of those experiencing gender dysphoria do so in the same way or for the same reasons. But at the same time, it isn’t inborn, as some view homosexuality to be (even though the matter is complex, and there’s differences between gays and bisexuals as well). My point is that dysphoria is in all likelihood a product of one’s perception and that NONE is born into the wrong body.

No one is born in the wrong body. I agree, my body doesn’t let me get around properly, causes me constant chronic pain, and limits a lot of my activities. That doesn’t make it a wrong body, but also doesn’t mean I shouldn’t treat the things that make me uncomfortable. To say someone was born in the wrong body suggests some higher intent for the right one, which just isn’t my opinion, even if it could feel like that. And you say that transitioning serves a psychological need, but my attitude towards transition is like my attitude towards pain medication and I don’t have a psychological need for that. It’s something that will make me more comfortable. I could live without it, but I couldn’t be as comfortable without it. If it was about perception, how come I progressively care less and less about being misgendered as I transition, even though it happens just as much? Even if really, I look the same for the most part?

Then enlighten me then, what is gender dysphoria, as dictated by your own experience? 

A discomfort and wrongness I feel about certain characteristics - not necessarily about appearance, but particularly in a broader sensory way. A social discomfort at having those traits pointed out through the use of gendered language that has strong associations with those traits. Arguably also the sense of people being plainly incorrect about how I experience gender. That is, of course, a purely social type.

Of course people have different experiences, and the extent of them varies a lot due to environment and context. I experience mine in the context of freedom of expression socially, relatively high self esteem, not caring what other people think of me, and familiarity with dealing with chronic illness.

If you chose the hrt route you will be dependent on medication for the rest of your life, though. And there will be unwanted side effects, whether a medical professional is supervising or not.

If I have a gonadectomy, then yeah, I’ll need some form of HRT for life. But that’s not now (possibly not even necessary), and as of now I’m comfortable that I could stop HRT if I had to. All I’m saying is that I, as a person, am wary of being dependant on medications, and by necessity aware of and comfortable with my options. Most side effects of HRT are either comparible to other medications (or lifestyle choices), wanted, comparible to cis folks not on HRT, or resolvable by stopping HRT.

Further to this, I would like to ask how you propose to stop people medically transitioning? If it’s by deconstructing gender and increasing acceptance of gender non-conformity, then I’m 100% with you. If you think we should remove gendered pronouns and titles from unnecessary everyday contexts, so being gendered right becomes less of an issue for trans folks who can’t transition, then I’d also agree. I also think we should be accepting of trans folk without the expectation of medical transition to be cis “passing”. So people can really consider transition without external pressures. And my last suggestion would be increasing funding to trans health care services, removing stigma from working at those places, and increasing training for staff. People need to be able to have questions and express concerns without being discharged. Trans people need specialist services beyond medical transition, and enough staff to meet everyone’s needs and offer regular appointments. Trans people also need specialists who don’t consider masculinity or femininity to be essential traits of being trans.

[freeewheeling]

I’ve been a long time since I last replied (with my old blog) and I still feel out of my depth here but I’ll clarify my stance for my own peace of mind. I won’t be replying in a specific order, so the argument remains coherent. 

Again, I agree with that. I do also believe that there is an element of dysphoria that exists separate to gender as a construct

That element is at least partly determined by what makes someone bi or gay. When a gay man or woman realizes that they are sexually attracted to same sex, they tend to encounter struggles arising from being ‘different’ than the norm. Dysphoric gay/bi people are encountering the same thing, from the same source in many cases. Testing on other primates has revealed that even though young monkeys may show a preference for ‘gendered toys’ (females prefer dolls to cars and vice versa), this doesn’t indicate that our own cultural construction of gender is innate. In the monkeys’ case, the males had slightly better spatial ability and therefore preferred toys that made good use of it.

We don’t tell someone who responds to the pheromones of the same sex as an opposite sex person would that they’re secretly a member of the opposite sex and that they need to conform to certain gender constructs on that basis alone. We should adopt the same view in relation to anyone who experiences gender dysphoria or wants to transition. Conversation always default on how messing with someone’s natural hormone production (which is not just unnecessary but potentially dangerous) is the answer to psychological distress. I do not agree with this view, nor with the normalization of hrt/transing. I do not see gender dysphoria as an individual problem, but the current method of ‘treating’ it serves to maintain a status quo that forces people into boxes, that perpetuates conformity to gender norms. 

but that either way we should be working towards a society free of gender as a social category. If it does mean that physical dysphoria stops existing, that’d be great, and if it doesn’t, then that’s fine too and people would be able to access better researched and less stigmatised healthcare. It’s a win-win, in my view. 

We’re not in living in a gender-free society yet, though so we can’t say for sure what that would accomplish. The growing trend of ‘gender queer’ ‘nonbinary’ etc etc, identified people reflects a belief in the steadfastness of gender binary- the notion that society cannot (or will not) be gender free, or free from the evils and legacy of male dominance in general. 

[…]I would be happy with this implication, because despite possessing female biology and calling myself a woman, I do not consider myself a two-dimensional gender stereotype. I am not an ideal manifestation of the essence of womanhood, and so I am non-binary.

And here we have an irony about some people insisting that they and a handful of their fellow gender revolutionaries are non-binary: in doing so, they create a false binary between those who conform to the gender norms associated with their sex, and those who do not. In reality, everybody is non-binary. We all actively participate in some gender norms, passively acquiesce with others, and positively rail against others still. So to call oneself non-binary is in fact to create a new false binary.

I will say, I have a lot of insight and control in my own view. I’ve broken down my dysphoria into what’s mere preference or social expectations, versus what persists regardless of those things. 

Good for you on exposing yourself to varying perspectives, at least. Most people find it challenging to seriously entertain anything that goes against confirmation bias in my experience. But I still don’t believe that we’re capable of truly objective self-reflection. One cannot undo the role culture, socialization or other people have had and continue to have in shaping our world-view, our perceptions.

Edit: Here’s @destroyyourbinder on gender dysphoria:

“Gender dysphoria” as a concept is sort of a trashbin of negative experiences, socially disruptive behaviors, and obsessive or non-functional life-altering beliefs and practices that psychiatry’s decided is a medical pathology because it permits them to stamp a diagnosis on a certain kind of person, allows them to treat certain kinds of people in certain ways, and gets certain kinds of people to stop bothering them with their distress. This seems to be the best way to understand how you’d go about asking as a psychiatrist whether someone has resolved their gender dysphoria.

And you say that transitioning serves a psychological need, but my attitude towards transition is like my attitude towards pain medication and I don’t have a psychological need for that. It’s something that will make me more comfortable.

But comfortable with what? If you acquiesce that it’s not necessary why do you still think you need it? What are you trying to achieve by using it?

A discomfort and wrongness I feel about certain characteristics - not necessarily about appearance, but particularly in a broader sensory way. A social discomfort at having those traits pointed out through the use of gendered language that has strong associations with those traits. Arguably also the sense of people being plainly incorrect about how I experience gender. That is, of course, a purely social type. 

You know yourself better than I do. But I still think you’re self-deceiving. You have the option to not do this, even though the alternative entails painful self-confrontations.

Further to this, I would like to ask how you propose to stop people medically transitioning? If it’s by deconstructing gender and increasing acceptance of gender non-conformity, then I’m 100% with you.

I’m all for denouncing and abolishing gender and gender stereotypes, even though I myself am not very hopeful that this is achievable on a large scale. I don’t know if enough people would even want to earnestly commit to it. I worry that it’d be seen as frivolous by the non-initiated.

that people are consenting to when they take them. The solution is not to make them less accessible, right?

Who’s making them less accessible?

I’m only going to focus on hrt here though I realize that anyone with dysphoria requires therapy and other medical care related to ‘transitioning’.

Hrt isn’t medically necessary in cases where it is used to ‘feminize’ or ‘masculinize’ the body. And that is what it is doing. Subtly altering fat distribution.  A trans identified male cannot change the sex-specific bone growth that occurred during and after puberty through hrt alone. 

And you linked to something titled “Transgender Hormone Therapy Is Safe When Monitored For Certain Risks”, which I’m wary about. The fact they feel the need to mention that it’s “safe if” monitored makes me wonder why we need to assure people of this when medical ‘transitioning’ is completely unnecessary, anyway? 

Not to mention that forcing your body to contend with what it has not evolved to contend with carries significant risks, for some at least:

[…] A study involving 5,000 transgender patients found that transgender women, who are assigned the male sex at birth, were twice as likely as cisgender men or women to have the blood clot condition venous thromboembolism. Transgender women on hormone therapy were also found to be 80 to 90 percent more likely to have stroke or a heart attack than cisgender women.

In the past, studies measuring cardiovascular effects of estrogen therapy have been done on menopausal women and applied to transgender women. But the study of transgender women found significant differences, particularly for long-term use. Menopausal studies cited by the Kaiser researchers showed risks of cardiovascular illness declining over long-term use, but the Kaiser study found that risk increased for transgender women over time.

Still, Dr. Joshua Safer, another author of the study and executive director of the Transgender Medicine Center at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York, said that while the cardiovascular risk is higher for transgender women, it’s not that high. There were 148 cardiovascular events recorded out of the 2,842 transgender women in the eight-year period.

-https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/study-finds-health-risks-transgender-women-hormone-therapy-n890031

In addition, some of the effects that sound scary just bring risks in line with cis folks. Estrogen can cause breast growth and as such obviously increases breast cancer risk (as cis women typically have).

…A male undergoing hrt is not comparable to women. We don’t know if a male’s chances for breast cancer increase as women’s do when exposed to the same risk factors. You’re making false equivalences between two things that are not comparable, in an effort to ‘normalize’ transing. 

Here’s a quote from a well-researched post on reddit:

The HRT introduces unique traits, but predictably does not create actual female breasts. There are anatomical differences so strong that (1) even after 10+ years on HRT, transwomen are 'unlikely’ to reach Tanner Stage V breast development (which is why you usually see 'cone’ shapes in the MTF population) && the lobules remain like that of a 'prepubertal breast’ (2) 60% simply end up seeking breast augmentation due to being unable to achieve their dream of an actual female breast shape (3) the breast cancer risk in TIM patients remains only “slightly higher” than the cis male breast cancer risk.

First you note a lack of longitudinal studies, and then you point to ‘evidence’ of risk?

See above quotes.

If you think we should remove gendered pronouns and titles from unnecessary everyday contexts, so being gendered right becomes less of an issue for trans folks who can’t transition, then I’d also agree. I also think we should be accepting of trans folk without the expectation of medical transition to be cis “passing”.

If you replace “trans” with gender-nonconforming then yes. And I’m for the abolishing of gender, not for obfuscation. Pronouns serve a purpose. And they are neutral.

And this is all I have to say, really.

[jackienorth]

I apologise for taking so long to reply here - I had to take quite a long break to focus on studies, and this blog had been quite draining.

You imply that all trans people are straight or bi/pan, if being gay (according to your perception of their gender) is what causes dysphoria. This doesn't account for asexual or gay/lesbian trans folks, and is hardly relevant anyway. If it were related to being ‘gay’, then would that change anything?

Of course it would be ridiculous to tell someone "you have x physical trait, so you should take on y social role". 'X' being response to pheromones which you used as an example. I would argue it's equally unnecessary for 'x' to be genital configuration/gonads/chromosomes or any of the things we use to define sex. It makes a lot more sense to say "Being addressed in this way makes you more comfortable? Alright."

This transmedicalist view that transness is a medical condition that must always be treated in a particular way is something I would disagree with. But those who consider social gender to be immutable and physically based (such as yourself) make physical transition (and potentially being 'stealth') a prerequisite for social comfort. I might be doing exactly what makes me comfortable - and damn anyone else's opinions - but others aren't as lucky.

I think there's a degree to which the assimilation of non-binary identity into mainstream culture is mostly about adding a third (still restrictive) box, and not working towards an elimination of them. That said, it doesn't make that any worse; it merely reins in what is challenging about trans identity. One can't accept gender regardless of appearance without realising that assuming gender based on appearance is then inaccurate; that gender might stop being a useful concept at all. I call myself non-binary not to place myself in this developing box, but to make myself more comfortable in the here and now: it's no more harmful than you calling yourself a woman and using she/her pronouns.

Non-binary doesn't refer to presentation or gender non-conformity. Too many people interpret it that way, but miss the fact that you get binary trans folks who are non-conforming in their gender. It's really about internal perception/grouping and social comfort/accuracy.

My own experience (and that of others) is not, and cannot, be free of social and environmental influences. What I am able to do is determine what things I can change socially/mentally, and what benefits instead from other methods. I don't really care where something comes from ultimately, but more what I can/should do about it.

Just as I can live with physical pain, I can live with social or sensory discomfort. I'd rather not, though, hence the medication. If you want something more specific and personal regarding medical transition, then:

I have seen physical health benefits; My drive and motivation are increased; I'm more confident and social; I'm happier; I am a lot more comfortable with my voice; I'm less bothered by social misgendering; I can engage with music in a way more physically possible for me (singing). Honestly, my life has turned a real corner over this past year and a half. The impact is more positive than the best antidepressant, many changes would remain even if I stopped the medication, and I have no negative side effects.

I ask you, what is the alternative for me? What is there for me to confront? I love myself and my life now, and don't care for others' opinions. I've come to understand a lot about myself and my relationships of late, which is fascinating, but I don't detect any unresolved gender related trauma.

I don't plan to address the purely physical side of what you've said about HRT. You haven't challenged my assertion that HRT shouldn't be seen any differently from beneficial yet not life-saving medications - of which there are many. Side effects come with any medication, and are something to be considered on an individual basis. If I can risk many side effects and give consent to use a steroid that boosts my blood pressure and reduces my likelihood of fainting, or an opioid that allows me to get an education without intolerable exhaustion, or an antidepressant that reduces one type of pain that makes my life a bit more uncomfortable, then I can give consent to use a hormone therapy that has improved my life more than most of those ever did. And same goes for anyone else. The only difference with HRT is it changes our appearance, and challenges the perception of yourself and others. It allows people to exist in a way you disagree with, and makes people less easy to quickly classify. Ultimately, you see it as impacting you.

If you can tell me why else HRT is distinct from any of those things, then I can engage with what you're saying. Otherwise, those same arguments can be made fore many medications I take, and more besides.

[rad-maleficent]

Trans is not a mental illness.

Transgenderism is absolutely a mental illness. Anorexia and BIID are both forms of body dysphoria, a literal mental illness, so is gender dysphoria (the cause of transgenderism). It’s literally feeling like your natural body is wrong/not your own and wanting to mutilate/disfigure or contort it to fit your perceived ‘ideal’. It can be managed and even cured through cognitive therapy. There is no need to medicate with harmful levels of hormones or undergo surgical bodily mutilation, there is also no substantial scientific proof that those things work as well as plenty of evidence and proof that they actually further the dysphoria and increase suicidal ideations.

Gender is also a harmful social construct that increases people’s dysphoria and in many cases is the root cause for it. The best way to tackle dysphoria and transgenderism is to dismantle gender altogether. It will also benefit non-dysphoric individuals who suffer as a result of gender politics, mainly and most importantly, women, who are forced into constricting gender roles.

[jackienorth]

Trans =/= physical gender dysphoria, for one. I don’t think you could interpret wanting to be seen/referred to in a particular way (or seeing/referring to yourself in that way) as a mental illness at all. And the way we categorise something like physical gender dysphoria is complex at best - for one, there’s not a strict line between what is physical versus psychological. And then there’s considering the difference between neurodivergence and mental illness.

Comparisons with anorexia are absolutely incorrect though - someone who’s anorexic will see themselves as overweight regardless of how much weight they lose. On the other hand, people with gender dysphoria will typically see their bodies as they are, and feel more comortable as they change. To give a personal example - my voice used to feel wrong, I went on HRT, and now I’m pretty happy with it (and happy in general - who knew?). I’m even learning to sing now. My dysphoria is less than it was in the beginning, which wouldn’t work (in my understanding) for something like anorexia. And I know that this is the case for more trans folks than just me. You talk about there being no proof that transition works, but maybe you should talk to some trans people? Because it does (or certainly can) alleviate dysphoria. Refering to medical transition as mutilation is just disgusting honestly. It shows no empathy for trans people whatsoever in favour of encouraging stigma against trans people’s bodies.

I agree that gender (the construct) increases dysphoria by placing gendered expectations around appearance, and by differing social treatment based on gender. I’m also for gender abolition (including gendered language) - that isn’t an idea that exists in opposition to being trans and supporting trans people, it’s just used that way by people like yourself.

[rad-maleficent]

You’re severely delusional, your personal accounts cannot be held as any proof if you are so unwell you cannot even accept your own biology. I will make no further comment as it is useless to argue with someone who’s given in completely to their illness, and allowed themselves to be indoctrinated into a harmful ideology.

[jackienorth]

Severely delusional? That’s not exactly an empathetic and decent way to talk to someone who, in your opinion, has a mental illness.

I can accept my own biology, I can also accept what makes me uncomfortable and seek to change it - thus improving my quality of life, as I’ve said. Funny thing - I have a lot of experience managing illness, and I’m used to the ableist attitude that treatment or using mobility aids is giving in. Accepting your situation and needs is actually the first step to finding ways to manage it - denial only makes things worse. I’m not entirely sure who you think indoctrinated me, or what you think I believe, but shutting down discussion and insisting people who disagree are delusional/indoctrinated seems to be a good way for you to avoid your belief system being challenged.

I hope one day you’re able to listen to experiences other than your own, respect trans people (and mentally ill people for that matter), and engage honestly with differing opinions.

[rad-maleficent]

Trans is not a mental illness.

Transgenderism is absolutely a mental illness. Anorexia and BIID are both forms of body dysphoria, a literal mental illness, so is gender dysphoria (the cause of transgenderism). It’s literally feeling like your natural body is wrong/not your own and wanting to mutilate/disfigure or contort it to fit your perceived ‘ideal’. It can be managed and even cured through cognitive therapy. There is no need to medicate with harmful levels of hormones or undergo surgical bodily mutilation, there is also no substantial scientific proof that those things work as well as plenty of evidence and proof that they actually further the dysphoria and increase suicidal ideations.

Gender is also a harmful social construct that increases people’s dysphoria and in many cases is the root cause for it. The best way to tackle dysphoria and transgenderism is to dismantle gender altogether. It will also benefit non-dysphoric individuals who suffer as a result of gender politics, mainly and most importantly, women, who are forced into constricting gender roles.

[jackienorth]

Trans =/= physical gender dysphoria, for one. I don’t think you could interpret wanting to be seen/referred to in a particular way (or seeing/referring to yourself in that way) as a mental illness at all. And the way we categorise something like physical gender dysphoria is complex at best - for one, there’s not a strict line between what is physical versus psychological. And then there’s considering the difference between neurodivergence and mental illness.

Comparisons with anorexia are absolutely incorrect though - someone who’s anorexic will see themselves as overweight regardless of how much weight they lose. On the other hand, people with gender dysphoria will typically see their bodies as they are, and feel more comortable as they change. To give a personal example - my voice used to feel wrong, I went on HRT, and now I’m pretty happy with it (and happy in general - who knew?). I’m even learning to sing now. My dysphoria is less than it was in the beginning, which wouldn’t work (in my understanding) for something like anorexia. And I know that this is the case for more trans folks than just me. You talk about there being no proof that transition works, but maybe you should talk to some trans people? Because it does (or certainly can) alleviate dysphoria. Refering to medical transition as mutilation is just disgusting honestly. It shows no empathy for trans people whatsoever in favour of encouraging stigma against trans people’s bodies.

I agree that gender (the construct) increases dysphoria by placing gendered expectations around appearance, and by differing social treatment based on gender. I’m also for gender abolition (including gendered language) - that isn’t an idea that exists in opposition to being trans and supporting trans people, it’s just used that way by people like yourself.

[pinkvoidmuse-deactivated2023021]

My friend started talking to me about this video she watched about ppl in the lgbt community and their political views. And she started talking about how this tw and nb person was going at it. And that she saw where this nb was going. So I asked her where (lol) and it basically boiled down to her never really thinking about it. And everything i said she agreed with. Like if you believe gender is a social construct, how can you have a gender that your society has no clue about aka haven’t constructed? How exactly were you socialized with this gender uh? If rejecting social roles makes you nb then you’re saying that being a woman and being a man is literally nothing but agreeing with made up social roles, and your status as nb changes depending on the society you’re in????? Nothing else works like this. I’m a woman regardless if I’m in the US or in Haiti. I’m bisexual regardless if I’m in Japan or Nepal. Even identities that aren’t innate don’t work like this. I’m an agnostic regardless of regions too….y’all have no idea how many people are close to “peaking” if you just asked them to explain what they mean. Saying transwomen are women repeatedly doesn’t work in real life, and you’d either get”oh wow I don’t know” or you get the committed liars who will say there are NO differences in the same breath they ask you to clarify if you mean woman with vaginas or with a penis/neovagina 🙄

[jackienorth]

Being non-binary describes a relationship to gender based on not perceiving yourself as exclusively a boy or girl/man or woman. It impacts the way you experience gendered socialisation, and what messages you internalise. It’s not rejecting social roles that makes you non-binary - although I’m certain some things non-binary people might do (like using non-gendered titles, names, or pronouns) are things other people also might do to reject social roles, or gender itself, if they’re inclined to do so.

The specific ways people experience this may vary, and so people come up with all sorts of words to describe how they experience that - and I think that’s pretty neat honestly. I could explain my own experience as a non-binary person if you’d want.

I think there is a tendency for people to take and share the conclussion of discussions without understanding everything behind it. I don’t know what the solution to this is - you can’t force people to engage with topics on a deeper level and do more research - but it does make it harder to have these types of conversations, and can make conclusions seem weaker than they are.

[pinkvoidmuse-deactivated2023021]

Ok what does it mean to perceive yourself as a woman or a man? What do these terms mean. Non binary as I’ve seen it described says that they don’t fit into the binary so they believe there are people who not only do but choose to. When you say gender what exactly do you mean by that. If you’re willing to engage we should get that cleared up since you already feel like I’m misinformed. Could you also clarify what you mean by what “messages you internalize”

[jackienorth]

I’d say perceiving yourself as a man/woman means you’re more likely to learn/mimic behaviours of men/women and see yourself in them in general. You’re also more likely to understand gendered standards as relating to yourself based on that, even when you reject them.

My understanding of that description of non-binary is it refers to your experience of gender not fitting into the binary, rather than just having characteristics that don’t. GNC men and women (trans or cis) exist without being non-binary.

Gender (as I and others view it) is a social construct and system of classification. Someone’s gender describes how they perceive themselves in terms of that classification, and therefore experience that system.

For me, examples of my self perception (and of the internalisation of social messages) would be not feeling pressure to conform to gendered expectations (even to reject it). So as an AFAB person I’ve never shaved (well, not till having to shave my face) or felt the pressure to, never felt like standards of male or female beauty applied to me. I never really felt GNC either, because I never felt the expectation to conform in the first place I suppose. There was just never a time where I really saw myself as ‘one of them’ in regards to either men or women, though most of the important people in my life are women.

Sorry to just pull examples from my own life here, but I do prefer not to share other peoples’ when they aren’t present. I do know that there are many differences in experiences - particularly where people are actively pressured to look and act a certain way, which is something I never experienced personally.

[pinkvoidmuse-deactivated2023021]

First of I would really like it if you’d stop tagging this anti trans. This is innaccurate. Just because I don’t think anyone subscribe to gender 100% doesn’t make me anti trans. Just because I understand you can’t choose your socialization doesn’t mean I’m anti trans. When you say learn and mimic the behaviors of men/women, you view man and woman as a performance? What is your definition of a man and what behaviors are there to be mimicked that you feel is exclusive to men? You said gender is classification and experiencing gender means you relate to that classification and experience that system. What do you mean? You said that you never felt pressured to shave expect your face. Neither do men. you’re female. do you not see how your “gendered socialization” worked here? Because my body hair is not a statement. My body hair is neutral. It is not masculine. But you assumed it was. Facial hair is the most unaccepable type of body hair on women. Everyone knows women shave their legs and armpits etc. but we aren’t even supposed to ackowledge we grow facial hair. Despite you claiming not to. Your female socialization works. I can bet that the level of facial hair you have most men wouldn’t even think twice about removing that. So it’s not “grooming”. There is no instincts to shave and remove something natural. The system you speak of is not law. It’s oppressive. Rejecting these rules is logical. The only really I’m viewed as “gnc” is because I simply exist in a comfortable way. To imply that I relate to gender as a woman since I don’t ID as nb is incorrect. But to ID as nb because I’m a person who reject the roles associated with my sex with no desire to be male is a stretch. These roles are created and we give them validity by analyzing ourselves in relations to that. I don’t wear makeup and never felt the need to. I don’t wear heels and never felt the need to. Am I nb for never caring about this despite my mom and Bestfriend’s giving me makeup kits? Shaved my head multiple times without caring to look feminine. To me the binary is bullshit. A system where women are rebels for simply existing is a system dependent on molding us and dictating our every move. This system thrive on women’s insecurity. Our normal bodies aren’t good enough. We exists in parts that can never fit in a fully realized human being. We are to make ourselves soft, docile, available, quiet, and looking for male guidance. To insinuate that women can fit into this binary system is to agree that women are what the patriarchy says we are. I disagree with that. To create a gender because I want to be recognized as a human being and not a stereotype is excessive and doesn’t help anyone. Because it keeps validating the binary. You assume some identity because you personally want to be treated like a human being. But the moment you call yourself that you are saying we actually agree with our socialization. When women don’t. We can participate in things we don’t agree with for survival.

[jackienorth]

I was tagging it so people can block those tags if they need to, not as a continuation of the discussion - and rebogs don’t show up in tags if you’re concerned about that. ‘Anti-trans feminism’ encompasses rhetoric that pits feminism as in opposition to trans people/trans rights, which I think the things you’re saying fall into. I do think we can have this discussion in good faith here.

I don’t mean it as a performance, it’s socialisation. We also learn language through mimickry, and (in my understanding) how to emote. It’s a subconscious experience of learning how to behave and what’s expected of you.

I don’t believe there are behaviours exclusive to men or women, but there are expectations placed on the groups that impact social development and cause trends (which reinforce the expectations through functioning as role models). The expectations for women to be emotive (but not too emotive), that the only acceptable outlet for emotion in men is anger/violence. Things of that nature. Gender isn’t based on how well you fit them, but the way you experience them (as passively learned messages) relates to whether you view yourself as a boy/girl/neither. Obviously there are nuances where it comes to active socialisation, and social perception will have an impact on what your experiences are too.

I meant I never shaved until having something to shave on my face (thanks to HRT). I still don’t feel pressured to do so, just not a fan of beards rn, particularly patchy ones - I included the fact merely for the sake of accuracy. There’re also social complexities regarding transition when it comes to people who’ve known me a long time that I’m still navigating. Regardless, the ins and out of transition are probably not so relevant to this topic. The point is, I never experienced that (not shaving body hair) as a statement - I’m aware others do, but I never considered it. I think I first realised it was something that women often feel they must do when my younger sister started doing so (/when I found out she was), possibly earlier through my mum? It just seemed strange to me. I understand the politics of these things, and never considered body hair to be inherently masculine (I have my upbringing by a wonderful, strong, single mother to thank for that). I’ve had a young girl comment on my leg hair in the past, and I very deliberately told her it’s natural for everyone to grow body hair, and you don’t ever have to shave it. I by no means support these expectations. Anyway, this is just supposed to be an example I use of how being non-binary has impacted the way I experience gendered expectations. It’s not a ‘non-binary trait’, or a thing all of us will experience, just a way of me explaining how it has interacted with my view of myself.

I agree the system is inherently oppressive, hence me being all for gender abolition - but I don’t think it’s possible without eliminating a social binary altogether, including sex based. It’s probably not even possible without dismantling capitalism, though I could be proved wrong on that. I think people have different reasons for seeing themselves as non-binary. Personally, I’m not sure if I would have come out as non-binary if not for experiencing physical gender dysphoria. Transition-wise, it would probably be simpler to call myself a trans man, but that would just be inaccurate to my social experiences. I feel like ‘non-binary’ is the most accurate way of describing my experience of gender and the way I perceive myself (and have done historically), so I go with that. In feminist spaces or when discussing sexism for sure it feels helpful. In all such spaces I’ve been in, the social issues discussed are ones I can’t relate to the same way the women there can.

I don’t call myself non-binary to be treated as a human being - how would that even work? I’m fortunate enough that I have never been treated as or felt less of one for being read as a woman, and being out as non-binary hasn’t changed anything much either. Though honestly certain views of non-binary people and trans people do feel very dehumanising. Accessing trans healthcare, being disabled, and being aroace have all also led to situations where I feel dehumanised and unfairly treated. But, while negative representations of disabled, aroace and non-binary/trans people have a personal impact on me, sexist stuff just… doesn’t in the same way. Never has. It’s unpleasant, and I always challenge it as much as any bigotry (being raised by a brilliant socialist single mum has it’s perks), but I do engage with it differently to things that relate to me personally.

And me calling myself non-binary doesn’t say you agree with your socialisation, just implies that you experienced it as a woman - that’s literally it, and I doubt you’d disagree? Acknowledging gendered social experiences is a huge part of feminist understanding, right?

I am concerned that I’ve placed too much emphasis on my own specific experiences as some inherent part of being non-binary. Sorry about that, I think it’s made my explainations messier and harder to understand. I really was only attempting to explain how I feel being non-binary has impacted my experience of gender, but I think it came across poorly. Probably shouldn’t have responded on a high pain day.

Note: I hate to ask, but it’d be really helpful if you use paragraphs. I do struggle with reading blocks of text due to brainfog, and I would appreciate it so I don’t have to copy, paste and reformat it myself. If it’s difficult for you, I understand and will keep on as I have been.

[pinkvoidmuse-deactivated2023021]

When you say abolish gender but that can’t be done without abolishing the social binary ? How can that be done when you define men and women as what they do and how they act? Isn’t that what created the binary?

Sex is your sex, it says nothing about your personality/taste. how is saying I’m not a woman because, despite being female I don’t feel pressured to do things other females are pressured into doing helping abolish gender, instead of a radical feminists saying, your interests, your appearance are a personal choice. These choices can exist regardless of your sex.

I don’t understand why being a boy or a girl is dependent on how well you choose to accept the roles forced on you?

When I say to be treated as a human being, I mean you realize you’re your own person. What’s expected of you doesn’t define you, you define yourself. But you view this experience as a unique “non binary” experience. When I can say that you’re just more aware than most to even question the binary. However giving most people that tool you’ll see how receptive they are. It’s all an act.

I worked at toys r us. I’ve dealt with the most absurd requests from parents trying to stay within the binary. I’ve been told to grab a ladder and check to make sure the baby model on a box was a boy and not a girl…ask me how I’d know???? But when you ask follow up questions you really see how these people have never given a thought to why it was so important except for this is for boys and that’s for girls. I’ve have little girls complain about mystery toys being for boys and a simple explanation made them happy and have them cherish their new toy. Socialization works because it relies on blind obedience. It relies on you never noticing or asking questions.

Gender has always relied on the binary because sex is binary. Intersex conditions don’t negate that. Every other gender has relied on their relation to the binary. You’re infertile ? Another gender. You’re homosexual? Another gender. The more genders you see in a society the stricter the rules are. I don’t understand what you mean by abolishing sex binary? Acknowledging one’s sex isn’t an issue. It’s the implications/assumptions that can be.

Idk if this is any better. I’m on mobile. I mean it’s easier to elaborate when you talk of your personal experience. I’m speaking from my experiences as well. Not mere observation. My best friend id as nb and we’ve discussed this. As well as my ex gf who id as genderqueer. I don’t see the point in acknowledging that the box is stupid and make a box outside of that to say eventually the first box will cease to exist. Being a women who reject the binary is more impactful in my eyes than rejecting the binary and saying this doesn’t make me a woman. Because you just undid ALL the revolutionary aspect of questioning the binary. (Since you said you want gende abolish)

[jackienorth]

What I mean is that gender is a construct - it doesn’t have to exist, but it does, and while it does we are defined (at least in part) by our relationships to it. We need language to describe what that relationship is, to discuss the impacts it has on people. Similarly, money is a construct that doesn’t have to exist. But it does, and we define our relationship to it in discussing class, wealth, poverty. Stopping identifying the impact money has on us is not necessary to abolish it, nor is it helpful to that end. We are forced to exist in relation to systems that are harmful. Gender isn’t defined by what we do/how we act - but it does impact those things, along with our experiences of the world.

I’m not sure if you’re understanding what I was getting at in terms of defining gender (and therefore ‘non-binary’). Gender has impacted my social experiences, it is not defined by them. I refer to the impact of gender on those experiences to give reasons that I think gender is worth discussing and has social relevance.

Someone could be exactly like me in behaviour and be non-binary, a woman, or a man - and I don’t have to be non-binary to be me. Anyone can even use neutral pronouns, titles, names without being non-binary - I fully support that idea, truly. ‘Non-binary’ simply describes how I’ve viewed myself historically (having been given the tools of gendered classification at an early age), and how that has affected me through my life. It’s not a revolutionary identity, it doesn’t inherently mean anything politically, it’s just the description of an experience. Few of the people in my life fully accept gendered roles an expectations, and most of them are not non-binary.

Your Toys R Us experience is somehow simultaneously unsurprising, and disappointing. I’m mostly around people who’ve gone past that simplistic and stereotypical view of gender, that I often forget that not everyone has. I assure you, I do not support the view that people should be given rigid ideas about what boys/girls should do/be.

I didn’t say we need to abolish the ‘sex binary’ (I’m not saying we don’t either, but that’s a whole other discussion right there), but ‘social binaries based on sex’. Because as long as there’s social reason to visually categorise and separate people by sex/gender, there will be expectations of said categories. Treating sex/sex characteristics as a medical (not social) issue seems more appropriate in my opinion.

I think the things you say make sense if someone is considering themself non-binary as a way to question the gender binary, or on the basis of gender attributes. But I’m (and most are) doing neither - it’s a description of how I view myself, and a tool through which to discuss the way that has shaped my experience. That’s what most labels are, I suppose. The things that I do think can work in terms of prefiguration for gender abolition include: supporting options for non-gendered gender markers, normalising gender neutral pronouns, not gendering names, supporting non-gendered title options, challenging gender expectations and supporting non-conformity, removing gender markers where possible. Oh, and supporting trans healthcare, and any changes to it that reduce requirements of femininity/masculinity or gender conformity.

My concern on the amount I’ve put of my experiences is really that “gender has impacted me in this way” is coming across as “gender impacts everyone this way”. I just think I’ve been wording it awkwardly, and putting undue emphasis on certain things.

I appreciate the formatting, it’s a lot better - thank you.

[pinkvoidmuse-deactivated2023021]

It’s not that I’m not understanding what you say, it’s that I’m asking questions to make sure I don’t put past definitions unto yours. Your view of gender doesn’t differ from mine. Gender to me is a social construct based on the sexes. Money exists as a form of exchange. Gender exists because of the sexes. Many things can be exchanged. A service, other good, or merely praise. Nothing will replace the fact that people are born as a certain sex.

The point I’m making is that stressing the importance of sex and understanding our relation to it in determing who has rights, who is represented and heard and why is the only thing that can combat that oppressive system. The association with female and that hatred is what’s important. Not necessarily the things women do. Because those things aren’t inherent to women and can change. Making men be comfortable wearing makeup by saying it’s not “girly” doesn’t do anything. Yes you’re breaking gender roles but you’re not addressing why it was “bad” for you to do in the first place.

I feel when people stress identity based on their relationship to gender, the status quo remains. I’m not saying your identity is political. But other nb individuals do make it political by mixing h sex and gender. By undermining the significance of sex.

[jackienorth]

That’s fine, I’m happy to engage with the questions, I just felt like an important point was being missed with them. It’s more a failing of myself than you if that didn’t come across well enough, but I’m glad you see where I’m coming from more now.

Money is equally socially constructed though - it has no inherent form, meaning, purpose or value, we create and project those qualities onto it (my analysis is as an anti-capitalist who thinks money should be abolished). And gender is derived from the identification of ‘sex’ - but it exists as the way sex is applied socially, and socially we can’t ‘see’ sex. That means we must apply expectations chromosomal classification for it to exist socially. Nothing will change the characteristics people are born with, but theoretically we can change how we interpret them.

The problem is that there are a lot of things currently associated with ‘sex’ or ‘gender’ that influence people’s social experiences, whether or not they’re xx/xy. Anyone who is perceived as being a woman (’correctly’ or ‘incorrectly’) can be the target of sexism/misogyny, and anyone who sees themselves as a woman can/do internalise it - regardless of the ‘male’ and ‘female’ boxes you might use. People’s own gender will also affect how they experience said bigotry and gendered expectations, and thus should be considered in such discussions.

Legally it’s not so neat either, since I could be legally a man while being ‘female’ (according to you). That means legal changes need to account for the lack of consistency between sex characteristics, reproductive anatomy and legal sex. Sex characteristics might not all line up either - I might have a deep voice, facial hair and higher testosterone levels, at the same time as a uterus and large chest. Even entirely medical contexts need more nuance than simply male/female, and that goes double for medical research.

We need complexity in discussions of gender and bigotry, but that just isn’t there if you try to reduce it to a simple xx/xy binary. You can discuss how reproductive control is sexist and targeted at women, while at the same time acknowledging it also affects trans men and non-binary people, and doesn’t impact all women. You can also discuss social sexism and misogyny, beauty standards, expectations of women’s bodies while recognising that trans women also experience those things, as women. That doesn’t take away from any analysis or feminist action - in fact, it adds to it by allowing you to discuss and address a broader range of experiences.

I do agree that surface level analysis like “makeup isn’t girly” isn’t good enough. Beauty standards themselves should be analysed, for men and women, and we need to eliminate this idea that girly = bad in any way. You aren’t restricted to the surface level analysis by accepting non-binary and binary trans folks.

The criticisms I see of ‘mixing sex and gender’ are usually targeted at a) people who think trans women belong in feminism, which the critic thinks is entirely ‘sex based’ or b) trans people who don’t want to be misgendered as ‘male’ or ‘female’. For the former, I feel like I’ve adressed that above. But for the latter, the fact is that calling people male/female in a social context is gendering them, even if you mean ‘sex’. That can make a person dysphoric unintentionally, and it’s often deliberately used to deny recognition of our genders. It’s perfectly possible to be accurate and comprehensive, and respect trans people. In fact, I’d argue, it’s necessary.

[pinkvoidmuse-deactivated2023021]

I wasn’t arguing that money isn’t a social construct. Just that there are degrees to that. A social construct can come about in many forms. But since sex will exist regardless, gender is inevitable (doesn’t have to be oppressive). The reason for me saying this, is to show we should focus on the root, association with the sexes, and not the sharing of the symptoms. A feminine man can be misogynistic.

I disagree with your “socially we can’t see sex”. This is a little insulting considering we have almost all of women history to prove how easily identifiable our sex have been, and how significant identifying that has been in our oppression. And using genitals to determine sex is more effective than using secondary sex characteristics. (Clothes are social constructs) But even when it’s not (intersex males with vaginas) the logic for sex is still used on them. This organ means you could push out a baby. The lack of it means you don’t. We are going to build a system around this. And it will be 96% accurate. (Lower estimate tbh).

Men were oppressing women when they believed that a sperm contained a fully form human being. As incorrect as that was, they didn’t need the truth to be able to put women under their control. Come back to this time, where we have Republicans who don’t know anything about women’s body making abortion laws. My point is yes sex is complicated. But not really. Us being sexual beings are equipped to accurately identify each other. Us failing a couple times doesn’t make the system less significant for women.

As silly as we might think it is because we’re sooo smart in our current timeline, but sex as a function is for reproductive purposes, and dividing based on who can get pregnant and who can impregnate has been effective. Not every female can get pregnant, but every female belong to the sex that can, regardless if they identify as nb or trans.

As a person I don’t care about anyone’s identity. But when having feminist discussion, muddling that all these groups mentioned above are female, seems counterintuitive. And the insistence that there’s no differences between a trans man and a cis man, despite knowing there are doesn’t help. When feminists make a class analysis, and we have to also act like we included trans men in that class analysis…. it’s not helpful. Because females have been oppressed because they’re females. Pretending that other females are our oppressor doesn’t make any sense (on the basis of sex). And including transwomen in our analysis is also unhelpful. We don’t have a shared history due to our anatomy. It’s not hatred. It’s the truth. Tw have been voting, owning property, participating in sports, or just merely being free to be outside, when cis women couldn’t.

When you say trans woman experience things as women, I don’t see how that’s true. When a trans woman says they were bullied as a kid for wanting to wear makeup and dresses, those are beauty rituals encouraged in girls…so these couldn’t have been similar experiences. Being socialized as a girl wasn’t just a list of things we couldn’t do, wear, say. It was also what was said about us, and people who look like us. It was what wasn’t said to us. A closeted transwoman can exist being viewed and treated as a male. A cis woman can’t have that reality. Regardless of what she does to her appearance the reality of existing as a female will be. It’s merely a temporary trick. She will be impacted by ALL laws impacting females. That’s not a shared reality.

What rituals do you reckon are similar? And how do those rituals outweigh sex and what that means? Since honestly we can have all the same socialization and women will still have something that can cause men to oppress us. We aren’t oppress for the social. But we are for the biological. That’s why I think gender is getting worse. Because we are focusing on social aspect way more.

I don’t mean to trigger anyone. But the truth shouldn’t be hidden to not cause a stir. Me discussing abortion will automatically exclude transwomen and include some trans men. That fact isn’t to be mean. It’s the reality of our biology. And I hate how these discussions being talked about on feminist circles have been reduced to transphobia. The social is now elavated because it’s inclusive. But of course it’s going to be inclusive. We construct the social… I’ve seen articles saying feminism need to include femme men (no dysphoria. Just feminine men) why? It’s reinforcing gender as the truth. As opposed to this mutant form of sex.

This might make people look more the same, do more of the same things, but it won’t do shit for women. Because we will still have the body the world feels entitled to.

[jackienorth]

Okay, so you’d argue for a less oppressive gender, rather than gender abolition here?

I’m talking primarily about social oppression here - someone cannot know what junk you have/had when you were born if they pass you on the street. They can only take gendered characteristics and make an assumption - you can’t use genitals to determine sex if you can’t see them, and social norms around clothes mean that generally you can’t. The lack of ‘accuracy’ is the point here.

It’s perfectly possible to look at medical/legal/scientific sexism/misogyny, and talk about it, without excluding trans folks from feminism. Understanding the position trans women and trans men occupy within a patriarchal and sexist system does not prevent those discussions, it adds to them.

The fact is, we have language like ‘cis’ and ‘trans’ to talk about the differences in experiences. A trans man and a cis man are both men, but they have different experiences of manhood. And, even within groups there will be differences. It’s not impossible to discuss - what makes it harder is people who reject that language (like ‘cis’), and who use those differences to insist trans men/trans women aren’t ‘real’ men/women.

The function of analysing oppression is to achieve the elimination of said oppression. You might think it makes it too complicated to involve trans men in such discussions? But what that means is attempts at addressing that oppression will fail them. Same for trans women. This isn’t just about thought exercises here, it’s about people’s actual lives and experiences. Facts don’t stop being facts just because they’re complicated to discuss.

You’re talking about active socialisation here. Shared experiences I mean are along the lines of passive socialisation. But also, in terms of active socialisation I have heard varied experiences there too, generally called ‘closeted trans women’ socialisation more than male socialisation. I suppose a comparitive example could be how we’re all actively socialised straight, and those with invisible disabilities are socialised abled. The experience of that is different when the assumptions are incorrect, isn’t it? You’re arguing here that all women experience socialisation in the same way, and if you didn’t then you’re not a women. And yet, simultaneously, I can describe how I didn’t experience it that way and am not a woman, but somehow you still say I am because of my genitals? That have thus far had very little to do with my life if I’m honest.

The thing I think you’re missing is that accepting trans women as women doesn’t make the history of fighting for legal rights, and the way that impacted people based on legal sex, disappear. Those things are no harder to discuss with or without trans women. Neither is it impossible as feminists to fight for those legal rights in places that don’t have them. You have to acknowledge that within feminism there are many cis women today who have never been without those legal rights either - and that doesn’t make them less women, right? And trans women who are legally female would likely be impacted by any laws subsequently put in place that target ‘females’ also. I also don’t know the history of how trans women interacted with such laws historically. Even if they weren’t legally excluded from voting, for example, the risks of presenting a male ID may have prevented them from doing so anyway. Not to mention the general transphobia and specifically transmisogyny they experience socially - not exactly safe to be outside as you state. You seem to forget that transphobia and transmisogyny exist. Privilege that’s conditional on not being yourself/being closeted/not having your needs met is different.

Talking about abortion will always only include people impacted by it anyway, trans women within feminism won’t change that. But when it comes to specific legal battles, as I say, it’s important all bases are covered so everyone who might need access to one can get an abortion.

You act like it’s a matter of choosing which forms of oppression to address - the social or the scientific. But you can talk about and address everything, it doesn’t have to be either/or, and the more you can incorporate different experiences, the better the picture you can get is. If there’s something specific you think you can’t talk about if you include trans women/trans people in feminism, please tell me and I can address that concern.

[pinkvoidmuse-deactivated2023021]

I think gender is inevitable because sex is an absolute for our species. Thus association with the sexes will exist. I don’t necessarily think that it has to be hate filled. Nor would deviating be shocking or frown upon,just not typical.

Saying someone can not know, gives the impression that the methods are 0% non effective…we both know that’s not true. If it were that easy to pass transphobia wouldn’t exist, nor the need for surgery and hormones to alter your secondary sex characteristics. If people couldn’t tell, every rapists would be a bisexual not caring about the sex of their victims. If people could not tell women being discriminated against and preyed would be drastically lower.

The idea that because characteristics vary, that ALL of them will is false. Yes you might meet a woman with a deep voice, but the likelihood that she’s also taller than average, more body/facial hair, narrow hips etc is low. The tools we have to accurately tell one’s sex is flawed, but not insanely innaccurate. I can see how my female peers are treated, no one needed them to undress for that. And relying on the outlier is disingenuous to me. Because I can say if you step outside right now the level of “confusion” you’d get in trying to figure out one’s sex would be low.

But what do you mean by “real man” tho. What qualifies a trans man to be a man? Because I say biology is the only thing. You say gender does. But using gender, what it means to be a man and your relationship to it is subjective to change and are in no way exclusive to either trans or cis men. Every group have differences, that doesn’t mean they don’t have something unique that gave rise to that specific title. Humans aren’t all the same. But we ALL possess qualities that qualifies us as human beings. Same with the sexes. We have short, tall, skinny, fat, black, bisexual etc types of women. But all of that are description ON TOP of their femaleness. We have infertile women, so reproductive capability vary as well, but I’ve seen people use that reality to claim that transwomen relate to womanhood. But a female not being able to get pregnant is not the same as a male capable of impregnating not being able to get pregnant. One belongs to the sex capable of that function and one doesn’t.

I never said involving trans men is too complicated. Although I think it gives rise to innaccuracy, and can be purposefully misleading (when the trans isn’t addressed) ex: those article saying WOW a pregnant man, it would be a scientific breakthrough for a cis man to be pregnant, but we see these headlines and no one need to tell us these are trans man

. Women are still oppressed. When I say things like class analysis. I mean stats that are useful in arguing for the protection of women without implying discrimination. Sex based statistics are used to show the level of domestic abuse and male violence in general. When you insist trans man are exactly the same as cis man, why would they need different stats? When a trans man wants to be recognized as male and is already in a female exclusive space, what becomes on that space in terms of the law? I have no issue with identity. I have an issue where identity is to be prioritized over sex. You might not agree but you can browse lgbt spaces and see people saying transwomen are female and trans men are male.

I disagree with your analogy because how you’re socialized actually has nothing to do with your biology. (It can be because of it obviously) As a woman I can be socialized in so many different ways that are interpreted as womanly. I don’t believe there’s a way to be a woman. A gay person can be raised so many different ways, however their sexuality is fixed. What they notice is an incompatibility with their innate sexuality. What transwomen notice is an incompability with their interest or how they wish to be perceived , which is in no way exclusive to their sex. To act like disagreeing with your socialization means you understand what it’s like to be socialized different doesn’t make sense. And to assume a way of acting is what it means to be biologically something is quite offensive.

Please point me where I said socialization makes one a woman or a man? Because that seems to be more your view. I said nothing besides biology makes you a woman or a man. I did however say that transwomen and cis women do not experience the same socialization, because what’s typically encouraged/not a big deal in cis girls are punished/ or heavily discouraged in trans girl. This in no way means every girl is socialized the SAME way. Especially when cultures and class vary. Which was my point on how inconsistent gender is and why sex is what should be highlighted.

Me and you both agree you’re female. Whatever your relationship is with how you’re perceived in this society is personal but doesn’t negate this fact. You can actively not care about something doesn’t mean it’s irrelevant to your reality. I actively don’t shave, doesn’t mean my interractions aren’t affected by this fact. I’m not calling you a liar, but so many of us don’t realize how much something actually impact us. How many women claim that women are equal and they don’t need feminism? But you look into their lives and they believe they are worthless and should serve men? Sexism doesn’t have to be loud. Someone doesn’t have to tell you you’re not good enough because you’re a woman, to treat you that way and you be oblivious. So many men believe women can’t be leaders because of our periods. They don’t have to state that to you for you to be affected by that view.

I came to the US from an all black nation, since I didn’t really have experiences with other races I missed SOO many racist interactions. I never had to learn from a young age. But regardless if I understood what was happening and reacted or let it affect me, it still happened. And if I wasn’t a child it could have been a higher stake interaction that actually impacted my life.

My point isn’t to say that every women knows every oppressive state women throughout history experienced, it was to say that these women experienced these things because of their biology and no identity. Which allowed transwomen the same rights as cis men. And to discuss issues of feminism with transwomen when our biology (the cause of our oppression) is different, as well as them being able to get the same rights as our oppressor doesn’t make sense. Trans women and cis women both experience male violence but so do cis men. Cis men suffer from male violence more than anyone else. Are they to be included in feminism ? I don’t get why females can’t have a movement to discuss the reason they are oppressed and always have been, without having to dilute their message.

Transwomen are already demanding we don’t call these issues (abortion) women’s issue…. inclusive slogans like no uterus no opinions have been called transphobic. Although being a women has always referred to both sex and social implications, we now have to change our language when it’s already hard enough. People still call our external genitalia vagina. People are so ignorant about the female body. And we can’t even say female anymore to be inclusive. I’ve been told centering feminism around reproductive right is stupid because of transwomen. I’ve been told period feminism is stupid because of transwomen. The reason people care is because women are actually being silenced. And it’s hard to notice it when you’re just around people saying it’s not happening. And it’s just bigoted terfs who hate trans people dead complaining.

Ok how to respond to people saying trans men oppress transwomen by being men? How can a feminist agree with this statement when we exist as a movement for female liberation. Females in our society can’t oppress males by being females. How can we talk about the importance of our biology in our oppression when transwomen share our oppresor’s biology and automatically get offended by this statement? How can we talk about not being stereotypes, when transwomen want to share how euphoric they feel when they shave their legs, or get catcalled? How can lesbians talk about the specific reality of rejecting the biggest patriarchal con, (attraction to men, heterosexual sex, *pregnancy) when transwomen who are attracted to women want to impose ? Heterosexual sex can be labeled homosexual if we use certain logic. How can these conversation happen? Because I’ve yet seen these happen without someone being called a terf or a bigoted. Since you offered to explain

[jackienorth]

I think the idea of ‘norms’ to deviate from (or not) is always going to be harmful, even if it’s accepted. And I don’t think that perceived sex has to impact social relations either. But obviously planning/predictions for an ideal world don’t tell us a huge amount about what to do now. Though prefigurative politics are defiitely something to consider imo.

Someone can assume, and like many informed assumptions they may be correct most of the time. But assuming that sex is a) a fixed category immutable from birth, b) knowable to all, of all and c) the only factor in gendered social treatment doesn’t seem to give a comprehensive picture. It’s deliberately missing the nuance in order to simplify. It seems more accurate to discuss ‘perceived sex/gender’ in some situations, because that’s what informs actions taken on the basis of sex/gender, right? It’s pretty fallicious to think “we can only assume people’s sex most of the time” therefore means “no one assumes peoples’ sex and allows that to inform their behaviours”. I am not relying on the ‘outlier’, but saying it’s essential to consider and include the ‘outlier’. I’m not saying that sexism and misogyny aren’t based on 'sex’ categories at the root - I’m saying they don’t impact people as cleanly as you suggest.

I suppose the question here is - for what purpose are you drawing the lines between ‘men’ and ‘women’? It’s my understanding that, within feminism at least, it’s to discuss the differing impacts of patriarchy and gender. That’s a social difference, as it’s a matter of social treatment. Now, you’ve also identified specific treatment on the basis of reproductive anatomy (reproductive health issues for eg.), but not all cis women share the same impact there either. So you can’t say ‘women are people who experience reproductive oppression’ because that would leave those women out. You also can’t say ‘women are people who experience social sexism/misogyny’ because that includes trans women (which you disagree with), and wouldn’t include any cis women who haven’t experienced that. So you go back to agreeing with the way society has initially classified people based on their genitals, as female/male. But that doesn’t seem helpful to me for what is an anti-oppression movement.

I guess, as a point of comparison, we can look at the way the category ‘disabled’ functions socially, and in terms of the disability rights movement. In (the best of) these spaces, we don’t expect people to be medically diagnosed to have access to support and be considered a part of the movement, nor to have the same medical needs. Invisible disabilities are also included as much as visible ones, and acquired disabilities as much as those present from birth. Needs also vary massively but we group together in solidarity against ableism and inaccessibility, and we can see the way that oppression functions in terms of the bigger picture. We don’t, however, generally consider (as a society, or within the movement) wearing glasses to be a disability for example, even though one could argue it ‘technically’ is. Because, for the most part, it’s socially accepted and not something people face inaccessibility/ableism for. So you can see how who is included is really based on the needs of the movement and societal perception, rather than rigid rules. That way of organising makes, by far, the most sense to me.

What is the real benefit of categorising people by genital configuration at birth, socially or as a movement? Rather than discussing how you’re defining gender, I think it more interesting to as why, and for what purpose?

As far as categorising people’s gender - someone’s self perception also relates to how they wish to be perceived by others, and describes something about the way they navigate social life. It also means something in terms of how they experience gender and gendered things - a trans person experiences things as their gender, even if they experience different things (that part suggested by the ‘trans’ adjective). That kind of info seems to be more relevant when engaging with people socially, and considering social categories.

You argue that ‘male’ and ‘female’ are things that someone intrinsically is - but I’d argue that traits we categorise as male/female are simply things one intrinsically has. Many of those traits can be changed, and there are many who just naturally don’t have all of them.

I suppose sensationalist articles about trans bodies are meant to surprise you. But the fact is, a trans man is a man, it’s not inaccurate to say so. And who is hurt by things pointing out that you may see, interact with, or even end up providing healthcare for, a trans man who is pregnant? Reducing bigotry, asserting that he is actually a man and probably would want to be treated as such - that’s going to mean these people (because yes, pregnant trans men are people not just ‘sensations’) have an easier time navigating that world and being treated with respect. Or so I’d hope. And inclusion of trans men and non-binary people in discussions of reproductive healthcare is essential to ensuring those trans people are protected too. What’s the negative outcome of these ‘inaccuracies’ that you’re so concerned with?

I know of exactly zero trans people who don’t want stats on the violence and abuse faced specifically by trans people. I also think other intersections of identities should be incorporated too. The only argument I have for not doing that is for the safety of the trans person - being outed by/to the police for the purpose of data gathering could have harmful consequences. I doubt that trans people are that numerous as to change stats that much though. Talking about trans men in female exclusive spaces seems to be an argument against legal gender recognition, right? But consider stealth trans people being outed constantly by ID that doesn’t allign with how they’re perceived. I mean, on a purely legal level, that situation would be solved by setting a barrier to entry, not a barrier to remaining. But it would also depend on what the space is, and the specific context I guess.  Saying trans women are female, and trans men are male is not saying trans men and women are cis. I’ll go more in depth on that shortly.

What trans people notice is an incompatibility between the way we are and see ourselves, and the way we are seen and expected to be. You display a lack of understanding of trans people if you think it’s just about interests and desire. It’s not about a way of acting, it’s about seeing oneself as the gender you are, which does impact your social experiences. Not to mention, socialisation doesn’t simply stop at a certain age. Your premise (that being discouraged from being feminine makes a trans girl not a girl) would also mean that theoretically a cis girl raised as a boy and encouraged to be masculine/not feminine is not a girl. Both of them would likely experience that socialisation different to a cis boy or a trans boy.

And here’s the continuation of earlier. I would not agree I’m female. I would agree that by current definitions I’d be medically classified that way, but this is a social interaction and not a medical one. I can agree that I’ve been socially perceived as a girl/woman most of my life, and I can agree what kind of reproductive anatomy I have where the context calls for it. But the purpose of you calling me female is to gender me - it’s unnecessary and I adamantly reject that. Similarly, that’s the general purpose of calling any trans person male/female in purely social contexts.

Honestly, I know that where I’m perceived as a woman, I can be impacted by people’s opinion of women. That said, I’ve had the good fortune to be always treated as more than capable (when my disabilities were invisible, but still to anyone who knows me), never having been on the receiving end of objectification or abuse, never been actively pressured to be feminine, and any bullying hasn’t been gendered. At the same time - I also take up space, accidentally talk over people (working on that one), love myself independently of any relationships, literally don’t care about my appearance (or what others think of it), don’t feel objectified, don’t feel GNC or shame for ‘masculine’ features. Yeah, I’m lucky, but my thought is this - why do I deserve a space within feminism, where I have little to no personal experience to share on... almost anything, but the trans women I know who experience sexism, objectification, harassment, pressure to conform to (female) beauty standards, shame for anything ‘masculine’ etc. apparently don’t? I have less to say about womanhood/sexism regarding personal experience, and even if I didn’t - they still have lots to say. The trans women I know are feminists, because that stuff impacts them.

Your comparison to your experience of racism seems to support trans women being included in feminism, rather than going against it - regardless of the point at which you begin experiencing an oppression, you still do and should be supported by and a part of the movement against it.

Not all women share the same oppression though - historically some women have gained access to the rights that men have before others. That separation doesn’t change them sharing a cause. And, as I said, it’s likely simplitic to assume being legally ‘male’ would translate to rights and safety, with the presence of transphobia and the social impact of transition. But, regardless, the material circumstances now are the relevant ones moving forward. It’s not about experiencing male violence, but experiencing sexism/misogyny. It’s not as simple as everything being biologically targeted, as I’ve expressed. It’s possible to discuss the role of reproductive biology in gendered oppression, without reducing everything to that and only that and being transphobic. Eliminating those experiences and interests from anti-oppression movements is not helpful. The feminist spaces I have been a part of included trans women and talked about sexism based on sex (reproductive justice, sex selective abortions etc.) - it wasn’t hard to do.

It’s trans men and non-binary people with uteruses, for the most part, that argue for gender neutral language regarding abortion etc. The trans women I’ve seen talking about it are usually just amplifying those voices and concerns. Not to mention, even if they were, you can just... discuss their reasons and disagree? I’ve seen cis women advocate for ‘tradfem’ values, and anti-choice stances - that doesn’t mean cis women don’t need a place in feminism, right? Different people have different opinions, and sometimes those opinions are bad. It happens, and you can disagree with it with more nuance than excluding a group of people with shared interests. Hell, there’s a vagina museum I heard about (info was being spread positively by various people, including trans women) that is also not transphobic. Not my kinda thing, but also neat imo. To respect trans people is not to ignore anatomy, it’s just about being nuanced and accurate with those discussions.

I think viewing trans men as oppressors is something complicated. The idea of masculine as superior does mean that trans men’s transitions are seen as more acceptable, less of a joke. There are also some misogynistic trans men out there, and trans women can obviously be targets as much as cis women. Trans men are also given more of a voice in some spaces, and definitely are when being perceived as cis men. Perception plays a role in gender dynamics, and when it comes to trans people, that can vary. I think moving away from a simplistic dichotomy of oppressed vs oppressor is useful, and moving towards highlighting power dynamics where necessary. I hope I’ve adequately covered discussing biology within feminism earlier in this reply? But for an example - “legislating against abortion is misogynistic. It specifically targets women, and impacts anyone who can get pregnant.” That would be inclusive, not transphobic, and also addresses it as a feminist issue. Obviously conversations will be longer, but you see my point. My sister (she’s cis) is also very happy when she shaves her legs (or has been, historically), and likes to look good. Talk about the issues of stereotypes the same as you might to her, I suppose. Understand that sometimes conforming to stereotypes is necessary for safety or comfort also. And remember that a lot of trans women aren’t happy with those expectations either. Talk about being lesbians the same as you ever would, just don’t misgender people I suppose. Trans women share more of those experiences than you think too. Honestly though, this is a hard one to answer because it’s a very broad question and I’m not familiar with lesbian spaces, nor am I a trans woman. I do know there are plenty of lesbian groups who welcome trans women, and stand in solidarity with them. I guess if you have concerns it’s better to talk to someone from those groups and see what that unity and understanding looks like from the inside?

[pinkvoidmuse-deactivated2023021]

My friend started talking to me about this video she watched about ppl in the lgbt community and their political views. And she started talking about how this tw and nb person was going at it. And that she saw where this nb was going. So I asked her where (lol) and it basically boiled down to her never really thinking about it. And everything i said she agreed with. Like if you believe gender is a social construct, how can you have a gender that your society has no clue about aka haven’t constructed? How exactly were you socialized with this gender uh? If rejecting social roles makes you nb then you’re saying that being a woman and being a man is literally nothing but agreeing with made up social roles, and your status as nb changes depending on the society you’re in????? Nothing else works like this. I’m a woman regardless if I’m in the US or in Haiti. I’m bisexual regardless if I’m in Japan or Nepal. Even identities that aren’t innate don’t work like this. I’m an agnostic regardless of regions too….y’all have no idea how many people are close to “peaking” if you just asked them to explain what they mean. Saying transwomen are women repeatedly doesn’t work in real life, and you’d either get”oh wow I don’t know” or you get the committed liars who will say there are NO differences in the same breath they ask you to clarify if you mean woman with vaginas or with a penis/neovagina 🙄

[jackienorth]

Being non-binary describes a relationship to gender based on not perceiving yourself as exclusively a boy or girl/man or woman. It impacts the way you experience gendered socialisation, and what messages you internalise. It’s not rejecting social roles that makes you non-binary - although I’m certain some things non-binary people might do (like using non-gendered titles, names, or pronouns) are things other people also might do to reject social roles, or gender itself, if they’re inclined to do so.

The specific ways people experience this may vary, and so people come up with all sorts of words to describe how they experience that - and I think that’s pretty neat honestly. I could explain my own experience as a non-binary person if you’d want.

I think there is a tendency for people to take and share the conclussion of discussions without understanding everything behind it. I don’t know what the solution to this is - you can’t force people to engage with topics on a deeper level and do more research - but it does make it harder to have these types of conversations, and can make conclusions seem weaker than they are.

[pinkvoidmuse-deactivated2023021]

Ok what does it mean to perceive yourself as a woman or a man? What do these terms mean. Non binary as I’ve seen it described says that they don’t fit into the binary so they believe there are people who not only do but choose to. When you say gender what exactly do you mean by that. If you’re willing to engage we should get that cleared up since you already feel like I’m misinformed. Could you also clarify what you mean by what “messages you internalize”

[jackienorth]

I’d say perceiving yourself as a man/woman means you’re more likely to learn/mimic behaviours of men/women and see yourself in them in general. You’re also more likely to understand gendered standards as relating to yourself based on that, even when you reject them.

My understanding of that description of non-binary is it refers to your experience of gender not fitting into the binary, rather than just having characteristics that don’t. GNC men and women (trans or cis) exist without being non-binary.

Gender (as I and others view it) is a social construct and system of classification. Someone’s gender describes how they perceive themselves in terms of that classification, and therefore experience that system.

For me, examples of my self perception (and of the internalisation of social messages) would be not feeling pressure to conform to gendered expectations (even to reject it). So as an AFAB person I’ve never shaved (well, not till having to shave my face) or felt the pressure to, never felt like standards of male or female beauty applied to me. I never really felt GNC either, because I never felt the expectation to conform in the first place I suppose. There was just never a time where I really saw myself as ‘one of them’ in regards to either men or women, though most of the important people in my life are women.

Sorry to just pull examples from my own life here, but I do prefer not to share other peoples’ when they aren’t present. I do know that there are many differences in experiences - particularly where people are actively pressured to look and act a certain way, which is something I never experienced personally.

[pinkvoidmuse-deactivated2023021]

First of I would really like it if you’d stop tagging this anti trans. This is innaccurate. Just because I don’t think anyone subscribe to gender 100% doesn’t make me anti trans. Just because I understand you can’t choose your socialization doesn’t mean I’m anti trans. When you say learn and mimic the behaviors of men/women, you view man and woman as a performance? What is your definition of a man and what behaviors are there to be mimicked that you feel is exclusive to men? You said gender is classification and experiencing gender means you relate to that classification and experience that system. What do you mean? You said that you never felt pressured to shave expect your face. Neither do men. you’re female. do you not see how your “gendered socialization” worked here? Because my body hair is not a statement. My body hair is neutral. It is not masculine. But you assumed it was. Facial hair is the most unaccepable type of body hair on women. Everyone knows women shave their legs and armpits etc. but we aren’t even supposed to ackowledge we grow facial hair. Despite you claiming not to. Your female socialization works. I can bet that the level of facial hair you have most men wouldn’t even think twice about removing that. So it’s not “grooming”. There is no instincts to shave and remove something natural. The system you speak of is not law. It’s oppressive. Rejecting these rules is logical. The only really I’m viewed as “gnc” is because I simply exist in a comfortable way. To imply that I relate to gender as a woman since I don’t ID as nb is incorrect. But to ID as nb because I’m a person who reject the roles associated with my sex with no desire to be male is a stretch. These roles are created and we give them validity by analyzing ourselves in relations to that. I don’t wear makeup and never felt the need to. I don’t wear heels and never felt the need to. Am I nb for never caring about this despite my mom and Bestfriend’s giving me makeup kits? Shaved my head multiple times without caring to look feminine. To me the binary is bullshit. A system where women are rebels for simply existing is a system dependent on molding us and dictating our every move. This system thrive on women’s insecurity. Our normal bodies aren’t good enough. We exists in parts that can never fit in a fully realized human being. We are to make ourselves soft, docile, available, quiet, and looking for male guidance. To insinuate that women can fit into this binary system is to agree that women are what the patriarchy says we are. I disagree with that. To create a gender because I want to be recognized as a human being and not a stereotype is excessive and doesn’t help anyone. Because it keeps validating the binary. You assume some identity because you personally want to be treated like a human being. But the moment you call yourself that you are saying we actually agree with our socialization. When women don’t. We can participate in things we don’t agree with for survival.

[jackienorth]

I was tagging it so people can block those tags if they need to, not as a continuation of the discussion - and rebogs don’t show up in tags if you’re concerned about that. ‘Anti-trans feminism’ encompasses rhetoric that pits feminism as in opposition to trans people/trans rights, which I think the things you’re saying fall into. I do think we can have this discussion in good faith here.

I don’t mean it as a performance, it’s socialisation. We also learn language through mimickry, and (in my understanding) how to emote. It’s a subconscious experience of learning how to behave and what’s expected of you.

I don’t believe there are behaviours exclusive to men or women, but there are expectations placed on the groups that impact social development and cause trends (which reinforce the expectations through functioning as role models). The expectations for women to be emotive (but not too emotive), that the only acceptable outlet for emotion in men is anger/violence. Things of that nature. Gender isn’t based on how well you fit them, but the way you experience them (as passively learned messages) relates to whether you view yourself as a boy/girl/neither. Obviously there are nuances where it comes to active socialisation, and social perception will have an impact on what your experiences are too.

I meant I never shaved until having something to shave on my face (thanks to HRT). I still don’t feel pressured to do so, just not a fan of beards rn, particularly patchy ones - I included the fact merely for the sake of accuracy. There’re also social complexities regarding transition when it comes to people who’ve known me a long time that I’m still navigating. Regardless, the ins and out of transition are probably not so relevant to this topic. The point is, I never experienced that (not shaving body hair) as a statement - I’m aware others do, but I never considered it. I think I first realised it was something that women often feel they must do when my younger sister started doing so (/when I found out she was), possibly earlier through my mum? It just seemed strange to me. I understand the politics of these things, and never considered body hair to be inherently masculine (I have my upbringing by a wonderful, strong, single mother to thank for that). I’ve had a young girl comment on my leg hair in the past, and I very deliberately told her it’s natural for everyone to grow body hair, and you don’t ever have to shave it. I by no means support these expectations. Anyway, this is just supposed to be an example I use of how being non-binary has impacted the way I experience gendered expectations. It’s not a ‘non-binary trait’, or a thing all of us will experience, just a way of me explaining how it has interacted with my view of myself.

I agree the system is inherently oppressive, hence me being all for gender abolition - but I don’t think it’s possible without eliminating a social binary altogether, including sex based. It’s probably not even possible without dismantling capitalism, though I could be proved wrong on that. I think people have different reasons for seeing themselves as non-binary. Personally, I’m not sure if I would have come out as non-binary if not for experiencing physical gender dysphoria. Transition-wise, it would probably be simpler to call myself a trans man, but that would just be inaccurate to my social experiences. I feel like ‘non-binary’ is the most accurate way of describing my experience of gender and the way I perceive myself (and have done historically), so I go with that. In feminist spaces or when discussing sexism for sure it feels helpful. In all such spaces I’ve been in, the social issues discussed are ones I can’t relate to the same way the women there can.

I don’t call myself non-binary to be treated as a human being - how would that even work? I’m fortunate enough that I have never been treated as or felt less of one for being read as a woman, and being out as non-binary hasn’t changed anything much either. Though honestly certain views of non-binary people and trans people do feel very dehumanising. Accessing trans healthcare, being disabled, and being aroace have all also led to situations where I feel dehumanised and unfairly treated. But, while negative representations of disabled, aroace and non-binary/trans people have a personal impact on me, sexist stuff just… doesn’t in the same way. Never has. It’s unpleasant, and I always challenge it as much as any bigotry (being raised by a brilliant socialist single mum has it’s perks), but I do engage with it differently to things that relate to me personally.

And me calling myself non-binary doesn’t say you agree with your socialisation, just implies that you experienced it as a woman - that’s literally it, and I doubt you’d disagree? Acknowledging gendered social experiences is a huge part of feminist understanding, right?

I am concerned that I’ve placed too much emphasis on my own specific experiences as some inherent part of being non-binary. Sorry about that, I think it’s made my explainations messier and harder to understand. I really was only attempting to explain how I feel being non-binary has impacted my experience of gender, but I think it came across poorly. Probably shouldn’t have responded on a high pain day.

Note: I hate to ask, but it’d be really helpful if you use paragraphs. I do struggle with reading blocks of text due to brainfog, and I would appreciate it so I don’t have to copy, paste and reformat it myself. If it’s difficult for you, I understand and will keep on as I have been.

[pinkvoidmuse-deactivated2023021]

When you say abolish gender but that can’t be done without abolishing the social binary ? How can that be done when you define men and women as what they do and how they act? Isn’t that what created the binary?

Sex is your sex, it says nothing about your personality/taste. how is saying I’m not a woman because, despite being female I don’t feel pressured to do things other females are pressured into doing helping abolish gender, instead of a radical feminists saying, your interests, your appearance are a personal choice. These choices can exist regardless of your sex.

I don’t understand why being a boy or a girl is dependent on how well you choose to accept the roles forced on you?

When I say to be treated as a human being, I mean you realize you’re your own person. What’s expected of you doesn’t define you, you define yourself. But you view this experience as a unique “non binary” experience. When I can say that you’re just more aware than most to even question the binary. However giving most people that tool you’ll see how receptive they are. It’s all an act.

I worked at toys r us. I’ve dealt with the most absurd requests from parents trying to stay within the binary. I’ve been told to grab a ladder and check to make sure the baby model on a box was a boy and not a girl…ask me how I’d know???? But when you ask follow up questions you really see how these people have never given a thought to why it was so important except for this is for boys and that’s for girls. I’ve have little girls complain about mystery toys being for boys and a simple explanation made them happy and have them cherish their new toy. Socialization works because it relies on blind obedience. It relies on you never noticing or asking questions.

Gender has always relied on the binary because sex is binary. Intersex conditions don’t negate that. Every other gender has relied on their relation to the binary. You’re infertile ? Another gender. You’re homosexual? Another gender. The more genders you see in a society the stricter the rules are. I don’t understand what you mean by abolishing sex binary? Acknowledging one’s sex isn’t an issue. It’s the implications/assumptions that can be.

Idk if this is any better. I’m on mobile. I mean it’s easier to elaborate when you talk of your personal experience. I’m speaking from my experiences as well. Not mere observation. My best friend id as nb and we’ve discussed this. As well as my ex gf who id as genderqueer. I don’t see the point in acknowledging that the box is stupid and make a box outside of that to say eventually the first box will cease to exist. Being a women who reject the binary is more impactful in my eyes than rejecting the binary and saying this doesn’t make me a woman. Because you just undid ALL the revolutionary aspect of questioning the binary. (Since you said you want gende abolish)

[jackienorth]

What I mean is that gender is a construct - it doesn’t have to exist, but it does, and while it does we are defined (at least in part) by our relationships to it. We need language to describe what that relationship is, to discuss the impacts it has on people. Similarly, money is a construct that doesn’t have to exist. But it does, and we define our relationship to it in discussing class, wealth, poverty. Stopping identifying the impact money has on us is not necessary to abolish it, nor is it helpful to that end. We are forced to exist in relation to systems that are harmful. Gender isn’t defined by what we do/how we act - but it does impact those things, along with our experiences of the world.

I’m not sure if you’re understanding what I was getting at in terms of defining gender (and therefore ‘non-binary’). Gender has impacted my social experiences, it is not defined by them. I refer to the impact of gender on those experiences to give reasons that I think gender is worth discussing and has social relevance.

Someone could be exactly like me in behaviour and be non-binary, a woman, or a man - and I don’t have to be non-binary to be me. Anyone can even use neutral pronouns, titles, names without being non-binary - I fully support that idea, truly. ‘Non-binary’ simply describes how I’ve viewed myself historically (having been given the tools of gendered classification at an early age), and how that has affected me through my life. It’s not a revolutionary identity, it doesn’t inherently mean anything politically, it’s just the description of an experience. Few of the people in my life fully accept gendered roles an expectations, and most of them are not non-binary.

Your Toys R Us experience is somehow simultaneously unsurprising, and disappointing. I’m mostly around people who’ve gone past that simplistic and stereotypical view of gender, that I often forget that not everyone has. I assure you, I do not support the view that people should be given rigid ideas about what boys/girls should do/be.

I didn’t say we need to abolish the ‘sex binary’ (I’m not saying we don’t either, but that’s a whole other discussion right there), but ‘social binaries based on sex’. Because as long as there’s social reason to visually categorise and separate people by sex/gender, there will be expectations of said categories. Treating sex/sex characteristics as a medical (not social) issue seems more appropriate in my opinion.

I think the things you say make sense if someone is considering themself non-binary as a way to question the gender binary, or on the basis of gender attributes. But I’m (and most are) doing neither - it’s a description of how I view myself, and a tool through which to discuss the way that has shaped my experience. That’s what most labels are, I suppose. The things that I do think can work in terms of prefiguration for gender abolition include: supporting options for non-gendered gender markers, normalising gender neutral pronouns, not gendering names, supporting non-gendered title options, challenging gender expectations and supporting non-conformity, removing gender markers where possible. Oh, and supporting trans healthcare, and any changes to it that reduce requirements of femininity/masculinity or gender conformity.

My concern on the amount I’ve put of my experiences is really that “gender has impacted me in this way” is coming across as “gender impacts everyone this way”. I just think I’ve been wording it awkwardly, and putting undue emphasis on certain things.

I appreciate the formatting, it’s a lot better - thank you.

[pinkvoidmuse-deactivated2023021]

It’s not that I’m not understanding what you say, it’s that I’m asking questions to make sure I don’t put past definitions unto yours. Your view of gender doesn’t differ from mine. Gender to me is a social construct based on the sexes. Money exists as a form of exchange. Gender exists because of the sexes. Many things can be exchanged. A service, other good, or merely praise. Nothing will replace the fact that people are born as a certain sex.

The point I’m making is that stressing the importance of sex and understanding our relation to it in determing who has rights, who is represented and heard and why is the only thing that can combat that oppressive system. The association with female and that hatred is what’s important. Not necessarily the things women do. Because those things aren’t inherent to women and can change. Making men be comfortable wearing makeup by saying it’s not “girly” doesn’t do anything. Yes you’re breaking gender roles but you’re not addressing why it was “bad” for you to do in the first place.

I feel when people stress identity based on their relationship to gender, the status quo remains. I’m not saying your identity is political. But other nb individuals do make it political by mixing h sex and gender. By undermining the significance of sex.

[jackienorth]

That’s fine, I’m happy to engage with the questions, I just felt like an important point was being missed with them. It’s more a failing of myself than you if that didn’t come across well enough, but I’m glad you see where I’m coming from more now.

Money is equally socially constructed though - it has no inherent form, meaning, purpose or value, we create and project those qualities onto it (my analysis is as an anti-capitalist who thinks money should be abolished). And gender is derived from the identification of ‘sex’ - but it exists as the way sex is applied socially, and socially we can’t ‘see’ sex. That means we must apply expectations chromosomal classification for it to exist socially. Nothing will change the characteristics people are born with, but theoretically we can change how we interpret them.

The problem is that there are a lot of things currently associated with ‘sex’ or ‘gender’ that influence people’s social experiences, whether or not they’re xx/xy. Anyone who is perceived as being a woman (’correctly’ or ‘incorrectly’) can be the target of sexism/misogyny, and anyone who sees themselves as a woman can/do internalise it - regardless of the ‘male’ and ‘female’ boxes you might use. People’s own gender will also affect how they experience said bigotry and gendered expectations, and thus should be considered in such discussions.

Legally it’s not so neat either, since I could be legally a man while being ‘female’ (according to you). That means legal changes need to account for the lack of consistency between sex characteristics, reproductive anatomy and legal sex. Sex characteristics might not all line up either - I might have a deep voice, facial hair and higher testosterone levels, at the same time as a uterus and large chest. Even entirely medical contexts need more nuance than simply male/female, and that goes double for medical research.

We need complexity in discussions of gender and bigotry, but that just isn’t there if you try to reduce it to a simple xx/xy binary. You can discuss how reproductive control is sexist and targeted at women, while at the same time acknowledging it also affects trans men and non-binary people, and doesn’t impact all women. You can also discuss social sexism and misogyny, beauty standards, expectations of women’s bodies while recognising that trans women also experience those things, as women. That doesn’t take away from any analysis or feminist action - in fact, it adds to it by allowing you to discuss and address a broader range of experiences.

I do agree that surface level analysis like “makeup isn’t girly” isn’t good enough. Beauty standards themselves should be analysed, for men and women, and we need to eliminate this idea that girly = bad in any way. You aren’t restricted to the surface level analysis by accepting non-binary and binary trans folks.

The criticisms I see of ‘mixing sex and gender’ are usually targeted at a) people who think trans women belong in feminism, which the critic thinks is entirely ‘sex based’ or b) trans people who don’t want to be misgendered as ‘male’ or ‘female’. For the former, I feel like I’ve adressed that above. But for the latter, the fact is that calling people male/female in a social context is gendering them, even if you mean ‘sex’. That can make a person dysphoric unintentionally, and it’s often deliberately used to deny recognition of our genders. It’s perfectly possible to be accurate and comprehensive, and respect trans people. In fact, I’d argue, it’s necessary.

[pinkvoidmuse-deactivated2023021]

I wasn’t arguing that money isn’t a social construct. Just that there are degrees to that. A social construct can come about in many forms. But since sex will exist regardless, gender is inevitable (doesn’t have to be oppressive). The reason for me saying this, is to show we should focus on the root, association with the sexes, and not the sharing of the symptoms. A feminine man can be misogynistic.

I disagree with your “socially we can’t see sex”. This is a little insulting considering we have almost all of women history to prove how easily identifiable our sex have been, and how significant identifying that has been in our oppression. And using genitals to determine sex is more effective than using secondary sex characteristics. (Clothes are social constructs) But even when it’s not (intersex males with vaginas) the logic for sex is still used on them. This organ means you could push out a baby. The lack of it means you don’t. We are going to build a system around this. And it will be 96% accurate. (Lower estimate tbh).

Men were oppressing women when they believed that a sperm contained a fully form human being. As incorrect as that was, they didn’t need the truth to be able to put women under their control. Come back to this time, where we have Republicans who don’t know anything about women’s body making abortion laws. My point is yes sex is complicated. But not really. Us being sexual beings are equipped to accurately identify each other. Us failing a couple times doesn’t make the system less significant for women.

As silly as we might think it is because we’re sooo smart in our current timeline, but sex as a function is for reproductive purposes, and dividing based on who can get pregnant and who can impregnate has been effective. Not every female can get pregnant, but every female belong to the sex that can, regardless if they identify as nb or trans.

As a person I don’t care about anyone’s identity. But when having feminist discussion, muddling that all these groups mentioned above are female, seems counterintuitive. And the insistence that there’s no differences between a trans man and a cis man, despite knowing there are doesn’t help. When feminists make a class analysis, and we have to also act like we included trans men in that class analysis…. it’s not helpful. Because females have been oppressed because they’re females. Pretending that other females are our oppressor doesn’t make any sense (on the basis of sex). And including transwomen in our analysis is also unhelpful. We don’t have a shared history due to our anatomy. It’s not hatred. It’s the truth. Tw have been voting, owning property, participating in sports, or just merely being free to be outside, when cis women couldn’t.

When you say trans woman experience things as women, I don’t see how that’s true. When a trans woman says they were bullied as a kid for wanting to wear makeup and dresses, those are beauty rituals encouraged in girls…so these couldn’t have been similar experiences. Being socialized as a girl wasn’t just a list of things we couldn’t do, wear, say. It was also what was said about us, and people who look like us. It was what wasn’t said to us. A closeted transwoman can exist being viewed and treated as a male. A cis woman can’t have that reality. Regardless of what she does to her appearance the reality of existing as a female will be. It’s merely a temporary trick. She will be impacted by ALL laws impacting females. That’s not a shared reality.

What rituals do you reckon are similar? And how do those rituals outweigh sex and what that means? Since honestly we can have all the same socialization and women will still have something that can cause men to oppress us. We aren’t oppress for the social. But we are for the biological. That’s why I think gender is getting worse. Because we are focusing on social aspect way more.

I don’t mean to trigger anyone. But the truth shouldn’t be hidden to not cause a stir. Me discussing abortion will automatically exclude transwomen and include some trans men. That fact isn’t to be mean. It’s the reality of our biology. And I hate how these discussions being talked about on feminist circles have been reduced to transphobia. The social is now elavated because it’s inclusive. But of course it’s going to be inclusive. We construct the social… I’ve seen articles saying feminism need to include femme men (no dysphoria. Just feminine men) why? It’s reinforcing gender as the truth. As opposed to this mutant form of sex.

This might make people look more the same, do more of the same things, but it won’t do shit for women. Because we will still have the body the world feels entitled to.

[jackienorth]

Okay, so you’d argue for a less oppressive gender, rather than gender abolition here?

I’m talking primarily about social oppression here - someone cannot know what junk you have/had when you were born if they pass you on the street. They can only take gendered characteristics and make an assumption - you can’t use genitals to determine sex if you can’t see them, and social norms around clothes mean that generally you can’t. The lack of ‘accuracy’ is the point here.

It’s perfectly possible to look at medical/legal/scientific sexism/misogyny, and talk about it, without excluding trans folks from feminism. Understanding the position trans women and trans men occupy within a patriarchal and sexist system does not prevent those discussions, it adds to them.

The fact is, we have language like ‘cis’ and ‘trans’ to talk about the differences in experiences. A trans man and a cis man are both men, but they have different experiences of manhood. And, even within groups there will be differences. It’s not impossible to discuss - what makes it harder is people who reject that language (like ‘cis’), and who use those differences to insist trans men/trans women aren’t ‘real’ men/women.

The function of analysing oppression is to achieve the elimination of said oppression. You might think it makes it too complicated to involve trans men in such discussions? But what that means is attempts at addressing that oppression will fail them. Same for trans women. This isn’t just about thought exercises here, it’s about people’s actual lives and experiences. Facts don’t stop being facts just because they’re complicated to discuss.

You’re talking about active socialisation here. Shared experiences I mean are along the lines of passive socialisation. But also, in terms of active socialisation I have heard varied experiences there too, generally called ‘closeted trans women’ socialisation more than male socialisation. I suppose a comparitive example could be how we’re all actively socialised straight, and those with invisible disabilities are socialised abled. The experience of that is different when the assumptions are incorrect, isn’t it? You’re arguing here that all women experience socialisation in the same way, and if you didn’t then you’re not a women. And yet, simultaneously, I can describe how I didn’t experience it that way and am not a woman, but somehow you still say I am because of my genitals? That have thus far had very little to do with my life if I’m honest.

The thing I think you’re missing is that accepting trans women as women doesn’t make the history of fighting for legal rights, and the way that impacted people based on legal sex, disappear. Those things are no harder to discuss with or without trans women. Neither is it impossible as feminists to fight for those legal rights in places that don’t have them. You have to acknowledge that within feminism there are many cis women today who have never been without those legal rights either - and that doesn’t make them less women, right? And trans women who are legally female would likely be impacted by any laws subsequently put in place that target ‘females’ also. I also don’t know the history of how trans women interacted with such laws historically. Even if they weren’t legally excluded from voting, for example, the risks of presenting a male ID may have prevented them from doing so anyway. Not to mention the general transphobia and specifically transmisogyny they experience socially - not exactly safe to be outside as you state. You seem to forget that transphobia and transmisogyny exist. Privilege that’s conditional on not being yourself/being closeted/not having your needs met is different.

Talking about abortion will always only include people impacted by it anyway, trans women within feminism won’t change that. But when it comes to specific legal battles, as I say, it’s important all bases are covered so everyone who might need access to one can get an abortion.

You act like it’s a matter of choosing which forms of oppression to address - the social or the scientific. But you can talk about and address everything, it doesn’t have to be either/or, and the more you can incorporate different experiences, the better the picture you can get is. If there’s something specific you think you can’t talk about if you include trans women/trans people in feminism, please tell me and I can address that concern.

[pinkvoidmuse-deactivated2023021]

My friend started talking to me about this video she watched about ppl in the lgbt community and their political views. And she started talking about how this tw and nb person was going at it. And that she saw where this nb was going. So I asked her where (lol) and it basically boiled down to her never really thinking about it. And everything i said she agreed with. Like if you believe gender is a social construct, how can you have a gender that your society has no clue about aka haven’t constructed? How exactly were you socialized with this gender uh? If rejecting social roles makes you nb then you’re saying that being a woman and being a man is literally nothing but agreeing with made up social roles, and your status as nb changes depending on the society you’re in????? Nothing else works like this. I’m a woman regardless if I’m in the US or in Haiti. I’m bisexual regardless if I’m in Japan or Nepal. Even identities that aren’t innate don’t work like this. I’m an agnostic regardless of regions too….y’all have no idea how many people are close to “peaking” if you just asked them to explain what they mean. Saying transwomen are women repeatedly doesn’t work in real life, and you’d either get”oh wow I don’t know” or you get the committed liars who will say there are NO differences in the same breath they ask you to clarify if you mean woman with vaginas or with a penis/neovagina 🙄

[jackienorth]

Being non-binary describes a relationship to gender based on not perceiving yourself as exclusively a boy or girl/man or woman. It impacts the way you experience gendered socialisation, and what messages you internalise. It’s not rejecting social roles that makes you non-binary - although I’m certain some things non-binary people might do (like using non-gendered titles, names, or pronouns) are things other people also might do to reject social roles, or gender itself, if they’re inclined to do so.

The specific ways people experience this may vary, and so people come up with all sorts of words to describe how they experience that - and I think that’s pretty neat honestly. I could explain my own experience as a non-binary person if you’d want.

I think there is a tendency for people to take and share the conclussion of discussions without understanding everything behind it. I don’t know what the solution to this is - you can’t force people to engage with topics on a deeper level and do more research - but it does make it harder to have these types of conversations, and can make conclusions seem weaker than they are.

[pinkvoidmuse-deactivated2023021]

Ok what does it mean to perceive yourself as a woman or a man? What do these terms mean. Non binary as I’ve seen it described says that they don’t fit into the binary so they believe there are people who not only do but choose to. When you say gender what exactly do you mean by that. If you’re willing to engage we should get that cleared up since you already feel like I’m misinformed. Could you also clarify what you mean by what “messages you internalize”

[jackienorth]

I’d say perceiving yourself as a man/woman means you’re more likely to learn/mimic behaviours of men/women and see yourself in them in general. You’re also more likely to understand gendered standards as relating to yourself based on that, even when you reject them.

My understanding of that description of non-binary is it refers to your experience of gender not fitting into the binary, rather than just having characteristics that don’t. GNC men and women (trans or cis) exist without being non-binary.

Gender (as I and others view it) is a social construct and system of classification. Someone’s gender describes how they perceive themselves in terms of that classification, and therefore experience that system.

For me, examples of my self perception (and of the internalisation of social messages) would be not feeling pressure to conform to gendered expectations (even to reject it). So as an AFAB person I’ve never shaved (well, not till having to shave my face) or felt the pressure to, never felt like standards of male or female beauty applied to me. I never really felt GNC either, because I never felt the expectation to conform in the first place I suppose. There was just never a time where I really saw myself as ‘one of them’ in regards to either men or women, though most of the important people in my life are women.

Sorry to just pull examples from my own life here, but I do prefer not to share other peoples’ when they aren’t present. I do know that there are many differences in experiences - particularly where people are actively pressured to look and act a certain way, which is something I never experienced personally.

[pinkvoidmuse-deactivated2023021]

First of I would really like it if you’d stop tagging this anti trans. This is innaccurate. Just because I don’t think anyone subscribe to gender 100% doesn’t make me anti trans. Just because I understand you can’t choose your socialization doesn’t mean I’m anti trans. When you say learn and mimic the behaviors of men/women, you view man and woman as a performance? What is your definition of a man and what behaviors are there to be mimicked that you feel is exclusive to men? You said gender is classification and experiencing gender means you relate to that classification and experience that system. What do you mean? You said that you never felt pressured to shave expect your face. Neither do men. you’re female. do you not see how your “gendered socialization” worked here? Because my body hair is not a statement. My body hair is neutral. It is not masculine. But you assumed it was. Facial hair is the most unaccepable type of body hair on women. Everyone knows women shave their legs and armpits etc. but we aren’t even supposed to ackowledge we grow facial hair. Despite you claiming not to. Your female socialization works. I can bet that the level of facial hair you have most men wouldn’t even think twice about removing that. So it’s not “grooming”. There is no instincts to shave and remove something natural. The system you speak of is not law. It’s oppressive. Rejecting these rules is logical. The only really I’m viewed as “gnc” is because I simply exist in a comfortable way. To imply that I relate to gender as a woman since I don’t ID as nb is incorrect. But to ID as nb because I’m a person who reject the roles associated with my sex with no desire to be male is a stretch. These roles are created and we give them validity by analyzing ourselves in relations to that. I don’t wear makeup and never felt the need to. I don’t wear heels and never felt the need to. Am I nb for never caring about this despite my mom and Bestfriend’s giving me makeup kits? Shaved my head multiple times without caring to look feminine. To me the binary is bullshit. A system where women are rebels for simply existing is a system dependent on molding us and dictating our every move. This system thrive on women’s insecurity. Our normal bodies aren’t good enough. We exists in parts that can never fit in a fully realized human being. We are to make ourselves soft, docile, available, quiet, and looking for male guidance. To insinuate that women can fit into this binary system is to agree that women are what the patriarchy says we are. I disagree with that. To create a gender because I want to be recognized as a human being and not a stereotype is excessive and doesn’t help anyone. Because it keeps validating the binary. You assume some identity because you personally want to be treated like a human being. But the moment you call yourself that you are saying we actually agree with our socialization. When women don’t. We can participate in things we don’t agree with for survival.

[jackienorth]

I was tagging it so people can block those tags if they need to, not as a continuation of the discussion - and rebogs don’t show up in tags if you’re concerned about that. ‘Anti-trans feminism’ encompasses rhetoric that pits feminism as in opposition to trans people/trans rights, which I think the things you’re saying fall into. I do think we can have this discussion in good faith here.

I don’t mean it as a performance, it’s socialisation. We also learn language through mimickry, and (in my understanding) how to emote. It’s a subconscious experience of learning how to behave and what’s expected of you.

I don’t believe there are behaviours exclusive to men or women, but there are expectations placed on the groups that impact social development and cause trends (which reinforce the expectations through functioning as role models). The expectations for women to be emotive (but not too emotive), that the only acceptable outlet for emotion in men is anger/violence. Things of that nature. Gender isn’t based on how well you fit them, but the way you experience them (as passively learned messages) relates to whether you view yourself as a boy/girl/neither. Obviously there are nuances where it comes to active socialisation, and social perception will have an impact on what your experiences are too.

I meant I never shaved until having something to shave on my face (thanks to HRT). I still don’t feel pressured to do so, just not a fan of beards rn, particularly patchy ones - I included the fact merely for the sake of accuracy. There’re also social complexities regarding transition when it comes to people who’ve known me a long time that I’m still navigating. Regardless, the ins and out of transition are probably not so relevant to this topic. The point is, I never experienced that (not shaving body hair) as a statement - I’m aware others do, but I never considered it. I think I first realised it was something that women often feel they must do when my younger sister started doing so (/when I found out she was), possibly earlier through my mum? It just seemed strange to me. I understand the politics of these things, and never considered body hair to be inherently masculine (I have my upbringing by a wonderful, strong, single mother to thank for that). I’ve had a young girl comment on my leg hair in the past, and I very deliberately told her it’s natural for everyone to grow body hair, and you don’t ever have to shave it. I by no means support these expectations. Anyway, this is just supposed to be an example I use of how being non-binary has impacted the way I experience gendered expectations. It’s not a ‘non-binary trait’, or a thing all of us will experience, just a way of me explaining how it has interacted with my view of myself.

I agree the system is inherently oppressive, hence me being all for gender abolition - but I don’t think it’s possible without eliminating a social binary altogether, including sex based. It’s probably not even possible without dismantling capitalism, though I could be proved wrong on that. I think people have different reasons for seeing themselves as non-binary. Personally, I’m not sure if I would have come out as non-binary if not for experiencing physical gender dysphoria. Transition-wise, it would probably be simpler to call myself a trans man, but that would just be inaccurate to my social experiences. I feel like ‘non-binary’ is the most accurate way of describing my experience of gender and the way I perceive myself (and have done historically), so I go with that. In feminist spaces or when discussing sexism for sure it feels helpful. In all such spaces I’ve been in, the social issues discussed are ones I can’t relate to the same way the women there can.

I don’t call myself non-binary to be treated as a human being - how would that even work? I’m fortunate enough that I have never been treated as or felt less of one for being read as a woman, and being out as non-binary hasn’t changed anything much either. Though honestly certain views of non-binary people and trans people do feel very dehumanising. Accessing trans healthcare, being disabled, and being aroace have all also led to situations where I feel dehumanised and unfairly treated. But, while negative representations of disabled, aroace and non-binary/trans people have a personal impact on me, sexist stuff just… doesn’t in the same way. Never has. It’s unpleasant, and I always challenge it as much as any bigotry (being raised by a brilliant socialist single mum has it’s perks), but I do engage with it differently to things that relate to me personally.

And me calling myself non-binary doesn’t say you agree with your socialisation, just implies that you experienced it as a woman - that’s literally it, and I doubt you’d disagree? Acknowledging gendered social experiences is a huge part of feminist understanding, right?

I am concerned that I’ve placed too much emphasis on my own specific experiences as some inherent part of being non-binary. Sorry about that, I think it’s made my explainations messier and harder to understand. I really was only attempting to explain how I feel being non-binary has impacted my experience of gender, but I think it came across poorly. Probably shouldn’t have responded on a high pain day.

Note: I hate to ask, but it’d be really helpful if you use paragraphs. I do struggle with reading blocks of text due to brainfog, and I would appreciate it so I don’t have to copy, paste and reformat it myself. If it’s difficult for you, I understand and will keep on as I have been.

[pinkvoidmuse-deactivated2023021]

When you say abolish gender but that can’t be done without abolishing the social binary ? How can that be done when you define men and women as what they do and how they act? Isn’t that what created the binary?

Sex is your sex, it says nothing about your personality/taste. how is saying I’m not a woman because, despite being female I don’t feel pressured to do things other females are pressured into doing helping abolish gender, instead of a radical feminists saying, your interests, your appearance are a personal choice. These choices can exist regardless of your sex.

I don’t understand why being a boy or a girl is dependent on how well you choose to accept the roles forced on you?

When I say to be treated as a human being, I mean you realize you’re your own person. What’s expected of you doesn’t define you, you define yourself. But you view this experience as a unique “non binary” experience. When I can say that you’re just more aware than most to even question the binary. However giving most people that tool you’ll see how receptive they are. It’s all an act.

I worked at toys r us. I’ve dealt with the most absurd requests from parents trying to stay within the binary. I’ve been told to grab a ladder and check to make sure the baby model on a box was a boy and not a girl…ask me how I’d know???? But when you ask follow up questions you really see how these people have never given a thought to why it was so important except for this is for boys and that’s for girls. I’ve have little girls complain about mystery toys being for boys and a simple explanation made them happy and have them cherish their new toy. Socialization works because it relies on blind obedience. It relies on you never noticing or asking questions.

Gender has always relied on the binary because sex is binary. Intersex conditions don’t negate that. Every other gender has relied on their relation to the binary. You’re infertile ? Another gender. You’re homosexual? Another gender. The more genders you see in a society the stricter the rules are. I don’t understand what you mean by abolishing sex binary? Acknowledging one’s sex isn’t an issue. It’s the implications/assumptions that can be.

Idk if this is any better. I’m on mobile. I mean it’s easier to elaborate when you talk of your personal experience. I’m speaking from my experiences as well. Not mere observation. My best friend id as nb and we’ve discussed this. As well as my ex gf who id as genderqueer. I don’t see the point in acknowledging that the box is stupid and make a box outside of that to say eventually the first box will cease to exist. Being a women who reject the binary is more impactful in my eyes than rejecting the binary and saying this doesn’t make me a woman. Because you just undid ALL the revolutionary aspect of questioning the binary. (Since you said you want gende abolish)

[jackienorth]

What I mean is that gender is a construct - it doesn’t have to exist, but it does, and while it does we are defined (at least in part) by our relationships to it. We need language to describe what that relationship is, to discuss the impacts it has on people. Similarly, money is a construct that doesn’t have to exist. But it does, and we define our relationship to it in discussing class, wealth, poverty. Stopping identifying the impact money has on us is not necessary to abolish it, nor is it helpful to that end. We are forced to exist in relation to systems that are harmful. Gender isn’t defined by what we do/how we act - but it does impact those things, along with our experiences of the world.

I’m not sure if you’re understanding what I was getting at in terms of defining gender (and therefore ‘non-binary’). Gender has impacted my social experiences, it is not defined by them. I refer to the impact of gender on those experiences to give reasons that I think gender is worth discussing and has social relevance.

Someone could be exactly like me in behaviour and be non-binary, a woman, or a man - and I don’t have to be non-binary to be me. Anyone can even use neutral pronouns, titles, names without being non-binary - I fully support that idea, truly. ‘Non-binary’ simply describes how I’ve viewed myself historically (having been given the tools of gendered classification at an early age), and how that has affected me through my life. It’s not a revolutionary identity, it doesn’t inherently mean anything politically, it’s just the description of an experience. Few of the people in my life fully accept gendered roles an expectations, and most of them are not non-binary.

Your Toys R Us experience is somehow simultaneously unsurprising, and disappointing. I’m mostly around people who’ve gone past that simplistic and stereotypical view of gender, that I often forget that not everyone has. I assure you, I do not support the view that people should be given rigid ideas about what boys/girls should do/be.

I didn’t say we need to abolish the ‘sex binary’ (I’m not saying we don’t either, but that’s a whole other discussion right there), but ‘social binaries based on sex’. Because as long as there’s social reason to visually categorise and separate people by sex/gender, there will be expectations of said categories. Treating sex/sex characteristics as a medical (not social) issue seems more appropriate in my opinion.

I think the things you say make sense if someone is considering themself non-binary as a way to question the gender binary, or on the basis of gender attributes. But I’m (and most are) doing neither - it’s a description of how I view myself, and a tool through which to discuss the way that has shaped my experience. That’s what most labels are, I suppose. The things that I do think can work in terms of prefiguration for gender abolition include: supporting options for non-gendered gender markers, normalising gender neutral pronouns, not gendering names, supporting non-gendered title options, challenging gender expectations and supporting non-conformity, removing gender markers where possible. Oh, and supporting trans healthcare, and any changes to it that reduce requirements of femininity/masculinity or gender conformity.

My concern on the amount I’ve put of my experiences is really that “gender has impacted me in this way” is coming across as “gender impacts everyone this way”. I just think I’ve been wording it awkwardly, and putting undue emphasis on certain things.

I appreciate the formatting, it’s a lot better - thank you.

[pinkvoidmuse-deactivated2023021]

It’s not that I’m not understanding what you say, it’s that I’m asking questions to make sure I don’t put past definitions unto yours. Your view of gender doesn’t differ from mine. Gender to me is a social construct based on the sexes. Money exists as a form of exchange. Gender exists because of the sexes. Many things can be exchanged. A service, other good, or merely praise. Nothing will replace the fact that people are born as a certain sex.

The point I’m making is that stressing the importance of sex and understanding our relation to it in determing who has rights, who is represented and heard and why is the only thing that can combat that oppressive system. The association with female and that hatred is what’s important. Not necessarily the things women do. Because those things aren’t inherent to women and can change. Making men be comfortable wearing makeup by saying it’s not “girly” doesn’t do anything. Yes you’re breaking gender roles but you’re not addressing why it was “bad” for you to do in the first place.

I feel when people stress identity based on their relationship to gender, the status quo remains. I’m not saying your identity is political. But other nb individuals do make it political by mixing h sex and gender. By undermining the significance of sex.

[jackienorth]

That’s fine, I’m happy to engage with the questions, I just felt like an important point was being missed with them. It’s more a failing of myself than you if that didn’t come across well enough, but I’m glad you see where I’m coming from more now.

Money is equally socially constructed though - it has no inherent form, meaning, purpose or value, we create and project those qualities onto it (my analysis is as an anti-capitalist who thinks money should be abolished). And gender is derived from the identification of ‘sex’ - but it exists as the way sex is applied socially, and socially we can’t ‘see’ sex. That means we must apply expectations chromosomal classification for it to exist socially. Nothing will change the characteristics people are born with, but theoretically we can change how we interpret them.

The problem is that there are a lot of things currently associated with ‘sex’ or ‘gender’ that influence people’s social experiences, whether or not they’re xx/xy. Anyone who is perceived as being a woman (’correctly’ or ‘incorrectly’) can be the target of sexism/misogyny, and anyone who sees themselves as a woman can/do internalise it - regardless of the ‘male’ and ‘female’ boxes you might use. People’s own gender will also affect how they experience said bigotry and gendered expectations, and thus should be considered in such discussions.

Legally it’s not so neat either, since I could be legally a man while being 'female’ (according to you). That means legal changes need to account for the lack of consistency between sex characteristics, reproductive anatomy and legal sex. Sex characteristics might not all line up either - I might have a deep voice, facial hair and higher testosterone levels, at the same time as a uterus and large chest. Even entirely medical contexts need more nuance than simply male/female, and that goes double for medical research.

We need complexity in discussions of gender and bigotry, but that just isn’t there if you try to reduce it to a simple xx/xy binary. You can discuss how reproductive control is sexist and targeted at women, while at the same time acknowledging it also affects trans men and non-binary people, and doesn’t impact all women. You can also discuss social sexism and misogyny, beauty standards, expectations of women’s bodies while recognising that trans women also experience those things, as women. That doesn’t take away from any analysis or feminist action - in fact, it adds to it by allowing you to discuss and address a broader range of experiences.

I do agree that surface level analysis like “makeup isn’t girly” isn’t good enough. Beauty standards themselves should be analysed, for men and women, and we need to eliminate this idea that girly = bad in any way. You aren’t restricted to the surface level analysis by accepting non-binary and binary trans folks.

The criticisms I see of ‘mixing sex and gender’ are usually targeted at a) people who think trans women belong in feminism, which the critic thinks is entirely ‘sex based’ or b) trans people who don’t want to be misgendered as ‘male’ or ‘female’. For the former, I feel like I’ve adressed that above. But for the latter, the fact is that calling people male/female in a social context is gendering them, even if you mean ‘sex’. That can make a person dysphoric unintentionally, and it’s often deliberately used to deny recognition of our genders. It’s perfectly possible to be accurate and comprehensive, and respect trans people. In fact, I’d argue, it’s necessary.

[pinkvoidmuse-deactivated2023021]

My friend started talking to me about this video she watched about ppl in the lgbt community and their political views. And she started talking about how this tw and nb person was going at it. And that she saw where this nb was going. So I asked her where (lol) and it basically boiled down to her never really thinking about it. And everything i said she agreed with. Like if you believe gender is a social construct, how can you have a gender that your society has no clue about aka haven’t constructed? How exactly were you socialized with this gender uh? If rejecting social roles makes you nb then you’re saying that being a woman and being a man is literally nothing but agreeing with made up social roles, and your status as nb changes depending on the society you’re in????? Nothing else works like this. I’m a woman regardless if I’m in the US or in Haiti. I’m bisexual regardless if I’m in Japan or Nepal. Even identities that aren’t innate don’t work like this. I’m an agnostic regardless of regions too….y’all have no idea how many people are close to “peaking” if you just asked them to explain what they mean. Saying transwomen are women repeatedly doesn’t work in real life, and you’d either get”oh wow I don’t know” or you get the committed liars who will say there are NO differences in the same breath they ask you to clarify if you mean woman with vaginas or with a penis/neovagina 🙄

[jackienorth]

Being non-binary describes a relationship to gender based on not perceiving yourself as exclusively a boy or girl/man or woman. It impacts the way you experience gendered socialisation, and what messages you internalise. It’s not rejecting social roles that makes you non-binary - although I’m certain some things non-binary people might do (like using non-gendered titles, names, or pronouns) are things other people also might do to reject social roles, or gender itself, if they’re inclined to do so.

The specific ways people experience this may vary, and so people come up with all sorts of words to describe how they experience that - and I think that’s pretty neat honestly. I could explain my own experience as a non-binary person if you’d want.

I think there is a tendency for people to take and share the conclussion of discussions without understanding everything behind it. I don’t know what the solution to this is - you can’t force people to engage with topics on a deeper level and do more research - but it does make it harder to have these types of conversations, and can make conclusions seem weaker than they are.

[pinkvoidmuse-deactivated2023021]

Ok what does it mean to perceive yourself as a woman or a man? What do these terms mean. Non binary as I’ve seen it described says that they don’t fit into the binary so they believe there are people who not only do but choose to. When you say gender what exactly do you mean by that. If you’re willing to engage we should get that cleared up since you already feel like I’m misinformed. Could you also clarify what you mean by what “messages you internalize”

[jackienorth]

I’d say perceiving yourself as a man/woman means you’re more likely to learn/mimic behaviours of men/women and see yourself in them in general. You’re also more likely to understand gendered standards as relating to yourself based on that, even when you reject them.

My understanding of that description of non-binary is it refers to your experience of gender not fitting into the binary, rather than just having characteristics that don’t. GNC men and women (trans or cis) exist without being non-binary.

Gender (as I and others view it) is a social construct and system of classification. Someone’s gender describes how they perceive themselves in terms of that classification, and therefore experience that system.

For me, examples of my self perception (and of the internalisation of social messages) would be not feeling pressure to conform to gendered expectations (even to reject it). So as an AFAB person I’ve never shaved (well, not till having to shave my face) or felt the pressure to, never felt like standards of male or female beauty applied to me. I never really felt GNC either, because I never felt the expectation to conform in the first place I suppose. There was just never a time where I really saw myself as ‘one of them’ in regards to either men or women, though most of the important people in my life are women.

Sorry to just pull examples from my own life here, but I do prefer not to share other peoples’ when they aren’t present. I do know that there are many differences in experiences - particularly where people are actively pressured to look and act a certain way, which is something I never experienced personally.

[pinkvoidmuse-deactivated2023021]

First of I would really like it if you’d stop tagging this anti trans. This is innaccurate. Just because I don’t think anyone subscribe to gender 100% doesn’t make me anti trans. Just because I understand you can’t choose your socialization doesn’t mean I’m anti trans. When you say learn and mimic the behaviors of men/women, you view man and woman as a performance? What is your definition of a man and what behaviors are there to be mimicked that you feel is exclusive to men? You said gender is classification and experiencing gender means you relate to that classification and experience that system. What do you mean? You said that you never felt pressured to shave expect your face. Neither do men. you’re female. do you not see how your “gendered socialization” worked here? Because my body hair is not a statement. My body hair is neutral. It is not masculine. But you assumed it was. Facial hair is the most unaccepable type of body hair on women. Everyone knows women shave their legs and armpits etc. but we aren’t even supposed to ackowledge we grow facial hair. Despite you claiming not to. Your female socialization works. I can bet that the level of facial hair you have most men wouldn’t even think twice about removing that. So it’s not “grooming”. There is no instincts to shave and remove something natural. The system you speak of is not law. It’s oppressive. Rejecting these rules is logical. The only really I’m viewed as “gnc” is because I simply exist in a comfortable way. To imply that I relate to gender as a woman since I don’t ID as nb is incorrect. But to ID as nb because I’m a person who reject the roles associated with my sex with no desire to be male is a stretch. These roles are created and we give them validity by analyzing ourselves in relations to that. I don’t wear makeup and never felt the need to. I don’t wear heels and never felt the need to. Am I nb for never caring about this despite my mom and Bestfriend’s giving me makeup kits? Shaved my head multiple times without caring to look feminine. To me the binary is bullshit. A system where women are rebels for simply existing is a system dependent on molding us and dictating our every move. This system thrive on women’s insecurity. Our normal bodies aren’t good enough. We exists in parts that can never fit in a fully realized human being. We are to make ourselves soft, docile, available, quiet, and looking for male guidance. To insinuate that women can fit into this binary system is to agree that women are what the patriarchy says we are. I disagree with that. To create a gender because I want to be recognized as a human being and not a stereotype is excessive and doesn’t help anyone. Because it keeps validating the binary. You assume some identity because you personally want to be treated like a human being. But the moment you call yourself that you are saying we actually agree with our socialization. When women don’t. We can participate in things we don’t agree with for survival.

[jackienorth]

I was tagging it so people can block those tags if they need to, not as a continuation of the discussion - and rebogs don’t show up in tags if you’re concerned about that. ‘Anti-trans feminism’ encompasses rhetoric that pits feminism as in opposition to trans people/trans rights, which I think the things you’re saying fall into. I do think we can have this discussion in good faith here.

I don’t mean it as a performance, it’s socialisation. We also learn language through mimickry, and (in my understanding) how to emote. It’s a subconscious experience of learning how to behave and what’s expected of you.

I don’t believe there are behaviours exclusive to men or women, but there are expectations placed on the groups that impact social development and cause trends (which reinforce the expectations through functioning as role models). The expectations for women to be emotive (but not too emotive), that the only acceptable outlet for emotion in men is anger/violence. Things of that nature. Gender isn’t based on how well you fit them, but the way you experience them (as passively learned messages) relates to whether you view yourself as a boy/girl/neither. Obviously there are nuances where it comes to active socialisation, and social perception will have an impact on what your experiences are too.

I meant I never shaved until having something to shave on my face (thanks to HRT). I still don’t feel pressured to do so, just not a fan of beards rn, particularly patchy ones - I included the fact merely for the sake of accuracy. There’re also social complexities regarding transition when it comes to people who’ve known me a long time that I’m still navigating. Regardless, the ins and out of transition are probably not so relevant to this topic. The point is, I never experienced that (not shaving body hair) as a statement - I’m aware others do, but I never considered it. I think I first realised it was something that women often feel they must do when my younger sister started doing so (/when I found out she was), possibly earlier through my mum? It just seemed strange to me. I understand the politics of these things, and never considered body hair to be inherently masculine (I have my upbringing by a wonderful, strong, single mother to thank for that). I’ve had a young girl comment on my leg hair in the past, and I very deliberately told her it’s natural for everyone to grow body hair, and you don’t ever have to shave it. I by no means support these expectations. Anyway, this is just supposed to be an example I use of how being non-binary has impacted the way I experience gendered expectations. It’s not a ‘non-binary trait’, or a thing all of us will experience, just a way of me explaining how it has interacted with my view of myself.

I agree the system is inherently oppressive, hence me being all for gender abolition - but I don’t think it’s possible without eliminating a social binary altogether, including sex based. It’s probably not even possible without dismantling capitalism, though I could be proved wrong on that. I think people have different reasons for seeing themselves as non-binary. Personally, I’m not sure if I would have come out as non-binary if not for experiencing physical gender dysphoria. Transition-wise, it would probably be simpler to call myself a trans man, but that would just be inaccurate to my social experiences. I feel like ‘non-binary’ is the most accurate way of describing my experience of gender and the way I perceive myself (and have done historically), so I go with that. In feminist spaces or when discussing sexism for sure it feels helpful. In all such spaces I’ve been in, the social issues discussed are ones I can’t relate to the same way the women there can.

I don’t call myself non-binary to be treated as a human being - how would that even work? I’m fortunate enough that I have never been treated as or felt less of one for being read as a woman, and being out as non-binary hasn’t changed anything much either. Though honestly certain views of non-binary people and trans people do feel very dehumanising. Accessing trans healthcare, being disabled, and being aroace have all also led to situations where I feel dehumanised and unfairly treated. But, while negative representations of disabled, aroace and non-binary/trans people have a personal impact on me, sexist stuff just… doesn’t in the same way. Never has. It’s unpleasant, and I always challenge it as much as any bigotry (being raised by a brilliant socialist single mum has it’s perks), but I do engage with it differently to things that relate to me personally.

And me calling myself non-binary doesn’t say you agree with your socialisation, just implies that you experienced it as a woman - that’s literally it, and I doubt you’d disagree? Acknowledging gendered social experiences is a huge part of feminist understanding, right?

I am concerned that I’ve placed too much emphasis on my own specific experiences as some inherent part of being non-binary. Sorry about that, I think it’s made my explainations messier and harder to understand. I really was only attempting to explain how I feel being non-binary has impacted my experience of gender, but I think it came across poorly. Probably shouldn’t have responded on a high pain day.

Note: I hate to ask, but it’d be really helpful if you use paragraphs. I do struggle with reading blocks of text due to brainfog, and I would appreciate it so I don’t have to copy, paste and reformat it myself. If it’s difficult for you, I understand and will keep on as I have been.

[pinkvoidmuse-deactivated2023021]

When you say abolish gender but that can’t be done without abolishing the social binary ? How can that be done when you define men and women as what they do and how they act? Isn’t that what created the binary?

Sex is your sex, it says nothing about your personality/taste. how is saying I’m not a woman because, despite being female I don’t feel pressured to do things other females are pressured into doing helping abolish gender, instead of a radical feminists saying, your interests, your appearance are a personal choice. These choices can exist regardless of your sex.

I don’t understand why being a boy or a girl is dependent on how well you choose to accept the roles forced on you?

When I say to be treated as a human being, I mean you realize you’re your own person. What’s expected of you doesn’t define you, you define yourself. But you view this experience as a unique “non binary” experience. When I can say that you’re just more aware than most to even question the binary. However giving most people that tool you’ll see how receptive they are. It’s all an act.

I worked at toys r us. I’ve dealt with the most absurd requests from parents trying to stay within the binary. I’ve been told to grab a ladder and check to make sure the baby model on a box was a boy and not a girl…ask me how I’d know???? But when you ask follow up questions you really see how these people have never given a thought to why it was so important except for this is for boys and that’s for girls. I’ve have little girls complain about mystery toys being for boys and a simple explanation made them happy and have them cherish their new toy. Socialization works because it relies on blind obedience. It relies on you never noticing or asking questions.

Gender has always relied on the binary because sex is binary. Intersex conditions don’t negate that. Every other gender has relied on their relation to the binary. You’re infertile ? Another gender. You’re homosexual? Another gender. The more genders you see in a society the stricter the rules are. I don’t understand what you mean by abolishing sex binary? Acknowledging one’s sex isn’t an issue. It’s the implications/assumptions that can be.

Idk if this is any better. I’m on mobile. I mean it’s easier to elaborate when you talk of your personal experience. I’m speaking from my experiences as well. Not mere observation. My best friend id as nb and we’ve discussed this. As well as my ex gf who id as genderqueer. I don’t see the point in acknowledging that the box is stupid and make a box outside of that to say eventually the first box will cease to exist. Being a women who reject the binary is more impactful in my eyes than rejecting the binary and saying this doesn’t make me a woman. Because you just undid ALL the revolutionary aspect of questioning the binary. (Since you said you want gende abolish)

[jackienorth]

What I mean is that gender is a construct - it doesn’t have to exist, but it does, and while it does we are defined (at least in part) by our relationships to it. We need language to describe what that relationship is, to discuss the impacts it has on people. Similarly, money is a construct that doesn’t have to exist. But it does, and we define our relationship to it in discussing class, wealth, poverty. Stopping identifying the impact money has on us is not necessary to abolish it, nor is it helpful to that end. We are forced to exist in relation to systems that are harmful. Gender isn’t defined by what we do/how we act - but it does impact those things, along with our experiences of the world.

I’m not sure if you’re understanding what I was getting at in terms of defining gender (and therefore ‘non-binary’). Gender has impacted my social experiences, it is not defined by them. I refer to the impact of gender on those experiences to give reasons that I think gender is worth discussing and has social relevance.

Someone could be exactly like me in behaviour and be non-binary, a woman, or a man - and I don’t have to be non-binary to be me. Anyone can even use neutral pronouns, titles, names without being non-binary - I fully support that idea, truly. ‘Non-binary’ simply describes how I’ve viewed myself historically (having been given the tools of gendered classification at an early age), and how that has affected me through my life. It’s not a revolutionary identity, it doesn’t inherently mean anything politically, it’s just the description of an experience. Few of the people in my life fully accept gendered roles an expectations, and most of them are not non-binary.

Your Toys R Us experience is somehow simultaneously unsurprising, and disappointing. I’m mostly around people who’ve gone past that simplistic and stereotypical view of gender, that I often forget that not everyone has. I assure you, I do not support the view that people should be given rigid ideas about what boys/girls should do/be.

I didn’t say we need to abolish the ‘sex binary’ (I’m not saying we don’t either, but that’s a whole other discussion right there), but ‘social binaries based on sex’. Because as long as there’s social reason to visually categorise and separate people by sex/gender, there will be expectations of said categories. Treating sex/sex characteristics as a medical (not social) issue seems more appropriate in my opinion.

I think the things you say make sense if someone is considering themself non-binary as a way to question the gender binary, or on the basis of gender attributes. But I’m (and most are) doing neither - it’s a description of how I view myself, and a tool through which to discuss the way that has shaped my experience. That’s what most labels are, I suppose. The things that I do think can work in terms of prefiguration for gender abolition include: supporting options for non-gendered gender markers, normalising gender neutral pronouns, not gendering names, supporting non-gendered title options, challenging gender expectations and supporting non-conformity, removing gender markers where possible. Oh, and supporting trans healthcare, and any changes to it that reduce requirements of femininity/masculinity or gender conformity.

My concern on the amount I’ve put of my experiences is really that “gender has impacted me in this way” is coming across as “gender impacts everyone this way”. I just think I’ve been wording it awkwardly, and putting undue emphasis on certain things.

I appreciate the formatting, it’s a lot better - thank you.

[pinkvoidmuse-deactivated2023021]

My friend started talking to me about this video she watched about ppl in the lgbt community and their political views. And she started talking about how this tw and nb person was going at it. And that she saw where this nb was going. So I asked her where (lol) and it basically boiled down to her never really thinking about it. And everything i said she agreed with. Like if you believe gender is a social construct, how can you have a gender that your society has no clue about aka haven’t constructed? How exactly were you socialized with this gender uh? If rejecting social roles makes you nb then you’re saying that being a woman and being a man is literally nothing but agreeing with made up social roles, and your status as nb changes depending on the society you’re in????? Nothing else works like this. I’m a woman regardless if I’m in the US or in Haiti. I’m bisexual regardless if I’m in Japan or Nepal. Even identities that aren’t innate don’t work like this. I’m an agnostic regardless of regions too....y’all have no idea how many people are close to “peaking” if you just asked them to explain what they mean. Saying transwomen are women repeatedly doesn’t work in real life, and you’d either get”oh wow I don’t know” or you get the committed liars who will say there are NO differences in the same breath they ask you to clarify if you mean woman with vaginas or with a penis/neovagina 🙄

[jackienorth]

Being non-binary describes a relationship to gender based on not perceiving yourself as exclusively a boy or girl/man or woman. It impacts the way you experience gendered socialisation, and what messages you internalise. It’s not rejecting social roles that makes you non-binary - although I’m certain some things non-binary people might do (like using non-gendered titles, names, or pronouns) are things other people also might do to reject social roles, or gender itself, if they’re inclined to do so.

The specific ways people experience this may vary, and so people come up with all sorts of words to describe how they experience that - and I think that’s pretty neat honestly. I could explain my own experience as a non-binary person if you’d want.

I think there is a tendency for people to take and share the conclussion of discussions without understanding everything behind it. I don’t know what the solution to this is - you can’t force people to engage with topics on a deeper level and do more research - but it does make it harder to have these types of conversations, and can make conclusions seem weaker than they are.

[pinkvoidmuse-deactivated2023021]

Ok what does it mean to perceive yourself as a woman or a man? What do these terms mean. Non binary as I’ve seen it described says that they don’t fit into the binary so they believe there are people who not only do but choose to. When you say gender what exactly do you mean by that. If you’re willing to engage we should get that cleared up since you already feel like I’m misinformed. Could you also clarify what you mean by what “messages you internalize”

[jackienorth]

I’d say perceiving yourself as a man/woman means you’re more likely to learn/mimic behaviours of men/women and see yourself in them in general. You’re also more likely to understand gendered standards as relating to yourself based on that, even when you reject them.

My understanding of that description of non-binary is it refers to your experience of gender not fitting into the binary, rather than just having characteristics that don’t. GNC men and women (trans or cis) exist without being non-binary.

Gender (as I and others view it) is a social construct and system of classification. Someone’s gender describes how they perceive themselves in terms of that classification, and therefore experience that system.

For me, examples of my self perception (and of the internalisation of social messages) would be not feeling pressure to conform to gendered expectations (even to reject it). So as an AFAB person I’ve never shaved (well, not till having to shave my face) or felt the pressure to, never felt like standards of male or female beauty applied to me. I never really felt GNC either, because I never felt the expectation to conform in the first place I suppose. There was just never a time where I really saw myself as ‘one of them’ in regards to either men or women, though most of the important people in my life are women.

Sorry to just pull examples from my own life here, but I do prefer not to share other peoples’ when they aren’t present. I do know that there are many differences in experiences - particularly where people are actively pressured to look and act a certain way, which is something I never experienced personally.

[pinkvoidmuse-deactivated2023021]

First of I would really like it if you’d stop tagging this anti trans. This is innaccurate. Just because I don’t think anyone subscribe to gender 100% doesn’t make me anti trans. Just because I understand you can’t choose your socialization doesn’t mean I’m anti trans. When you say learn and mimic the behaviors of men/women, you view man and woman as a performance? What is your definition of a man and what behaviors are there to be mimicked that you feel is exclusive to men? You said gender is classification and experiencing gender means you relate to that classification and experience that system. What do you mean? You said that you never felt pressured to shave expect your face. Neither do men. you’re female. do you not see how your “gendered socialization” worked here? Because my body hair is not a statement. My body hair is neutral. It is not masculine. But you assumed it was. Facial hair is the most unaccepable type of body hair on women. Everyone knows women shave their legs and armpits etc. but we aren’t even supposed to ackowledge we grow facial hair. Despite you claiming not to. Your female socialization works. I can bet that the level of facial hair you have most men wouldn’t even think twice about removing that. So it’s not “grooming”. There is no instincts to shave and remove something natural. The system you speak of is not law. It’s oppressive. Rejecting these rules is logical. The only really I’m viewed as “gnc” is because I simply exist in a comfortable way. To imply that I relate to gender as a woman since I don’t ID as nb is incorrect. But to ID as nb because I’m a person who reject the roles associated with my sex with no desire to be male is a stretch. These roles are created and we give them validity by analyzing ourselves in relations to that. I don’t wear makeup and never felt the need to. I don’t wear heels and never felt the need to. Am I nb for never caring about this despite my mom and Bestfriend’s giving me makeup kits? Shaved my head multiple times without caring to look feminine. To me the binary is bullshit. A system where women are rebels for simply existing is a system dependent on molding us and dictating our every move. This system thrive on women’s insecurity. Our normal bodies aren’t good enough. We exists in parts that can never fit in a fully realized human being. We are to make ourselves soft, docile, available, quiet, and looking for male guidance. To insinuate that women can fit into this binary system is to agree that women are what the patriarchy says we are. I disagree with that. To create a gender because I want to be recognized as a human being and not a stereotype is excessive and doesn’t help anyone. Because it keeps validating the binary. You assume some identity because you personally want to be treated like a human being. But the moment you call yourself that you are saying we actually agree with our socialization. When women don’t. We can participate in things we don’t agree with for survival.

[jackienorth]

I was tagging it so people can block those tags if they need to, not as a continuation of the discussion - and rebogs don’t show up in tags if you’re concerned about that. 'Anti-trans feminism’ encompasses rhetoric that pits feminism as in opposition to trans people/trans rights, which I think the things you’re saying fall into. I do think we can have this discussion in good faith here.

I don’t mean it as a performance, it’s socialisation. We also learn language through mimickry, and (in my understanding) how to emote. It’s a subconscious experience of learning how to behave and what’s expected of you.

I don’t believe there are behaviours exclusive to men or women, but there are expectations placed on the groups that impact social development and cause trends (which reinforce the expectations through functioning as role models). The expectations for women to be emotive (but not too emotive), that the only acceptable outlet for emotion in men is anger/violence. Things of that nature. Gender isn’t based on how well you fit them, but the way you experience them (as passively learned messages) relates to whether you view yourself as a boy/girl/neither. Obviously there are nuances where it comes to active socialisation, and social perception will have an impact on what your experiences are too.

I meant I never shaved until having something to shave on my face (thanks to HRT). I still don’t feel pressured to do so, just not a fan of beards rn, particularly patchy ones - I included the fact merely for the sake of accuracy. There’re also social complexities regarding transition when it comes to people who’ve known me a long time that I’m still navigating. Regardless, the ins and out of transition are probably not so relevant to this topic. The point is, I never experienced that (not shaving body hair) as a statement - I’m aware others do, but I never considered it. I think I first realised it was something that women often feel they must do when my younger sister started doing so (/when I found out she was), possibly earlier through my mum? It just seemed strange to me. I understand the politics of these things, and never considered body hair to be inherently masculine (I have my upbringing by a wonderful, strong, single mother to thank for that). I’ve had a young girl comment on my leg hair in the past, and I very deliberately told her it’s natural for everyone to grow body hair, and you don’t ever have to shave it. I by no means support these expectations. Anyway, this is just supposed to be an example I use of how being non-binary has impacted the way I experience gendered expectations. It’s not a ‘non-binary trait’, or a thing all of us will experience, just a way of me explaining how it has interacted with my view of myself.

I agree the system is inherently oppressive, hence me being all for gender abolition - but I don’t think it’s possible without eliminating a social binary altogether, including sex based. It’s probably not even possible without dismantling capitalism, though I could be proved wrong on that. I think people have different reasons for seeing themselves as non-binary. Personally, I’m not sure if I would have come out as non-binary if not for experiencing physical gender dysphoria. Transition-wise, it would probably be simpler to call myself a trans man, but that would just be inaccurate to my social experiences. I feel like ‘non-binary’ is the most accurate way of describing my experience of gender and the way I perceive myself (and have done historically), so I go with that. In feminist spaces or when discussing sexism for sure it feels helpful. In all such spaces I’ve been in, the social issues discussed are ones I can’t relate to the same way the women there can.

I don’t call myself non-binary to be treated as a human being - how would that even work? I’m fortunate enough that I have never been treated as or felt less of one for being read as a woman, and being out as non-binary hasn’t changed anything much either. Though honestly certain views of non-binary people and trans people do feel very dehumanising. Accessing trans healthcare, being disabled, and being aroace have all also led to situations where I feel dehumanised and unfairly treated. But, while negative representations of disabled, aroace and non-binary/trans people have a personal impact on me, sexist stuff just... doesn’t in the same way. Never has. It’s unpleasant, and I always challenge it as much as any bigotry (being raised by a brilliant socialist single mum has it’s perks), but I do engage with it differently to things that relate to me personally.

And me calling myself non-binary doesn’t say you agree with your socialisation, just implies that you experienced it as a woman - that’s literally it, and I doubt you’d disagree? Acknowledging gendered social experiences is a huge part of feminist understanding, right?

I am concerned that I’ve placed too much emphasis on my own specific experiences as some inherent part of being non-binary. Sorry about that, I think it’s made my explainations messier and harder to understand. I really was only attempting to explain how I feel being non-binary has impacted my experience of gender, but I think it came across poorly. Probably shouldn’t have responded on a high pain day.

Note: I hate to ask, but it’d be really helpful if you use paragraphs. I do struggle with reading blocks of text due to brainfog, and I would appreciate it so I don’t have to copy, paste and reformat it myself. If it’s difficult for you, I understand and will keep on as I have been.

[pinkvoidmuse-deactivated2023021]

My friend started talking to me about this video she watched about ppl in the lgbt community and their political views. And she started talking about how this tw and nb person was going at it. And that she saw where this nb was going. So I asked her where (lol) and it basically boiled down to her never really thinking about it. And everything i said she agreed with. Like if you believe gender is a social construct, how can you have a gender that your society has no clue about aka haven’t constructed? How exactly were you socialized with this gender uh? If rejecting social roles makes you nb then you’re saying that being a woman and being a man is literally nothing but agreeing with made up social roles, and your status as nb changes depending on the society you’re in????? Nothing else works like this. I’m a woman regardless if I’m in the US or in Haiti. I’m bisexual regardless if I’m in Japan or Nepal. Even identities that aren’t innate don’t work like this. I’m an agnostic regardless of regions too....y’all have no idea how many people are close to “peaking” if you just asked them to explain what they mean. Saying transwomen are women repeatedly doesn’t work in real life, and you’d either get”oh wow I don’t know” or you get the committed liars who will say there are NO differences in the same breath they ask you to clarify if you mean woman with vaginas or with a penis/neovagina 🙄

[jackienorth]

Being non-binary describes a relationship to gender based on not perceiving yourself as exclusively a boy or girl/man or woman. It impacts the way you experience gendered socialisation, and what messages you internalise. It’s not rejecting social roles that makes you non-binary - although I’m certain some things non-binary people might do (like using non-gendered titles, names, or pronouns) are things other people also might do to reject social roles, or gender itself, if they’re inclined to do so.

The specific ways people experience this may vary, and so people come up with all sorts of words to describe how they experience that - and I think that’s pretty neat honestly. I could explain my own experience as a non-binary person if you’d want.

I think there is a tendency for people to take and share the conclussion of discussions without understanding everything behind it. I don’t know what the solution to this is - you can’t force people to engage with topics on a deeper level and do more research - but it does make it harder to have these types of conversations, and can make conclusions seem weaker than they are.

[pinkvoidmuse-deactivated2023021]

Ok what does it mean to perceive yourself as a woman or a man? What do these terms mean. Non binary as I’ve seen it described says that they don’t fit into the binary so they believe there are people who not only do but choose to. When you say gender what exactly do you mean by that. If you’re willing to engage we should get that cleared up since you already feel like I’m misinformed. Could you also clarify what you mean by what “messages you internalize”

[jackienorth]

I’d say perceiving yourself as a man/woman means you’re more likely to learn/mimic behaviours of men/women and see yourself in them in general. You’re also more likely to understand gendered standards as relating to yourself based on that, even when you reject them.

My understanding of that description of non-binary is it refers to your experience of gender not fitting into the binary, rather than just having characteristics that don’t. GNC men and women (trans or cis) exist without being non-binary.

Gender (as I and others view it) is a social construct and system of classification. Someone’s gender describes how they perceive themselves in terms of that classification, and therefore experience that system.

For me, examples of my self perception (and of the internalisation of social messages) would be not feeling pressure to conform to gendered expectations (even to reject it). So as an AFAB person I’ve never shaved (well, not till having to shave my face) or felt the pressure to, never felt like standards of male or female beauty applied to me. I never really felt GNC either, because I never felt the expectation to conform in the first place I suppose. There was just never a time where I really saw myself as ‘one of them’ in regards to either men or women, though most of the important people in my life are women.

Sorry to just pull examples from my own life here, but I do prefer not to share other peoples’ when they aren’t present. I do know that there are many differences in experiences - particularly where people are actively pressured to look and act a certain way, which is something I never experienced personally.

[pinkvoidmuse-deactivated2023021]

My friend started talking to me about this video she watched about ppl in the lgbt community and their political views. And she started talking about how this tw and nb person was going at it. And that she saw where this nb was going. So I asked her where (lol) and it basically boiled down to her never really thinking about it. And everything i said she agreed with. Like if you believe gender is a social construct, how can you have a gender that your society has no clue about aka haven’t constructed? How exactly were you socialized with this gender uh? If rejecting social roles makes you nb then you’re saying that being a woman and being a man is literally nothing but agreeing with made up social roles, and your status as nb changes depending on the society you’re in????? Nothing else works like this. I’m a woman regardless if I’m in the US or in Haiti. I’m bisexual regardless if I’m in Japan or Nepal. Even identities that aren’t innate don’t work like this. I’m an agnostic regardless of regions too....y’all have no idea how many people are close to “peaking” if you just asked them to explain what they mean. Saying transwomen are women repeatedly doesn’t work in real life, and you’d either get”oh wow I don’t know” or you get the committed liars who will say there are NO differences in the same breath they ask you to clarify if you mean woman with vaginas or with a penis/neovagina 🙄

[jackienorth]

Being non-binary describes a relationship to gender based on not perceiving yourself as exclusively a boy or girl/man or woman. It impacts the way you experience gendered socialisation, and what messages you internalise. It’s not rejecting social roles that makes you non-binary - although I’m certain some things non-binary people might do (like using non-gendered titles, names, or pronouns) are things other people also might do to reject social roles, or gender itself, if they’re inclined to do so.

The specific ways people experience this may vary, and so people come up with all sorts of words to describe how they experience that - and I think that’s pretty neat honestly. I could explain my own experience as a non-binary person if you’d want.

I think there is a tendency for people to take and share the conclussion of discussions without understanding everything behind it. I don’t know what the solution to this is - you can’t force people to engage with topics on a deeper level and do more research - but it does make it harder to have these types of conversations, and can make conclusions seem weaker than they are.

[jackienorth]

For those against ‘cis’ as a term

‘Cis’ does not mean being comfortable with the confines and expectations of the gender category assigned at birth. If it did, then “trans” (for binary folks at least) would inherently mean the same for the gender not assigned at birth - but plenty of trans people (binary or otherwise) aren’t happy with gendered expectations, and challenge them. ‘Cis’ or ‘trans’ just refer to how you experience gender/perceive yourself compared to the way you were expected to (as a man/woman). I see too many people rejecting ‘cis’ based on this logic, and it just doesn’t hold up. It’s essential to have a word to refer to people who aren’t trans, and the attempts at eliminating that language only serve to continue to other trans people (which is arguably the actual intent, at least some of the time).

[blackradfem22]

The non-binary declaration is a slap in the face to all women, who, if they haven’t come out as ‘genderqueer,’ presumably possess an internal essence perfectly in-line with the misogynistic parody of womanhood created by patriarchy. There’s a twisted bigoted cruelty in arguing that the primary problem with gender is its impact on the chosen identities of individuals, and not the way it operates systemically, under patriarchy, to normalize and encourage male violence and female subordination.

“Cisgender”

The Oxford English Dictionary defines cisgender as “denoting or relating to a person whose self-identity conforms with the gender that corresponds to their biological sex; not transgender.”

Gender critical feminists object to the idea that their “self-identity” “conforms” with the feminine gender role they were assigned at birth. They reject their assigned gender traits and roles as a form of oppression, and do not “self-identify” with them at all.

“to be cisgendered has no meaning to someone who does not experience themselves as gendered in any way other than by the gaze of others.” 

“I have never felt that happy consistency between my female body, the self I know myself to be…I am not cis. I am not trans. I am trying to live as a woman in a patriarchal world, and frankly that sucks enough on its own without being told the female body my culture punishes me for is a privilege in itself.”

“If “cisgender” were a description of a medical condition, characterised by an absence of sex dysphoria, then I would accept that I am cis. But if cisgender is a gender identity, which it appears to be, then I am not cis, because I do not have a gender identity. I am a woman. But it’s not because deep down, I feel like one. Because deep down, I just feel like a person.”

Such a framing invisibilizes female and feminine oppression by falsely situating men-born-men and women-born-women as gendered equals relative to trans-identified people. Though possibly unintentional, “cis” now functions as a significant barrier to feminism’s ability to articulate the oppression caused by the socially constructed gender differentiation that enables male/masculine supremacy.”

“Cisgender Privilege”

According to trans-inclusive feminists, being cisgendered means that biological women and girls have “cisgender privilege” which is defined as the “set of unearned advantages that individuals who identify as the gender they were assigned at birth accrue solely due to having a cisgender identity”.

Gender critical feminists do not believe that both being biologically female and knowing you are biologically female makes you a member of a privileged class. Nor do they believe males who identify as female are more oppressed than actual females.

When told they have cisgender privilege, gender critical feminists tend to bring attention to these facts regarding biological women and girls:

68,000 women die every year from unsafe, illegal abortions. The main causes of death from unsafe abortion are hemorrhage, infection, sepsis, genital trauma, and necrotic bowel. Of those who survive, 5 million will suffer permanent life-long health complications, including poor wound healing, infertility, urinary and stool incontinence from fistulas, and bowel resections.

Every day 830 women die from preventable causes related to pregnancy and childbirth.

“In low- and middle- income countries, complications from pregnancy and childbirth are leading killers of adolescent girls (ages 15-19).”

222 million women around the world do not have access to safe effective contraceptive methods.

250 million girls worldwide are married before age 15. Girls who marry before age 18 are less likely to get an education and more likely to be physically and sexually abused by their husbands.

Globally, more than 125 million women and girls have been victims of female genital mutilation.

75% of single parent households are headed by women, and these women are much more likely to be poor than single parent households headed by men.

Girls in developing countries miss up to 20% of the school year or drop out altogether due to lack of sanitary supplies and safe private latrines to use during their menstrual cycles.36 37

One in four girls say they are uncomfortable using school latrines, and are at greater risk of sexual violence, harassment and exploitation in school.38

A majority of women and girls around the world experience sexual harassment when out in public, including being followed, threatened, and groped.39;40

Women and girls account for 70 per cent of human trafficking victims. 

Almost four women are murdered by a current or former male partner every single day in the USA alone.

One out of three women worldwide — almost 1 billion women – will be victims of physical and/or sexual violence, primarily at the hands of male intimate partners or family members.

Given the various forms of discrimination and violence faced by biological women, it is hard for gender critical feminists to accept that women are more privileged than males who claim to have “an innate sense of being female”.

Gender critical feminists do not deny that transgender people are victims of discrimination and violence, but they reject the idea that biological women are “privileged” in comparison to trans women.

They also reject the idea that trans women experience the same type of discrimination faced by biological women. They believe transwomen, being feminized males, experience homophobic violence and discrimination, not misogyny.

[jackienorth]

Other people being non-binary does absolutely nothing to women. You were considering yourselves women before you were aware of non-binary people, and before the word ‘cis’ entered the public consciousness. Adding ‘cis’ to that is just to say that you consider yourselves women and you were considered girls/women since you were born. It says nothing about what or who you are beyond that. And I’ve already in the original post addressed the idea that to be ‘cis’ is to conform perfectly to the societal expectations of womanhood. It isn’t, any more than to be a trans woman is to conform perfectly, or to be a trans man is to conform perfectly to expectations of manhood. ‘Gender identity’ cannot refer to adherance to gendered stereotypes, because trans people don’t adhere to them any more than cis people.

No one is arguing the primary issue with gender is it’s impact on individual identities - or, at least, that is not inherent to acceptance of trans people. My analysis is always systemic as far as possible, and I discuss these types of issues with the people around me. I also support gender abolition, in terms of long term goals. None of these things are impossible while simultaneously understanding and discussing trans people (or being a trans person).

Cisgender

That definition of cisgender doesn’t state “conforms with gender roles” but simply “conforms with the gender“. I absolutely understand that often radical feminists are seeing gender as being simply gender roles and expectations, but I’d argue gender in this case refers to a learned (from an early age) means of classification of humans (including oneself) that functions at a deeper level than the conscious one, and is based primarily on sex characteristics. Associated roles or characteristics are secondary to the initial classification. So, first we learn “people with [traits] are girls, and people with [traits] are boys” and then we learn “boys are [characteristics] and like [things] but girls are [characteristics] and like [things]”. The way we classify ourselves in terms of the former, impact how we relate to and internalise what we learn in the latter. So, women might experience the ways in which they’re gender non-conforming in relation to the pressure to abide by those expectations. However, a non-binary person like myself might not experience that pressure, and thus not feel GNC regardless of behaviour. Similarly, a straight person doesn’t become not straight simply by disagreeing with the heteronormative roles and expectations placed on straight relationships. They can opt out of having straight relationships, deconstruct heteronormativity and amatonormativity, focus on other types of relationships. But they still do so as a straight person, in relation to the social experience of straightness.

You talk about concerns of considering trans women and cis women or trans men and cis men’s experiences as the same. But the fact is, without the word ‘cis’ it becomes harder to discuss those differences of experience. It is important to recognise the specific issues faced by both groups, as well as the overlap, as with any other intersecting identity. But it is harder to do so without language that doesn’t enforce bigotry.

Cisgender privilege

I’d argue that ‘privilege’ as a concept only helps at the lower levels of discourse, basically as a teaching tool. It’s something that took me a while to see, and really was revealed through the things anti-trans feminists have said about it. In more nuanced discussions, it just simplifies things too much.

Having a visible disability can ‘privilege’ you in terms of allowing easier access to accomodations - but not being visibly disabled can allow you to avoid overt ableism. I have been both, and can attest to both. How can you use the concept of ‘privilege’ to discuss those things? As I say, you cannot have nuanced conversations while still holding onto ‘privilege’ as a tool.

In addition, I’d contend that definition - privilege isn’t about unearned advantages. That does contribute to the idea that anyone is given advantages within a capitalist society - other than class based ones. It encourages an analysis that focuses more on normalisation and gaining those advantages, rather than eliminating systems of oppression. Privilege is the absence of disadvantage specifically based on being part of a marginalised group. So cis privilege is not experiencing disadvantage on the basis of being cis. But, as I say, privilege as a concept doesn’t allow for nuanced discussion. We need to move past ‘privilege’ to have actual decent discussions.

[blackradfem22]

Being trans is not a sexual orientation. Being trans is it not a racial category. It a diagnosable medical condition caused by gender dysphoria. All your fake comparisons to homosexuality and racial discrimination are not only erroneous but also deeply offensive. Privilege is characterized by proximity to institutional advantages from birth and because we live in a predominantly white male patriarchal society, if you were born with a white penis, you have quantifiable privilege compared to all other demographics, regardless of your medical disabilities or sexual orientation.

Diluting the concept of privilege to include white men with gender dysphoria and then claiming that anyone who doesn’t have dysphoria is somehow “privileged” compared to white men as a result, is disingenuous and patently false. It’s a desperate attempt by those with privilege to gaslight those without, akin to saying “all lives matter” to a black lives matter activist. All it does is try to wrest any modicum of powerful from those who based on the sociological reality of not being born with a white penis do not experience institutional privilege. ‘Cis’ is a term that has been hijacked from the field of chemistry. It basically refers to isomers of the same molecule on the same side of a plane. This term was never meant to be used to erase the differences between biological women and biological men who want to be biological women, whether from a dysphoria or anything else. The term “Cis privilege” is a destructive attempt to deny biology for some while hijacking it for others. No one – women, men, children, or transgendered persons – should be subjected to any form of exploitation or targeted for discrimination. Transsexual and transgendered persons are entitled to the same human and civil rights as others. Recognizing these rights, however, does not mean that we must accept that hormones and surgery transform men into women and women into men; or that persons who self-identify as members of the opposite sex are what they subjectively claim to be.

Sexism being what it is, the practical consequence of treating transwomen as women is that the male interest is placed first. The female right to self-organise comes after the male right to be treated as a woman. The female right to critique femininity comes after the male right to claim femininity. The female right to describe your body and what that body means under patriarchy comes after the male right not to be offended by descriptions of female bodies.

Whether you are aware of it or not, the term “terf” is a manipulation intended to reframe feminist ideas and activism as “exclusionary”, rather than foundational to the woman’s liberation movement. In other words it as an attack on women centered political organizing and the basic theory that underpins feminist analysis of patriarchy. Due to their insistence on basing the definition of “man” or “woman” on biology rather than on “an innate sense of being a man or a woman” gender critical feminists are accused of being “transphobic”, which means “Dislike of or prejudice against transsexual or transgender people.” They are also frequently condemned as a hate group and referred to as “TERFs” (Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists) even though not all gender critical feminists consider themselves Radical feminists and most reject the “TERF” label.

Because gender critical feminists refuse to agree that “transwomen are women” and believe that transwomen, being male, should not be treated as if they were female under the law, they are accused of denying transwomen housing, education, and “accommodation equality, as well as local, state, national and United Nations protections.” They are also accused of “literally killing” transwomen. Gender critical feminists believe that safe accommodations should be provided for trangender people, but not at the expense of women’s and girl’s safety. They believe biological women are entitled to their own safe spaces due to the epidemic levels of male violence committed against women and girls.

Despite claims that “transwomen are women” gender critical feminists note that laws based on gender identity allow any predatory male to claim a female identity and gain access to vulnerable women in shelters, locker rooms, restrooms, and prisons.

Lesbian feminist Janice Raymond is frequently accused of having “blood on her hands” for single-handedly denying government funding and insurance coverage for transgender surgery/hormone treatment.

According to The Terfs.com “It was only after the NCHCT [National Center for Health Care Technology] published Raymond’s bigotry in 1980 that the US government reversed course in 1981 and took up Raymond’s views and rhetoric.”48

But the US state and federal government had never funded sex change procedures, so the accusation makes no sense.

Still, trans activists claim a single sentence by Janice Raymond included in the 15 page NCHCT report (“transsexual surgery is controversial in our society”) caused the US state and federal government, under the Reagan administration, to reject government funding for sex change procedures.

Since The Affordable Care Act passed in 2010 most insurance companies in every state must provide coverage for transition-related care.

Since 2014, Medicare also covers transition related care.

(Although at the time of this writing, government funding for abortion procedures is forbidden by the Hyde Amendment).

Gender critical feminists find it more than a little curious that a lesbian feminist is accused of having “blood on her hands” due to the historical lack of insurance coverage for transsexual surgeries, while the male lawmakers and insurance company executives who created and enforced those policies go largely unmentioned.

Gender critical feminists are also accused of denying the very existence of transgender people, because they reject the idea that men can menstruate or get pregnant. They also reject the idea that issues of reproductive freedom (abortion, contraception, maternal health care) are gender-neutral issues. Due to female biology being an axis of oppression, gender critical feminists view issues of reproductive freedom as specifically Women’s Rights issues.

Along with allegedly denying the existence of transgender people, gender critical feminists are accused of being responsible for the high murder rate of transgender people even though transgender people are overwhelmingly murdered by men, and have high rates of involvement in the extremely dangerous sex trade.

44% of black transgender people and 33% of latino transgender people have experience in the sex trade. People involved in the sex trade are 18 times more likely to be murdered than others of their same race and class. 

“Transgender people of color with sex trade experience reported far higher levels of poverty, mistreatment, and negative health outcomes than their white counterparts.”

Despite this, trans activists rarely blame male sex buyers (or males in general) for the violence committed against trans women. Instead, gender critical feminists, aka TERFs , are blamed.

“We believe that it is violence when Germaine Greer announces “I don’t believe in transphobia”, or when Rupert Read describes trans women as “a sort of ‘opt-in’ version of what it is to be a woman”.  These are violent acts both in themselves and in their perpetuation of a culture in which physical and sexual violence against trans people and sex workers is both extremely high.”

“And yes radfems, you are the oppressors. Passive-aggressive oppressors with four decades of blood on your hands. I don’t see radfems getting shot at, stabbed, involved in videotaped beatdowns or brutally killed year after depressing year …”

“here are some real examples of TERF violence against transgender women. Don’t let them lie to you, they’re violent, disgusting people.”

TERFs are popularly described as a hate group comparable to White Nationalists and the Westboro Baptist Church.

Perhaps as a result of this, there are a tremendous amount of rape and murder threats made against gender critical feminists online. Misogynists often use the TERF label to commit misogynistic online abuse. It’s a slur used by MRAs to gaslight feminists.

[jackienorth]

I haven’t compared transness to homosexuality, nor to race? I did discuss the naming of ‘default’ identities not implying comfort with streotypes and roles associated with them, and that’s all. By extension, as I say, neither does ‘cis’ or ‘trans’. And you refer to trans-ness as a diagnosable medical condition as though that would eliminate the need to discuss it in a social context, and the social aspects of it. That isn’t the case - most disabilities are diagnosable medical conditions and yet, ‘disabled’ is a social category, and it remains something that exists in a social context. Something being medical doesn’t make it ‘not social’, although I very much don’t consider being trans to be inherently medical. My understanding of trans-ness is that it refers to the way we experience gender (social construct that it is). I think dysphoria is a big part of that often, but not the whole of it.

You have not addressed the points I raised about ‘privilege’ and its limits as a concept, simply arguing who does/doesn’t or should/shouldn’t have privilege. Further, you suggest that certain privileges outweigh others - that white men always have more ‘privilege’ than any other group, regardless of other marginalised identities. This suggests that ‘privilege’, rather than looking at different axis of oppression, in fact quantifies oppression in a way that can be directly compared. But does an upper class white straight woman politician not have power over a white working class disabled gay man? Obviously she isn’t privileged for being a woman, but she does have more power - which should be impossible according to your logic. Addressing ‘privilege’ on your terms, cis women and cis men do not experience transphobia - ergo, they experience ‘privilege’ for not being marginalised based on that element of their identity. But, as I say, this conversation should move beyond ‘privilege’ as a theoretical framework, because it’s use is limited. It leads to exactly what you’re doing here - making decisions based on how concepts interact with a relatively simple theory that lacks the depth and nuance to provide a full picture. And, with regard to the etymology of ‘cis’ - so what? It’s a latin prefix that means ‘on this side of’, and ‘trans’ is one that means ‘on the other side of’. They have been used in chemistry, and I’m pretty sure I’ve heard of their use by the ancient Romans to describe places on one side or the other of a range of mountains. Most words derive from somewhere, and have been used in other ways. Hetero and homo as prefixes are Greek words with other uses too.

People are not placing trans women ahead of cis women, and there would need to be a hell of a lot less focus on them if anti-trans feminists weren’t contributing to an environment so hostile to trans people - particularly as that is occuring in more ‘progressive’ spaces. Many trans women would and do join you in critiquing femininity - non-binary people and trans men too for that matter. And talking about reproducive anatomy is something you can do without being bigoted - it’s actually trans men and AFAB non-binary folks who usually have concerns about the way our anatomy is described and gendered. Not trans women, as you imply.

‘TERF’ describes a specific ideology (trans exclusionary radical feminism). I personally prefer not to use it, opting instead for ‘anti-trans feminism’ for the sake of clarity. However, despite not intending or trying to gain followers here, I do have a few. I had stopped tagging anything, but realised they might prefer not to see these types of conversations, so am starting to tag ‘terf’ as the most likely thing people would block. If you thought I tagged it to insult you, you are incorrect. However, the term is accurate, as anti-trans feminism undermines trans people’s rights and interests, along with deliberately excluding trans people from feminist analysis.

I know pretty much all of the things that you’ve listed as anti-trans feminsts’ beliefs. I made this blog after an in depth debate with one irl wherein I was told that anti-trans feminists want to have these conversations, but that no one is having them. I don’t really feel like it would be helpful to address everything you say here, as it’s hard to manage so many conversations at once. I will say, however, that the reason you will personally see more discussion of the role of anti-trans feminists in things like trans healthcare, is because you engage in discussions about anti-trans feminism. I can assure you that lawmakers and politicians’ voting records and actions regarding trans issues are brought up in trans spaces - probably more than anti-trans feminists, if I’m honest.

Anti-trans feminists do deny the existence of transgender people, because you reject our experiences of gender. That is apparent and irrefutable, whatever your reasons for doing so. I would agree that anti-abortion laws, for example, are women’s issues, and are based in misogyny + targeted at women. However, they don’t only affect women - they affect pregnant people, which can include trans men and non-binary people. All of these things can be true - it’s not a matter of replacing ‘women’ with ‘people with uteruses’ everywhere or whatever, it’s a matter of nuance when discussing these issues. As lots of trans men and non-binary people are legally male (or neither where possible), it’s crucial that our rights to those services are also explicit. It’s also a matter of wellbeing, safety, and comfort within spaces offering those services to acknowlege trans people’s genders.

I think most people who’ve experienced oppression should understand the impact of oppressive ideologies and conversations on the political environment, and how that can translate into social or legal harm, or even physical violence. Especially when it comes to ideas that generalise a marginalised group and set them in opposition to everyone else. That said, absolutely the people who physically enact the violence are blamed - I think it’s apparent you only engage with trans people in ‘gender critical’ contexts. Whenever there’s violence against trans people, people call for the punishment of the perpetrator - it seems strange to suggest otherwise. But when in conversations with people expressing bigotry the way anti-trans feminists do, what becomes relevant is the way that bigotry can cause actual harm.

[blackradfem22]

You were making comparisons to race and homosexuality that are unwarranted, erroneous and offensive because you are apparently incapable of distinguishing between your subjective anecdotal interpretations and objective observable reality supported statistical data. Your subjective understanding of gender is not in any way connected to the actual sociological reality of gender, which are purely superficial patriarchal stereotypes. Gender, like distinctions about racial superiority are made up social constructs, that can be opted into or out of. Biological sex, like racial skin pigmentation, is an actual physical circumstance, that cannot be opted into or out of. Claiming that gender can be defined as someone’s “innate” personal reality, while at the same time admitting it results from “socialization” at birth, is factually incongruous and fallacious. It’s akin to a white supremacist who has internalized an “innate” sense of racial superiority to the point where it seems like an actual reality, yet it remains a superficial ideological concept constructed by socialization in a society that still values institutional white patriarchal oppression. MRA/TRAs who claim that “gender identity” is equitable to being born gay or being born black are trafficking in offensive stereotypes that undermine marginalized groups by usurping their oppression and applying it to their oppressors. The claim that gender critical feminists are “erasing” or “invalidating” trans people by simply recognizing biological reality and distinguishing their experience from men with gender dysphoria is an example of extreme misogynistic bigotry and gaslighting. Attributing a slur like terf to gender critical feminists is a perpetuation of retrograde misogyny, as the terf slur is in the same lineage (and used interchangeably) with “cunt”, “bitch” or “feminazi”. When you use it or anything resembling it, you are in fact inciting violence against women, with dangerous consequences.

Radical feminism (which you don’t seem to understand) is a perspective within feminism that calls for a radical reordering of society in which male supremacy is eliminated in all social and economic contexts.

Radical feminists view society as fundamentally a patriarchy in which men dominate and oppress women. Radical feminists seek to abolish the patriarchy in order to “liberate everyone from an unjust society by challenging existing social norms and institutions.” This includes opposing the sexual objectification of women, raising public awareness about such issues as rape and violence against women, and challenging the concept of gender roles.

Gender Critical Feminism (which you also do not understand) s a term used by those in the feminist community who consider gender a harmful social construct that is confused with -but distinct from -biological sex.

The World Health Organization defines gender as “the socially constructed roles, behaviours, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for men and women”.WHO: gender equity, human rights

The “roles, behaviours, and attributes” ascribed to women are seen by gender critical feminists as a form of oppression that enforces women’s subordination to men.

They also believe the “roles, behaviors, and attributes” ascribed to men serve to maintain men’s dominance over women.

For this reason, some gender critical feminists refer to themselves as “Gender Abolitionists”.

Gender critical feminists believe the definition of “man” and the definition of “woman” should be based solely on biology, rather than on “masculine” or “feminine” personality traits or an innate sense of gender identity.

We recognize those with XX-chromosomes, ovaries designed to produce large egg cells, female genitalia, and a relatively high level of estrogen and progesterone as biologically female. We define “woman” as an adult human female.

We recognize those with XY-chromosomes, testes designed to produce small sperm cells, male genitalia, and a relatively high level of testosterone as biologically male. We define “man” as an adult human male.

Intersex people, who represent less than 0.02% of the entire population (and are often erroneously conflated with trans ppl) are those whose chromosomes, gonads, sex hormones, and genitals do not conform to the biological binary of female or male bodies. Gender critical feminists recognize intersex people as a distinct group of people with an empirically diagnosable medical condition.

Conflicts between Trans-Inclusive feminism and Gender Critical feminism.

Those who describe themselves as “trans-inclusive” feminists argue that biological sex classifications are “problematic” and that sex is not solely a matter of biology.

Trans-inclusive feminists believe that whether or not one is a man or a woman (or neither or both) should be based, not on biology, but on one’s Gender Identity, which they describe as “One’s innermost concept of self as male or female or both or neither—how individuals perceive themselves and what they call themselves.”

Trans-inclusive feminists believe that any biological male who identifies as a woman due to an “innermost concept” of womanhood is, in fact, a woman.

According to trans-inclusive feminists, a male does not have to medically transition to be a woman, but need only declare that his “inner sense of identity” is female.

Trans-inclusive feminists believe males who express an “innate sense of being female” should have the right to access female restrooms, locker rooms, shower rooms, domestic violence shelters, and homeless shelters.

Trans-inclusive feminists believe transwomen should share prison cells with biological women, regardless of the crime they’ve committed.

They also believe trans women should be allowed to compete against biological women on sports teams and in the Olympics, without undergoing surgery and with testosterone levels up to 10 times higher than is normal for women.

The sad reality is your toxic, misleading and uninformed viewpoint is not in any way reflective of the actual trans community as a whole.

In the words of gender critical transwoman Debbie Hayton: “What is being debated is access to women’s rights and protections. Generations of women have fought to establish and maintain them, but if anyone can self-declare their Gender Identity to be female, then anyone who wants to be a woman is a woman. Women have every right to be concerned because biological sex ceases to be definitive, and womanhood is reduced to a collection of feelings. It is unclear how declarations based on feelings could be challenged. While attempts might be made to criminalise fraudulent self-declarations, how can they ever be falsified? It is dangerously naïve to assume that men would never self-declare as women with nefarious motives. Most men probably wouldn’t, but those who might are the ones that cause concern. Women’s boundaries are hardly secure if they have to rely on the assumption that ‘men wouldn’t do that, would they?’”

And to quote another gender critical transwomen, Miranda Yardley: “If we are going to be able to claim ‘Pride’ of any sort, we need to do so on the basis of material reality and our achievements, not claims to victimhood, magical thinking or sustaining cultural violence.“

When use misogynistic slurs and antiquated sexist stereotypes, you do not represent trans ppl. At all.

[jackienorth]

I haven’t mentioned race anywhere (please, quote where I did), and I haven’t compared transness to homosexuality experientially at all, merely linguistically. In fact, you yourself have posited that trans women experience (misdirected?) homophobia - not transphobia. That compares them experientially more than I have here. But it’s okay when it’s to support your view that anti-trans bigotry doesn’t exist, right?

Your comparison to internalising an identity like ‘racial superiority’ is demonstrably incorrect. People aren’t taught to classify themselves and others/classified as supremacists/non-supremacists from an early age, there aren’t pronouns and titles based on it or a whole system based round it, and it is an ideology rather than categorisation with associated expectations and experiences based on real characteristics.

The attempt to classify people by sex clinically and biologically, and apply that to social relations in place of gender, is a fool’s errand. You cannot do so without creating ‘gender’ yet again. People will always assume sex based on physical characteristics, and people will be just as fallible as they are in socially policing anything. ‘Sex’ should only have relevance medically, and therefore only have a presence medically. Ideally neither sex nor gender should be present socially.

Gendered pronouns and language exist as a part of gender, and they aren’t stereotypes. In order to apply stereotypes to a group, you first have to identify and categorise it - otherwise who do you apply them to? In addition, gender differences occur within a family/community rather than between them, and so we all experience/learn the expectations placed on both genders. It’s something I know from personal experience, as well as from how others have talked about their own experiences, it certainly does seem objectively observable too.

I do agree, however, that gender is a social construct - as is money, capitalism etc. But none of these things can be indiviudally opted out of. We are all socialised into these constructs, and they impact our development and perception of the world. I truly believe they can be abolished, and I also believe there is a degree of prefiguration we can do in the preceding time. I also do believe that an understanding of transness outside of the marketable and commodified image that is pushed by corporations can be a part of that prefiguration. I never made the assertion that gender is innate - I don’t personally believe it is (in terms of the social construct anyway). I think with gender abolition we’d just see different types of bodies, and ways of being comfortable in them. You can’t have an experience of gender without the construct ‘gender’ to relate it to. Transition would have nothing to do with social identity if gender was not a social concept - people could just be people. But as it is, how we see our bodies/selves (dysphoria/euphoria/incongruence) does impact self perception from a certain age, and it does impact the way we experience gender - described as someone’s personal gender. 

I have explained why I used the term only as a tag. I don’t care to argue whether naming an ideology can be a slur here, that is why I don’t use it to refer to people, and only sometimes to refer to ideology in a quickly identifiable way. I think ‘anti-trans feminist’ is more accurate and to the point anyway.

I do acknowledge the patriarchal nature of society - just recently I had a discussion with my mum about the way marriage as an institution functions to ensure a male lineage and property inheritance. It’s possible to know these things and still accept trans people - and in my view, it is essential.

But, I think we have different enemies here. You place the failings of the system on one dynamic of oppression, whereas a proper class based analysis recognises the function of bigotry, exploitation, and oppression within capitalism. In addition, it should recognise the power of workers and necessity of proper class consciousness to enact revolutionary change. Simply having women in power instead would not do that. Capitalism is inherently exploititive and depends on the existence of poverty and an exploitable working class - therefore any anti-exploitation or anti-oppression movement must be anti-capitalist at it’s heart.

Gender is the social application of sex, so if you’re bringing up someone’s ‘sex’ in a social context, what you’re actually doing is gendering their body. There’s a reason that trans people do not deny anatomical language being accurate, but do contest the use of ‘male’ and ‘female’ with regards to our bodies.

In terms of access to gendered spaces, all trans people I know access gendered spaces based on need and safety. You could say I’m lucky in that, as a disabled person, I have unquestioned access to the few non-gendered spaces there are. But it’s quite apparent that, in general, not being allowed into gendered spaces in accordance with someone’s social gender means that someone has no access to the spaces full stop. There are also services that trans women require because of difficulties they face as women. I can’t help but question your ideal here - you clearly wish to divide people into ‘xx’ and ‘xy’ and make sure both groups have their own spaces. But the issue is with how that is policed. It’s socially policed by establishing norms based on phenotypical appearance. Which requires gendering (or ‘sexing’) people visually based on associated characteristics that are variable even without considering intersex people. Adding hormonal and surgical transition into the mix, and you have the same problems. Access to spaces would, again, become about one’s social appearance rather than chromosomes - unless you wish for the introduction of ‘sex ID’ or something. But, of course, there would still be bigotry in those spaces against people who don’t conform to expected characteristics, due to the existence of ‘sex’ as a social category.

I don’t think anyone is arguing trans women should be housed with women regardless of crime - even cis women can be housed elsewhere if their crime indicates they’d be a risk in that environment. But the fact remains that trans women are vulnerable in prisons, and face a heightened risk of sexual and physical abuse. In addition, as people who anti-oppression, we should be questioning the prison system as a whole. Certainly in the US, the growth of the prison population is a cause for concern, when not so long ago the question was of prison abolition. There are a lot more problems with prisons than who goes where, and what should be emphasised is the rights of prisoners and the need for adequate safeguarding and protections.

There are differing opinions of sports, and as someone who does not have an education in sport science I can hardly make those decisions. But, as an anti-capitalist I can’t help but question the nature of sport and such competition as a form of career. Competition such as sport is inherently exclusionary. There will always be biological advantages that allow people to rise to the top, and there will be disadvantages that mean someone could never do sport competitively. How we determine the type and extent of advantages permissible, and where, will always be complex. If trans women on HRT are unable to keep up with cis men, then not allowing them to compete as women is not allowing them to compete. There are some types of sport where gendered categories only serve to encourage women into it, not because of some inherent disadvantages, but the women’s teams always pay less and so disadvantage them regardless. The politics of competitive sport and gender are a lot more complicated than a matter of sex based advantage, and simplifying it isn’t helpful.

Those people do not represent trans people either - I certainly see far less supporting those views. Hence the fact that I could recognise the names immediately, because they are the very few that can be brought out to support anti-trans feminist beliefs. My point here isn’t ‘all trans people think this’, but that ‘supporting trans people is not incompatible with gender abolition and anti-capitalism’.

Finally, I think it interesting to note you are no longer debating the topic of whether ‘cis’ is acceptable. You have successfully distracted the topic of conversation without actually addressing the issue you began with. Moving on and staying on the offensive might look like some kind of win, but it isn’t, it just shows the lack of strength in your arguments.

Quick note: Thanks to brain fog, walls of text can be difficult for me. It’d be helpful if it was broken up into more paragraphs (referring here to your first paragraph).

[jackienorth]

For those against ‘cis’ as a term

‘Cis’ does not mean being comfortable with the confines and expectations of the gender category assigned at birth. If it did, then “trans” (for binary folks at least) would inherently mean the same for the gender not assigned at birth - but plenty of trans people (binary or otherwise) aren’t happy with gendered expectations, and challenge them. ‘Cis’ or ‘trans’ just refer to how you experience gender/perceive yourself compared to the way you were expected to (as a man/woman). I see too many people rejecting ‘cis’ based on this logic, and it just doesn’t hold up. It’s essential to have a word to refer to people who aren’t trans, and the attempts at eliminating that language only serve to continue to other trans people (which is arguably the actual intent, at least some of the time).

[blackradfem22]

The non-binary declaration is a slap in the face to all women, who, if they haven’t come out as ‘genderqueer,’ presumably possess an internal essence perfectly in-line with the misogynistic parody of womanhood created by patriarchy. There’s a twisted bigoted cruelty in arguing that the primary problem with gender is its impact on the chosen identities of individuals, and not the way it operates systemically, under patriarchy, to normalize and encourage male violence and female subordination.

“Cisgender”

The Oxford English Dictionary defines cisgender as “denoting or relating to a person whose self-identity conforms with the gender that corresponds to their biological sex; not transgender.”

Gender critical feminists object to the idea that their “self-identity” “conforms” with the feminine gender role they were assigned at birth. They reject their assigned gender traits and roles as a form of oppression, and do not “self-identify” with them at all.

“to be cisgendered has no meaning to someone who does not experience themselves as gendered in any way other than by the gaze of others.” 

“I have never felt that happy consistency between my female body, the self I know myself to be…I am not cis. I am not trans. I am trying to live as a woman in a patriarchal world, and frankly that sucks enough on its own without being told the female body my culture punishes me for is a privilege in itself.”

“If “cisgender” were a description of a medical condition, characterised by an absence of sex dysphoria, then I would accept that I am cis. But if cisgender is a gender identity, which it appears to be, then I am not cis, because I do not have a gender identity. I am a woman. But it’s not because deep down, I feel like one. Because deep down, I just feel like a person.”

Such a framing invisibilizes female and feminine oppression by falsely situating men-born-men and women-born-women as gendered equals relative to trans-identified people. Though possibly unintentional, “cis” now functions as a significant barrier to feminism’s ability to articulate the oppression caused by the socially constructed gender differentiation that enables male/masculine supremacy.”

“Cisgender Privilege”

According to trans-inclusive feminists, being cisgendered means that biological women and girls have “cisgender privilege” which is defined as the “set of unearned advantages that individuals who identify as the gender they were assigned at birth accrue solely due to having a cisgender identity”.

Gender critical feminists do not believe that both being biologically female and knowing you are biologically female makes you a member of a privileged class. Nor do they believe males who identify as female are more oppressed than actual females.

When told they have cisgender privilege, gender critical feminists tend to bring attention to these facts regarding biological women and girls:

68,000 women die every year from unsafe, illegal abortions. The main causes of death from unsafe abortion are hemorrhage, infection, sepsis, genital trauma, and necrotic bowel. Of those who survive, 5 million will suffer permanent life-long health complications, including poor wound healing, infertility, urinary and stool incontinence from fistulas, and bowel resections.

Every day 830 women die from preventable causes related to pregnancy and childbirth.

“In low- and middle- income countries, complications from pregnancy and childbirth are leading killers of adolescent girls (ages 15-19).”

222 million women around the world do not have access to safe effective contraceptive methods.

250 million girls worldwide are married before age 15. Girls who marry before age 18 are less likely to get an education and more likely to be physically and sexually abused by their husbands.

Globally, more than 125 million women and girls have been victims of female genital mutilation.

75% of single parent households are headed by women, and these women are much more likely to be poor than single parent households headed by men.

Girls in developing countries miss up to 20% of the school year or drop out altogether due to lack of sanitary supplies and safe private latrines to use during their menstrual cycles.36 37

One in four girls say they are uncomfortable using school latrines, and are at greater risk of sexual violence, harassment and exploitation in school.38

A majority of women and girls around the world experience sexual harassment when out in public, including being followed, threatened, and groped.39;40

Women and girls account for 70 per cent of human trafficking victims. 

Almost four women are murdered by a current or former male partner every single day in the USA alone.

One out of three women worldwide — almost 1 billion women – will be victims of physical and/or sexual violence, primarily at the hands of male intimate partners or family members.

Given the various forms of discrimination and violence faced by biological women, it is hard for gender critical feminists to accept that women are more privileged than males who claim to have “an innate sense of being female”.

Gender critical feminists do not deny that transgender people are victims of discrimination and violence, but they reject the idea that biological women are “privileged” in comparison to trans women.

They also reject the idea that trans women experience the same type of discrimination faced by biological women. They believe transwomen, being feminized males, experience homophobic violence and discrimination, not misogyny.

[jackienorth]

Other people being non-binary does absolutely nothing to women. You were considering yourselves women before you were aware of non-binary people, and before the word ‘cis’ entered the public consciousness. Adding ‘cis’ to that is just to say that you consider yourselves women and you were considered girls/women since you were born. It says nothing about what or who you are beyond that. And I’ve already in the original post addressed the idea that to be ‘cis’ is to conform perfectly to the societal expectations of womanhood. It isn’t, any more than to be a trans woman is to conform perfectly, or to be a trans man is to conform perfectly to expectations of manhood. ‘Gender identity’ cannot refer to adherance to gendered stereotypes, because trans people don’t adhere to them any more than cis people.

No one is arguing the primary issue with gender is it’s impact on individual identities - or, at least, that is not inherent to acceptance of trans people. My analysis is always systemic as far as possible, and I discuss these types of issues with the people around me. I also support gender abolition, in terms of long term goals. None of these things are impossible while simultaneously understanding and discussing trans people (or being a trans person).

Cisgender

That definition of cisgender doesn’t state “conforms with gender roles” but simply “conforms with the gender“. I absolutely understand that often radical feminists are seeing gender as being simply gender roles and expectations, but I’d argue gender in this case refers to a learned (from an early age) means of classification of humans (including oneself) that functions at a deeper level than the conscious one, and is based primarily on sex characteristics. Associated roles or characteristics are secondary to the initial classification. So, first we learn “people with [traits] are girls, and people with [traits] are boys” and then we learn “boys are [characteristics] and like [things] but girls are [characteristics] and like [things]”. The way we classify ourselves in terms of the former, impact how we relate to and internalise what we learn in the latter. So, women might experience the ways in which they’re gender non-conforming in relation to the pressure to abide by those expectations. However, a non-binary person like myself might not experience that pressure, and thus not feel GNC regardless of behaviour. Similarly, a straight person doesn’t become not straight simply by disagreeing with the heteronormative roles and expectations placed on straight relationships. They can opt out of having straight relationships, deconstruct heteronormativity and amatonormativity, focus on other types of relationships. But they still do so as a straight person, in relation to the social experience of straightness.

You talk about concerns of considering trans women and cis women or trans men and cis men’s experiences as the same. But the fact is, without the word ‘cis’ it becomes harder to discuss those differences of experience. It is important to recognise the specific issues faced by both groups, as well as the overlap, as with any other intersecting identity. But it is harder to do so without language that doesn’t enforce bigotry.

Cisgender privilege

I’d argue that ‘privilege’ as a concept only helps at the lower levels of discourse, basically as a teaching tool. It’s something that took me a while to see, and really was revealed through the things anti-trans feminists have said about it. In more nuanced discussions, it just simplifies things too much.

Having a visible disability can ‘privilege’ you in terms of allowing easier access to accomodations - but not being visibly disabled can allow you to avoid overt ableism. I have been both, and can attest to both. How can you use the concept of ‘privilege’ to discuss those things? As I say, you cannot have nuanced conversations while still holding onto ‘privilege’ as a tool.

In addition, I’d contend that definition - privilege isn’t about unearned advantages. That does contribute to the idea that anyone is given advantages within a capitalist society - other than class based ones. It encourages an analysis that focuses more on normalisation and gaining those advantages, rather than eliminating systems of oppression. Privilege is the absence of disadvantage specifically based on being part of a marginalised group. So cis privilege is not experiencing disadvantage on the basis of being cis. But, as I say, privilege as a concept doesn’t allow for nuanced discussion. We need to move past ‘privilege’ to have actual decent discussions.

[jackienorth]

For those against ‘cis’ as a term

‘Cis’ does not mean being comfortable with the confines and expectations of the gender category assigned at birth. If it did, then “trans” (for binary folks at least) would inherently mean the same for the gender not assigned at birth - but plenty of trans people (binary or otherwise) aren’t happy with gendered expectations, and challenge them. ‘Cis’ or ‘trans’ just refer to how you experience gender/perceive yourself compared to the way you were expected to (as a man/woman). I see too many people rejecting ‘cis’ based on this logic, and it just doesn’t hold up. It’s essential to have a word to refer to people who aren’t trans, and the attempts at eliminating that language only serve to continue to other trans people (which is arguably the actual intent, at least some of the time).

[ok-ok2]

Tucutes learn what dysphoria is challenge

“Gender incongruence” is a form of dysphoria

“Gender euphoria” is a form of dysphoria

If you’re trans, you have dysphoria.

[terflies]

Transmeds please use medical definitions instead of making things up.

I’m so tired of transmeds asking people to “learn” things that aren’t true.

[azurowle]

Gender incongruence is literally defined as different and separate from gender dysphoria and that’s okay transmeds

[terflies]

I’m just still waiting on anything remotely medical/academic that supports euphoria being a “form” of dysphoria. All I’ve seen is it echoing around transmed posts without any kind of rationale behind it.

[ok-ok2]

Gender euphoria is something that motivates people to transition, aka a condition in which their gender identity doesn’t align with their sex assigned at birth. Aka gender dysphoria

[terflies]

Update: I’m just still waiting on anything remotely medical/academic that supports euphoria being a “form” of dysphoria. All I’ve seen is it echoing around transmed posts without any kind of rationale behind it.

[jackienorth]

Also, if they really think that, then what are transmeds actually arguing against? I just don’t get what their whole thing is about - if they agree that trans people who say they’re non-dysphoric are trans (but because they do have dysphoria as they define it), then who’s the enemy to them? What’s this big fight against ‘tucutes’ really about if they define dysphoria so loosely as to include someone just... not identifying with their ASAB, or feeling happy about transitioning?

[ok-ok2]

Because, even if the term is a little awkward, dysphoria is what makes someone trans. Tucutes refuse to acknowledge this

And yes, by “dysphoria” I am referring to an umbrella term that refers to a condition when someone’s gender doesn’t match their sex. This includes “classic” dysphoria (distress), euphoria, and incongruence

[jackienorth]

What’s wrong if someone doesn’t want to ‘acknowledge this’ as you put it? You admit you’re using dysphoria as an ‘umbrella term’, but not everyone does that or wants to. Some people find the ability to discuss gender dysphoria, gender euphoria, gender incongruence and being trans separately to be helpful, and I’d agree, honestly. When someone say’s they’re non-dysphoric, they are expressing a way in which they experience being trans differently to other people - and it’s good to have the language that allows them to talk about that.

The only way ‘gender incongruence’ presents externally is through people saying ‘I am not x gender’ or ‘I am x gender’. So, in your opinion that is enough to count as dysphoria, and to believe someone’s trans - as it is too in ‘tucute’s’ opinions. So, where’s the disagreement? Where is the motive for this ideological rift here? It seems like arguing for the sake of arguing, or taking sides just because you can.

I also don’t think ‘gender dysphoria’ is used as an umbrella term in medical contexts currently. Certainly in my experience with gender specialists, ‘dysphoria’ is used when specifically referring to discomfort with gendered physical traits or language. From the NHS website also (our health service in the UK):

“Gender dysphoria is a condition where a person experiences discomfort or distress because there's a mismatch between their biological sex and gender identity. It's sometimes known as gender incongruence.”

and further:

“This mismatch between sex and gender identity can lead to distressing and uncomfortable feelings that are called gender dysphoria.”

If you’re arguing that dysphoria should be defined differently, then that’s certainly a conversation to be had - and a different one to what transmeds are usually having. I am not arguing the NHS is some absolute authority (medical professionals often aren’t), but you are arguing that dysphoria is currently defined the way you define it - and it just doesn’t seem that way.

[ok-ok2]

There really isn’t an argument to be had. From what I’m seeing, the replies to this post seem opposed to use of dysphoria as an umbrella term. And that’s understandable, due to the associations that come with the word, which is why I believe a more inclusive umbrella term should be used.

But being opposed to an umbrella term is a little ridiculous. Umbrella terms serve as a way to make comminication easier, without erasing identities, because the implication is that several terms fall under this “catch all” word. Umbrella terms are used in all aspects of life, from implying specific groups of people (such as PoC being used as an umbrella term for anyone who isn’t white) to simple everyday use (illness is an umbrella term for all illnesses. It’s a “catch all” instead of listing every single disease). Of course, underneath the “umbrella” are more specifics. Which is where euphoria, incongruence, and “classic” dysphoria would fall.

And I agree, other than thoughts on a somewhat outdated word used as an umbrella term, the majority of tucutes and trumeds share pretty much the same views on this debate. It’d be nice to see both communities come together, and either form a new word to encompass “classic” dysphoria, euphoria, and incongruence, or at least redefine “dysphoria” so it fits better as an umbrella term*, and just end this whole thing. Doubt it’ll happen, but I can dream.

*some trumeds have been preaching “dysphoria is a disconnect” for a while, but I never really saw it get far, due to the associations that come with the word. So a new word seems like the reasonable option

[jackienorth]

The most unhelpful thing imo, is insisting dysphoria is (not should be) an umbrella term (where common useage is not that) alongside stating “you need to have gender dysphoria to be trans”. Obviously the latter is going to be perceived in terms of the way ‘gender dysphoria’ is actually used, not as you’d like it to be. And that’s where disagreement comes from. Plus, if ‘dysphoria’ were an umbrella term then all you mean is “you need to be trans to be trans” which seems like a kinda moot point? In addition, I know for certain that there are many transmeds who do mean ‘classic’ dysphoria as opposed to ‘umbrella-term’ dysphoria when saying you need dysphoria to be trans, and there are many associated people who mock other trans people for not being trans (in their opinion). So, it also seems unhelpful to ally yourself with people like that I guess? I know for sure that most (if not all) anti-trumed sentiment comes from an opposition to those who tell people they aren’t trans - complete with ‘trender’ stereotypes.

I wouldn’t object to an umbrella term per se, but doesn’t ‘trans’ function as inclusive of all those experiences related to being trans? I don’t see many (if any) contexts where we need to use an umbrella term to include dysphoria, euphoria, incongruence etc. as opposed to either being specific, or talking about ‘trans-ness’ as a whole. I could be missing something though.

I mean, I guess the way I see the communities coming together is to not participate in this us vs them mentality that seems to be going on. I think if you began discussions with “I think we should have an umbrella term to encompass dysphoria, incongruence and euphoria - discuss” as opposed to “tucutes must accept that gender dysphoria is an umbrella term” it would become a proper intracommunity discussion rather than a fight. Also, personally, I’d drop the use of ‘transmed’/’trumed’ as a label. As I’ve stated above, there are lots of people in that community that mock and stereotype trans people for not meeting their standards. The association with people like that only hurts you if you’re not like that yourself.

[ok-ok2]

While I see it more as “you need a disconnect to be trans,” (currently defined as dysphoria) I do despise trumeds who insist its only physical dysphoria that makes you trans.

And I do feel like it would be used outside of discourse. Such as education on why trans people are trans. (“Trans people experience xyz, which encompasses [euphoria, incongruence, & “classic” dysphoria]. But for the most part, if someone isn’t completely clueless on the topic, the word “transgender” in reference to a specific person implies that they don’t identify with their assigned sex, aka a disconnect. But I feel a new term would be used in some situations like the one listed above, as just another way to describe trans experiences.

And while I do still feel myself drawn towards the label of trumed, logically I see there’s not much difference between the two sides (this is excluding “physical dysphoria only” truscum), as both agree trans people have a disconnect that can present itself in different forms. The only disagreement comes from trumeds grouping these forms of disconnect under “dysphoria,” which is logical for ease of communication, but the discomfort that comes from the associations of the word drives some people away.

And yeah, I do think I should make a post like that. Do you mind if I use your exact words?

[jackienorth]

So far, I don’t think I’ve met anyone who doesn’t think you need a ‘disconnect’ (in the sense of “I see myself as x but I was assigned y at birth) to be trans - since that’s what being trans is afaik. So I doubt you’d find many who disagree with you on that.

I suppose my solution to the lack of an umbrella there would be “trans people experience their gender as incongruent with their ASAB (aka gender incongruence), and many also experience gender dysphoria or gender euphoria (social and/or physical).” I think that’s more comprehensive and pretty easy to understand, without introducing a new concept or changing an old one.

Honestly, it seems a bit unnecessary to have a whole identity based on what’s pretty much an opinion on semantics that need not be so polarising. It really becomes polarised because of being pushed as a ‘trumed’ belief, rather than the other way round.

Oh absolutely, that’s fine by me. I’d be happy to see more interesting and respectful intracommunity discussions honestly.

[ok-ok2]

Tucutes learn what dysphoria is challenge

“Gender incongruence” is a form of dysphoria

“Gender euphoria” is a form of dysphoria

If you’re trans, you have dysphoria.

[terflies]

Transmeds please use medical definitions instead of making things up.

I’m so tired of transmeds asking people to “learn” things that aren’t true.

[azurowle]

Gender incongruence is literally defined as different and separate from gender dysphoria and that’s okay transmeds

[terflies]

I’m just still waiting on anything remotely medical/academic that supports euphoria being a “form” of dysphoria. All I’ve seen is it echoing around transmed posts without any kind of rationale behind it.

[ok-ok2]

Gender euphoria is something that motivates people to transition, aka a condition in which their gender identity doesn’t align with their sex assigned at birth. Aka gender dysphoria

[terflies]

Update: I’m just still waiting on anything remotely medical/academic that supports euphoria being a “form” of dysphoria. All I’ve seen is it echoing around transmed posts without any kind of rationale behind it.

[jackienorth]

Also, if they really think that, then what are transmeds actually arguing against? I just don’t get what their whole thing is about - if they agree that trans people who say they’re non-dysphoric are trans (but because they do have dysphoria as they define it), then who’s the enemy to them? What’s this big fight against ‘tucutes’ really about if they define dysphoria so loosely as to include someone just... not identifying with their ASAB, or feeling happy about transitioning?

[ok-ok2]

Because, even if the term is a little awkward, dysphoria is what makes someone trans. Tucutes refuse to acknowledge this

And yes, by “dysphoria” I am referring to an umbrella term that refers to a condition when someone’s gender doesn’t match their sex. This includes “classic” dysphoria (distress), euphoria, and incongruence

[jackienorth]

What’s wrong if someone doesn’t want to ‘acknowledge this’ as you put it? You admit you’re using dysphoria as an ‘umbrella term’, but not everyone does that or wants to. Some people find the ability to discuss gender dysphoria, gender euphoria, gender incongruence and being trans separately to be helpful, and I’d agree, honestly. When someone say’s they’re non-dysphoric, they are expressing a way in which they experience being trans differently to other people - and it’s good to have the language that allows them to talk about that.

The only way ‘gender incongruence’ presents externally is through people saying ‘I am not x gender’ or ‘I am x gender’. So, in your opinion that is enough to count as dysphoria, and to believe someone’s trans - as it is too in ‘tucute’s’ opinions. So, where’s the disagreement? Where is the motive for this ideological rift here? It seems like arguing for the sake of arguing, or taking sides just because you can.

I also don’t think ‘gender dysphoria’ is used as an umbrella term in medical contexts currently. Certainly in my experience with gender specialists, ‘dysphoria’ is used when specifically referring to discomfort with gendered physical traits or language. From the NHS website also (our health service in the UK):

“Gender dysphoria is a condition where a person experiences discomfort or distress because there's a mismatch between their biological sex and gender identity. It's sometimes known as gender incongruence.”

and further:

“This mismatch between sex and gender identity can lead to distressing and uncomfortable feelings that are called gender dysphoria.”

If you’re arguing that dysphoria should be defined differently, then that’s certainly a conversation to be had - and a different one to what transmeds are usually having. I am not arguing the NHS is some absolute authority (medical professionals often aren’t), but you are arguing that dysphoria is currently defined the way you define it - and it just doesn’t seem that way.

[ok-ok2]

There really isn’t an argument to be had. From what I’m seeing, the replies to this post seem opposed to use of dysphoria as an umbrella term. And that’s understandable, due to the associations that come with the word, which is why I believe a more inclusive umbrella term should be used.

But being opposed to an umbrella term is a little ridiculous. Umbrella terms serve as a way to make comminication easier, without erasing identities, because the implication is that several terms fall under this “catch all” word. Umbrella terms are used in all aspects of life, from implying specific groups of people (such as PoC being used as an umbrella term for anyone who isn’t white) to simple everyday use (illness is an umbrella term for all illnesses. It’s a “catch all” instead of listing every single disease). Of course, underneath the “umbrella” are more specifics. Which is where euphoria, incongruence, and “classic” dysphoria would fall.

And I agree, other than thoughts on a somewhat outdated word used as an umbrella term, the majority of tucutes and trumeds share pretty much the same views on this debate. It’d be nice to see both communities come together, and either form a new word to encompass “classic” dysphoria, euphoria, and incongruence, or at least redefine “dysphoria” so it fits better as an umbrella term*, and just end this whole thing. Doubt it’ll happen, but I can dream.

*some trumeds have been preaching “dysphoria is a disconnect” for a while, but I never really saw it get far, due to the associations that come with the word. So a new word seems like the reasonable option

[jackienorth]

The most unhelpful thing imo, is insisting dysphoria is (not should be) an umbrella term (where common useage is not that) alongside stating “you need to have gender dysphoria to be trans”. Obviously the latter is going to be perceived in terms of the way ‘gender dysphoria’ is actually used, not as you’d like it to be. And that’s where disagreement comes from. Plus, if ‘dysphoria’ were an umbrella term then all you mean is “you need to be trans to be trans” which seems like a kinda moot point? In addition, I know for certain that there are many transmeds who do mean ‘classic’ dysphoria as opposed to ‘umbrella-term’ dysphoria when saying you need dysphoria to be trans, and there are many associated people who mock other trans people for not being trans (in their opinion). So, it also seems unhelpful to ally yourself with people like that I guess? I know for sure that most (if not all) anti-trumed sentiment comes from an opposition to those who tell people they aren’t trans - complete with ‘trender’ stereotypes.

I wouldn’t object to an umbrella term per se, but doesn’t ‘trans’ function as inclusive of all those experiences related to being trans? I don’t see many (if any) contexts where we need to use an umbrella term to include dysphoria, euphoria, incongruence etc. as opposed to either being specific, or talking about ‘trans-ness’ as a whole. I could be missing something though.

I mean, I guess the way I see the communities coming together is to not participate in this us vs them mentality that seems to be going on. I think if you began discussions with “I think we should have an umbrella term to encompass dysphoria, incongruence and euphoria - discuss” as opposed to “tucutes must accept that gender dysphoria is an umbrella term” it would become a proper intracommunity discussion rather than a fight. Also, personally, I’d drop the use of ‘transmed’/’trumed’ as a label. As I’ve stated above, there are lots of people in that community that mock and stereotype trans people for not meeting their standards. The association with people like that only hurts you if you’re not like that yourself.

[ok-ok2]

Tucutes learn what dysphoria is challenge

“Gender incongruence” is a form of dysphoria

“Gender euphoria” is a form of dysphoria

If you’re trans, you have dysphoria.

[terflies]

Transmeds please use medical definitions instead of making things up.

I’m so tired of transmeds asking people to “learn” things that aren’t true.

[azurowle]

Gender incongruence is literally defined as different and separate from gender dysphoria and that’s okay transmeds

[terflies]

I’m just still waiting on anything remotely medical/academic that supports euphoria being a “form” of dysphoria. All I’ve seen is it echoing around transmed posts without any kind of rationale behind it.

[ok-ok2]

Gender euphoria is something that motivates people to transition, aka a condition in which their gender identity doesn’t align with their sex assigned at birth. Aka gender dysphoria

[terflies]

Update: I’m just still waiting on anything remotely medical/academic that supports euphoria being a “form” of dysphoria. All I’ve seen is it echoing around transmed posts without any kind of rationale behind it.

[jackienorth]

Also, if they really think that, then what are transmeds actually arguing against? I just don’t get what their whole thing is about - if they agree that trans people who say they’re non-dysphoric are trans (but because they do have dysphoria as they define it), then who’s the enemy to them? What’s this big fight against ‘tucutes’ really about if they define dysphoria so loosely as to include someone just... not identifying with their ASAB, or feeling happy about transitioning?

[ok-ok2]

Because, even if the term is a little awkward, dysphoria is what makes someone trans. Tucutes refuse to acknowledge this

And yes, by “dysphoria” I am referring to an umbrella term that refers to a condition when someone’s gender doesn’t match their sex. This includes “classic” dysphoria (distress), euphoria, and incongruence

[jackienorth]

What’s wrong if someone doesn’t want to ‘acknowledge this’ as you put it? You admit you’re using dysphoria as an ‘umbrella term’, but not everyone does that or wants to. Some people find the ability to discuss gender dysphoria, gender euphoria, gender incongruence and being trans separately to be helpful, and I’d agree, honestly. When someone say’s they’re non-dysphoric, they are expressing a way in which they experience being trans differently to other people - and it’s good to have the language that allows them to talk about that.

The only way ‘gender incongruence’ presents externally is through people saying ‘I am not x gender’ or ‘I am x gender’. So, in your opinion that is enough to count as dysphoria, and to believe someone’s trans - as it is too in ‘tucute’s’ opinions. So, where’s the disagreement? Where is the motive for this ideological rift here? It seems like arguing for the sake of arguing, or taking sides just because you can.

I also don’t think ‘gender dysphoria’ is used as an umbrella term in medical contexts currently. Certainly in my experience with gender specialists, ‘dysphoria’ is used when specifically referring to discomfort with gendered physical traits or language. From the NHS website also (our health service in the UK):

“Gender dysphoria is a condition where a person experiences discomfort or distress because there's a mismatch between their biological sex and gender identity. It's sometimes known as gender incongruence.”

and further:

“This mismatch between sex and gender identity can lead to distressing and uncomfortable feelings that are called gender dysphoria.”

If you’re arguing that dysphoria should be defined differently, then that’s certainly a conversation to be had - and a different one to what transmeds are usually having. I am not arguing the NHS is some absolute authority (medical professionals often aren’t), but you are arguing that dysphoria is currently defined the way you define it - and it just doesn’t seem that way.