I don't understand the term trans

[peruvianskys]

I think it's amazing how fast people who consider themselves progressive/feminist are accepting the notion of a "woman's brain" or "woman's soul." I thought the whole point of feminism was that there *isn't* any behavior or way of living that is just for men or just for women. But now it seems like this idea that "man" and "woman" are firm, unchanging categories that some people just magically align with has become the new orthodoxy. Very odd, and very conservative, at least in my opinion.

 

[Something Amyss]

Its tough to explain gender dysphoria because its something that, quite rightfully, 99% of the population takes for granted.

What would an Escapist thread be without a shitty car analogy? Nothing, I tell you.

Well, I suppose this isn't a car analogy so much as just a point of relation. A good chunk of people don't wear seatbelts because they can't comprehend the forces that are at work when you're driving in a car. The reality is that you're trusting your life to a multi-ton Newtonian death trap, but you don't think about it because most of the time cars just work. Or their breakdown is not in a spectacularly dangerous fashion. The maor difference is a car accident can happen to anyone in a vehicle, while this is something 99% of the population doesn't deal with. So not anyone can "crash," but the basic idea remains: people don't get it because for them, things are working fine. Hell, since this site revolves at least partially around video games, there were people who couldn't understand that the Red Ring of Death was a systemic issue with the Xbox 360 because it didn't personally happen to them.

It's this internal sense of "normalcy" that makes another's condition (not just being trans) difficult to relate.

 

[Something Amyss]

I think it's amazing how fast people who consider themselves progressive/feminist are accepting the notion of a "woman's brain" or "woman's soul." I thought the whole point of feminism was that there *isn't* any behavior or way of living that is just for men or just for women. But now it seems like this idea that "man" and "woman" are firm, unchanging categories that some people just magically align with has become the new orthodoxy. Very odd, and very conservative, at least in my opinion.

But there *isn't* any behaviour or way of living that is just for men or women, or at least, the existence of trans individuals in no way changes this. "man" and "woman" being unchanging categories (which is quote contrary to the notion you'd get from trans activists, trans people, and related medical fields) still wouldn't mean that there were behaviours that were out of bounds or ways of living that were. This seems less like a contradiction and more an attempt to force a contradiction.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

The percentage of car's that fail with lethal or injurious consequences is much higher than the percentage of humans who are trans. By rights, people should expect to be injured in their car, and plan accordingly. That we so often don't probably has a lot more to do with denial of that fact and a sense of personal control ("I'm a good driver!") than just not understanding physics. Most people have been in a crash by the time they're in their 20's, so they've FELT it.

By contrast, trans people tend to be a lot less dramatic than a car wreck, and so much less frequent. The best apolitical estimate I've seen (from FiveThirtyEight) put it at around .3% of US adults, and admitted how hard it was to come to any conclusion at all. That ends up being ~700,000 people in a country with more than 330,000,000. That's about 1 in 452, which is about the same as the rate of Down's Syndrome (not drawing a qualitative comparison, to be clear), which you also don't see evidenced every day. In fact, a lot of things that we consider to be pretty uncommon in our daily lives turn out to be a lot more common than trans people.

There isn't even really the argument that gay people have used successfully, which is the "one in your family" approach. It's just not likely that most people will have someone who is trans in their family, unless they have a giant family. I think it's impressive given all of that, how much attention trans people have managed to bring to the issues they face though. A lot of much larger groups with much worse histories of treatment haven't managed so well.

I distrust statistics when it comes to trans folk, because even "apolitical" statistics have problems when it comes to openness within the trans community. So many trans folk are in the closet, who have families now and might not transition until far later in life. Then you have to take into account the trans folk who go stealth, meaning that they live as the gender they identify as, cut all ties, and staunchly refuse to admit that they're trans. A lot of trans people who are closeted, or stealth, flat refuse to even participate in totally anonymous surveys. Then there are people in any organization who will adjust confidence numbers to reflect a bias, which makes all statistics, even "apolitical" ones, somewhat unreliable.

One thing that effects this drastically is that you say other groups have histories of worse treatment than trans folk, which really isn't at all true. Trans folk for a long time were lumped in with homosexuals, leading to being institutionalized in the best circumstances. More often than not trans folk were exposed to the most horrific abuse in the names of "treatment" and "conversion", those ones were lucky too. Many more have and still are, beaten, raped, and murdered. Then you take into account that families are more likely today to disown and abandon a child who comes out as trans, than they are to do the same to a child that comes out as gay. Also there are a lot of trans women in pornography and prostitution, not by active choice either, but because it's generally otherwise impossible for a trans person to make a living. Not only is the history trans folk have just as bad as many other groups, it hasn't gotten better either. The constant threat of violence is one thing that make trans folk a lot less likely to disclose the fact that they're trans, even to medical professionals. Trans folk still get mistreated even by doctors in hospitals.

When you start to look at the facts that trans folk are generally more heavily discriminated against compared to other groups, that trans folk are more likely to be victims of violent and sexual crimes. The fact that just this last year has been one of the worst on record for victimization of the trans community. That most of the states in the USA lack laws to specifically protect trans folk, that there are no federal laws to that effect either, and that a current bill to get those protections in congress is facing major opposition. Can you really honestly state that you think the few who do come foreword are the sum total of people who are trans, that a statistic trying to gauge a community that's terrified to tell the truth is correct in it's numbers? Because as it stands trans folk historically suffer the same mistreatment as most other minorities, but unlike other minorities it hasn't gotten better, in fact it seems to be getting worse. That's not gonna instill the confidence necessary in people who are trans, to come out and participate in studies and statistical surveys.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

I think you'd actually appreciate the article I got that figure from. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-we-dont-know-the-size-of-the-transgender-population/

It sounds to me like a particularly difficult population to study, mostly because it's a population in hiding. Still, there really is no way to turn a high water mark of .5% into something more significant than the extreme low end estimate for the incidence of something like Schizophrenia. When you look at how Schizophrenic people are treated in the United States, I would say that I'd rather be trans. Homelessness and death are pretty common, along with suicide and institutionalization, at rates even higher than trans people.

Schizophrenics don't threaten anyone's sense of masculinity, or their religious sensibilities(anymore), and we still leave them to die like dogs on the street, right in front of us. Then again, they're a lot less able to stand up and fight for themselves unaided than trans people, so you've got that going for you.

Thanks for the article, I'll give it a read.

The thing with Schizophrenics is that generally medication can allow them to function easily, without anyone around them knowing that they're schizophrenic. My mother was a schizophrenic, I know many, most of whom the general population would never peg for mentally ill. When they go untreated, of course they have a worse time of things, but that's because they're not being treated. One thing is that it's a lot easier for a schizophrenic person to get treatment, than it is for a trans person to get treatment, because all insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, and other state insurances cover anti-psychotics, but not cross-gender hormone replacement therap. Just as an example.

Compound that with the fact that psychotropic medications take a much shorter time to stabilize on, a couple of weeks to a couple of months. Hormone replacement therapy takes years for it's full effects to be realized, even then a trans person often will need other surgeries to present confidently. The difference meaning that a person working to be come functional from mental illness isn't outing themselves constantly, a mentally ill person who is on the correct medications, you really can't tell. A trans person on the other hand is basically committing themselves to several years of being outed, because transition takes time, years, just to allow someone to pass.

Taking that into consideration, along with the fact that I'm trans, I'd rather be schizophrenic, because at least that can be more effectively treated. Although I know a few people who are trans and schizophrenic, that's even worse no matter how you slice it. Neither is right, but at least people suffering psychosis more or less get left alone, people go out of their way to harm and harass trans folk. That being left alone does tend to translate to people actively ignoring the mentally ill, but they're notably less likely to be out right murdered for their condition.

 

[renegade7]

I don't know. Why does anyone do anything with their body? Why do some people want longer hair or bigger muscles, why do some people want to be thinner or taller? Some people would just rather be the opposite sex.

I don't see why there needs to be a reason for it.

I think it's amazing how fast people who consider themselves progressive/feminist are accepting the notion of a "woman's brain" or "woman's soul." I thought the whole point of feminism was that there *isn't* any behavior or way of living that is just for men or just for women. But now it seems like this idea that "man" and "woman" are firm, unchanging categories that some people just magically align with has become the new orthodoxy. Very odd, and very conservative, at least in my opinion.

That comes from a misinterpreting of some neurological studies, along with some early efforts to gain legitimacy. The conservative backlash to transgender awareness typically hinges on the idea that it's a lifestyle choice and trans people are sufferers of a mental disorder, to respond to this the response has had to be that it's not a choice.

There are slight differences in the brains of men and women, but those differences are mediated by growth hormones. If you have a brain with female characteristics, then it's because you were born female to begin with.

And also, there was a study done in which female to male transgenders using hormone treatments had their brains change to become more in line with the structural patterns more common to males only after they began hormone therapy: http://www.medicaldaily.com/think-man-testosterone-treatment-allows-transgender-men-think-and-talk-man-350440

 

[Drops a Sweet Katana]

For science!

Effectively, someone who's transgender has a brain of one sex in the body of the other (for example a 'male' brain in a female body). From my understanding, it's caused by a mismatch of hormones in the body, specifically a mismatch of the hormones produced by the genitalia and the hormones required for the brain to function. Since the male and female brain require different hormone balances to function properly, having the wrong hormone production can lead to some pretty shitty psychological effects that makes life more than a bit crap for person in question.

The "hormones" which allow the brain to function are called neurotransmitters, and aren't generally counted as hormones (although they're structurally very similar) because they only travel a very short distance from where they are produced to the receptor site. This is important because neurotransmitters have to convey information very fast.

The issue with your theory is that neurotransmitters are produced by neurons (the cells in your brain) which are the same whether you are male or female. While there is evidence that sex hormones influence the production of neurotransmitters, this is mostly a short term thing. If your level of sex hormones suddenly changes (i.e. if you're going through a menopause or taking hormone supplements) it can cause very extreme changes in how your brain works (and particularly your mood). Over time, however, neurons will simply adapt to the natural level of sex hormones in your body and produce the amount of neurotransmitters your brain needs to keep working.

Furthermore, neurotransmitters could not explain the cognitive effects of feeling that your brain and body don't match. If it was simply that trans people were generally depressed all the time, sure, but it wouldn't explain why gender identity was the focus since a person wouldn't be consciously aware that their issues were due to sex hormones. This also wouldn't explain why trans people tend to fare so much better emotionally when they start living as the sex they identify with. If it was simply that their hormones were out of line, then the hormone state would not have changed just because their lifestyle has and therefore we would not expect any improvement.

Hmmmmmmm. You could be right. I haven't done biology since A-Level so I could very well be wrong. However, the NHS gives a similar explanation, although it's more a development-based one (http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Gender-dysphoria/Pages/Causes.aspx). I don't think I add much more past chin-scratching since I don't really have a proper understanding of biochemistry.

 

[peruvianskys]

But there *isn't* any behaviour or way of living that is just for men or women, or at least, the existence of trans individuals in no way changes this. "man" and "woman" being unchanging categories (which is quote contrary to the notion you'd get from trans activists, trans people, and related medical fields) still wouldn't mean that there were behaviours that were out of bounds or ways of living that were. This seems less like a contradiction and more an attempt to force a contradiction.

I'm confused then, exactly what feelings a man could feel that a woman can't. If someone can be born, raised, educated, socialized, etc. as a man and yet still "be" a woman, that implies that there is a unique "womanly" essence or at the very least a unique "womanly" view of the world. I don't see what that is. Can anyone explain how gender identity can be conceptualized or understood apart from gender stereotypes?

 

[Reasonable Atheist]

But there *isn't* any behaviour or way of living that is just for men or women, or at least, the existence of trans individuals in no way changes this. "man" and "woman" being unchanging categories (which is quote contrary to the notion you'd get from trans activists, trans people, and related medical fields) still wouldn't mean that there were behaviours that were out of bounds or ways of living that were. This seems less like a contradiction and more an attempt to force a contradiction.

I'm confused then, exactly what feelings a man could feel that a woman can't. If someone can be born, raised, educated, socialized, etc. as a man and yet still "be" a woman, that implies that there is a unique "womanly" essence or at the very least a unique "womanly" view of the world. I don't see what that is. Can anyone explain how gender identity can be conceptualized or understood apart from gender stereotypes?

Most. Subjective. Thing. EVER.

I am reminded of feminists arguing with other women about some women just.... wanting to be housewives and mothers. To some feminists this is an offensive affront to everything they stand for, and they perceive it as rejection from those they are trying to help. To other feminists they view this as women simply choosing the lifestyle and values they prefer, and that would be an expression of their rights as a human being.

Super subjective, and basically anyone arguing with anyone else about it.... is kinda fascist, at least that's the feeling i get from it.

Ask ten different people what it means to be "woman" or "man" and you are going to get 10 different answers, especially if you ask 10 people from different places in the world.

 

[Dizchu]

I think it's amazing how fast people who consider themselves progressive/feminist are accepting the notion of a "woman's brain" or "woman's soul." I thought the whole point of feminism was that there *isn't* any behavior or way of living that is just for men or just for women. But now it seems like this idea that "man" and "woman" are firm, unchanging categories that some people just magically align with has become the new orthodoxy. Very odd, and very conservative, at least in my opinion.

What does feminism have to do with it? There's a large chunk of feminists who are as dogmatically opposed to transgender people as Christian fundamentalists are. Personally I find when feminism gets involved with trans issues things can get really ugly really quickly.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

Your mother was a very fortunate woman, to respond so well to medication for so long. That isn't the case for most people, and even when they do manage to adhere to their medication schedules, the devastating long term effects of neuroleptics is there anyway. I wish I could share your general optimism surrounding Schizophrenia, but in fact your mother sounds like she was part of that lucky group which does not experience much psychosis.

Sounds like, first of all my mom had 3 psychotic episodes and she didn't return to "normal" after her first psychotic episode. She had multiple suicide attempts in her life. What she did have, what made her lucky, was having a supportive network of friends, family, and professionals to help her, along with a level of personal strength I really envy. Still her death could be considered suicide, as it was caused by her refusal to seek help when she came down with a particularly nasty strain pneumonia and a refusal to take blood sugar control medications after being diagnosed as type 2 diabetic.

I know the outcomes aren't great even in the short term, but that's really not unexpected with people who have psychotic episodes and end up with chronic mental illness. Partly that's because of the absolutely abysmal treatment they receive basically anywhere in the world, no nations mental health care system is particularly nice. Taking all of that account most of 10-15% dead due to suicide in a 10-30 year period is far better than suicide rates in the trans community.

At any rate you're kinda comparing apples to oranges and playing the oppression olympics here, because psychosis and transgenderism aren't mutually exclusive things. A shockingly high number of trans folk are driven to psychotic episodes through chronic mistreatment and inability to transition. A general statistical rate of attempted suicides for trans folk is 41%, but that's overall. For trans women it's 42% and for trans men it's 46% with crossdressers assigned male at birth being counted at a rate of 21%, which does skew the full statistic if they're counted.

An important factor is that people suffering mental illness are more likely than not to have support from friends and family, along with access to medical, fairly easy access. Trans folk by comparison are far more likely to experience homelessness, especially in their youth, and trans folk are generally not accepted into homeless shelters. Trans folk are extremely likely to be flat denied necessary medical care by doctors and health care providers, along with that the vast majority of trans folk are abandoned by their friends and family. You wanna talk grim, trans folk are likely to be alone, with no access to care, no support from friends and family, no resources, impoverished if not homeless, and lacking access to the tools to improve their lives.

The fact that most of it is because of transphobia and bigotry makes it even worse, because these are all things that can easily be fixed in society. The fact is transphobia and anti-trans bigotry is systemic, endemic in all levels of society, and worst of all not just socially acceptable, but encouraged. When you look at it that way it paints an even more grim picture. The mentally ill might get overlooked, but trans folk are targeted specifically for being trans, a lot of trans folk also suffer mental illness, and being targeted prevents them from getting help. The fact is that "it's because of transphobia and bigotry" makes it worse, not better, and because it's considered okay to victimize trans folk by society, makes it worse, far worse, than just being overlooked.

 

[peruvianskys]

Most. Subjective. Thing. EVER.

I am reminded of feminists arguing with other women about some women just.... wanting to be housewives and mothers. To some feminists this is an offensive affront to everything they stand for, and they perceive it as rejection from those they are trying to help. To other feminists they view this as women simply choosing the lifestyle and values they prefer, and that would be an expression of their rights as a human being.

Super subjective, and basically anyone arguing with anyone else about it.... is kinda fascist, at least that's the feeling i get from it.

Ask ten different people what it means to be "woman" or "man" and you are going to get 10 different answers, especially if you ask 10 people from different places in the world.

But...I mean...isn't the whole point of feminism to take the disparate, complex, subjective experiences of a class of people called "woman" and construct an analysis of their conditions? Like, idk, ten different people would answer ten different ways what it means to be "black" but that doesn't mean we can't have an analysis of race that exists beyond feelings.

I still haven't ever seen a good explanation of what "I feel like a woman" means without reference to offensive sex stereotypes.

What does feminism have to do with it? There's a large chunk of feminists who are as dogmatically opposed to transgender people as Christian fundamentalists are. Personally I find when feminism gets involved with trans issues things can get really ugly really quickly.

Yes, because the central tenet of trans issues - that there exist firm categories of "man" and "woman" that have associated ways of being and experiencing the world - seems to be directly opposed to the ideology of feminism, which says that all behaviors, feelings, thoughts, and experiences should be open to anyone, regardless of their bodies or how society perceives them. The abolition of sex stereotypes - the goal of feminism - doesn't fit with the idea that sex stereotypes are reflections of some inherent essence of "woman" or "man" that some people are just born with.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

Most. Subjective. Thing. EVER.

I am reminded of feminists arguing with other women about some women just.... wanting to be housewives and mothers. To some feminists this is an offensive affront to everything they stand for, and they perceive it as rejection from those they are trying to help. To other feminists they view this as women simply choosing the lifestyle and values they prefer, and that would be an expression of their rights as a human being.

Super subjective, and basically anyone arguing with anyone else about it.... is kinda fascist, at least that's the feeling i get from it.

Ask ten different people what it means to be "woman" or "man" and you are going to get 10 different answers, especially if you ask 10 people from different places in the world.

But...I mean...isn't the whole point of feminism to take the disparate, complex, subjective experiences of a class of people called "woman" and construct an analysis of their conditions? Like, idk, ten different people would answer ten different ways what it means to be "black" but that doesn't mean we can't have an analysis of race that exists beyond feelings.

I still haven't ever seen a good explanation of what "I feel like a woman" means without reference to offensive sex stereotypes.

What does feminism have to do with it? There's a large chunk of feminists who are as dogmatically opposed to transgender people as Christian fundamentalists are. Personally I find when feminism gets involved with trans issues things can get really ugly really quickly.

Yes, because the central tenet of trans issues - that there exist firm categories of "man" and "woman" that have associated ways of being and experiencing the world - seems to be directly opposed to the ideology of feminism, which says that all behaviors, feelings, thoughts, and experiences should be open to anyone, regardless of their bodies or how society perceives them. The abolition of sex stereotypes - the goal of feminism - doesn't fit with the idea that sex stereotypes are reflections of some inherent essence of "woman" or "man" that some people are just born with.

The problem with the whole assessment there is two fold. The first issue is it assumes that feminism is a collective where everyone thinks the same and has the same goals, it doesn't work like that. The second issue is that you assume that feminism is about getting rid of the concept of gender, or removing stereotypes entirely. A lot of feminists just want equal treatment and rights across the board. The ones concerned with getting rid of all gender stereotypes, if not the concept of gender entirely are radical feminists. Radical feminists are generally vehement anti-transgender, or transgender exclusionary, along with being sex worker exclusionary, and sex negative.

 

[IOwnTheSpire]

But...I mean...isn't the whole point of feminism to take the disparate, complex, subjective experiences of a class of people called "woman" and construct an analysis of their conditions? Like, idk, ten different people would answer ten different ways what it means to be "black" but that doesn't mean we can't have an analysis of race that exists beyond feelings.

I still haven't ever seen a good explanation of what "I feel like a woman" means without reference to offensive sex stereotypes.

Jumping in here without reading any of your guys prior argument, but pretty sure "I feel like a woman" is the same sort of feeling you have about whatever gender you are. I mean I feel like a guy, and I am a guy, so it's not that complex.

I have different feelings on the matter: I don't feel like a guy, because as far I'm concerned, I am a guy; it's just what I am. I don't know what it means to 'feel' like a guy.

 

[peruvianskys]

Jumping in here without reading any of your guys prior argument, but pretty sure "I feel like a woman" is the same sort of feeling you have about whatever gender you are. I mean I feel like a guy, and I am a guy, so it's not that complex.

But certainly you are a man not because you "feel like a guy" but because at birth you were placed into the social class "man," right? No one asked you how you felt before they started treating you like one.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

I have different feelings on the matter: I don't feel like a guy, because as far I'm concerned, I am a guy; it's just what I am. I don't know what it means to 'feel' like a guy.

You sound like an anomaly then.

Not really, most people don't think very deeply into it. Which is probably a good thing. He is what he is and that's all there is to it in that respect, that's probably the best evidence that he's a stable individual with no insecurity about his gender identity. That's a lucky thing too, most trans folk don't get to feel that way and when we do, gender dysphoria likes to jump to the front of your mind and take that away.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

I never really understood the term or even the concept behind it.
Trans, from transformation or even transcend.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but even the trans operation is cosmetic. You don't actually change genders. Caitlyn can't bare children and Miss Garrison couldn't have an abortion. They don't produce eggs or have an uterus. So they're not really trans in that way because fundamentally nothing has changed. They haven't transformed into a woman.

But if it's about sexuality and self identification, instill don't see the need for the term trans. Your self identification is just that. How you identify. You don't need to change because your identity conforms to you, not you to your identity. Someone says they self identify as a woman...great. sure. Where does the trans part come in? You don't need to transform into anything because you already identify as that thing!
You're already there!

And if we're saying it's about looking on the outside how you feel inside...then whatever happened to beauty in the eye of the beholder? Everyone is beautiful type.shit, you know? Why the need for a surgery if it's cheaper and easier to simply say "I am a woman and I look like this"?
And and if it's all about wanting to look different, why isn't the term trans applied universally? If I put on makeup, how am I not trans? Because I am changing my appearance to fit how I feel inside(ie better)? Have I not transformed myself? Have I not identified as something different(a prettier person) and transformed myself into that new identity?!

I'm not anti trans, mind you. I just don't understand the semantics behind the words or practices. Anyone wants to do it, hey free country. I just don't get the need for such....pageantry.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

I never really understood the term or even the concept behind it.
Trans, from transformation or even transcend.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but even the trans operation is cosmetic. You don't actually change genders. Caitlyn can't bare children and Miss Garrison couldn't have an abortion. They don't produce eggs or have an uterus. So they're not really trans in that way because fundamentally nothing has changed. They haven't transformed into a woman.

But if it's about sexuality and self identification, instill don't see the need for the term trans. Your self identification is just that. How you identify. You don't need to change because your identity conforms to you, not you to your identity. Someone says they self identify as a woman...great. sure. Where does the trans part come in? You don't need to transform into anything because you already identify as that thing!
You're already there!

And if we're saying it's about looking on the outside how you feel inside...then whatever happened to beauty in the eye of the beholder? Everyone is beautiful type.shit, you know? Why the need for a surgery if it's cheaper and easier to simply say "I am a woman and I look like this"?
And and if it's all about wanting to look different, why isn't the term trans applied universally? If I put on makeup, how am I not trans? Because I am changing my appearance to fit how I feel inside(ie better)? Have I not transformed myself? Have I not identified as something different(a prettier person) and transformed myself into that new identity?!

I'm not anti trans, mind you. I just don't understand the semantics behind the words or practices. Anyone wants to do it, hey free country. I just don't get the need for such....pageantry.

The point you're missing that sex and gender are actually different things. Sex is a biological phenotype of a species, determining male, or female, or in fringe cases somewhere inbetween. Gender is a human concept, it's about identity, behavior, role, appearance, and things that are generally outside the realm of biological sex. It's important to remember that humans are more complicated than many other animals, especially socially, and especially where concepts like gender are involved.

Anyways when you're talking about transgender it's more to do with transition. The "eye of the beholder" isn't something realistic that you can apply here. The point of transition is to get to a point where society treats and sees you as the gender you identify as, but that's not even the entire concept. Transgender is simply a term that means someone's birth sex is different from how they identify themselves in relation to gender, thus gender identity. Cisgender and Transgender are a perfect word pair here because they denote something important in relation. Cisgender people are on "the same side" of "typical gender identity" where as transgender people are on the "opposite side" of "typical gender identity". This is because trans folk don't identify as the sex they're born, where cis folk do.

Another thing to keep in mind is that not all trans folk have sexual reassignment surgery, but it's also not the point of being trans to have one's genitals altered. The point of being trans is functioning in society differently from the gender you were assigned at birth. This is because gender identity is not a purely external thing, it's actually far more internal than external, it's based on how you identify in relation to the gender binary. A trans women doesn't just wear a dress and make up to look different for example, she does it because it's a way of expressing that she is, by her internal identity, a woman. But that's expression, transgenderism is specifically more about personal identity, because a trans person functions differently and identifies differently on a deep psychological level. Trans people do not identify with or as the sex they were assigned at birth, that's essentially what trans means, meaning that trans and transgender just identifiers for the condition of not identifying as the sex you're born.

I mean it sounds confusing, because trust me it is, I'm trans and I should know, but it's something in our brains that make us trans, that means in out minds we're different from the sex we're assigned at birth. Really to understand what being trans is, you kind of have to be trans, but that's not something I'd wish even on my worst enemy.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Hmmmmmmm. You could be right. I haven't done biology since A-Level so I could very well be wrong. However, the NHS gives a similar explanation, although it's more a development-based one (http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Gender-dysphoria/Pages/Causes.aspx). I don't think I add much more past chin-scratching since I don't really have a proper understanding of biochemistry.

Wow, I'm actually kind of shocked that the NHS is reporting that as fact.

Put it this way, it is a known and observable fact that gender identity can change throughout someone's life. A person can live happily as a member of a particular sex for many decades and then suddenly hit a point where they desire to be the opposite sex. This can include people who have already transitioned once and, crucially, people who have had their gonads (testes or ovaries) removed, meaning it's very unlikely to be down to changing levels of sex hormones.

We tend to assume that when people's gender identity changes during their life they haven't actually "changed" but rather "discovered" something that was always innate to them, and that's a good assumption to follow because it's very comforting and affirming for the person who is transitioning, but taking it too far can also be very confusing. If someone has managed to survive for thirty years as a man but now wants to be a woman, the fact that they are authentically a woman doesn't necessarily mean they were never "really" a man. I would say that a person who can survive as a man is as worthy of being called a man as anyone.

I think in a better world, in a world where trans people didn't have to fear the accusation of mental illness, that would be something we'd probably find much easier to accept.

Ultimately, though, even if I'm completely wrong. Even if there is a single determinate cause of gender identity, then it's clearly not actually that determinate because people sometimes seem to be able to ignore it, or even to not know about it, for years on end. We tend to fixate on the experience of people who "always knew" and who never had any doubts or confusion or second thoughts and present that as typical. It's a common experience, sure, and one as worthy of respect as anyone's experience, but it isn't the only possible experience of being trans.

 

[Rosiv]

I never really understood the term or even the concept behind it.
Trans, from transformation or even transcend.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but even the trans operation is cosmetic. You don't actually change genders. Caitlyn can't bare children and Miss Garrison couldn't have an abortion. They don't produce eggs or have an uterus. So they're not really trans in that way because fundamentally nothing has changed. They haven't transformed into a woman.

But if it's about sexuality and self identification, instill don't see the need for the term trans. Your self identification is just that. How you identify. You don't need to change because your identity conforms to you, not you to your identity. Someone says they self identify as a woman...great. sure. Where does the trans part come in? You don't need to transform into anything because you already identify as that thing!
You're already there!

And if we're saying it's about looking on the outside how you feel inside...then whatever happened to beauty in the eye of the beholder? Everyone is beautiful type.shit, you know? Why the need for a surgery if it's cheaper and easier to simply say "I am a woman and I look like this"?
And and if it's all about wanting to look different, why isn't the term trans applied universally? If I put on makeup, how am I not trans? Because I am changing my appearance to fit how I feel inside(ie better)? Have I not transformed myself? Have I not identified as something different(a prettier person) and transformed myself into that new identity?!

I'm not anti trans, mind you. I just don't understand the semantics behind the words or practices. Anyone wants to do it, hey free country. I just don't get the need for such....pageantry.

I always was of the notion that for one's identity other people decide what you are, or what anything is for that matter. So if there were 10 people on an island, including you, and they all started calling you "ganondorf", then you would be that. As a more realistic example, I guess you could use the term "black". Did africans always call themselves such, or was it through white encounters that they were given the term?

So if people don't consider a "man" wearing makeup a women, then that would be the cut off.

This ultimatly depends on the defintion of "man" though, because defining it chromosomally we have exceptions to that, and therefore the only real way I see to define it is through anatomy. One could say this is not reflective of real biology, since one's phenotype is suppose to be genetically inheritied. But i feel since we already address people who have chromosomal abberations as male or female based on abitrary standards, a hard defintion of biological phenotype need not apply.

As for the transforming part, maybe people just want to fit in. Being an indivduial is something overrated in my opinion, and only really preached by people who have had enough normality in their lives to desire it. I sometimes wish I had either phenotypically african american or asian feature, and not a mixture of the two, it would have caused be a lot less grief in school fitting in.

I guess one could say to that though, well "just be yourself" or "don't care about what other people think", but those are just platitudes and not very realistic. "Regular" women already care about how they look, if they didnt I assume most wouldn't bother dressing up. People kowtow to social standards all time time.

I guess in closing, and sorry for the ramble, I think its inconsiderate to expect a transgender women, however that word is defined, to be held to higher standards than "regular" women. If makeup does not make a women, we should be telling that to all women, starting with the cisgendered ones. The majority usually has the power and therefore the responsiblity to set the standard in this case don't they?