vivster said:
I wanted to make a thread about this for a long time. My current hypothesis is that transgender has absolutely nothing to do with genetics or psychology and is rather a very much social phenomenon. The concept of gender is extremely artificial and it's created by society. Treating genders differently might help lower species to survive but it's irrelevant for humans.
The actual problem is that genders are defined at all when they shouldn't be. If there were no gender definitions or norms there would not exist a single transgender person. behaving "feminine" or "masculine" should not be a thing. It only exists because we defined it. So instead of a person saying I like to wear dresses and makeup, that person is saying "like to be more feminine" because that's what we defined it as. Now if there weren't such gender definitions nobody would give a crap. If you have a dick but would like to look like a woman and have sex with men, then you're just that. A person with specific preferences. You're not female, you just have a specific taste.
But since gender roles have such a gigantic influence in our society transgender is a thing. Everyone who defines a woman with very specific behavior is part of the problem. Same with gender specific rights. I don't give stamp collectors special rights, so I certainly don't care what kind of genitals you'd like to have.
In an ideal world you are born as a person and then live like a person and we all use the same fucking bathroom. Gender is nothing more than a fancy categorization that is basically based on nothing but tradition. |
I think that you're sort of on the right track here, but then veer off in this silly postmodernist direction at the very end. My view of it is that yes, gender (masculinity/femininity) is an unhealthy social construct that restricts human behaviors in ways that are unnatural in order to prescribe certain social roles (IMO generally a dominant one for men and a subordinate one for women). One can tell that these behaviors are artificial in that they have to be taught. They are not instinctive.
The phenomenon of transgendering requires as well the concurrent phenomenon of body shame and, usually, heteronormativity (the idea that heterosexuality is THE natural orientation that everyone should have). When these things (gendering and body shame invariably, and usually heteronormativity as well) combine, we arrive at the possibility of concluding that someone was "born in the wrong body". For example, the vast majority of people who transition from this "gender identity" to that one would otherwise identify as gay, and specifically of a gender-nonconforming expression. An "effeminate" gay man or a "butch" lesbian. Very rarely is it a "masculine" gay man or a "femme" lesbian who transitions. It is basically always someone who feels inadequate to meet the social obligations prescribed to their sex. (And yes, heterosexuality is invariably among those obligations that people generally expect.) What if we, as a society, were to collectively decide that we should do away with the idea of prescribing social roles based on one's sex? Transgendering as a social phenomenon would disappear.
But here is where we disagree: I disagree with your belief that rejecting things like masculinity and femininity means that we need to reject the idea of biological sex or of sex-based rights and protections; that we should stop thinking of ourselves as men and women altogether. Women still need a reasonable measure of privacy while using the bathroom or else the fact is that phenomenon like voyeurism and sexual assaults will increase, sorry, and we still need sex-specific rights like reproductive rights because only women can give birth. We also have different medical needs that break down along the lines of biological sex. Nature is essentialist that way. So seeing ourselves as men and women is still a useful thing. We just need to mentally separate sex from gender and recognize that one of these exists objectively and the other does not. We need to be open to non-binary gender expressions, not to non-binary gender identities.
d21lewis said:
At least four years ago, a friend of mine who was a lesbian posted something like:
"You think the trans woman fooled you because you thought she was a woman? You fooled her when you pretended to be a decent person"
I jokingly replied "Just because I like for my women to not have a penis, I'm not a good person?"
The entire LGBTQ community attacked me. All of them. Every single one. Thye said I was shallow for letting something like skin come between me and true love. That I didn't know what sex and gender were. That I might not be a man. It went on forever. I eventually just gave up. Now, I'm gay.
Just kidding. I'm not gay. I just deleted my comment. I just don't like the mindset that it's cool to have preference in hair color, race, body type, etc. Everybody has their "type". But the idea that I wouldn't be attracted to a certain type of person made me the bad guy. |
This is a lived reality of my online life (which is the only place where I feel safe being out) as well. We are moving to a place wherein the queer community refuses to accept sexual boundaries, especially of women, as legitimate. It begs the question of why the L and G should even be included in the abbreviation since they are both defined substantially by boundaries! Seriously, if we're going to make the term gay just a pseudonym for bisexual, why even have it? Such a change completely invalidates and erases my sexual identity in practice!
But that IS where the mindset of the queer community is right now, and it is one-sidedly focused on targeting women in this regard. By that I mean that there are terms like "TERF" and "the cotton ceiling" that by definition apply only to women. There's no male analogy to those terms. There's no concept of a "jockstrap ceiling" or any male analogy to slurs like TERF. There's no attempt to stigmatize and even erase the history of gay men.
Jumpin said:
ironmanDX said:
So being born in a certain way is fine but not another? The far left logic comes ever closer to collapsing on itself. |
What's transgenderism have to do with being leftist?
You're conflating two unrelated things.
|
That's how I feel about it as well. I interpret the transgendering of people as a liberal application of a fundamentally conservative idea (gender). I don't see it as left wing at all.
Where the conservative sees the gender-nonconforming person and demands that they change their behavior and lifestyle, the liberal today sees the gender-nonconforming person and demands that they adopt a new identity and take estrogen or testosterone every day for the rest of their life as the alternative. Why cannot we just see the gender-nonconforming person and leave them the hell be?
DarthMetalliCube said:
Lol, this is just the far left version of the far right religious folks saying you're "wrong" for liking women (or men for liking men). I mean think about it, It is nothing but close-minded bigotry at the end of the day. Just like a far right religious homophobe would say you're somehow wrong for having a sexual preference to women, these social justice types also claim you're wrong for having preference to (cis) women (which you do not choose). You can't win lol.
But yeah, THEY are the bigoted ones, not you. Don't listen to those people - this attitude is close minded and quite frankly insane.
Yet another example of horseshoe theory in action, where the extremes of the political spectrum tend to be more similar than different..
|
In my experience, sexual orientation can actually be a fluid thing. For example, I would say that I was born without a particular orientation, that initially I tried to force myself to be actively heterosexual in order to be accepted, that that attempt failed, and that for most of my life I have felt completely lesbian, full stop. So I think it can change, perhaps based on what one's experiences and exposures are.
That said, the fact that it can change in my experience doesn't mean that my orientation isn't real. I can stare at what ostensibly is gay male porn all day long and will never experience arousal, where I will experience arousal whether I want to or not if I look at "lesbian" porn instead. That much is not a choice. Those are involuntary physiological responses.
So I think that both of those things can be true at the same time.
That said, to you core point though, yeah, I agree, the overlap of mentality between most contemporary liberals on this subject and that of most religious fundamentalists is obvious.
Last edited by Jaicee - on 24 August 2018
no, of course not.
