Could trans ideology just a rebellion against particulars?

[onesteptwostep]

It's a long stretch, but I was thinking how certain trangenders employ the phrase 'I identify as' before saying what they are. And it made me think, identity is literally an identity for them, that the category of "I identify as..." is literally an identity for them. Now, see that I have used the plural "they" to refer to them, which is grammatically correct. Now add to that certain transgenders who wish to be called they or them. See where I'm going with this?

Ideologically speaking, a trans person is transcending the particular to emcompass the multitude of identity, and in essense elevating themselves to an universal, that is, that there is a multitude of identities.

In other words they think they are not human but some kind of philsophical impossibility like a squared circle, and demand respect- a particular cannot be a universal, and a universal cannot he a particular. Deities demanded respect for similar reasons, because they were immortal, or something of the sort, an impossibility.

On a theologic-philosophic note, Jesus is the only one to have claimed that he was a particular but also a universal, a philosophic impossibility. So on a platonic level trans ideology is just humans trying to be as impossibilities, which in the olden days was a kind of prerequisite for being an object of worship. Anyway just a little mental doodle with the ideology. I haven't read any trans ideology but I feel like that's what it is in the context of western philosophy. I could probably go on for hours about this.

 

[Hadoblado]

Nah you're making that shit up sorry.

 

[Rook]

so basically all kathoey are immortal interdimensional vampires. got ya.

 

[Cognisant]

I think what you're really talking about is pansexuality which isn't really a sexual orientation, if someone's asexual bisexual homosexual or heterosexual that makes sense, that's being attracted to no-one, everyone, your own gender or the opposite gender. Simple enough right?

If I'm only aroused by getting fisted in the ass that's not a sexuality, that's a kink, or a mental disorder I guess.
If I'm only attracted to black chicks on odd numbered days of the month that's not a sexuality that's just being a weirdo.
If I dress up in a fetish schoolgirl outfit and go to a gay bar to make out with lesbians while a big hairy guy fucks me in the bussy, that's certainly something but it's not a sexuality, being attracted to men and women is just being bisexual.

I think this whole identity nonsense came about as a result of fuckwits trying to ride the homosexuality civil rights bandwagon and I don't necessarily include trans people in the fuckwit category, if you're a born male who wants to cross-dress and roleplay being a woman you go girl, whatever makes you happy. Likewise for born women who want to wear long trousers and act like a man you do you mate, just be mindful that acting like a man or a woman isn't the same as being one, street cred gotta be earned.

I will judge the manliness of a trans-man by the same criteria I judge all of my peers, no special treatment, welcome to the "nobody gives a damn about your feelings" club. You know your shit about something, you get points; you know how to self soothe, you get points; you piss me off, you get points. It's honestly not that hard.

See the fuckwits are specifically those people who use "I identify as" as a combination of social leverage, something to hide behind and a reason to make themselves feel special, i.e. pansexuals. If you want to be a man or a woman or a whatever you commit to it, if you want to be a man every other day because it makes you feel powerful and brave to be different. Fuck right the hell off.

These fuckwits are a detriment to the people who actually need their civil rights defended from the religious fuckwits.

 

[onesteptwostep]

Nah you're making that shit up sorry.

Aw come on, indugle me ^^

so basically all kathoey are immortal interdimensional vampires. got ya.

I took a second to picture that in my head, and in appearance, you exactly have that correct.

@Cognisant

Amen. Australian masculinity is exactly what we need in these troubling times. Woo!

No but seriously, I do wonder what makes those kids think so extreme and act so vicious. I hope when gen z mature up they'll be able to explain what really went on in their generational culture.

 

[Hadoblado]

Nah you're making that shit up sorry.

Aw come on, indugle me ^^

It's all whimsical speculation to you but it's yet more baseless nonsense trying to categorise an incredibly vulnerable population for them.

What do they want? To have agency over their own identity. What do you do? Put them in another (rather crazy sounding) box.

I don't think you should need a license to talk about trans issues, but I do think you should at least try to have an entry-level knowledge first (because they already face stigma, and your speculation contributes to it). Transgender is a term that includes non-binary but does not mean non-binary. Trans men and women will not greet you by saying "I identify as" because their identity still remains within the gender binary and often they just want to be treated as they identify.

You are talking about non-binary, those who do not see themselves as male or female by gender.

Funnily enough, this mistake is also the counter-example to your narrative. Trans men and women identify differently to the role assigned them by society. They do not try to transcend category, but rather to correct it. They demonstrate that you don't need to think you're jesus christ in order to reject a societal role.

Being outside of a system of category does not mean placing yourself above it. I am not a doctor but this does not mean I am better than a doctor.

 

[onesteptwostep]

I'm not talking about transgenders but trans ideology here. I get that transgenders have an issue, but the way the ideology is set up as to rationalize the phenomena and how it fits in with society and human progress is what amuses me, not the actual plight of transgenders. The rate of suicide is absolutely staggering and I share that urgency to help those kids, mostly through understanding their life. But I'm not trying to figure out the ethics of transgenders and their relation to society but the philosophic discourse that's provided by some gender thinkers, cheifly someone like Judith Butler. I'm just taking her discourse to their philosophical extensions.

Like this is some of the lines:

Butler offers a critique of the terms gender and sex as they have been used by feminists.[29] Butler argues that feminism made a mistake in trying to make "women" a discrete, ahistorical group with common characteristics. Butler writes that this approach reinforces the binary view of gender relations. Butler believes that feminists should not try to define "women" and they also believe that feminists should "focus on providing an account of how power functions and shapes our understandings of womanhood not only in the society at large but also within the feminist movement."[30] Finally, Butler aims to break the supposed links between sex and gender so that gender and desire can be "flexible, free floating and not caused by other stable factors". The idea of identity as free and flexible and gender as a performance, not an essence, has been one of the foundations of queer theory.

Or something like:

Butler discusses how gender is performed without one being conscious of it, but says that it does not mean this performativity is "automatic or mechanical". They argue that we have desires that do not originate from our personhood, but rather, from social norms. The writer also debates our notions of "human" and "less-than-human" and how these culturally imposed ideas can keep one from having a "viable life" as the biggest concerns are usually about whether a person will be accepted if their desires differ from normality. Butler states that one may feel the need of being recognized in order to live, but that at the same time, the conditions to be recognized make life "unlivable". The writer proposes an interrogation of such conditions so that people who resist them may have more possibilities of living.[48]

So you can see how someone with a lot of knowledge in western philosophy can go to town with all of this.

Again, it's an ideology that I'm referring to here.

 

[Daddy]

It's a long stretch, but I was thinking how certain trangenders employ the phrase 'I identify as' before saying what they are. And it made me think, identity is literally an identity for them, that the category of "I identify as..." is literally an identity for them. Now, see that I have used the plural "they" to refer to them, which is grammatically correct. Now add to that certain transgenders who wish to be called they or them. See where I'm going with this?

Not really. How else are they supposed to explain it? If someone is MTF and they say they are female, people will get confused. If they say "I identify" as female, then it makes more sense to other people. I think it's more for other people. Maybe I'm wrong though, I don't know.

edit: Oh, well okay, when people want to be called "they" or "them", yeah okay I could see your point. They still are a gender, but want people to recognize them as identifying with none. And that could mean many different things that doesn't make a lot of sense.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

There is def a narrative built around this population always being present, and I'm certain they indeed have always been around in some capacity. I mean it's not that hard to imagine and desire being a woman. It's just that there has always been a culture around ostracizing differences among people. So, it has been hard to realize that in reality up until recently.

With this however, there is also a growing narrative that people and younglings are being indoctrinated and making decisions that they would never want to make if they were older. "Wiser". I feel that your writing is steps away from invoking that, though I'm not sure. Like we are getting so spoiled that we can't deal with realities of the world and are latching on to this as a fad?

I can see this happening, for example a spawning cross dresser being told something about maybe their trans, and they latch on to this identity.

The thing is eitherway who cares. It's only seen as a fad because there is so much attention drawn to them in the past decade or two. Are there people who might be a little too much of an overenthusiastic white liberal selling these ideologies? Maybe.

There is no rebellion in my eyes, but if I were to characterize it I would say it's is the rise of demanding a world that accommodates in some way, or having more control over your identity. What really is the problem with that in a world where we assume that everyone is the owner of their own body?

What is the real consequence if you identify as a female or male when you may not have done so in a previous culture? The world is complicated and scary, and the consequence of not exposing them to these ideas in a safe way I think is key to lead an uninhibited life.

The comparison is drawn to tattoos being illegal for kids. Even those can get done with parent consent. I'm not advocating for it, but these bodies are flesh and bone. Who gives a fuck. I can't say I would or wouldn't allow my children to engage in something like hormone therapy, but I wouldn't fucking stand someone calling my judgement child abuse if I thought they did warrant such a therapy.

 

[Puffy]

What Hado said, I think you’re overthinking this OP. Transgender can be a vulnerable group that experience quite a lot of stigmatisation - it seems like a lot to go through just to make a philosophical point?

I wonder if the language “I identify as” as opposed to “I am” is just a hang-up from the surrounding culture. People tend to see transgender as an identity or persona as opposed to their self, so that’s internalised in the choice of language used? I’m unsure it by necessity reflects that the person sees it as an identity.

 

[Hadoblado]

What is the trans ideology?

 

[Black Rose]

What is the trans ideology?

male and female is a binary
there are two genders
non-binary is a desire/non-desire, not a sexual expression

I could have a nonsexual desire but still, be a boy or girl.

That is the way it is before puberty and in infants.

The Psychology is a binary. Not just physical.

What happens in the headspace.

 

[Hadoblado]

male and female is a binary
there are two genders
non-binary is a desire/non-desire, not a sexual expression

I could have a nonsexual desire but still, be a boy or girl.

That is the way it is before puberty and in infants.

The Psychology is a binary. Not just physical.

What happens in the headspace.

Green: Sure
Orange: Starting to lose me. Desire/non-desire? In relation to what?
When you say "not a sexual expression" do you mean sexual as in hetero[sexual] or [sexual] conquest?
Because you then start talking about sexual desire and that is very confusing.

Red: Completely lost me I'm afraid

I don't really see how any of this makes an ideology, or why it should be treated as an ideology.

 

[onesteptwostep]

I think in its netural terms it's called gender theory but opponents call it gender ideology.

From what I've gathered on Judith Butler she's the foremost thinker on leftist gender theory. She even had the last Pope reply to her ideas because he thought that they would erode traditional marriage, and ultimately life itself.

Basically her position is used to provide alot of the philosophical backing to sexual minorities and orientations.

To an extent, I think her work in gender helped legitimize alot of the LGBT movements within higher academia. Her book Gender Trouble was published in 1990.

 

[Hadoblado]

So confusing :S

Why would you refer to it by the term you consider to be antagonistic? I had you pegged as being more civilly inclined (I'm not shaming you or w/e, this is my genuine impression so this representation is puzzling).

Okay, so what is gender theory? I thought it was more like a field of study than a monolithic perspective.

Do you think gender theory is an ideology?

 

[EndogenousRebel]

What is the trans ideology?

Not OP but, incomplete. Maybe I just can't seem any themes through this social media noise, but that's what I would say.

It seems like everyone is trying to jam every ideology into it at the same time. Making errors is how we learn so I don't mind it.

I think it's defining characteristics is that it exists due to the same premise of feminist ideology, that the societies default frame of reference is from a mans. Except perhaps don't use the word man, but CIS or something like that.

After that it sounds a lot like humanitarianism and what it means to be human, so it's similar in that way, though I'm not sure it really adds to the conversation besides subjective perspectives. I don't know any classical trans-philosophers. Which some would say justifies that it should exist but I don't think that is enough for most people.

Subjective opinions only really matter to political entities. In theory that would be a great way to grant them security in society, but it seems to be having the opposite effect? I'm probably wrong about that? The establishments really don't do jack shit besides get votes. It's the activists that really do the heavy lifting.

Thus trans-ideology as it it is in it's infant state is just anything activist think will improve the well being of the trans community. Anything that resonates will be ignored right now but stand the test of time in the future. How well are they doing? I think they're trying their best. Not like any one individual can do much about it. The chaos is part of revolution.

 

[onesteptwostep]

So confusing :S

Why would you refer to it by the term you consider to be antagonistic? I had you pegged as being more civilly inclined (I'm not shaming you or w/e, this is my genuine impression so this representation is puzzling).

Okay, so what is gender theory? I thought it was more like a field of study than a monolithic perspective.

Do you think gender theory is an ideology?

It doesn't really matter to me one way or the other, to me saying it's a theory or an ideology is the same to me. I don't really disagree with the theory, but I feel like it doesn't teach people anything or help anyone understand gender more. Like, you see gender as a socially constructed thing. So what? I don't see it useful to people on a universal level.

Gender studies is more of a philosophical field where you ask questions like, I'm pulling from the standford philosophy encyclopedia:

"What does it mean for gender to be distinct from sex, if anything at all? How should we understand the claim that gender depends on social and/or cultural factors? What does it mean to be gendered woman, man, or genderqueer?"

Here's a video if you're interested, I think it's the best one that introduces Judith:

Judith Butler's Gender Trouble: A Short Introduction - YouTube

 

[Hadoblado]

Right okay.

I think that when you use terms the way you just did, it poisons the well whether that's your intention or not.

The distinction between sex and gender may not seem like a big deal to you (and that's fine), but it has a heavy impact on some people. So I agree, I don't think it's universally important. But if it's not important to you, why go loose cannon with the speculation?

I'm not trans, but I despise gender prescriptivism, so it is somewhat fundamental to how I view the world.

 

[Cognisant]

In a way isn't this fuss over gender and sex being different itself a kind of prescriptivism, I mean if someone's gender doesn't match their sex doesn't that imply a rather strict prescriptivism of gender?

Rather than being more prescriptive and separating sex and gender into separate categories wouldn't it be more practical to just be less prescriptive about the one category, i.e. imo a gay man is still a man regardless of whether he's more or less manly than the average man.

Is a straight man in drag not a man?
Straight men wear skirts too, sometimes, like Scotts for instance.

A gay effeminate man is a much clearer label than trans-man, is that a man that thinks they're a woman or a woman that thinks they're a man?

As for "trans ideology" nah not going there.

 

[Hadoblado]

Kind of. Description =/= Prescription.

If I tell you that my sex is male but that I am treated as a woman, that's not the same as me telling you I'm a male and I should be treated as a woman.

Treat/act as/identify as... whatever. You see the difference.

I am pretty in favour of gender abolitionism in theory, but that doesn't mean I don't acknowledge that people are treated differently based on gender, or that people have preferred identities.

Trans man is a man who was assigned female at birth. A person who transitions doesn't want to be categorised as the gender they don't identify with. While understandingly it can be confusing at first, if you consider what the person wants to be addressed by, it's consistent with how we treat everyone else.

 

[dr froyd]

I think the general mode of thinking - within the sphere of The New Left as of 1960s and all subsequent variations and descendants that cropped up since - is that people are not individuals but rather specimens of various classes and categories. To "identify" as something means to have a label which acts as a complete characterization of an individual. It is a very academic exercise to treat people this way, which is not surprising as these movements have highly academic origins that have percolated into society. We are of course talking about Horckheimer, Markuse, critical theory, etc. So I don't think it stems from the individuals' own desire to become an abstract category, but rather it is a consequence of the academic origins that treated individuals as such.

 

[Hadoblado]

Okay but what if people just want to change the category that was assigned to them? If someone wants to be treated as a different gender, isn't that characterization only as "complete" as society already assigns?

I am a man. I don't want to be completely characterised as just a man. But it'd be annoying to be treated as a woman if I didn't want to be.

 

[dr froyd]

Okay but what if people just want to change the category that was assigned to them? If someone wants to be treated as a different gender, isn't that characterization only as "complete" as society already assigns?

if one takes a critical-theory style view of the world, there's nothing wrong with anything you wrote here.

I am a man. I don't want to be completely characterised as just a man. But it'd be annoying to be treated as a woman if I didn't want to be.

I didn't understand this. If you don't want to be fully characterized by your male gender, why would people treat you as a woman?

 

[Puffy]

This is getting a bit too abstract. Most LGBT people don't read critical theory or Judith Butler. I can only think of a few I know who do, typically as they had a humanities or arts education.

My understanding is that gender dysphoria, which a lot of transgender people experience, is psychological distress resulting from a feeling of incongruence between their sex assigned at birth and who they experience themselves to be. Critical theory and Judith Butler's writing is at most commentary (i.e. interpretation) on a phenomenon. People don't experience gender dysphoria because they read critical theory, it's rooted in their experience of who they are.

There's no intrinsic philosophy or ideology to that just as there isn't to being straight. Someone can be transgender and be religious, conservative or right-wing. Leftist academics tend to legitimise and be more receptive to transgender experience. By virtue of that message spreading, more people feel they can be open about it. The religious, conservative and right-wing tend to be more hostile to LGBT and so LGBT people tend to not be religious or right-leaning. It's common sense really.

 

[Hadoblado]

^That's it.

Framing it as an ideology has the same vibe as "the homosexual agenda". It's something weird and maybe even unnatural to you because you haven't been exposed to it. But it's the lived experience of others and they didn't need to read feminist literature to get there.