Is transgenderism harmful to healthy gender archetypes?

[AntaresVII]

It’s a thought that’s been bouncing around my head recently:
If the solution to having and wanting to express a distinct feminine side as a male is to declare oneself female (or vice-versa), have we not then implied that the feminine qualities you possess are inherently lacking in men?

As a preliminary clarification, I’m talking about transgenderism as it is generally understood, i.e. biologically normal people asking to be treated as if they are a member of the sex they are not.

It seems to me that the general effect of trans rights movements has been to seed the idea, intentionally or no, that if you feel you have traits that do not conform with your society’s portrayal of your gender archetype, that the problem is not a flaw in the gender image but in your own gender identification.
There is of course a simultaneous movement to challenge and redefine our societies’ constructions of gender roles, and it is generally propagated by most of the same people who advocate transgenderism. So it is certainly odd that the two should seem to be somewhat at odds: transgenderism identifying the issue with gender to be it’s being tied to sex, and we’ll say feminism — since men don’t generally advocate for freedom to be more feminine, even if they want it — putting the issue at the current structure of gender roles.

The trouble I have then, is that I think, for the vast majority of people feeling restricted by their perception of their gender, that the solution is redefinition of their gender’s bounds. But for all too many people the first solution to feeling uncomfortable about gender expression is the most radical: adopting a different gender.
The clear implication of the latter solution is that one’s original gender is inherently incompatible with one’s own basic identity, and I can’t see but that that’s a detriment to progress towards healthier men and women.

Essentially, I don’t think we’ll ever get to see “positive masculinity” as properly integrates innate femininity if we keep telling people that having those positive attributes indicates that they’ve been “assigned” the “wrong” gender.

What does changing genders avail anyone if the genders themselves are fundamentally broken? And might not we suppose that if properly fixed, most cases would be absolved of the need to change gender at all?


So yeah that’s what’s been floating around my head.

 

[Daddy]

I think there are biological differences between men and women that manifest statistically significant differences between the two. And anyone outside that statistical norm is atypical. And perhaps every person has traits that are atypical in one area or another because we are all essentially different. And when the atypical traits start to add up, it becomes more of a problem. When atypical traits don't add up that much, it's easy to redefine your gender boundary, but when you are almost opposite, it's much harder. Shades of grey, I like to think. Plus when you don't like the gender of your body, that's not something you can fix by "redefining gender". Then add sexual attraction, then add emotional identification and it's going to be hard to convince a person that thinks their body, emotions, and sexual attractions align with the opposite gender, to just redefine gender boundaries. But most people aren't that extreme, so shades of grey, I like to think. And in certain shades, you are probably correct.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Never really cared. Its something new and prevalent in media, its been politicized, and commercialized.
I think its mainly business, thing. Its definitely something hard to understand, for me, I don't intend to understand stand it. I find it pretty difficult issue in terms of medical angle. But if they are better off who cares. Its not like I am paying for it. Its just that medicine tends to get things wrong. Especially when it comes to new things and outliers. I think it ranks higher than say circumsicision.

 

[AntaresVII]

Plus when you don't like the gender of your body, that's not something you can fix by "redefining gender".

But most people aren't that extreme, so shades of grey, I like to think. And in certain shades, you are probably correct.

True enough. I'm not saying there's no situation in which transgenderism makes more sense than altering perception of gender, just that it doesn't seem to me to be the right course to be the first resort by default.

As a person myself with some distinctly feminine characteristics, I just think it should be first and foremost emphasized that men and women are more alike than they are different and having those characteristics is not only normal but good.

My concern is that people are instead hearing that their so-called abnormalities — which I'll wager any day are far more common than individuals think they are — single them out as unfit for their own biology, as if they're somehow fundamentally broken by being born as they are. I think that's about the worst way you could address someone's feeling out of place, and objectively false to boot.

And so for the many more people who feel discomfort but not enough to so drastically redefine themselves, you get suppression of what should be praised qualities so that they can maintain the poisoned image society is holding up for them.

 

[AntaresVII]

@ZenRaiden
I'm not really talking about the actual practices of transgenderism, just that the effect of the major media push for it to be "normalized" seems to be pushing more conservative people even further from embracing better psychological self-perceptions

 

[ZenRaiden]

I don't really know what you mean as conservative?
You mean muslims, Christians, fiscally conservative people? Democrats?

 

[AntaresVII]

I don't really know what you mean as conservative?
You mean muslims, Christians, fiscally conservative people? Democrats?

Like psychologically conservative. Low in openness, high in conscientiousness, so prone to be wary of the new and different as well as loyal to existing structures.

Obviously conservative political parties are significantly overlapping, but the key point is that I'm talking about psychological disposition, so it cant be argued that they're just bigoted or something to that effect.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Like psychologically conservative. Low in openness, high in conscientiousness, so prone to be wary of the new and different as well as loyal to existing structures.

Obviously conservative political parties are significantly overlapping, but the key point is that I'm talking about psychological disposition, so it cant be argued that they're just bigoted or something to that effect.

Well you kind of gave yourself the answer?

 

[PiedPiper]

It’s a thought that’s been bouncing around my head recently:
If the solution to having and wanting to express a distinct feminine side as a male is to declare oneself female (or vice-versa), have we not then implied that the feminine qualities you possess are inherently lacking in men?

As a preliminary clarification, I’m talking about transgenderism as it is generally understood, i.e. biologically normal people asking to be treated as if they are a member of the sex they are not.

It seems to me that the general effect of trans rights movements has been to seed the idea, intentionally or no, that if you feel you have traits that do not conform with your society’s portrayal of your gender archetype, that the problem is not a flaw in the gender image but in your own gender identification.
There is of course a simultaneous movement to challenge and redefine our societies’ constructions of gender roles, and it is generally propagated by most of the same people who advocate transgenderism. So it is certainly odd that the two should seem to be somewhat at odds: transgenderism identifying the issue with gender to be it’s being tied to sex, and we’ll say feminism — since men don’t generally advocate for freedom to be more feminine, even if they want it — putting the issue at the current structure of gender roles.

The trouble I have then, is that I think, for the vast majority of people feeling restricted by their perception of their gender, that the solution is redefinition of their gender’s bounds. But for all too many people the first solution to feeling uncomfortable about gender expression is the most radical: adopting a different gender.
The clear implication of the latter solution is that one’s original gender is inherently incompatible with one’s own basic identity, and I can’t see but that that’s a detriment to progress towards healthier men and women.

Essentially, I don’t think we’ll ever get to see “positive masculinity” as properly integrates innate femininity if we keep telling people that having those positive attributes indicates that they’ve been “assigned” the “wrong” gender.

What does changing genders avail anyone if the genders themselves are fundamentally broken? And might not we suppose that if properly fixed, most cases would be absolved of the need to change gender at all?


So yeah that’s what’s been floating around my head.

Just know that most of the issues that we face now are a result of centuries of fucked up shit that no one dared to really deal with. People just never face the issues. Human nature crams people into a box and tells them to stay there and then wonders why the hell there are all sorts of issues. I'm not saying 'crammed in a box' like gender, because gender is a biological set thing. I mean the way you have to present yourself. If they had just taught the child right, if they had cultured the strengths along with the weaknesses and allowed outside-the-box thinking instead of a fucking pathetic 7-3 system we may have a more thoughtful society.

So Girl A shows more masculinity than Boy B. Doesn't mean they have switched genders. They just have different traits. But girls are supposed to be feminine and men are supposed to be masculine. "Men are tough, women are weak" that fucking thing. Now women don't feel comfortable as women. "Men aren't supposed to cry" Now men don't feel comfortable as men. This is a toned-down version. What they want in many cases is not a gender change but recognition like every damn human being does. As for choice I don't know. It's a strange thing to be born not knowing if you had a choice. Really gender is inconsequential to me. Ok now can we shutup about it? It's a physical property of a body, not a soul-defining characteristic.

 

[Hadoblado]

I agree that gender prescriptivism is a big deal. I am a man and I do actively push for an acceptance of gender role non-conformity as well as skepticism of harmful aspects of traditional gender roles. I think you're on the money there.

But transgenderism is extremely complicated and I don't think that our shared position on gender roles is sufficient to dismiss their lived experience. For one, it doesn't address gender dysphoria at all. And just because an individual is clever enough to understand the difference between sex/gender/social roles does not mean that everyone else does. They're still going to be treated in ways they don't want to be.

I don't know you so don't know if this applies, but if you woke up one morning and everyone else in society decided you were a woman (you have no say in it), and you didn't feel like a woman, this could be upsetting? Even if it wouldn't affect you, you probably understand that some people would be very upset at a forced gender re-assignment. Being trans or non-binary is like that but from day one and I think it's a legitimate concern.

So I strongly agree that we should do what we can regarding social roles and gender prescriptivism, but I don't think that helps address the struggles that individuals face in their every waking moment.

 

[Cognisant]

Once we have the technology to make gender transitions simple safe and reversible the practice will become normal, simply a matter of preference. I can see people going through a phase growing up where they try the other gender for a while just because its different and they're curious.

In the current day gender transitions are not simple, safe or reversible and whether the stated goal can be actually achieved is debatable. I consider myself a transhumanist and I fantasize about having a prosthetic/bionic limb I can customize and swap out for alternatives, but I'm in no hurry to get a limb chopped off because the fact is the technology just isn't there yet.

So this push to normalize transgenderism specifically regarding surgical/hormonal gender transitions seems very irresponsible to me. Now granted there are people who are born literally intersex and may want to undergo surgery so they can be normal, I can see the logic to that, much like "correcting" a cleft palate. Likewise I can imagine the frustration with being born homosexual and not really fitting in with the gay community or not wanting a gay partner because they're too much like yourself.

Just because someone is a butch lesbian or a effeminate twink doesn't mean they're attracted to the same, the lesbian might want an effeminate woman and the other a masculine man. To that end it may seem the only reasonable course of action is to become what your desired partner would likely desire, which is no different to a straight person working on themselves to improve their dating game.

Except the surgery and hormone treatments and the fact that you're ultimately misrepresenting what you are regardless of what you may identify as. Your partner may love you for who you are but committing to a long term relationship with someone they can never conceive children with is a profound sacrifice.

But then who am I to advocate against transitioning, are we not all free to do what we believe is right for ourselves, if I wanted to augment myself regardless of the impracticality who are you to tell me I don't have the right to do what I want with my body?

In summary I'm an advocate against transitioning but no to the extent that I would oppose it, rather as a matter of concern for the person who wishes to transition as a matter of practicality, safety and that it's not going to solve the actual problem.

Body dysphoria is baffling to me, I can totally understand and relate to being frustrated with the way you are and wanting to be different. I used to have random heart palpitations as a kid which were at times quite severe and the notion that I could at any time just die because of some subtle issue with my heart has left me with a deep mistrust of my biology. But I can't understand the desire to be something you've never actually been as though that's what you were meant to be. If one day I woke up and decided my body doesn't feel right, that it's not me, that I'm meant to made of cold hard metal and this bag of meat and bone was all wrong, that would be a neurosis.

I still want that, I see it as the superior option, I'm still horrified whenever I feel my heart skip a beat or notice some new lump or blemish (skin cancer is a big killer in Australia) but I don't get dysphoria. The impression I get is that body dysphoria comes from trauma like sexual abuse, I can understand a victim of sexual abuse dissociating with their body especially if their physiological reaction wasn't congruent with their distress.

There's that myth that a man cannot be raped because he would need to have an erection which is proof that he is aroused, but that's a physiological reaction, it's not something any man has full control over. I can totally see a man being raped and being told that his erection proves that he's enjoying it being deeply mentally scarred by the experience and dissociating with the body he feels betrayed him.
In such a situation I believe the victim needs therapy, not surgery.

I don't know you so don't know if this applies, but if you woke up one morning and everyone else in society decided you were a woman (you have no say in it), and you didn't feel like a woman, this could be upsetting?

Not really, I identify as male of course but it's what I am, not who I am, and the same applies to being human. If I woke up one day and found out I was turning into a Lovecraftian Deep One I'd have insecurities (such is the nature of puberty) but I wouldn't consider it a violation of my identity.

 

[Cognisant]

Is transgenderism harmful to healthy gender archetypes?
Transgender is in my mind its own thing, someone can have an intersex or asexual or effeminate male or masculine female identity and these are all valid identities.

But someone whose identity is that their identity changes whimsically, that's an idiot.

The harmful stereotype of trans people being duplicitous comes from these idiots who treat gender identity as a fashion and are always looking for something new and exciting to identify as, it's a deplorable behavior and is rightfully scorned.

 

[BurnedOut]

With all the religious nutjobs in the world, I don't see a better alternative to simply put the point across - It is my gender, my life. People seem to have a big hearing problem when it comes to the loudest things.

The whole study of gender gets fucked up when you term masculinity as aggression and feminity as docile. In fact, there are hyperfeminine females in the world and their behaviours overlap with hypermasculine men. That should lead you to question what is meant by feminity and masculinity in the first place. The first thing to do is to replace the two terms with their actual underlying words to remove any kind of bias. Aggressive and Acquiescent - that is the thing defining human relations to a good extent. Since women and other non-males were successfuly bullied by testojacked boys some time after establishment of agriculture, the stereotypes struck. Even religions cannot get enough of 'Yin-Yang', 'Shivling-Yoni', etc. Now gender studies finds itself in crises because of lack of a proper framework and definitions. Many feminists and even LGBTQ people keep saying 'masculine' or 'feminine' to describe certain traits. My best friend who is gay believes in the concept of 'top' and 'bottom' which is not too different from a horny pastor banging a hapless peasant woman. The latter is not allowed to 'bang him back' as if women don't have a sex drive that can lead them to take initiative (which is bullshit).

 

[Cognisant]

Gender studies is stupid.

Stop trying to deconstruct gender identities, everybody knows that they're just generalizations, you're not proving anything we don't already know and the reason they persist despite being "just generalizations" is that people want to identify with them

Men are generally bigger, stronger and more assertive than women, it's not a rule, it's not a conspiracy, it is a part of our culture and everyone else's culture because it's not just a cultural thing it's an observation of what is generally the reality.

As I see it feminism has made women incredibly insecure about their gender identity, as though they have to prove themselves equal to men in everything traditionally male dominated (by defeating or surpassing them in some way) meanwhile women are embarrassed to be associated with or good at anything traditionally female dominated.

Stop trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist, it's okay for a man to be just a man, it's okay for a woman to be just a woman and if someone wants to be somewhere in between that's okay too, it's all fine, we don't need "gender studies".

Unless you want to talk about why male suicides are so much higher or why there's shelters for abused women but not abused men, but nobody ever wants to talk about stuff like that, it doesn't fit the patriarchy narrative.

 

[BurnedOut]

Men are generally bigger, stronger and more assertive than women, it's not a rule, it's not a conspiracy, it is a part of our culture and everyone else's culture because it's not just a cultural thing it's an observation of what is generally the reality.

Humans influence their observable reality by their preconceptions. Then they end up examining the very reality they engendered. That is not how science is supposed to work. If the whole drama around gender is to be resolved, it should be treated with a neutral temperament. By already stating that masculine = aggressive and feminine = docile, every conclusion that follows will be along those lines. I mean why do gays have 'tops' and 'bottoms' and why do females have 'butches' and 'femmes'? Many researchers conclude by simply saying that the heterosexual world has unjustly pervaded the LGBTQ world when it is simply the case that some people are bound to be more aggressive than others. Therefore, if gender studies wants to be neutral and if feminists really want to make a dent in the gender relations of the world, they need to stop using the wrong historically biased terminologies.

Somehow gender studies seem to be nothing about that and just more interested in labelling every nuance. For example, sapiosexuals (as termed) could be omnisexual insofar intellect is concerned. But sapiosexual in reality is treated as cissexual with more attraction towards intellect. Then why is the need to coin the term 'sapiosexual' when it is already subsumed under some gender when attraction to intellect is a preference than an innate part of their identity? Insofar genders are concerned, I don't believe that there are 69 different genders.

As I see it feminism has made women incredibly insecure about their gender identity, as though they have to prove themselves equal to men in everything traditionally male dominated (by defeating or surpassing them in some way) meanwhile women are embarrassed to be associated with or good at anything traditionally female dominated.

They are not. They are just tired of engaging in those activities as the traditionally female dominated activities certainly do not lead to wielding of considerable political clout and independence. However, that does not mean men's behaviour leads to more succesful lifestyles. But culture causes that illusion. Most of the females I have met suffer unfairly because of gender prescriptivism but they also lack the drive to ask themselves if any activity is inherently 'masculine' or 'feminine' in nature. An action is an action in objectivity but an intention towards a goal when looked at from the lens of bias and historical observations.

Progress is built on the premise of weeding out previous cultures. Cultures provide a snapshot into the mindset of the mob but does not represent reality. It represents the reality that is concocted by the believers. Why do you think structuralism gained so much momentum and post-colonial literature activity sought to question certain cultures? I mean look at United States of Humpty Dumpties - they exported their cancerous Hollywood to other parts of the world accepted a Humpty Dumpty lifestyle leading to ironic expressions of individuality in the name of dictatorship-democracies.

Unless you want to talk about why male suicides are so much higher or why there's shelters for abused women but not abused men, but nobody ever wants to talk about stuff like that, it doesn't fit the patriarchy narrative.

If Gender Studies were taken seriously, we would have such shelters for males because the gender studies would be more interested in falsifying the notions of relative-emotional expression - men should not cry and women should not enter STEM but gender studies has become MBTI - typing only on the basis of observations.

 

[onesteptwostep]

To be honest I haven't interacted with a transgender myself so I can't definitively say anything about them. But from the perception I get from the media and documentaries and so forth, it seems like most transgenders have some sort of deeper psychological issue they need to sort out. Some transgenders seem like they're completely wired to be another gender, but then again some seem to have more pressing fundamental problems. I think in practicality, psychologists and doctors need to make a determination, not from arguments from laypeople and the media.

As for transgenderism(?), I'm not sure whether an ideology is harmful, but generally I think if transgenders are sure of their transgenderedness then non-transgenders are sure of their gender too. I think people plop themselves into this universalizing of what gender is and get into an argumentative mess. We should probably just stick to the research done by nonpartisan professionals.


BUT, if we want to think deeply about this, I think talking about the teleology of gender would help sort a lot of the issues within the phenomenon. I've read a lot of things like, gender is a social construct- but if you apply this logic equally, then transgenderism is a social construct as well (which doesn't tell us anything). I think if we focus on what the purpose of gender is rather than talk about how it arose, we'd probably progress a bit more fruitfully about the issue.

 

[Grayman]

Men are generally bigger, stronger and more assertive than women, it's not a rule, it's not a conspiracy, it is a part of our culture and everyone else's culture because it's not just a cultural thing it's an observation of what is generally the reality.

Humans influence their observable reality by their preconceptions. Then they end up examining the very reality they engendered. That is not how science is supposed to work. If the whole drama around gender is to be resolved, it should be treated with a neutral temperament. By already stating that masculine = aggressive and feminine = docile, every conclusion that follows will be along those lines. I mean why do gays have 'tops' and 'bottoms' and why do females have 'butches' and 'femmes'? Many researchers conclude by simply saying that the heterosexual world has unjustly pervaded the LGBTQ world when it is simply the case that some people are bound to be more aggressive than others. Therefore, if gender studies wants to be neutral and if feminists really want to make a dent in the gender relations of the world, they need to stop using the wrong historically biased terminologies.

Somehow gender studies seem to be nothing about that and just more interested in labelling every nuance. For example, sapiosexuals (as termed) could be omnisexual insofar intellect is concerned. But sapiosexual in reality is treated as cissexual with more attraction towards intellect. Then why is the need to coin the term 'sapiosexual' when it is already subsumed under some gender when attraction to intellect is a preference than an innate part of their identity? Insofar genders are concerned, I don't believe that there are 69 different genders.

As I see it feminism has made women incredibly insecure about their gender identity, as though they have to prove themselves equal to men in everything traditionally male dominated (by defeating or surpassing them in some way) meanwhile women are embarrassed to be associated with or good at anything traditionally female dominated.

They are not. They are just tired of engaging in those activities as the traditionally female dominated activities certainly do not lead to wielding of considerable political clout and independence. However, that does not mean men's behaviour leads to more succesful lifestyles. But culture causes that illusion. Most of the females I have met suffer unfairly because of gender prescriptivism but they also lack the drive to ask themselves if any activity is inherently 'masculine' or 'feminine' in nature. An action is an action in objectivity but an intention towards a goal when looked at from the lens of bias and historical observations.

Progress is built on the premise of weeding out previous cultures. Cultures provide a snapshot into the mindset of the mob but does not represent reality. It represents the reality that is concocted by the believers. Why do you think structuralism gained so much momentum and post-colonial literature activity sought to question certain cultures? I mean look at United States of Humpty Dumpties - they exported their cancerous Hollywood to other parts of the world accepted a Humpty Dumpty lifestyle leading to ironic expressions of individuality in the name of dictatorship-democracies.

Unless you want to talk about why male suicides are so much higher or why there's shelters for abused women but not abused men, but nobody ever wants to talk about stuff like that, it doesn't fit the patriarchy narrative.

If Gender Studies were taken seriously, we would have such shelters for males because the gender studies would be more interested in falsifying the notions of relative-emotional expression - men should not cry and women should not enter STEM but gender studies has become MBTI - typing only on the basis of observations.

It is a scientifically provable claim that in general men are more aggressive. This is related to testosterone. Hormones are a real thing and growing up with certain hormones can also shape the brain differently than if you had different hormones. You don't need to come at it from a neutral perspective. You just have to be willing to accept the evidence and alter your position based on the evidence.

 

[Grayman]

I think we just need to keep male and female definitions associated with biological sex and not get into prescribed identities at all. Their gender views are and should remain a personal private matter that the rest of society should not have to engage in.

Our society is designed around the physical aspects of sex characteristics and not identity. Urinals work with penises and biological men and women have certain advantages in sports that if altered can make the playground unfair. Medicine needs to know your actual biological sex to know how to treat you.

If we just stuck to the practical, we wouldn't have so much confusion going on.

And yes telling boys they cannot play with barbie and girls they cannot play with building blocks is impractical and leads to confusion.

 

[scorpiomover]

It seems to me that the general effect of trans rights movements has been to seed the idea, intentionally or no, that if you feel you have traits that do not conform with your society’s portrayal of your gender archetype, that the problem is not a flaw in the gender image but in your own gender identification.
There is of course a simultaneous movement to challenge and redefine our societies’ constructions of gender roles, and it is generally propagated by most of the same people who advocate transgenderism.

I had not noticed the contradiction before. Thank you for bringing that to my attention.

So it is certainly odd that the two should seem to be somewhat at odds: transgenderism identifying the issue with gender to be it’s being tied to sex, and we’ll say feminism — since men don’t generally advocate for freedom to be more feminine, even if they want it — putting the issue at the current structure of gender roles.

The people who advocate for unconditional acceptance of transgenderism and redefining gender roles, also are the same people who said that Trump was both the stupidest person in the entire world, and was a criminal mastermind that ran an international criminal organisation that stretched from the USA to Russia.

So we should not expect logical consistency from these people.

The trouble I have then, is that I think, for the vast majority of people feeling restricted by their perception of their gender, that the solution is redefinition of their gender’s bounds.

The first, and most obvious, solution to gender restrictions, is to move to a left-wing country. Or in the USA, to move to a left-wing state, as there, one can expect to be treated with gender roles befitting left-wing values.

But for all too many people the first solution to feeling uncomfortable about gender expression is the most radical: adopting a different gender.

I don't think that will help people unhappy with their gender at all
1) the people who support & perform trans operations are left-wing.
2) left-winger say they want gender equality.
3) left-wingers say that right-wingers oppress women.

First, consider MTF people. The above leaves 2 possibilities:
1) The left-wing are being honest: then being a woman is just as bad as being a man in left-wing areas, and even worse in right-wing areas. So MTF people are not gaining anything gender-related.
2) The left-wing are lying: the people who are performing the operation are lying to the MTF person about the very reason why they are getting the operation in the first place. It's no different to a doctor saying that someone needs to have a mastectomy to remove a cancer that doesn't exist.

Now, consider FTM people. The above leaves 2 possibilities:
1) The left-wing are being honest: then the right-wingers hate trans and want to kill them all. So FTM people have no choice but to live in left-wing areas. The left-wingers also say that being a woman is just as bad as being a man in left-wing areas. So FTM people are not gaining anything gender-related.
2) The left-wing are lying: the people who are performing the operation are lying to the MTF person about the very reason why they are getting the operation in the first place. It's no different to a doctor saying that someone needs to have a mastectomy to remove a cancer that doesn't exist.

Either way, logic seems to make it clear that having a sex change isn't going to solve gender dysphoria.

Essentially, I don’t think we’ll ever get to see “positive masculinity” as properly integrates innate femininity if we keep telling people that having those positive attributes indicates that they’ve been “assigned” the “wrong” gender.

That might be consistent with MTF trans people. But if masculinity is toxic, the FTM trans people would be people who are born with innate femininity that want to embrace toxic masculinity.

So yeah that’s what’s been floating around my head.

I wouldn't worry about it. I have all sorts of ideas floating around my head. The only scary time is when the unpleasant ones come true.

 

[ZenRaiden]

The people who advocate for unconditional acceptance of transgenderism and redefining gender roles, also are the same people who said that Trump was both the stupidest person in the entire world, and was a criminal mastermind that ran an international criminal organisation that stretched from the USA to Russia.

You sure those two things negate each other though?
Ergo Trump being criminal mastermind and being stupid.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Either way, logic seems to make it clear that having a sex change isn't going to solve gender dysphoria.

Dysphoria is not logical? Its a nerve bundle that makes you feel something is off.
If people cannot solve dysphoria ergo psychologist not being able to do that, then the question is who is going to solve it.
I think it was DOOB or some name on INTJforum that said trans people are among the highest suicide rates until they go through operation at which point they report feeling better.
But its hard to say its logical when we can't look at cause and effect.
Cause and effect are primary basis of logic.

 

[Grayman]

The people who advocate for unconditional acceptance of transgenderism and redefining gender roles, also are the same people who said that Trump was both the stupidest person in the entire world, and was a criminal mastermind that ran an international criminal organisation that stretched from the USA to Russia.

You sure those two things negate each other though?
Ergo Trump being criminal mastermind and being stupid.

Yes, wisdom is another matter.

 

[Black Rose]

A certain person thinks I have the mind of a 7-year-old.
They have called me autistic and retareded.

But none of this is true.

Gender as a binary is first defined by sex as sex goes back millions and millions of years before humans existed. It is in the dimorphism that we think in terms of male and female. And dimorphism is regulated by growth patterns. Traits are a factor of growth rates. The phenotype from the genotype and environment. In our evolutionary history, we were molded by certain features of dimorphism. Basically, the standard man and the standard woman look and act in certain ways. Everyone has this built in and with a variation. So saying a man is like a female or that a woman is like a male has roots in deep biological historical context. With trans persons, their psychology has shifted / a growth pattern has emerged in them that is not a set of conditioning but a core representation of what gender they are. To first know your gender you must first understand what differentiates you from the other gender. I understand what gender I am because I understand what the differences between gender are. I understand what I am not. It is in my nature to know what I am and what I am not.

This person thinks I am 7 years old because they are not (they are 40+).
This person thinks I am an autistic retard because they are not autistic (but are schizotypal) and that makes me not them.

I am not this:

But I am not a female.

Bing thinks I am a 15-year-old ISFP.

What people think of age gender personality is highly dependent on what they are and what they are not.

For this reason, everything begins with the individual as the central reference point. The conception of gender begins with what we think of ourselves.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

One thing that almost nobody talks about that's quite a big problem for transgender people is that not all of them want a full transition.

Some trans want to be more masculine one day and more feminine the other day and are non-binary. Other trans want to strictly be gendered feminine while their bodies are masculine etc. Some want the freedom to act masculine in a feminine body without judgment or gender prescription. There is a lot more variety and levels of depth than just the basic strictly male or female roles or changing from strictly one to the other.

Most normies have trouble accepting someone else's change from one gender to the other and for them the idea of genderless or both gender people is unacceptable.

I'm biologically male but I'm asexual and I think of myself as a genderless person. That's already something that I can't explain to 90% of people around me and I never will have the freedom to talk about it in the same nonchalant way that straight men talk about one night stands and dating.

I can only empathise with the struggle that a non-binary person experiences as they are not fitting into the trans community and are also not accepted by cisgender normies.

It's reasonable to expect that the world will remain too blind and too intolerant to a broader gender perspective for a long time. After all people are still worried about fitting into traditional gender roles or making agrarian style families, that were already outdated since the 19th century, or having offspring just because that's norm, rather than because that's what they want to do with their limited time on this planet.

 

[Rook]

Trans-genderism (The Androgene) is a very ancient concept.

What is seen today is less 'the androgene is harmful' but more the natural dissolution of Christian values inculcated into the western world from the times of Constantine and Charlemagne by something of a 'godless paganism.'

The harm, from my perspective, still comes more from traditional hetero-normative folk against these 'new' genders(read: genders that make people uncomfortable, that tend to work against the subset of instincts that they operate under).

The androgene instinct isn't all that strange, one sees it with bonobos as far as I know, and in my experience many mammal species have some sort of expression tending to this though absolutely not as pronounced or self-aware as within Homo Sapiens. male dogs for example in the prolonged absence of female ones will attempt to bond with one another, in my experience this is far more to relieve tension and far less technically sexual than human same-sex bonding. The introduction of a female dog, once again in my limited experience, tends to mostly dispel such urges.

Humans are far more complex than dogs though, and in us the androgene drive is very real I'd say, though absolutely not universal although we have a staggering capacity for change so I'll put any such conclusions on the backburner.

Being more complex, I don't see that these expressions of human identity are strange at all. there are humans sexually attracted to cartoons, horses, baloons, cars, latex: whatever, so the androgene drive is quite mundane when compared to such states in my estimation. Furthermore states such as non-binary aren't all that strange either.


As with anything though, radicalization and over-politicization is a bad thing from any side, and as many sides become more and more radical the other sides, of course, will do the same out of group-instinct.

For instance I don't see hormone blockers or operations on children as all that healthy, but I'm not gonna preach against it either: The world is big and a lot of folk do as they please, I just won't personally do such things to children.

Beyond that though I'm all for free expression as long as the outflow of it isn't tyranny: then your free expression dooms that of others.

 

[TransientMoment]

Gender dysphoria can be explained in two parts:
1) Personality types
2) Focus
BTW, I'm not talking about biological differences, which determine sex. Changing sex doesn't solve the problem: Truth does.

1) Males tend to be XXTX types, so their subculture has those facets, and thus the alpha dog - the confident leader - is seen as the prime example of a man. And in fact, men are generally healthier when they lean in this direction even if they don't go all the way. Females tend to be XXFX types (especially ESFJ), so their subculture tends to be very soft, submissive, gentle, and related priorities. Neither side is bad or wrong even though they both have their advantages and disadvantages.

2) Focus. What you focus on is what you become like. The phrase "The grass is greener on the other side of the hill" comes to mind. If you focus on women, you will see the goodness of femininity and want to enjoy that. You can enjoy that through sex, but if you're really adamant about it, you will contemplate on becoming female. The same is true for focusing on men. If you focus on what men have, their goodness, you will want that. That's why we have alpha women.

The only real solution is to focus on your own sex and find the good things about it that you enjoy. You need to find the identity that fits within your own sex. You don't have to switch sex or gender to do it.
I mean really: If you are a male that "feels" feminine, isn't that feeling part of your masculinity? Otherwise, how could you have a feeling in the first place?

So maybe you don't feel like an alpha dog, but that's because of your focus. If you focus on a particular sex, you'll want it, and you'll start thinking of ways to get it. Want to be more confident? Focus on confident, challenging people. Want to feel more submissive? Go look at people tied up. What you put in your mind affects you. What you focus on affects you.

 

[The Grey Man]

Beyond that though I'm all for free expression as long as the outflow of it isn't tyranny: then your free expression dooms that of others.

There's the rub: it is not even the case that freedom of expression without limits is tyrannical: tyranny is nothing more than the unrestrained free expression of a dominant individual or group. This is why the 'live or let live' approach doesn't work: even to say that it works within certain limits is to tacitly admit that it is in itself insufficient, that permissiveness leads to chaos and ruin if it is not balanced by justice. The 'live and let live' attitude does not solve the problem of freedom, but evades it.

In particular, it is irresponsible to say that you would not do 'gender re-assignment surgery' to children, but the world is big enough for people who would. Indeed, the world is big enough for serial rapists and mass murderers, but the 'small world' of prison is a better place for them.

 

[Black Rose]

The only real solution is to focus on your own sex and find the good things about it that you enjoy. You need to find the identity that fits within your own sex. You don't have to switch sex or gender to do it.
I mean really: If you are a male that "feels" feminine, isn't that feeling part of your masculinity? Otherwise, how could you have a feeling in the first place?

I think it is about what you see in the mirror. The self-image.

If you look at your face how do you feel.
If you look at your chest how do you feel.
If you look at your waist area how do you feel.

Thinking about this in the platonic sense:

Super masculine men have big muscles and deep voices.
This does not feel right to me. I never wanted to be that way.
I never wanted to be like my father I wanted to be like my mother.
But I did not want to be a girl in appearance. I am just that way in personality.

On the inside, I don't feel strong but I am strong on the outside.
On the inside, I feel like a dante wallflower.
Some people like to push their weight around. Physically and figuratively.
They are angry and or vulnerable. They like to dominate or just get along.

So basically if you are not jacked or ripped you cannot express your dominance.
If you are a man.
But if you are a woman who is dominant things change.
Then you can be as angry as you like with no consequences.
Because you cannot hurt anyone physically. Or so it seems.

The dichotomy of strong and weak is not arbitrary.
It just happens in different ways.
Men do not like to be seen as weak, not normally.
So they harden themselves on the inside.
And become numb to criticism.
Watch out when they take things personally.
Because they will need to find an external way to express themselves.

Women internalize everything, "generally".
So avoid threats in ways men do not.
If they are not the dominant female.

But the difference is external vs internal.
Strength vs vulnerability.
Anger and fear.

If we know what we are then we know what we are not.
I am not hyper male but I am not neutral nor female.
Femininity to me is something I possess but not all men possess it.
Some are completely external and some are completely internal.
I know a few masculine women but they are still women.
But that is what the body image determines.
The personality inside the body. And if you are ok with that.

 

[Rook]

Beyond that though I'm all for free expression as long as the outflow of it isn't tyranny: then your free expression dooms that of others.

There's the rub: it is not even the case that freedom of expression without limits is tyrannical: tyranny is nothing more than the unrestrained free expression of a dominant individual or group. This is why the 'live or let live' approach doesn't work: even to say that it works within certain limits is to tacitly admit that it is in itself insufficient, that permissiveness leads to chaos and ruin if it is not balanced by justice. The 'live and let live' attitude does not solve the problem of freedom, but evades it.

In particular, it is irresponsible to say that you would not do 'gender re-assignment surgery' to children, but the world is big enough for people who would. Indeed, the world is big enough for serial rapists and mass murderers, but the 'small world' of prison is a better place for them.

Hey man I'm in South Africa, overall a very religious country that isn't undergoing this 'identity schism' that seems to have the entire internet in a ballhold. There's 8 billion complexly evolved apes on this planet.

There are rapists, murderers, some will never be caught, some will be ignored because the system deems it in benefit to the system. Right now Ukraine there's thousands of murderers murdering away but that's okay right, that's sanctioned? It's 'war.'

I very much won't change from 'live and let live.' If something doesn't happen in my immediate vicinity or directly impacts those I care about I most probably won't give a single fuck.

See me, one ape, worry about the troubles of a planet? Of 50 million? 8 billion?

That's a very modern conceit. Every jack jill and joe with an internet connection suddenly think, believe, know that they are so very special and that an entire giant planet needs to dance to the whims of their brain.

Beyond hubris, we are just matter decaying and growing, all of us.


What's happening with these 'culture wars' is quite sad, pathetic, useless. True tyranny is Mugabe, and yes, most other para-social entities across this planet. The difference between Mugabe and Lockheed Martin is Lockheed just wraps their tyranny up in the bright crinkly paper of corporatism. The end result remains the same: Humans are mauled, eviscerated so an elite few can continue to scoff down their caviar and dawdle on the promenades of their yacht clubs.

'Culture war warriors' are quite pathetic considering the amount of humans still dying to actual bombs, famine and disease.

 

[Rook]

Parents/groups forcing such surgery on children are tyrants.

Groups saying no one can get these surgeries out of their own free will are tyrants.

People saying only same-sex relationships are healthy, normal, are tyrants.

People saying everyone, everyone needs to kow-tow to them and their gender identity are tyrants.

The world is filled with petty tyrants shouting at other petty tyrants and when the shouting that comes back is louder they just start shouting louder back.

All these arguments about petty tyrannies end up being circular, fuel on the fire of people fighting not for practical solutions towards a peaceful, prosperous world but people doubling down on ideologies because their ego can't handle other egos not constructed in the same manner as theirs.

So hunger persists, waste persists, the Californians continue to eat and waste bountifully while squalor grows in their midst, while squalor has never left parts of this world.

Yet even among the poor, the struggling, I'd find men who would state 'Russia is right, killing all those Ukrainains, Russia is killing them because america is bad' or 'All Indians are bastards' or 'All europeans are bastards' or 'All africans are bastards'

-------------------

To me the thoughts of 'hetero folk are filth' or 'non-binary folk are deplorable' or whatever is little different from the above conceits, it's radical ego-hate that comes from the primitive parts of our souls and we as a species stay stuck with it.

I'm not an Emperor. I'm not a Billionaire. I can't stop folk from believing what they believe and bringing harm to others through such beliefs, regardless of whether that's through giving a teen hormone blockers or putting a teen through anti-gay shock therapy: It's all bonkers, but one side'll accept one type of bonkers just cos they don't like the bonkers the other side are enjoying.

In circles in circles this is a dance as old as man and all that changes are the terms and concepts people beat each other over the head with.
---------------

'Do no harm' and 'Live and let live' are actually very practical and sane philosophies from my point of view......

I'm not a tyrant though. So I'm not going to try and force a planet to live like this----Even if I did, was able and willling, in a thousand, ten-thousand years my name and actions would likely have been forgotten and more likely than not reality might simply again fall into its old familiar grooves.

 

[Black Rose]

Children need their bones as Bill Maher says.

 

[The Grey Man]

Parents/groups forcing such surgery on children are tyrants.

Groups saying no one can get these surgeries out of their own free will are tyrants.

People saying only same-sex relationships are healthy, normal, are tyrants.

People saying everyone, everyone needs to kow-tow to them and their gender identity are tyrants.

There is a vast difference between the first two groups and the second: having an opinion does not make one a tyrant; I am not a tyrant for thinking that people who mutilate children should be locked up, any more than you're a tyrant for hating Lockheed Martin. I don't doubt that your 'live and let live' is practical in a certain sense, but it cannot be practical in the sense that, by your own admission, the world has problems that need "practical solutions", for the reason I've already explained. We are not emperors who can solve the problems of the world, but we certainly can judge for ourselves what solutions are feasible so that, in the measure that we influence other people, we influence them for the better. And this is far from being a "modern conceit":

Although only a few may originate a policy, we are all able to judge it.

It is moreover not even possible to know what humanity's problems are, let alone the solutions, if one does not even know what a human being is, and it is precisely our understanding of the human person that is at stake in the 'culture wars' that you so peremptorily dismiss as a distraction from the real fight. You say that South Africa is religious and this does not surprise me because I know that African religious leaders (at the moment, especially Anglican bishops) are on the frontlines in the battle against LGBT ideology, but their principal adversaries are other religious leaders, "wolves in sheep's clothing" who come from countries like Canada, countries that have turned away from God to lose themselves in projections of themselves. And that's what this is all about: it's not a battle of ego against ego, it's the tyrannical ego's campaign of annihilation against the traditions of the world, which refuse to flatter the delusion that 'I' decide who I am, which remind them that they cannot have transcendence on their own terms, as if transcendence were a mere magnification or continuation of the ego, precisely what is to be transcended.

 

[TransientMoment]

@Animekitty
Both men and women contain attributes of both what is "masculine" and "feminine", and while both usually lean towards what is natural to their sex, the overall personality is based on focusing on what you like about one sex or the other. So you like being soft, so you become soft. If you like softness apart from femininity, that's one thing, but if you like softness because of femininity, that's another, potentially unhealthy frame of mind.

 

[Black Rose]

So you like being soft, so you become soft. If you like softness apart from femininity, that's one thing, but if you like softness because of femininity, that's another, potentially unhealthy frame of mind.

could you elaborate?

There are both soft males and soft females.
I have an attraction to both soft and firm females.
They just, rather it depends on the way they show it.

I mean think of a man as a womanizer and project that attitude into a woman and it does not feel right to me.

Arnold Schwarzenegger in Conan the barbarian but as a woman.

vs

Erza Scarlet in fairy tail

Ezra is strong but not bad, she is not the opposite of Conan but a woman like Conan is bad. I would not be attracted to her because she would have no soft side like Ezra has. Conan has no soft side as a man. A woman like Conan is just iky to me.

 

[TransientMoment]

@Animekitty

Each of us has
1) expectations for ourselves
2) expectations for our partner

These two can be kept separate or they can become entangled and cross over, and for some (maybe not all) people drawn to trans, it is the latter. When a person feels they must become everything, they start trying to fulfill that, and then what they focus on starts shaping who they try to become. Normal people don't have the problem (as much) because they simply look for another person who compliments them and thus completes them. As the old psych saying goes, "Opposites attract". However, there are cases where the focus on the opposite sex, having become an obsession, results in a "trans-MTF" calling himself a "lesbian woman".

What you focus intently on morphs your psyche.

By contrast, if we're just talking about some random attribute like softness, it's true that some attributes fit women more than men just by our own instinct (as your example attests, it seems icky), but that doesn't mean men can't have softness in their own "manly" way. The diversity of people complicates the issue. e.g. Not all men look the same doing the same things. Not all men look great in a beard.

 

[Minuend]

In some cases, yes. I do think the idea of transgender exist, but I think some people will erroneously pile on if they feel a big contrast with who they are and what their gender is presented as in their society. Surprisingly, I find the culture around girl/ boy pink/ blue pink toys/ blue toys tend to be more prevailing now than when I grew up. When I was young, if you liked Lego, you played with lego. Today you have pink lego, you have lego that caters to stereotypical girl stuff. So girls not being into that and other pinky and princessy stuff, might start to think they are transgender. There are studies that show autistic people are more likely to be transgender. And autistic people might be more likely to not fall into gender stereotypes

I do think in some cases, the stereotype of what a girl/ boy, woman/ man is, makes people think and feel they are something else.

But I also think the human brain, physiology etc does allow for some that genuinely feel stuck in the wrong body

I actually think if I grew up today, I might think I was transgender, as many of my interest and tendencies are kinda stereotypical male-y. I'm also autistic, so yeah. I never felt I belonged.

 

[Rook]

Parents/groups forcing such surgery on children are tyrants.

Groups saying no one can get these surgeries out of their own free will are tyrants.

People saying only same-sex relationships are healthy, normal, are tyrants.

People saying everyone, everyone needs to kow-tow to them and their gender identity are tyrants.

There is a vast difference between the first two groups and the second: having an opinion does not make one a tyrant; I am not a tyrant for thinking that people who mutilate children should be locked up, any more than you're a tyrant for hating Lockheed Martin. I don't doubt that your 'live and let live' is practical in a certain sense, but it cannot be practical in the sense that, by your own admission, the world has problems that need "practical solutions", for the reason I've already explained. We are not emperors who can solve the problems of the world, but we certainly can judge for ourselves what solutions are feasible so that, in the measure that we influence other people, we influence them for the better. And this is far from being a "modern conceit":

Although only a few may originate a policy, we are all able to judge it.

It is moreover not even possible to know what humanity's problems are, let alone the solutions, if one does not even know what a human being is, and it is precisely our understanding of the human person that is at stake in the 'culture wars' that you so peremptorily dismiss as a distraction from the real fight. You say that South Africa is religious and this does not surprise me because I know that African religious leaders (at the moment, especially Anglican bishops) are on the frontlines in the battle against LGBT ideology, but their principal adversaries are other religious leaders, "wolves in sheep's clothing" who come from countries like Canada, countries that have turned away from God to lose themselves in projections of themselves. And that's what this is all about: it's not a battle of ego against ego, it's the tyrannical ego's campaign of annihilation against the traditions of the world, which refuse to flatter the delusion that 'I' decide who I am, which remind them that they cannot have transcendence on their own terms, as if transcendence were a mere magnification or continuation of the ego, precisely what is to be transcended.

Eh in the end I guess I'm still unchanged, I might care about what our species is overall, emotionally sometimes, but with millions being born and dying overall I see little value in 'changing the world' or caring all that much if something happens outside my sphere. That's just me though.

And yeah South Africa is on the whole religious but far far more atheist/rationalist than many african countries, here non-hetero marriages are legal under the authority of the ruling class. More central African countries, and certainly the muslim north, things are indeed different.

 

[The Grey Man]

And yeah South Africa is on the whole religious but far far more atheist/rationalist than many african countries, here non-hetero marriages are legal under the authority of the ruling class. More central African countries, and certainly the muslim north, things are indeed different.

The perception of South Africa here, fwiw, is that it is somehow different from other African countries, though exactly how it is different, we can't say. North Americans in general have a bizarrely distorted perception of Africa.