[Jamie89]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

also if you look up the definition of gender it pretty much says "a bunch of stereotypes"


the state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones):

"traditional concepts of gender"


•the members of one or other sex:

"differences between the genders are encouraged from an early age"


synonyms: gender

The problem with a lot of this stuff is semantics and I think it's largely down to a lot of the wording we use coming about before we really understood much about transsexualism. I think there's truth in what both you and Withano are saying tbh. The current definition of gender only changed to what it is now as a way of describing certain stereotypes, however it's use for a lot of issues relating to trans people is very different, so ideally when we use terms like 'gender identity' for example, a different/new term should be used imo, or the definition of gender should be changed again. The problem is that when it was coined we didn't have the same understanding we have now and it creates so much confusion in all of this!
But like Withano says, when a trans person says they feel they are a different gender to what their biological sex is, they aren't referring to stereotypes at all (confusion comes again because they'll often describe the conforming of gender stereotypes as a way that helps their gender dysphoria - not because 'dressing like a woman' is innate, but because it helps society treat them as a woman and therefore alleviates their dysphoria.) But the dysphoria itself comes from the reality of their biological sex being different to the sex they feel they are, which doesn't actually have anything to do with stereotypes.

I think a similar thing goes for the word 'cis', it annoys a lot of people I've noticed but it doesn't actually mean anything that defines you or changes how you'd be viewed or anything. It's just useful in conversation like this to separate who's being talked about, a trans person or a non trans person, which is a distinction that sometimes needs to be made (and gets made also by people who seem to have a problem with the term but just worded differently). But in actual fact it doesn't mean anything different to saying 'non-trans person', ' someone who isn't trans' etc etc, it's not applying a label it's just used to make the conversations easier to understand. Again, it's just semantics.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Jamie89

The problem with a lot of this stuff is semantics and I think it's largely down to a lot of the wording we use coming about before we really understood much about transsexualism. I think there's truth in what both you and Withano are saying tbh. The current definition of gender only changed to what it is now as a way of describing certain stereotypes, however it's use for a lot of issues relating to trans people is very different, so ideally when we use terms like 'gender identity' for example, a different/new term should be used imo, or the definition of gender should be changed again. The problem is that when it was coined we didn't have the same understanding we have now and it creates so much confusion in all of this!
But like Withano says, when a trans person says they feel they are a different gender to what their biological sex is, they aren't referring to stereotypes at all (confusion comes again because they'll often describe the conforming of gender stereotypes as a way that helps their gender dysphoria - not because 'dressing like a woman' is innate, but because it helps society treat them as a woman and therefore alleviates their dysphoria.) But the dysphoria itself comes from the reality of their biological sex being different to the sex they feel they are, which doesn't actually have anything to do with stereotypes.

I think a similar thing goes for the word 'cis', it annoys a lot of people I've noticed but it doesn't actually mean anything that defines you or changes how you'd be viewed or anything. It's just useful in conversation like this to separate who's being talked about, a trans person or a non trans person, which is a distinction that sometimes needs to be made (and gets made also by people who seem to have a problem with the term but just worded differently). But in actual fact it doesn't mean anything different to saying 'non-trans person', ' someone who isn't trans' etc etc, it's not applying a label it's just used to make the conversations easier to understand. Again, it's just semantics.

I take your points Jamie but I guess I just don't understand how a person born in one sex can feel like an other when I whole heartedly believe that feeling like a woman comes directly from sex and how your life experiences go because of being that sex. I feel like I'm just repeating what I've already said now though but I guess that's just what I think about it. It's always a pleasure reading your views though, you put your points across very well

[Jamie89]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

I take your points Jamie but I guess I just don't understand how a person born in one sex can feel like an other when I whole heartedly believe that feeling like a woman comes directly from sex and how your life experiences go because of being that sex. I feel like I'm just repeating what I've already said now though but I guess that's just what I think about it. It's always a pleasure reading your views though, you put your points across very well

Thanks Niamh In all honesty I don't get it either, and I don't think anyone who doesn't experience gender dysphoria/gender identity can fully get it. I firmly believe that it exists and is a real thing because I think it has to be, trans people have always existed and in consistent numbers, and considering the lengths they go to I don't see how it can't exist. But I sort of think of it as being something where if you don't experience conflict with your own gender identity, then maybe your gender identity just isn't something that would be apparent to you. There has to be an explanation as to why transsexualism exists and that's the best I can think of anyway. There's so much we can't understand about how the brain works (and not just the brain but how different hormone levels during pregnancy can effect these things - I don't know a lot about that but I've heard there's some research about the effects of that), but we do know that people transition, so the question is, why? I don't think it can be down to gender roles because transsexualism exists in different cultures and different time periods where gender roles and societies are very different, which is why to me there must be an explanation for it rooted somewhere in biology.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Jamie89

Thanks Niamh In all honesty I don't get it either, and I don't think anyone who doesn't experience gender dysphoria/gender identity can fully get it. I firmly believe that it exists and is a real thing because I think it has to be, trans people have always existed and in consistent numbers, and considering the lengths they go to I don't see how it can't exist. But I sort of think of it as being something where if you don't experience conflict with your own gender identity, then maybe your gender identity just isn't something that would be apparent to you. There has to be an explanation as to why transsexualism exists and that's the best I can think of anyway. There's so much we can't understand about how the brain works (and not just the brain but how different hormone levels during pregnancy can effect these things - I don't know a lot about that but I've heard there's some research about the effects of that), but we do know that people transition, so the question is, why? I don't think it can be down to gender roles because transsexualism exists in different cultures and different time periods where gender roles and societies are very different, which is why to me there must be an explanation for it rooted somewhere in biology.

And I have an awful lot of sympathy for anyone in that situation Jamie, I really do, it must be awful to feel that way and I'm not for second saying that I think they're making it all up, I just think it's unhelpful to try and label it in a way that's trying to build up stereotypes again

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Jamie89

Thanks Niamh In all honesty I don't get it either, and I don't think anyone who doesn't experience gender dysphoria/gender identity can fully get it. I firmly believe that it exists and is a real thing because I think it has to be, trans people have always existed and in consistent numbers, and considering the lengths they go to I don't see how it can't exist. But I sort of think of it as being something where if you don't experience conflict with your own gender identity, then maybe your gender identity just isn't something that would be apparent to you. There has to be an explanation as to why transsexualism exists and that's the best I can think of anyway. There's so much we can't understand about how the brain works (and not just the brain but how different hormone levels during pregnancy can effect these things - I don't know a lot about that but I've heard there's some research about the effects of that), but we do know that people transition, so the question is, why? I don't think it can be down to gender roles because transsexualism exists in different cultures and different time periods where gender roles and societies are very different, which is why to me there must be an explanation for it rooted somewhere in biology.

...yeah and there always has to be a ‘first’ as well, Jamie...or a first recognised, which many have been made more aware of recently because of ‘The Danish Girl’...and Lili being the first surgical ‘transitioning’....but she felt before that, I guess fitted some ‘female strereotypes’....I think the progress is that tran people no longer have to look at surgery as being the only option to have recognition of their gender...which is why i’m pro self-identifying also...but then with self identification, it’s always the thing of being open to ‘abuse’ as well...so I do completely understand concerns there also...which is why it’s so important that these things can be discussed without ‘labelling’....

[Jamie89]

Originally Posted by Ammi

...yeah and there always has to be a ‘first’ as well, Jamie...or a first recognised, which many have been made more aware of recently because of ‘The Danish Girl’...and Lili being the first surgical ‘transitioning’....but she felt before that, I guess fitted some ‘female strereotypes’....I think the progress is that tran people no longer have to look at surgery as being the only option to have recognition of their gender...which is why i’m pro self-identifying also...but then with self identification, it’s always the thing of being open to ‘abuse’ as well...so I do completely understand concerns there also...which is why it’s so important that these things can be discussed without ‘labelling’....

I'm really on the fence with self-ID, I haven't quite made my mind up on that yet. I worry that as well as it potentially causing problems for women it could also cause problems for transsexuals as it might blur the lines between transsexual women and predatory men (in the eyes of some people). But then I agree that it would be better if such traumatic surgery wasn't seen as being as much of a necessity for trans people, and surgery isn't something that actually makes someone trans. So I don't know really its a complicated one.

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Jamie89

I'm really on the fence with self-ID, I haven't quite made my mind up on that yet. I worry that as well as it potentially causing problems for women it could also cause problems for transsexuals as it might blur the lines between transsexual women and predatory men (in the eyes of some people). But then I agree that it would be better if such traumatic surgery wasn't seen as being as much of a necessity for trans people, and surgery isn't something that actually makes someone trans. So I don't know really its a complicated one.

..yeah it is complex, Jamie...it’s funny..(..non related but kind of..)...over years, ive has many chats with friends on ‘would you ever consider cosmetic surgery in the future’....and I’ve often said...goddamn YES, absolutely....but having gone through many surgeries in my life, I would never consider any surgery that wasn’t essential...if there was an alternative ‘method’, I mean...and self identification would be something that would give this../..this ‘non surgical’ procedure that would surely be progress...with the dangers and risks of any surgery...the stress on the body and recovery time etc...it shouldn’t be something that would be the only way to bring ‘recognition’...and obviously the cost as well, it feeling more available as a choice to people with higher incomes who could ‘afford’....I think for some it has been available on NHS...but then, that topic is quite controversial as well...so yeah, very complex...but there are reasons why I’m in agreement with self-identification...but I’ve also taken on board very much, so many things that Vicky has said of ‘being open to abuse’...

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Jamie89

Thanks Niamh In all honesty I don't get it either, and I don't think anyone who doesn't experience gender dysphoria/gender identity can fully get it. I firmly believe that it exists and is a real thing because I think it has to be, trans people have always existed and in consistent numbers, and considering the lengths they go to I don't see how it can't exist. But I sort of think of it as being something where if you don't experience conflict with your own gender identity, then maybe your gender identity just isn't something that would be apparent to you. There has to be an explanation as to why transsexualism exists and that's the best I can think of anyway. There's so much we can't understand about how the brain works (and not just the brain but how different hormone levels during pregnancy can effect these things - I don't know a lot about that but I've heard there's some research about the effects of that), but we do know that people transition, so the question is, why? I don't think it can be down to gender roles because transsexualism exists in different cultures and different time periods where gender roles and societies are very different, which is why to me there must be an explanation for it rooted somewhere in biology.

I am not convinced about the female brain stuff tbh Jamie but I do agree with you that it is clear that the desire/need to be a sex you weren't born into is a mental health issue. Where we differ strongly is that, while I'm not unsympathetic to the problem, I am also not convinced cosmetically removing or restructuring people's sexual organs is an appropriate 'cure/treatment'. It doesn't suddenly make you sexually attractive to straight men, change a male body shape etc (same really for a trans man and I hear the penis doesn't look good either). I've read that suicide rates after surgery are high and this leads me to conclude it isn't the magical shangrila people convince themselves it will be. Many of the problems of not being the sex you desire to be are still there and I think more counselling might be more helpful than surgery.

However the biggest aversion I have to the whole subject is how people who are mostly in fact men are suddenly telling us we must fully accept trans people as the same as us women. Have even invented a conversational word for us as cis women, trying to blur the lines. You don't need to invent a word in conversation to make it easier, you can say woman and trans woman, there you are sorted.

This isn't a feeling against a trans person it is a fight for our identity.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by jaxie

I am not convinced about the female brain stuff tbh Jamie but I do agree with you that it is clear that the desire/need to be a sex you weren't born into is a mental health issue. Where we differ strongly is that, while I'm not unsympathetic to the problem, I am also not convinced cosmetically removing or restructuring people's sexual organs is an appropriate 'cure/treatment'. It doesn't suddenly make you sexually attractive to straight men, change a male body shape etc (same really for a trans man and I hear the penis doesn't look good either). I've read that suicide rates after surgery are high and this leads me to conclude it isn't the magical shangrila people convince themselves it will be. Many of the problems of not being the sex you desire to be are still there and I honk more counselling might be more helpful than surgery.

However the biggest aversion I have to the whole subject is how people who are mostly in fact men are suddenly telling us we must fully accept trans people as the same as us women. Have even invented a conversational word for us as cis women, trying to blur the lines. You don't need to invent a word in conversation to make it easier, you can say woman and trans woman, there you are sorted.

This isn't a feeling against a trans person it is a fight for our identity.

"Cis" is not blurring the lines at all. It's giving you exactly what you want... The distinction.

Distinction between a born woman and a transwoman.

Like we are all humans. But there's a distinction between man/ woman. Within those groups there's a distinction between cis man/transman and cis woman/transwoman.

Your aversion to labels, whilst wanting trans people to keep labels in order to not ever dare be seen in the same light as yourself is quite a dichotomy.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by jaxie

I am not convinced about the female brain stuff tbh Jamie but I do agree with you that it is clear that the desire/need to be a sex you weren't born into is a mental health issue. Where we differ strongly is that, while I'm not unsympathetic to the problem, I am also not convinced cosmetically removing or restructuring people's sexual organs is an appropriate 'cure/treatment'. It doesn't suddenly make you sexually attractive to straight men, change a male body shape etc (same really for a trans man and I hear the penis doesn't look good either). I've read that suicide rates after surgery are high and this leads me to conclude it isn't the magical shangrila people convince themselves it will be. Many of the problems of not being the sex you desire to be are still there and I honk more counselling might be more helpful than surgery.

However the biggest aversion I have to the whole subject is how people who are mostly in fact men are suddenly telling us we must fully accept trans people as the same as us women. Have even invented a conversational word for us as cis women, trying to blur the lines. You don't need to invent a word in conversation to make it easier, you can say woman and trans woman, there you are sorted.

This isn't a feeling against a trans person it is a fight for our identity.

Great post Jaxie

[Jamie89]

Originally Posted by jaxie

I am not convinced about the female brain stuff tbh Jamie but I do agree with you that it is clear that the desire/need to be a sex you weren't born into is a mental health issue. Where we differ strongly is that, while I'm not unsympathetic to the problem, I am also not convinced cosmetically removing or restructuring people's sexual organs is an appropriate 'cure/treatment'. It doesn't suddenly make you sexually attractive to straight men, change a male body shape etc (same really for a trans man and I hear the penis doesn't look good either). I've read that suicide rates after surgery are high and this leads me to conclude it isn't the magical shangrila people convince themselves it will be. Many of the problems of not being the sex you desire to be are still there and I honk more counselling might be more helpful than surgery.

However the biggest aversion I have to the whole subject is how people who are mostly in fact men are suddenly telling us we must fully accept trans people as the same as us women. Have even invented a conversational word for us as cis women, trying to blur the lines. You don't need to invent a word in conversation to make it easier, you can say woman and trans woman, there you are sorted.

This isn't a feeling against a trans person it is a fight for our identity.

The surgery isn't a cure, but the way in which it acts as a treatment is that it helps alleviate the trans persons dysphoria. It leads to them generally being more accepted as the opposite sex and helps them view themselves as that sex. But yes it shouldn't be viewed by anyone as a cure (and I think trans people are aware of this from the many consultations they have prior to surgery). I think it's more seen as a cure by non-trans people, as a lot of people will only accept someone as trans if they've had surgery.


On the 'cis' thing, I really do struggle to understand why it's seen as offensive tbh Jaxie. You say that trans women aren't the same as women, but that's actually what the word 'cis' represents. If that word (or any similar wording that means the same thing) wasn't used, there would be no differentiation between you and a transsexual woman. Yes we could say 'woman' and 'trans woman', but then a lot of people do view trans women as women so at times of the word 'woman' being used it might be confusing as to who is being referred to. So it only exists as a word to enable the conversations to take place in a coherent way which surely is needed in such complex topics as this. It's not placing any kind of label onto you, and is no different to what people mean when they say things like 'real women'.
I've tried to limit using 'cis' during conversations like this, actually since the last time the two of us discussed the word coincidentally because I'm aware from that how some people take it and I haven't wanted the conversation to be distracted with a discussion about semantics, so I've used phrasing like 'biological woman', 'non-trans woman' etc etc, and I've never been pulled up on that being offensive, it's just meant that people have known who I'm referring to, making the differentiation, and that's exactly the same as what the word 'cis' does. It really isn't meant as a label in any way.


edited to add: if we were to just use woman and transwoman, it denies anyone the opinion that transwomen are also women. Whether or not you agree that they are, surely people are entitled to that opinion? So as long as that opinion does exist there has to be a way of easily differentiating between the two, and that's all the word 'cis' is meant for. A conversational aid, nothing more.

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by Jamie89

The surgery isn't a cure, but the way in which it acts as a treatment is that it helps alleviate the trans persons dysphoria. It leads to them generally being more accepted as the opposite sex and helps them view themselves as that sex. But yes it shouldn't be viewed by anyone as a cure (and I think trans people are aware of this from the many consultations they have prior to surgery). I think it's more seen as a cure by non-trans people, as a lot of people will only accept someone as trans if they've had surgery.


On the 'cis' thing, I really do struggle to understand why it's seen as offensive tbh Jaxie. You say that trans women aren't the same as women, but that's actually what the word 'cis' represents. If that word (or any similar wording that means the same thing) wasn't used, there would be no differentiation between you and a transsexual woman. Yes we could say 'woman' and 'trans woman', but then a lot of people do view trans women as women so at times of the word 'woman' being used it might be confusing as to who is being referred to. So it only exists as a word to enable the conversations to take place in a coherent way which surely is needed in such complex topics as this. It's not placing any kind of label onto you, and is no different to what people mean when they say things like 'real women'.
I've tried to limit using 'cis' during conversations like this, actually since the last time the two of us discussed the word coincidentally because I'm aware from that how some people take it and I haven't wanted the conversation to be distracted with a discussion about semantics, so I've used phrasing like 'biological woman', 'non-trans woman' etc etc, and I've never been pulled up on that being offensive, it's just meant that people have known who I'm referring to, making the differentiation, and that's exactly the same as what the word 'cis' does. It really isn't meant as a label in any way.


edited to add: if we were to just use woman and transwoman, it denies anyone the opinion that transwomen are also women. Whether or not you agree that they are, surely people are entitled to that opinion? So as long as that opinion does exist there has to be a way of easily differentiating between the two, and that's all the word 'cis' is meant for. A conversational aid, nothing more.

Women and trans women are not the same, can never be the same thing. In your head you are adding on words to define the difference. All you need to define the difference is the word trans.

In fact in your dogged support of trans women by insisting they are the same and applying extra words to define a woman you are being incredibly sexist towards women.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by jaxie

Women and trans women are not the same, can never be the same thing. In your head you are adding on words to define the difference. All you need to define the difference is the word trans.

In fact in your dogged support of trans women by insisting they are the same and applying extra words to define a woman you are being incredibly sexist towards women.

Sex refers to a persons genitalia, sexism refers to a prejudice of a person with a certain set of genitalia. A transexual woman has the same genitalia as you, you share the same sex. You refusing to refer to them as the same sex is closer to sexism by the definition of the word. Transphobic would be a better adjective, but still if youre gonna label anybody as sexist, its not gonna be the ones labeling people in-line with their sex is it. You'll need a new label to describe that kind of 'prejudice', mrs dont label me.

[Jamie89]

Originally Posted by jaxie

Women and trans women are not the same, can never be the same thing. In your head you are adding on words to define the difference. All you need to define the difference is the word trans.

In fact in your dogged support of trans women by insisting they are the same and applying extra words to define a woman you are being incredibly sexist towards women.

Yes the word trans does define the difference, but only when referring to the trans person. When talking about a non trans person the word trans isn't applicable, so we could say 'non-trans person' instead (like I just did). Let's say we aren't talking about specific gender, how else other than saying 'non-trans person' would we go about that? And all the word cis means is 'non-trans'. And in that first sentence, is my use of 'non trans person' offensive?

I'm sorry you see that as a sexist way of thinking, but it isn't, I'm purely talking about making a conversation easy to understand, and that the word isn't used to add a label, but to describe who is being referred to, and I don't think I can demonstrate that any more clearly than that ^, so we may just have to agree to disagree, but I'm absolutely not being sexist towards women in any way.