Jump to content

Seeking understanding on trans* people?


Alllan53

Recommended Posts

This might sound transphobic, but I assure you that I am not attempting to attack anyone's world or self view, I'm just trying to improve my understanding. If I cause offence, I deeply apologise. To be clear, I am not in any way saying that people should not be treated as the gender or whatever they identify as. If you identify as a woman, then you should be addressed and treated as a woman, regardless of what you were assigned at birth, and symmetrically for men.

 

I have heard the argument that trans-men were "always" men, even before they were "out". But I'm confused: when they were born, they were more or less biologically women. They were treated and socialised as women, and if you asked them for at least a reasonable amount of time they would have identified as a woman, although they likely had uncertainty and issues. So, during that time, in what sense were they a man? (And again, symmetrically for trans-women.)

 

Thanks in advance for your patience!

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, I identify most of the time as a trans guy. What people mean by "they were always guys" is that most trans men (women and others as well) realize that they don't feel comfortable with the gender they were assigned at birth at a very young age, mostly ranging from 5-7 y/o. I knew I didn't feel comfortable with being a girl at around 6 and 'wanted' to be a boy. I didn't realize I was actually a boy until I was 13 (when I discovered what transgender meant) and thought back to when I was younger and it just made sense. I hope that helps

Link to post
Share on other sites
Celyn: The Lutening

I only found out that transmasculine people existed when I was 16. How can you know that you are something if you don't know that it exists? As a kid, I thought all girls hated their gender and wanted to be boys, so I had no hesitation in admitting "unfortunately, I'm a girl."

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Celyn said:

I only found out that transmasculine people existed when I was 16. How can you know that you are something if you don't know that it exists? As a kid, I thought all girls hated their gender and wanted to be boys, so I had no hesitation in admitting "unfortunately, I'm a girl."

If that aint me...but honestly yeah, I relate to that

Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if they were afab (assigned female at birth) and socialized female. They were always male. They just didn’t have the language or self reflection or realize they were always men. Mostly the feelings don’t really change but language and understanding does. 

 

Like me. I would have IDed as a girl for the first 17 years of my life. But it was because I didn’t understand that my female peers felt differently than me in terms of gender. I thought my feelings were the norm. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just Somebody

To be honest,  I'll give my personal experience about being a genderfluid non-binary Transgender person.

 

since I'm genderfluid as my gender identity,  the way I recognize my self and wanna be represneted and the group I wanna be included as changes all the time,  without my control, in my case, without any specific condition or  reason (unlike a few other genderfluid people).

 

And I'm not surprised anymore if I suddenly realize I'm feeling more comfortable identifying as a new gender identity, as how I felt before when I would like to be viewed as a guy, a gender I already identified as before, at a day, and then out of sudden, I realize at that given moment I just realized I felt more comfortable calling my self agender, another gender identity but one that I never identified as before, with no reason at all other than feeling some sense of being more comfortable this way.

my gender identity changes all the time , sometimes  as I said above,  it changes to a new gender I haven't experienced with before.

It used to change so often that I stopped to label and name all the gender identities I floated in BTW and changed to.... I don't need this , I actually fred myself to feel more "free" and just be " me" before being any gender , and not worry to call what I was feeling and experiencing any name or label or rationalize about , I just felt more comfortable by now being "free ", if you ask me my gender identity in the street , I'd rather say that I'm just "free" instead of calling myself genderfluid or the gender that I'm experiencing at the moment or any other label... I wouldn't care if anyone misgender me or use wrong pronouns, my feelings are valid enough and I'm valid for myself and that's enough, for me.

 

 

And by the time I first realized that my gender identity changed was when I first realized what these feelings were and informed myself about the genderfluid/nb life experience, my feelings started to make sense after that and I would  feel "less wrong" to perceive and actually admit for the first time that my gender identity just changed and that it happens often.

 

 

I don't believe that all of Trans-men and trans-women  felt uncomfortable with their assigned at birth identity since they were born (babies don't even know what gender identity is nor what are boys and girls). But that's no reason to respect them less, nor to not accept the fact that society mistreat these persons with cruelty , and that many of them are uncomfortable with their bodies, some were even before realizing and admiting their trans identity,  me included.

I guess the first time I felt uncomfortable with my body was when I realized there were bodies other and differrnt of mine, before that I was OK with it because I didn't knew.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Just Somebody said:

And by the time I first realized that my gender identity changed was when I first realized what these feelings were and informed myself about the genderfluid/nb life experience, my feelings started to make sense after that and I would  feel "less wrong" to perceive and actually admit for the first time that my gender identity just changed and that it happens often.

 

 

I don't believe that all of Trans-men and trans-women  felt uncomfortable with their assigned at birth identity since they were born (babies don't even know what gender identity is nor what are boys and girls). But that's no reason to respect them less, nor to not accept the fact that society mistreat these persons with cruelty , and that many of them are uncomfortable with their bodies, some were even before realizing and admiting their trans identity,  me included.

I guess the first time I felt uncomfortable with my body was when I realized there were bodies other and differrnt of mine, before that I was OK with it because I didn't knew.

Preach child

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Just Somebody said:

I don't believe that all of Trans-men and trans-women  felt uncomfortable with their assigned at birth identity since they were born (babies don't even know what gender identity is nor what are boys and girls). But that's no reason to respect them less, nor to not accept the fact that society mistreat these persons with cruelty , and that many of them are uncomfortable with their bodies, some were even before realizing and admiting their trans identity,  me included.

I'm not disagreeing with this point, but I'm unsure of why you're mentioning that, since nobody in this thread has even hinted at not respecting anyone, let alone trans* or non-binary people?

 

2 hours ago, ReyGraves said:

Even if they were afab (assigned female at birth) and socialized female. They were always male. They just didn’t have the language or self reflection or realize they were always men. Mostly the feelings don’t really change but language and understanding does. 

 

Like me. I would have IDed as a girl for the first 17 years of my life. But it was because I didn’t understand that my female peers felt differently than me in terms of gender. I thought my feelings were the norm. 

 

Let us assume that there was someone who somehow had this magical knowledge of how people will identify in the future (which raises its own set of issues, but I'll get to that later). The idea of "X being always Y gender", combined with misgendering being a bad thing, implies that this Magical Knower would be morally obliged to refer to you as a male, in direct contradiction of your own self-identity.

 

And as Just Sombody said, some peoples gender isn't particularly static. It might more fluid for genderfuid people, but it's not unusual to hear stories of people who identify as one gender, then another, then another, over the course of years. So which pronoun/identity were they "always", and should Magical Knower use?

 

(I'm using the Magical Knower as a device to explore "what is the objectively/morally correct reference/understanding/gender" question, in case that isn't clear.)

 

The idea of "Person X was always Gender Y because they now identify as Gender Y" doesn't actually work logically, if you assume that we should always accept peoples self-identified gender and work with them on that (which I'm of the viewpoint that we should).

 

It just raises the question I asked in the initial post: how do we define gender, if not by self-identification or socialisation?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Taylor Lilith
2 hours ago, Alllan53 said:

They were treated and socialised as women,

As a precursor to what I am about to say, I'm not mad. not even slightly worked up.  This statement will piss around 95% of trans people off.  It's called TERF logic in the business, that's Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist.  It's used to invalidate trans women and trans men all the time by TERFs.  Most of the time it's gonna ruffle feathers even if it was unintentional.  I would avoid the phrase "Socialized [ insert ASAB here ]" for this very reason.

 

The point of socializing a trans person is that society failed else they would we would be cis.  Most trans people will tell you they have been transgender since birth OR since they could process complex concepts--around 2 or 3.  The same as any cis person.

 

This is a quote from The Matrix which looking back on it was very obviously written by trans women.  Bone chillingly so

 

Quote

"I know exactly what you mean. Let me tell you why you're here. You're here because you know something. What you know you can't explain, but you feel it. You've felt it your entire life, that there's something wrong with the world. You don't know what it is, but it's there, like a splinter in your mind, driving you mad. It is this feeling that has brought you to me. Do you know what I'm talking about?"

 

The answer in the Matrix is "The Matrix" but it's obvious to any trans person watching it's "Gender".  Even if you didn't know what gender you were in your waking mind deep down you knew it.  You knew there was something wrong, like a splinter in your mind. 

 

That's the primary difference is that trans people knew it without knowing it.  When socialization works correctly you're cis when it doesn't it's likely you're trans.  You can't socialize someone to a gender they aren't.  Many of us do a lot of work after we come to where we get mental dysphoria from thoughts and habits we forced tp pass for cis.  It's why the term "deadname" for the name someone is born with is so poignant.  That person, their personality, and the facsimile for whatever cisgender they tried to pass for is dead.  They never truly existed and that's why deadnaming and misgendering sux.  It reminds us of what we were, not what we very obviously are.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Taylor Lilith said:

The point of socializing a trans person is that society failed else they would we would be cis.  Most trans people will tell you they have been transgender since birth OR since they could process complex concepts--around 2 or 3.  The same as any cis person.

...

That's the primary difference is that trans people knew it without knowing it.  When socialization works correctly you're cis when it doesn't it's likely you're trans.  You can't socialize someone to a gender they aren't.  Many of us do a lot of work after we come to where we get mental dysphoria from thoughts and habits we forced tp pass for cis.  It's why the term "deadname" for the name someone is born with is so poignant.  That person, their personality, and the facsimile for whatever cisgender they tried to pass for is dead.  They never truly existed and that's why deadnaming and misgendering sux.  It reminds us of what we were, not what we very obviously are.

But that viewpoint is ultimately circular. If they were "always" Gender X, and socialisation into Gender Y failed because you can't socialise someone into a gender they are not, but gender is the social and cultural role you adopt and are adopted into, then you're positing that gender both exists independently of, and is the result of, social forces.

 

Essentially, you'd have to define gender as based on self-identification, but that doesn't work either, because like I said, a lot of trans* people would have ID'd as their ASAB for a long time. And you can't have someone as being "always male" and "always female" (with some grey area for genderfluid and nonbinary people, of course).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Taylor Lilith
7 minutes ago, Alllan53 said:

But that viewpoint is ultimately circular. If they were "always" Gender X, and socialisation into Gender Y failed because you can't socialise someone into a gender they are not, but gender is the social and cultural role you adopt and are adopted into, then you're positing that gender both exists independently of, and is the result of, social forces.

 

Essentially, you'd have to define gender as based on self-identification, but that doesn't work either, because like I said, a lot of trans* people would have ID'd as their ASAB for a long time. And you can't have someone as being "always male" and "always female" (with some grey area for genderfluid and nonbinary people, of course).

What are you talking about?  I would rather you speak plain and not worry about offending me than communicate like some kind of machine.  My word choice, vocabulary and ability to understand logic and reason are way outside the extremes of the norm *INCLUDING* when that person's first language isn't english but I find the way you are trying to communicate to be unintelligible to put it mildly.  You come across as someone talking around your question-- that you haven't even asked yet at least not in a clear enough way that it can actually be answered--because you feel it will be too offensive.

 

Please just ask your actual question.  If you are that terrified to ask it publicly, PM it to me.  I promise I won't insult you or rip you apart.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Taylor Lilith said:

What are you talking about?  I would rather you speak plain and not worry about offending me than communicate like some kind of machine.  My word choice, vocabulary and ability to understand logic and reason are way outside the extremes of the norm *INCLUDING* when that person's first language isn't english but I find the way you are trying to communicate to be unintelligible to put it mildly.  You come across as someone talking around your question-- that you haven't even asked yet at least not in a clear enough way that it can actually be answered--because you feel it will be too offensive.

 

Please just ask your actual question.  If you are that terrified to ask it publicly, PM it to me.  I promise I won't insult you or rip you apart.

I actually was speaking plainly (at least plainly for me), but I'll try to be clearer.

 

The idea that a person was "always Gender X" doesn't work with the idea that socialisation creates gender. If our gender is created through social forces, then the person couldn't "always" be that gender, because their gender would be created by their experiences, rather than being inborn.

 

You kind of allude to this when you say:

22 minutes ago, Taylor Lilith said:

They never truly existed and that's why deadnaming and misgendering sux.  It reminds us of what we were, not what we very obviously are.

So either the person "was" one gender and now is another, or they were "always" their currently-identified gender. You can't have both.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just Somebody
1 hour ago, TheLoveOwl said:

Preach child

 

I think things get easier when we consider what's happening at moment as more important than whats gonna happen next and that we can't assume anything for sure. But anyway,  its akways nice to remember that humans are the construction of biological,  social and psychological aspects interacting with each other, and since they are constructions. .. they're changing all the time , your biological and your psychological structures aren't the same right now as they were a second ago.  like how they say "after you enter a river and then exit,  your body is not the same as how you entered".

Everything is changed all the time,  and that's makes life unpredictable and worth living... people who attach themselves so hard to mundane stuff like their believes are missing the joy of "living and learning."

 

 

33 minutes ago, Alllan53 said:

I'm not disagreeing with this point, but I'm unsure of why you're mentioning that, since nobody in this thread has even hinted at not respecting anyone, let alone trans* or non-binary people?

 

 

Let us assume that there was someone who somehow had this magical knowledge of how people will identify in the future (which raises its own set of issues, but I'll get to that later). The idea of "X being always Y gender", combined with misgendering being a bad thing, implies that this Magical Knower would be morally obliged to refer to you as a male, in direct contradiction of your own self-identity.

 

And as Just Sombody said, some peoples gender isn't particularly static. It might more fluid for genderfuid people, but it's not unusual to hear stories of people who identify as one gender, then another, then another, over the course of years. So which pronoun/identity were they "always", and should Magical Knower use?

 

(I'm using the Magical Knower as a device to explore "what is the objectively/morally correct reference/understanding/gender" question, in case that isn't clear.)

 

The idea of "Person X was always Gender Y because they now identify as Gender Y" doesn't actually work logically, if you assume that we should always accept peoples self-identified gender and work with them on that (which I'm of the viewpoint that we should).

 

It just raises the question I asked in the initial post: how do we define gender, if not by self-identification or socialisation?

Trans people usually come to that rather radical assumption that they were born feeling this way bc that's a defense against conversion theraphy excuses and hatred speech towards them . And even inside the Trans community there's a lot of disagreement about these statements. and it's common for those who don't support this kind of thought to have their identities questioned and invalidated by others.

 

 

Gender identities just like anything in humans are psycho-bio-social constructions as I say above,  gender identities are just words made up by humans and attributed to gender roles and to body types created by nature (that in societies that built gender identities , many didn't).

Yeah, gender identities are based on self identification (you wouldn't know my gender identity , unless if I told you ),  only you can dictate your gender identity, and these such words are the ones you feel more comfortable referring to yourself as at the moment for whatever reasons. You can also view these identities as the box/group you feel better represented and comfortable belonging to at the moment.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just Somebody

I agree that if you're not socialized to a society that built gender identities like ours, it's very likely that you won't develop a connection to a gender identity at all.

 

but... if you're introduced to whatever society,  you may develop uncomfortable feelings regarding your body (whether its sex characteristics, weight, height, disability, ethnic traits, etc) when you make contact with people, specially if this society has a capitalist media propagating universal beauty standards and self hatred for money. Even more if you had an unlovable excluded upbringing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Alllan53 said:

So either the person "was" one gender and now is another, or they were "always" their currently-identified gender. You can't have both.

In my opinion, the first part of that sentence sometimes applies to people with more fluid genders since it changes at random (you should still respect the gender they feel comfortable with at that moment) and the second part sometimes applies to trans people. I'm still not getting what you aren't understanding though

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, TheLoveOwl said:

In my opinion, the first part of that sentence sometimes applies to people with more fluid genders since it changes at random (you should still respect the gender they feel comfortable with at that moment) and the second part sometimes applies to trans people. I'm still not getting what you aren't understanding though

Was a trans-man always a man? If so, how do you address the issues that raises? If not, then why is that viewpoint put forward as fact?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Alllan53 said:

Was a trans-man always a man? If so, how do you address the issues that raises? If not, then why is that viewpoint put forward as fact?

Yes. What issues are you referring to specifically, since there are a lot

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Alllan53 said:

If they were "always" Gender X, and socialisation into Gender Y failed because you can't socialise someone into a gender they are not, but gender is the social and cultural role you adopt and are adopted into, then you're positing that gender both exists independently of, and is the result of, social forces.

 

Essentially, you'd have to define gender as based on self-identification, but that doesn't work either, because like I said, a lot of trans* people would have ID'd as their ASAB for a long time. And you can't have someone as being "always male" and "always female" (with some grey area for genderfluid and nonbinary people, of course).

 

1 hour ago, Alllan53 said:

Let us assume that there was someone who somehow had this magical knowledge of how people will identify in the future (which raises its own set of issues, but I'll get to that later). The idea of "X being always Y gender", combined with misgendering being a bad thing, implies that this Magical Knower would be morally obliged to refer to you as a male, in direct contradiction of your own self-identity.

 

And as Just Sombody said, some peoples gender isn't particularly static. It might more fluid for genderfuid people, but it's not unusual to hear stories of people who identify as one gender, then another, then another, over the course of years. So which pronoun/identity were they "always", and should Magical Knower use?

 

(I'm using the Magical Knower as a device to explore "what is the objectively/morally correct reference/understanding/gender" question, in case that isn't clear.)

 

The idea of "Person X was always Gender Y because they now identify as Gender Y" doesn't actually work logically, if you assume that we should always accept peoples self-identified gender and work with them on that (which I'm of the viewpoint that we should).

 

It just raises the question I asked in the initial post: how do we define gender, if not by self-identification or socialisation?

 

3 hours ago, Alllan53 said:

I have heard the argument that trans-men were "always" men, even before they were "out". But I'm confused: when they were born, they were more or less biologically women. They were treated and socialised as women, and if you asked them for at least a reasonable amount of time they would have identified as a woman, although they likely had uncertainty and issues. So, during that time, in what sense were they a man? (And again, symmetrically for trans-women.)

Essentially, how do you define gender in such a way that is both loyal to the definition of gender as being essentially social and identifying in nature, as well as including someone having an innate gender? If someone was "always" one gender, but previously identified as another, then that would mean that identifying as that gender is not an indication of that being their real gender. More importantly, if ID is not the defining characteristic of what gender someone is, then what is the defining characteristic? And doesn't that open up the possibility that if someone identifies as one gender, they are incorrect?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Taylor Lilith

I put some thought into it and I realized 3 things, 

  1. I haven't been nonbinary in an awful long time
  2. I don't interact with enough nonbinary people these days
  3. I have an answer to you question

There is a concept of an inner self and an outer self.  All over philosophy and all over fiction.  There is the self you show to yourself and you see yourself as and what everyone else sees you as.  Before puberty and the stage play better known as highschool those two selves would have been much closer to eachother in appearance.  As I learned how to pantomime male, I would be taken more and more as male and through a pattern interpreter, I would give "male" type actions back to you as best I could.  I would still go home and cry over body parts I didn't have that should and did have that shouldn't but the way I treated you would have been indistinguishable from any toxic cis male.  Though that self that was me was not the reason I performed those actions you still would have been hurt or liked me or something for the male type behaviours I acted to pass for male.  In a sense every action i gave you was male even if the person giving it to you wasn't.  I am still to blame for all those toxic male actions I performed and I still would have been read as male.  IF you want to define that outer shell I presented to the world as male, then yes I was male but internally wasn't.  I'm still 100% to blame for all those actions because I took them but they most certainly aren't actions I would respect taking now.

 

Does this make sense?

 

When I realized I was transgender all those actions once again matched who I was as a person internally again.  I  The incongruence in who I saw myself as and who I wanted to be disappeared.  I was "myself" again after 15 or so years of not being.   I was, once again, TRANSparent ( hahahaha ha. ha. ha .... you're not laughing ).

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Taylor Lilith said:

I put some thought into it and I realized 3 things, 

  1. I haven't been nonbinary in an awful long time
  2. I don't interact with enough nonbinary people these days
  3. I have an answer to you question

There is a concept of an inner self and an outer self.  All over philosophy and all over fiction.  There is the self you show to yourself and you see yourself as and what everyone else sees you as.  Before puberty and the stage play better known as highschool those two selves would have been much closer to eachother in appearance.  As I learned how to pantomime male, I would be taken more and more as male and through a pattern interpreter, I would give "male" type actions back to you as best I could.  I would still go home and cry over body parts I didn't have that should and did have that shouldn't but the way I treated you would have been indistinguishable from any toxic cis male.  Though that self that was me was not the reason I performed those actions you still would have been hurt or liked me or something for the male type behaviours I acted to pass for male.  In a sense every action i gave you was male even if the person giving it to you wasn't.  I am still to blame for all those toxic male actions I performed and I still would have been read as male.  IF you want to define that outer shell I presented to the world as male, then yes I was male but internally wasn't.  I'm still 100% to blame for all those actions because I took them but they most certainly aren't actions I would respect taking now.

 

Does this make sense?

 

When I realized I was transgender all those actions once again matched who I was as a person internally again.  I  The incongruence in who I saw myself as and who I wanted to be disappeared.  I was "myself" again after 15 or so years of not being.   I was, once again, TRANSparent ( hahahaha ha. ha. ha .... you're not laughing ).

Yes, but if I asked you during that time if you were a man or a woman, you would have said you were a man. You would have thought you were a man, albeit probably not overly happy about it, for a while at least. You identified, both externally and internally, as a man. People viewed and treated you as a man.

 

Were you a man during that time?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Alllan53 said:

 

 

Essentially, how do you define gender in such a way that is both loyal to the definition of gender as being essentially social and identifying in nature, as well as including someone having an innate gender? If someone was "always" one gender, but previously identified as another, then that would mean that identifying as that gender is not an indication of that being their real gender. More importantly, if ID is not the defining characteristic of what gender someone is, then what is the defining characteristic? And doesn't that open up the possibility that if someone identifies as one gender, they are incorrect?

If you're going by the definition of gender from Google, in my opinion (and a lot of other peoples' opinion) that def. is wrong. Gender (my opinion here) is a feeling. Cis people feel that they are either male or female. Binary trans people feel that they are either male or female too. Nonbinary trans people feel that they are some gender on the nb spectrum. Someone could be "wrong" if they identify as one gender but later on in life they feel to be another, but that's more of a realization (ex,, I felt that I was a girl at the age of five but ever since then, I felt to be a boy). There really aren't "defining characteristics" of any gender unless someone is cis. Other wise genitals and chests can be mix and matched.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Taylor Lilith
2 minutes ago, Alllan53 said:

Yes, but if I asked you during that time if you were a man or a woman, you would have said you were a man. You would have thought you were a man, albeit probably not overly happy about it, for a while at least. You identified, both externally and internally, as a man. People viewed and treated you as a man.

 

Were you a man during that time?

In a sense, yes.  I absolutely was.  However, why is the past so important to you?  That education didn't exist for me back then.  All those actions I took to act as male make me hate myself now.  Why does it matter if I was a male back then if the information I have now makes that fact superfluous?  If someone had told me that being trans existed when I was young, the rebelious young teen would have eaten it up and I would never have to deal with the emotional baggage of acting who I was vs what I am.

 

Why does the my gender way back in the day, when I had no resources, when I had no access to science, no access to community matter at 12:36 AM, July 16th 2018?  At all?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Taylor Lilith said:

In a sense, yes.  I absolutely was.  However, why is the past so important to you?  That education didn't exist for me back then.  All those actions I took to act as male make me hate myself now.  Why does it matter if I was a male back then if the information I have now makes that fact superfluous?  If someone had told me that being trans existed when I was young, the rebelious young teen would have eaten it up and I would never have to deal with the emotional baggage of acting who I was vs what I am.

 

Why does the my gender way back in the day, when I had no resources, when I had no access to science, no access to community matter at 12:36 AM, July 16th 2018?  At all?

If it's not important, why did you bring it up?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Taylor Lilith
1 minute ago, Alllan53 said:

If it's not important, why did you bring it up?

Because you asked me to?  I like to answer questions when I am prompted to to the best of my ability?

 

1 hour ago, Alllan53 said:

 

So either the person "was" one gender and now is another, or they were "always" their currently-identified gender. You can't have both.

It was my answer to this question.  You can have both because what you perceive and who I am as a person are in fact different.  I was doing my best to explain it to you since you asked a question.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Taylor Lilith
11 minutes ago, Taylor Lilith said:

internally, as a man

sorry, nope didn't catch this part.  The point is I didn't identify internally as a man.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My point is that, nonbinary people aside, people are either a gender, or they are not. Either is fine, but you can't do both. I'm not asking what people thought you were, except insofar as that is a possible way to define gender. If we go by what a person identifies as, then that would contradict the "always gender X" idea, because how people identify changes, which is inconsistent with the idea of having a true, static gender.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I usually say I'm a trans guy since it's easier to explain and I feel like a guy most of the time. However, I also feel genderless....at the same time sometimes. You can't say that a person can't feel to be a gender but also can't if that's how a lot of people feel.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Taylor Lilith
1 minute ago, Alllan53 said:

My point is that, nonbinary people aside, people are either a gender, or they are not. Either is fine, but you can't do both. I'm not asking what people thought you were, except insofar as that is a possible way to define gender. If we go by what a person identifies as, then that would contradict the "always gender X" idea, because how people identify changes, which is inconsistent with the idea of having a true, static gender.

You have a very interesting thought on what nonbinary means.  A nonbinary gender is a set gender even if you are fluid your gender is pretty set just not entirely always the same.  When they say "not male or female" it's not that the gender doesn't exist because it does.  An agender person has the gender of agender.  It's an actual thing that exists. Agender people will probably tell you they have been agender their whole lives too.  Gender is gender.  It isn't unatural to be nonbinary, just less common after the lovely west demolished all the other cultures that had 5+.

 

So long as the person is agender and only ever agender that's a static gender too ....

 

You also have this thing going on where you think only one thought process is possible.  There are trillions of connections and such going on at the same time.  Surely you can at least slightly multitask some things.  You CAN BE more than one thing at once.  You CAN internalize parts of yourself AND memories to hide them from yourself.  Where exactly are you basing your argument from?  Do you have a single core, one process only human somewhere I can speak to?  

 

Humans are good at compartmentalizing and hiding and feeling multiple things at once.  If you aren't transphobic than surely we are both in agreement that bigender people who are male and female, or female and agender or agender and neutrois at the same time exist?  ( Those are the combinations of bigender you'll see most often btw)

 

So if you can add one or more genders on top of another one .... perhaps you are seeing where I don't think you have any idea what you are talking about at this point and are taking humans for something they are not--simple.  

 

Take the following example, you have an actor say David Tennant playing The Doctor.  David can play all that role well even though he is, strictly speaking, not The Doctor.  There are people feel he is inarguably the best Doctor.  He plays a part.  It's an act.  The Doctor is a role for a person that doesn't exist.  He is a group of ideas all grouped together and put on multiple people.  The Doctor is a nonexistant concept that we can all accept as The Doctor because there is a certain construct upon which we base our ideas of the Doctor when he, in fact, only exists in our minds.  Surely you don't believe that David Tennant actually is The Doctor just because he plays the part so well?  He seems to be socialized as the Doctor so well that people have trouble perceiving him as anything else these days.  Seems like a role he would like to escape from even if people won't let him.  In a sense anyone with a famous role is likely to be told that that's what's best for them and are shamed for ever wanting to leave that role for which they never wanted in the first place even when they desperately want to move on.

 

I want you to go back through my example and change all the places I used David Tenant and replace it with a trans person of your preference.  I want you to go through and change every time I used The Doctor to the gender that trans person was assigned at birth and rethink your argument.  It's pretty much the same thing.

 

An actor can play a role and be distinguished from themselves but a trans person can't?  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...