- cross-posted to:
- fediverse@lemmy.world
- fediverse@lemmy.zip
- wedistribute@sh.itjust.works
- cross-posted to:
- fediverse@lemmy.world
- fediverse@lemmy.zip
- wedistribute@sh.itjust.works
In light of recent controversy and its handling, the twice-a-year FediForum unconference for April 1st and 2nd has been canceled by its organizer.
What I said is that for a trans, “gender relates to what stereotype (social construct) a person identifies with”. I did not say their gender matches a particular stereotype, but that it relates to it.
Someone who does not identify with a typical stereotype and believes that this makes them be of a different gender, is defining their gender based on whether they fit (or don’t fit, in this case) a specific social stereotype.
However, someone who does not believe gender relates to stereotypes at all would not see that person as having a different gender because that person’s gender (for those people) would be unrelated to whether they match (or identify themselves with) a stereotype or not.
Yeah, no, that’s not how being trans works.
I don’t believe that gender relates to stereotypes.
I’m a trans woman. I don’t “get” femininity, and to me, when I perform it, it feels like a performance. It has zero to do with my understanding of my own gender.
I’m still very much trans.
Stereotypes are complicated… when I say “gender stereotypes” I don’t mean that there are only 2 stereotypes.
Is perfectly possible (in fact, it might be common) to have in mind different stereotypes for the word “feminine” and for the word “woman”… otherwise terms like “feminine man” or “masculine woman” would make no sense.
The stereotype of what’s a woman (ie, what makes people consider a person a woman independently of their lower bits) is not necessarily the same as the stereotype of a feminine person.
What makes me a woman is that I’m a woman. It really is that simple and has nothing to do with stereotypes. Stereotypes influence the way we express ourselves and our identities, they influence our behaviours, and the language we use. But they don’t determine who we are.
I would be trans on a desert island. I would be trans if I was raised on an island of men and had never seen a woman. The language I use to talk about my identity would obviously be different, and even the way I understand it would be different, but underneath it all, I’d still be trans, even if it manifested differently.
And that’s what I’m getting at. Sure, I’ll argue that the fact I use the word “woman” is based on the social context in which I was raised, because gender is at least partly socially defined. But the identity that I’m describing with that label, that exists at a level below social norms, and below stereotypes, even whilst being influenced by them.
Ok, then I see we are talking about different concepts. I was talking about the label itself. To me “woman” or “man” are just labels, they don’t define what I am and don’t affect in any way the image I have of myself.
By your definition I’m neither a “woman” nor a “man” because I don’t personally feel like I should box myself in an identity to fit any particular definition of a label.
However, I’ll be perfectly ok with boxing myself in one particular label so other can better understand my behavior and the language they use.
So I’m not a woman or a man, but the result of my behavior can be commonly classified as one… and that’s the only thing that makes me, commonly, refer to myself in public as one of those roles. But I’m not adapting my behavior to those roles… it’s the other way around: the roles are created to classify my behavior. People would commonly say I’m “cis” because the category that fits me best happens to be the same one that I was assigned at birth, but the category does not have influence over what I am… it’s the category the one that fits me, not me who fits the category.
To me, the words “woman” and “man” only make sense when linked to specific properties that the label is trying to find ways to describe as a group. They only make sense as stereotypes, they don’t make sense in a deep internal level because what I am is more complex than a set of specific behaviors and looks… the expression of my internal complexity might be classifiable after-the-fact (for example, you could say I’m a person who drives themselves by logic, sometimes a bit too much), but they are just external aspects and not something that goes much deeper than a set of behaviors I appear to present to the outside world.
I don’t know if you’re familiar with the term, but what you’re describing is similar to the experience that many agender folk describe.
Suffice to say, I experience gender very differently to you. I’ve “felt” my gender since before I hit puberty. Before I had the words to understand it, before I knew what femininity or masculinity even were, before I experienced my sexuality…
I don’t know, I would not say that I knew automatically when I was born what’s the difference between “man” and “woman”. Of course I have had clear feelings and preferences about a variety of topics, some instinctive and well defined, ever since I was born. But I don’t think that’s determined by a label. They clearly can fall into a particular label, but only “after the fact”.
To me, “man” and “woman” can’t be labels that go beyond the social/behavioral because I don’t know what it feels like to be a man anymore than what I know it feels like to be a woman… I only know myself, I can’t possibly compare what I feel to what others feel, because those feelings are a “qualia” that cannot be simply be transmitted with words.
And without communication to compare and reference, I could not judge whether what I feel is “man” or “woman” at the level that you choose to do it. To me it’s logically impossible to set a gender at such a deep level.
An analogy would be how I can never be sure that other people experience the same thing I experience when we both see and point to the color “green”. “Green” is a construct based on our common understanding of the experience a particular wavelength that is emitted by an object we are pointing to. But the label “green” cannot go beyond that external consensus, because what I experience when the impulses caused by that wavelength reach my brain could perfectly be different than what you experience when that same wavelength causes yours.
We might even agree on what are the wavelengths that we call green, based on our own internal experience, because the experience I feel when seeing green might be similar every time I see green (and the same will happen for you)… but that does not mean that we are both having the same experience, it could be that what you experience as blue I experience as green and that what you experience as green I experience as blue, and yet every time we would agree on calling the same wavelengths the same way, because we would have learned to call them that way.
So it would be meaningless to say beyond any social agreement that I deeply think that this color should be “green” only based on my experience alone, because it would not be any different from saying that this color should be “blue”… the only thing that makes us both agree on calling a particular color experience as green and not blue is the social understanding of that experience matching a common external pattern we both agree on, and that we each match it with our respective (and possibly different) subjective experiences (qualia) when we see that color.
@Ferk
Why does “man” and “woman” have to be defined by social/behavioral traits? Not all women are the same, and not all men are the same. This statement applies whether they are CIS or trans.
I agree. But this also applies to all social/behavioral labels.
Not all pizza-lovers are the same, not all left-handed people are the same… etc.
The question is: what is it that makes a “man” be considered different than a “woman”?
What do those 2 men, who are different, have in common that makes you still call them “men”?
Nor did I. For me, it came around the same time I started to understand gender and sex. The more I understood it, the more I knew it was wrong.
For me, it was initially tied in the physical. I knew my body should have been different. I wished it was different. I dreamed, prayed, hoped and fantasized that it would be different. It was an awareness that I was “like them” with girls and “not like them” with boys. I knew it was wrong when I was grouped with boys.
That’s what it felt like. Not an understanding of others peoples experiences, but an understanding of how my own sense of self was at odds with both my body, and the assumptions that my body created in people.
For someone who doesn’t feel gender, then of course you aren’t going to understand the experience of folk who do, anymore than I can understand what it’s like to not feel it. All I can is that analogies about colour aren’t particularly apt here, because it doesn’t work like that. My gender doesn’t exist because of shared consensus (although it is shaped by that consensus). My gender doesn’t exist because I was able to understand other peoples experiences. My gender is just something I’ve always felt, and that I’ve tried to make sense of over the years. I describe it now in clear, defined terms, but when I was younger, it didn’t work like that. I knew my body was wrong, but the social stuff, the gender stuff? Finding the words for that would take decades. But even as I said, I was finding the words to describe an experience that was always there.
The experience you describe requires interaction with other people who you (and society) categorizes as “girls” and “boys”.
Without this interaction with this external categorization: would you have been able to find anything was “different”?
I feel that in order to have something feel “different” you need to have something to compare it to. Something you can perceive from others and that thus it must be reflected externally and not just something purely internal at the level of qualia (otherwise you wouldn’t be able to compare it). So this is what I meant by archetype/label/stereotype/pick-your-word. That thing you felt was different which you perceived when comparing with other people outside of yourself.
I think your take is reductive. Gender isn’t about stereotypes. I’m sure that for many trans people, part of their trans discovery was not feeling like a stereotypical member of their sex, but there’s more to it than that. You can say that gender relates to a lot of things. Gender is ultimately an internal experience that means different things to different people, and isn’t necessarily related to identifying or not identifying with any given stereotype.
Bioessentialism in turn reduces people to genitals, and sort of refuses to address intersex people because something something “outliers don’t count”. At best it says sure, you can dress up however you want, but it’s super important that everyone know What You Really Are so they can put you in a box and appropriately segregate society.
It’s reductive if you see “stereotypes” as something simple. Imho, stereotypes are very complex (or perhaps another word would be “archetypes”, if the word “stereotypes” has too many secondary connotations for native speakers, maybe).
To me the “stereotype” (or “archetype”, or “social construct” like I pointed in my first comment) of a “woman” includes every characteristic or aspect that could make someone identify a person as a “woman”. Not all aspects might manifest in all women, the more aspects match, the more confidence the person would have to identify the other as a woman. Same for “man”, in fact, it could be a person matches both stereotypes/archetypes at an equal amount. Also there can be other gender stereotypes outside those two, because as long as you are using a word to describe a category of people you’d often have a complex set of properties that people would use to define whether it fits that category or not.
I agree that putting people in a box is just contributing to segregation, but I did not choose that, I’m just trying to understand how people are using the words other people invented. It’s almost inevitable, even the word “trans” is in some way a category, and there are even super and sub categories… like say “LGBTQ+” or “non-binary”.