The difference between "feeling yourself like an another gender" and "being free from stereotypes about your gender"

[unknown_user]

By the way: even the term "biological sex" is being discussed by scholars by now. After all, if a penis doesn't make a man, and a vagina doesn't make a woman (also, don't forget intersex people): then what, exactly is the use in still assigning a gender to these organs at all? You know? It's basically just guesswork when a kid is born. xD

Yes, it's discussed. There are some people, who have XX chromosomes, but male genitalia, and vice versa. There are some people, who have XX in some cells AND XY in another. There are people, who have woman's genitalia, but a hormone profile, very close to men's and vice versa.
I read about this problem in application to sport competitions.
Particularly, some people of this kind have a women's genitalia ( so they go as a women formally ), but also have a physical advantage over usual women because of their body peculiarities, which make their phycial abilities more close to men. Then they go to women sports competitions and use their bodies advantages to win over usual women. And there are a discussions, is this fair or not.
(I myself have no idea, do this problem have any solution principally)

But most of the people still have typical woman's body or typical man's body.

[unknown_user]

The thing is: kids sense when they are different from the heteronormative society. They sense it very early, most of them anyway. The first time I kinda noticed that something was off within me? I didn't have the words to express that I had a crush on a girl friend of mine. I didn't have the words because it was simply a non-existent reality in my immediate surroundings. Neither the media nor my family or friends offered me any representation that could have explained to me what I was feeling when I had my friend's fragrance around me.

LOL. To be honest, before I've heard about that "bisexual" thing, I was completely sure that not only me, but everybody feel an attraction to both sexes. But good people sleep only with the opposite sex (after wedding, of course!) by a moral considerations, because otherways its a BAD thing! (I grew up in very homophobic society part)
When I started to be more open to discussions on this topics, and started to read such a discussions and participate in them myself... I was very surprised, that this all is not the case.
However, not understanding bisexuality concept until I grew up haven't brought any significant problems for me. It just didn't affect my life much, cause my first (and longest) crush was a guy. Probably, if it would be a girl, it could play much more important role.

[therealbereth]

It's relieving to hear that not everyone encounters huge personal issues when we don't allow conversations about different sexualities, so I am truly happy for you! It's a shame that so many people do experience major impacts on their lives, though, so we can only talk, talk, talk (well, and listen when it's not our place xD)—and hope that the prejudices around sexualities other than straight vanish. Soon.

I'm sorry to hear that your upbringing was so homophobic, though. It's good to see that you could leave that behind.

Then they go to women sports competitions and use their bodies advantages to win over usual women. And there are a discussions, is this fair or not.

Is this about Caster Semenya?

As far as I know, she's intersex. But since she's an intersex woman, it's pretty discriminatory to try and ban her (or other women like her) from women's competitions, I think. Does a different composition of hormones make for an advantage? Many people argue that that's not necessarily the case. And then we have that one swimmer (men's competition, don't remember his name rn) whose muscles don't produce as much acid as those of his competitors—and he is revered for having "a swimmer's body". Is that not an unfair advantage based on the nature of his body? But people don't even talk about banning him for that, yet they do when it comes to intersex or trans women.

Revering one, but demonizing the other, even though the difference is just... hormones? Idk, I'm not a scientist, but it seems hypocritical to me.

But I think we're trailing off. Whoops. xD

[indagold]

I dunno I don't have dysphoria, don't ask me.

[DiegoPalacios]

@DokiDokiTsuna @therealbereth ( @Jenny-Toons because i quoted you)

I think i need to clarify my stance on the situation.

Gotta quote some of the arguments of a topic where something similar was talked about.

this is the topic in case people are curious:

Creative works should meet a lot of restrictions to fit into age limits (like, PG-.., 18+, etc). I don't want to discuss legal part of it, cause we can't do about the laws anything anyway, and are forced to obey them. Instead, I'm curious about inner meaning and significance of these restrictions, especially related to sex. The problem is... I really can't get, what kind of moral trauma sex-related topics can cause to kids, if they are shown in adequate way? :thinking: Talking from my own expe…

And that's not even my opinion, it's something that's examined by scientists. Psychologists everywhere are contributing high suicide rates and a spark in anxiety and depression to kids being DENIED these conversations.

Could you share your source please?, it would be interesting to give a look.

Love between kids isn't inherently sexual. When I had my first crush (on a boy back then), I was five. Five! It's not education about other forms of love that sexualizes kids.

never said that speaking about crushes and love is inherently sexual.

By the way: even the term "biological sex" is being discussed by scholars by now.

There is a huge difference between gender and sex. People used to mix them up because sex was a taboo word, so gender was used to describe sex.

Sex is physical, gender is psychological. And gender dysphoria happens when the self identity doesnt match the body.

Big decisions like sex change surgeries and hormonal treatments are not something that people should be reckless about, specially kids. As you said, many kids are still trying to figure it out who they are, and rush decisions will only make this harder.

Denying the body differences between different sexes is impractical in a medical sense and could risk a higher mortality rate, specially in trans people.

[therealbereth]

Sex is physical, gender is psychological. And gender dysphoria happens when the self identity doesnt match the body.

And that's exactly what's being discussed in academia right now. Sex is a concept, as well! Classic example, but just think about seahorses. The "men" are giving birth to the living children. Are they any less "male", in terms of the concept we know? No. But doesn't our concept state that only "biological" (/cringe) women can give birth? Then isn't out concept simply—wrong?

It's super complex, and I admit that it's not easy to understand that even the "biological sex" is a concept that we made up based on superficial criteria such as penises and vaginas. But based on different manifestations of chromosomes in human bodies—and the fact that the brain can have different chromosomes than the genital area—we can rightfully claim that gender is, in fact, just as biological as the concept of "sex" we have imposed on ourselves.

That doesn't mean that any differences are denied. It just means that the concepts are evaluated in terms of their restrictions to cis and trans people alike.

But, as much as I'd like to, the sources are anything but accessible outside of academia. You just will have to research that if you wanna dive deeper into that topic, and hopefully come across trans scholars and biologists who know what they are talking about—and know how to interpret it.

The barriers to all this knowledge are huge, which is a problem if we ever plan to help everyone accept different concepts (and the discussions around them). >_>

Oh, one more thing, about sexuality:

never said that speaking about crushes and love is inherently sexual.

You didn't, but society does so on a regular basis, which results in (straight) parents panicking over their kids getting sex education, even though it has been shown to be advantageous even at kindergarten age.

Education like that should not fall into the parents' hands. There are too many ideological or religious barriers involved, especially in countries like the USA or, say, Russia.

Uh... I think I covered everything? I hope? I'm half preoccupied over here. xD

[DiegoPalacios]

And that's exactly what's being discussed in academia right now. Sex is a concept, as well! Classic example, but just think about seahorses. The "men" are giving birth to the living children.

Seahorses are a really curious case. Did you know the female instead of laying the eggs, transfer them in the male`s pouch and then he fertilizes them?

The male in this case is considered the male because he is in charge of fertilizing, and the female lays the eggs. The difference is that instead of having the eggs outside the body and one of them taking care of it, the male fulfills this role by keeping them warm in his pouch and fertilizes them.

But, as much as I'd like to, the sources are anything but accessible outside of academia. You just will have to research that if you wanna dive deeper into that topic, and hopefully come across trans scholars and biologists who know what they are talking about—and know how to interpret it.

I think the best way to have an unbiased view for this knowledge is to see the perspective cis and trans scholars. And of course people who support gender ideology and people who are against it.
Finding completely unbiased people is a hard thing to do, so seing both sides of the debate can get closer to the unbiased info.

Another thing to check a solid research is to see the sample sizes of research and experiments and check the evidence.

The barriers to all this knowledge are huge, which is a problem if we ever plan to help everyone accept different concepts (and the discussions around them). >_>

That is why i am concerned about rush decisions. If this is confusing adults, imagine how confusing it would be for kids. Teaching something that haven`t been figured out and without the access to concrete evidence could lead to an even bigger gap in the knowledge, because it could mistakenly be given wrong information.

Of course, that ambiguity is not an excuse to discriminate others.

[therealbereth]

Hmm. I think what's actually confusing to many of us is not so much how we feel with our gender, or in our body, for that matter, but really the concepts and terms around it.

There are a lot of kids who just know at a very young age that they are not the gender they were assigned at birth. What makes all this confusing to them are gender roles. In @DokiDokiTsuna's thread, there was a great discussion about the distinction between gender and gender roles, and I think this leads to a lot of confusion—and people only realizing they might be trans when they hit their 30s, for example. Give young people the freedom to explore, and they will figure it out. Kids are cleverer than we often give them credit for. ^^

As for why I suggested to read especially trans (or non-binary) scholars about these matters?

Academia has proven to me that "neutrality" does not work. You can't research a matter in a meaningful way when you don't know the implications your research has for the party you're researching. Cis people, we will never be able to really understand what some findings mean in reality for our trans siblings. Just as a male researcher will never truly know what it's like as a woman to be constantly put down based on gender alone, often resulting in research that is maybe aimed at being "neutral", but fails to incorporate all real-life implications. They simply lack the experience to interpret the data in a 100% logical way, because they haven't lived the truth behind said data.

A collaborative research, on the other hand, could prove useful. But we have to be mindful of who interprets which data. More often than not, this fact alone makes the research meaningless.

[DiegoPalacios]

Academia has proven to me that "neutrality" does not work. You can't research a matter in a meaningful way when you don't know the implications your research has for the party you're researching. Cis people, we will never be able to really understand what some findings mean in reality for our trans siblings.

That is why i proposed to see both perspectives. To see the whole picture we need to see from inside and outside.

Dismissing cis-people`s research just because they are cis would be an ad-hominem fallacy. (dismissing the person, without caring of the argument and evidence)

if we all followed the logic that only people who belong into a group can decide what is better for them, only babies would be able to say what is better for babies.

Cis people, we will never be able to really understand what some findings mean in reality for our trans siblings. Just as a male researcher will never truly know what it's like as a woman to be constantly put down based on gender alone,

By being emphatic with the person and listening to them we can have a better idea. Just imagine if one day you woke up with the body of the opposite sex, how would you react to it?. Of course trans people could probably give a more accurate description.

I think many trans people, even the ones that are fully accepted have noticed the differences of how they are treated as males and as females.

A collaborative research, on the other hand, could prove useful. But we have to be mindful of who interprets which data. More often than not, this fact alone makes the research meaningless.

good point, is hard to find completely unbiased people, so the data interpretation can be messy to say the least.

[therealbereth]

Well I'd say both of us have valid points, but maybe both our conclusions aren't ideal in the end. xD

It's just that the "outside perspective", this "neutrality", invites many logical fallacies. Take research concerning Black communities. Or even Native American history. Many things are excluded from academia simply because they lack the "neutrality" which academia claims to possess—because most facts can't be "proven" in terms of classic academic research, since most of the history has been carried on orally. Academia has so many barriers that have been established by straight white men over the centuries (simply because of the fact that universities were reserved for white men and most of them were straight) that it's susceptible to error because of its rules.

Apply that to modern research, and I think you can see how conventions of academia, of "neutrality", can result in more or less worthless research. Not so much based solely on the gender or skin color of the researcher, but because of their cultural upbringing and possible privilege that comes with it. And privilege can blind us to many of the things we'd like to understand. I'm no exception to that as a white woman, and I'm constantly unlearning certain things that I took for granted as a child, for example (because of my upbringing).

That's what I mean when I say that it is very important who the researcher in question is. What is their background? Is "neutrality" advantageous to the topic at hand? Can they see past their preconceptions? Are they able to truly be critical of their interpretations? Are they open to feedback from people within the community they are conducting research on?

Depending on the answers to those questions, their research may very well be valuable, of course. But the danger of falling into the trap of "straight white academia" is... high.

But there's still a lot to unravel in modern academia, and we haven't even begun to do that. And so I would always take the research about trans matters done by trans people over that of a cis person, and be much more skeptical when it's done by a cis person (especially when there's no trans people on their team, that's a red flag right there).

Anyway, I think we seem to have covered our stance on this? xD Let's give people the chance to talk about the difference between dysphoria and confusion because of gender roles again.

[DiegoPalacios]

Well I'd say both of us have valid points, but maybe both our conclusions aren't ideal in the end. xD

It's just that the "outside perspective", this "neutrality", invites many logical fallacies. Take research concerning Black communities. Or even Native American history. Many things are excluded from academia simply because they lack the "neutrality" which academia claims to possess

When i talk about a neutral perspective i don`t refer to only putting academia aside from everything else. Is important to notice how the investigation was taken, how the criteria of the sample is chosen and how the quantitative and qualitative information is measured. And what perspectives are listened.
Outside perspective is as important as inside perspective.

Dismissing someone just for who they are is as bad as blinding following them because of who they are. The latest is a fallacy of authority.

hat's what I mean when I say that it is very important who the researcher in question is. What is their background? Is "neutrality" advantageous to the topic at hand?

People who belong to the group researched and people who dont belong can both be prone to bias.
Would you trust a nazi researching about the consequences of nazism?

About neutrality:
It depends, a quantitative investigation go for things that can be measured and considered facts.

A qualitative investigation go for things that cant be measured in numbers, like the interviewed`s experiences with the situation they are living.

There are a lot of kids who just know at a very young age that they are not the gender they were assigned at birth. What makes all this confusing to them are gender roles.

the ammount of trans kids who regretted their transition is about 54%. While many were okay with it, still the majority realized later they were not trans. That is why i insist on not rushing on big decisions like that.

source: https://www.psypost.org/2017/12/many-transgender-kids-grow-stay-trans-50499

Anyway, I think we seem to have covered our stance on this? xD Let's give people the chance to talk about the difference between dysphoria and confusion because of gender roles again.

Completely agree on the trouble of gender roles. It restrict people to explore activities and repress people`s behavior.

yeah, if we keep going we may fill the thread XD, it was a nice talk!. Is always interesting to hear another perspective.

[vfinnigan]

A good example to compare and contrast is me and my sister in law. I'm a cisgendered woman who's been labeled as nonconforming. When I was four, I briefly identified as a boy. And when my parents said, "No, you're a girl," I was a little confused, but was OK with it. My reason for identifying as a boy was that I liked Star Wars, and the Star Wars action figure commercials suggested those toys were appropriate for only boys. I'd often envied boys and men for their opportunities and expressed frustration over the years that wasn't about me being female, but with the constraints of femininity and what was expected of girls at the time.

But I never felt like I was trapped in the wrong body and for the most part was happy being female - if perhaps not very feminine.

My sister-in-law, on the other hand, enjoyed all the advantages of having been raised as a boy. So her feeling like she was trapped in the wrong body had nothing to do with gender roles.

[LordVincent]

Pretty much this.
I would have said gender dysphoria is the difference but quite frankly, if we didn't decide as a society that certain bodyshapes etc deserve to define as male and others deserve to define as female, some of the dysphoria would be lessened or nonexistent in some trans individuals. Don't get me wrong, a lot of us have dysphoria about certain things regardless and what we do about it (surgery, hormones, binding, whatever) should be our choice alone. But sometimes dysphoria is caused more by what society tells us is right and wrong for a certain gender rather than what we feel we need to fix.
For this reason, I don't want to tie transgender identity entirely to dysphoria. I believe you can be trans without being dysphoric. Unlikely in current society, but some trans people could potentially be non-dysphoric if they grow up in a good environment.

Back to the topic at hand and my own experiences, I've never been confused about this because with me it's never been "i am a dude because i like (insert dude things here)". I've always felt that I'm a dude with traits that may be percieved as androgyne. It's how I felt most comfortable. I don't wear dresses anymore because I just don't feel like it, but for a while I still did that after coming out. Same with makeup. I still don't really care if the things I buy are from the mens or the womens section in regards to what people think of said clothes, however I become less likely to buy women's clothing for every month that passes because... well... exercise and testosterone have just made my shoulders too broad.

Anyone should be free to express themselves how they like as long as they don't hurt anyone. Regardless of gender, and regardless of whether your gender identity matches what your doctor claimed you were when you were born.

[AniStaciaArt]

It's so sad to read these and realize how many little girls were let down by how society treated them. I mean "I wanted to be a boy because I wanted to be free." (Paraphrasing) is a horrifying statement to make. But still one so many of us feel.

[vothnthorvaldson]

And the opposite. I'm still shocked from seeing a 3 year old boy getting scolded and violently slapped on the arm for doing a few ballet moves in public. And a man close to me is getting constantly disrespected and/or ridiculed for not acting manly enough, being too small etc. In my opinion, society expectations are crazy and terribly restrictive on both genders, even if the most severe (or even criminal) sides remain mostly against women.

[AniStaciaArt]

Definitely both! My little brother was bullied by my stepdad for not being manly enough. My brother didn't like building things with tools, which was my stepdad's only metric for manliness. And theres people who thought my stepdad wasn't manly because he didn't like sports.

I just thought it was telling that so many women came here with similar stories.

[Inspector_Spinda]

I like to wear male clothes sometimes. A lot of male clothes looks more gender neutral but they're more baggy and cozy for me. I also don't care too much for romance, make up and some other stereotypical girl stuff. But I'm still a girl. Feeling like you need a body that's different from your sex to the point where you need to be distinctly not your sex is feeling like another gender.

I've noticed that a lot of trans people are more stereotypically the gender they feel like that the actual people of that gender. Like a born male who feels female will always wear dresses that are really girly and high heels and long hair. It's never short feminine hair and jeans or something like that.

[unknown_user]

I've noticed that a lot of trans people are more stereotypically the gender they feel like that the actual people of that gender. Like a born male who feels female will always wear dresses that are really girly and high heels and long hair. It's never short feminine hair and jeans or something like that.

I'm not sure... I don't know any trans people personally. So what if those ones who look more stereotypical, are just more noticeable in media?

[Inspector_Spinda]

I don't know them personally either, but I see them on the street sometimes. However them being noticeable is also a pretty good point. im not sure about that.

[vothnthorvaldson]

I think there can be also the need to do all the things that one was not socially allowed to do as the other gender (but not every one does it or even feel that need).
I have quite a lot of trans friends who went a little bit overboard (I use this word without negative connotation, though) for a while after transitioning, and then, not so much. That's taking advantage of a new freedom. I think that may happen to cis persons too, after a life change, although that may (or not) be less meaningful/deep.

Plus, one may really try to avoid being wrongly gendered. I mean, even very feminine cis women still sometimes get 'mister' because of short hair and gender neutral clothes.