Binding

[hartof]

My DD who is currently 14, told us in June 2020 she thought she was transgender. She had always been a "tomboy" we let her dress how she wanted. At the time I said nothing needed ti change as she can make herself look however she wants but we would t change anything hormonally until she was older.

She has never asked us to call her by another name, or refer to her as they or him.
She had her hair cut short later that year and last year we found a great barber who takes it shorter and makes her look amazing.

On Sunday she sent me a link to a binding bra, I don't know if I should say yes or no. I have no idea how it will affect her, but at this point I'm sure it's not a phase and this is how she sees herself. Any advice is dearly received.

( she/we have had no counselling she gets uncomfortable when I ask her questions ie when people have referred to her as male I asked if it bothers her and she won't answer me)

Gender identity, on the other hand, is an a complex aggregation of internal feelings relating to both sex and cultural gender. For example "I don't like being labeled as a woman", "I feel uncomfortable with my penis" etc.

@Iambecomethequeen

Gender “identity” imagined as some kind of inner sense of gender (and understood as different from gender per se) is a very recent construction in the history of thought - it’s something that has only taken shape as part of developments in identity politics over the last twenty years. It simply didn’t exist as a meaningful concept in, say, 1995; when gender was largely understood as forms of social performance and distinct from inner self. There is a long and complex philosophical tradition of regarding the subjective feeling of gender as essentially a kind of illusion created and internalised by cultural pressures (this tradition goes back to the early modern period and earlier, so predates by a long way the recent simplified ideas of gender that you describe in your post).

You can see this in, for example, Judith Butler’s Gender Trouble, which argues that rather than being a facet of innate subjectivity, gender is an iterative performance of social cues, and that women in particular are encouraged to internalise these social performances as an innate “identity” to ensure their compliance with social norms. (It beats me why adherents of gender ideology love Judith Butler so much: her gender work of the 90s actually undermines the very idea of “gender identity”. Not that I like Butler either.)

In this reading, “gender identity” is merely the way that (especially young) people internalise social compulsions to behave in “gendered” ways. The idea that we have a “gender identity” is a phantasm, a social illusion: it’s merely the internalisation of social roles into a delusion of selfhood that feels persuasive but is actually inconsistent, narrativised, illusory and a psychological crutch. In this it’s akin to a religious belief in the soul as an idea of wholeness and transcendence that is illusory but deeply desired.

If you don’t believe me: try comparing it with “national identity”. At various times the idea of national identity seems just as persuasive as gender identity and in the same ways. But tell me; in what ways is believing you have an inner inborn “gender identity” any less of a delusion/social and psychological illusion than believing that you are innately British or innately American….? It’s a serious question. What makes one kind of social “identity” any different from another?

Nevertheless, the OP posted this thread for support for her daughter. If you want to argue with women on mumsnet about gender and sex, @Iambecomethequeen, can I suggest you get off the thread and head over to the feminism discussion boards for some good argument. You should read and listen: you will learn much from a lot of women who have spent many years reading and thinking about this.

@Lynnthesearesexnotgenderpeople
Since I don't want to further derail the post, we can go on in Private messages if you'd like.

@nightwakingmoon
Sod off with your paternalistic tone.
Butler was talking about one aspect of gender, what I called cultural gender. It's also worth noting they don't hold to those views now.

Transgender people have existed forever in history. Your argument is akin to saying that since "gay" is a recent concept, gayness doesn't exist, or didn't exist previously. Come on.

We know gender identity is nature, not nurture: when a baby boy lost his penis in an accident, a doctor performed a vaginoplasty and his parents raised him as a girl, but he felt continually terrible. When he discovered what happened, he took hormones and things got a bit better.

I assume you are talking about the case of David Reimer here, which absolutely does not prove that 'gender identity is nature not nurture'. Reimer was subjected to all sorts of abhorrent stuff, including sexual abuse by his doctor. It doesn't prove anything at all, and the poor bloke committed suicide at the age of 38 so nothing 'got better' when he found out the truth.

[quote Iambecomethequeen]@Lynnthesearesexnotgenderpeople

First of all, I have to admit a simplification. Cis people can experience dysphoria. If you took testosterone, for example, your endocrinological system would start causing all sorts of problems, such as Depersonalization and Derealization. Trans women experience those same problems, and when their hormones are brought to female levels those problems solve themselves.

You could also (though I'd advice against it) cut your breasts off. Now, that would be a bit of a problem: see, your brain has an internal map of your body, and the map includes tits. When your body notices tits are lacking, it gives a sort of error signal. Presently, given you have (I assume) your breasts on, it doesn't. Trans women often feel something is wrong with their chest, and when they grow boobs thanks to estrogen they feel right in their body.

We know gender identity is nature, not nurture: when a baby boy lost his penis in an accident, a doctor performed a vaginoplasty and his parents raised him as a girl, but he felt continually terrible. When he discovered what happened, he took hormones and things got a bit better.
Another example is that trans people internalize some gender stereotypes associated with the other sex: many trans women start to feel they have to cover their chest, as is expected of cis girls. Even when they think they are men, something in them just knows.

Now, a lot of other things are unknown. For example, how does a gender identity form? The leading theory to explain trans people is that during conception, since the brain develops later than the rest of the body, hormone imbalances create a mismatch between most of the body and brain. But there's still much to discover and it would be great to explore these questions together without having to fight for survival and rights against bigots.[/quote]
Except - sadly - large amounts of this just isn’t remotely true. This is the kind of misinformation that circulates on youth social media and YouTube. There is no scientific evidence whatsoever for the idea of “mismatches” between brain and body, nor any evidence for the “hormones in the womb” idea (something that has been doing the rounds for over fifty years to “explain” homosexuality, with no credible evidence). These are metaphors, simplifications and misrepresentations of a complex field - and the language about “just knowing” and so on is religious in character, not scientific. It’s magical thinking which isn’t borne out by any genuine science. “Dysphoria” aka anxiety and discomfort about the gendered body is long understood in psychiatry and psychology, as something which is often social, psychological and emotional - and, tellingly, it pops up in similar but slightly different ways all throughout history with different names, which create great industries of “treatments” before gradually disappearing and reformulating again.

Should we put trans kids forward to be treated for “neurasthenia” or “sexual inversion”? Those “identities” / “diagnoses” had similar “symptoms” and similar narratives around mismatches between brain and body and inner identity and so on. How sure are you that “trans” as an idea is any more scientifically valid than “neurasthenia”? (Well - neurasthenics got given mind exercises, barbiturates and radiotherapy; but at least they didn’t have bits of their anatomy cut off, I suppose - sounds slightly better to me.)

Now, a lot of other things are unknown. For example, how does a gender identity form? The leading theory to explain trans people is that during conception, since the brain develops later than the rest of the body, hormone imbalances create a mismatch between most of the body and brain.

Is this actually a 'leading theory' though? The brain of a male is XY in every cell, it is literally impossible for a 'female brain' to be in a male body. Scientists have already established that it is impossible to conclusively distinguish a male or female brain just from say, a scan. On top of this, brains are plastic and connections are constantly being made from birth, so it is impossible to say for sure what is nature and what is nurture.

"You could also (though I'd advice against it) cut your breasts off. Now, that would be a bit of a problem: see, your brain has an internal map of your body, and the map includes tits. When your body notices tits are lacking, it gives a sort of error signal. Presently, given you have (I assume) your breasts on, it doesn't."

There is so much wrong with this paragraph.

Tits?? Are we teenage boys?

Women who have had mastectomies do not have an error signal. Our bodies do not self destruct when we have had breast tissue removed, we can function without them. The mental health issues associated with mastectomies do not come from error signals in the brain. It comes from, not least, the disconnect between knowing our breasts could have killed us and disliking our new body shape. Also, the lack of sexual feeling once they have been removed as a PP mentioned.

And yes, you presume right. I took my tits off earlier as I was fed up with them but I put them back on.

"The brain of a male is XY in every cell" This hurts to read. Please read a bit more on chromosomes.

At this point, it's clear you're not looking to learn more about trans people. This is a waste of time. Goodbye

@Iambecomethequeen

At this point, it's clear you're not looking to learn more about trans people. This is a waste of time. Goodbye

Think someone just checked genetics 101 and realised that yes, every male brain cell is in fact XY!

@Iambecomethequeen

"The brain of a male is XY in every cell" This hurts to read. Please read a bit more on chromosomes.

@Iambecomethequeen

At this point, it's clear you're not looking to learn more about trans people. This is a waste of time. Goodbye

Realised you’re out of your depth? Bah bye…

@Iambecomethequeen

At this point, it's clear you're not looking to learn more about trans people. This is a waste of time. Goodbye

I am willing to learn, but I'm not just going to passively take everything on board without questioning what I read.

@Maternitynamechange

Loads of us did this as teens. If not binders, huge oversized jumpers with necklines that hung on the shoulder so as to minimise the appearance of breasts. And we all did it because overnight we’d gone from kids to suddenly being leered at by men. It’s no wonder so many teen girls think they want to be men.

this x1000

[quote Iambecomethequeen]@nightwakingmoon
Sod off with your paternalistic tone.
Butler was talking about one aspect of gender, what I called cultural gender. It's also worth noting they don't hold to those views now.

Transgender people have existed forever in history. Your argument is akin to saying that since "gay" is a recent concept, gayness doesn't exist, or didn't exist previously. Come on.[/quote]
Well, that’s very confused of you - speaking as a lesbian woman who’s a mother, you’re misgendering me dreadfully by ascribing to me a “paternalistic tone”. Maternalistic, I’d be happy with. But here again is an example of deep hypocrisy - it’s all gendering this and misgendering that, but underneath as ever is the deep sexism and misogyny of dismissing women - especially older women - with gendered slurs and sexist nonsense.

Gender ideology is truly simply sexism at heart - and I challenge you, @Iambecomethequeen, to show otherwise.

“Gender identity” is, as you’ve just so very neatly demonstrated, merely and only this: “get back in your boxes, ladies - only this time you must truly believe that your “lady box” is part of your innate identity, or you’ll get called names about getting out of your lane.”

You really should educate yourself and stop misgendering and assuming.

Transgender people really haven’t always existed in history. If you believe that you’ve swallowed a load of propaganda, I’m afraid. I’m a historian of sexuality and so called “trans” people in history were invariably gay or simply wished to live outside sexist norms. You’re erasing here a long and rich history of same-sex experience and desire. Why don’t you look up the word “transgender” in the OED and tell me how you could tell if people were “trans” when the concept didn’t exist? What proof would you need? It’s not like sexuality - “transgender” simply didn’t exist when there was no medical “treatment” for it. Even thirty years ago “transgender” meant something completely different to “transsexual”. And social practices like cross-dressing had a long history of their own and were seen as signifiers of sexuality, not “gender identity”.

Poor OP; I’m sorry this has all become a FWR argument. I hope that your thread can now get back on track. And that your DD can get the help she needs.

@Lynnthesearesexnotgenderpeople

We condemn breast ironing as terrible and regressive, yet present breast binding, which has the same effect on breasts, as progressive.

There is a whiff of racism about it as well.

When brown people carry out breast ironing, that is primitive and barbaric and awful.

But when white Western teenage girls are binding their breasts, and then subsequently getting their breasts sliced off by surgeons who use hashtags such as #yeettheteets - that is progressive enlightenment.

this also is very true and should make some people ashamed

@Iambecomethequeen

Ah so you did the false claims, misrepresentation of history and statistics, the classic "do your own research" when asked for sources and then a flounce when robustly challenged. A full house.

I am not trans
I am a woman
But as a teenager I had very large breasts and hated them. I have always worn a minimiser from M&S that flattens you with a sort of singlet/ vest top which makes me look flat.
I don't know if this would be any good? I wear both all the time.... over night etc.

What evolutionary advantage is there to a swath of people attempting to become the opposite sex?

@Ponderingwindow

The answer to binding is a flat no.

I’m not convinced it can be done safely and without impairment to physical activity.

Most importantly, there is nothing wrong with her body. She can identify however she wants. She can style herself, pick her hobbies, even choose a new name. Accepting the body we are born with is something we all have to come to terms with.

When she complains, for perspective, you might talk to her about people with chronic health conditions. We can’t identify out of those problems. We are truly trapped in our bodies, but our bodies don’t define us.

I hope you don't wear glasses or take any medications. Otherwise, that wouldn't be very, "[a]ccepting [of] the body [you we]re born with..."

Bet you're glad you asked now OP

There is a difference between wearing glasses - fixes an externally observable problem without doing any harm
Vs fixing a problem that only exists as a self Reported problem

That many older women recognise as a real problem in the head not body

With something so harmful that even the people selling them advise not using in the way usually desired

Are people really comparing wearing a binder with having glasses?

@Lynnthesearesexnotgenderpeople

Are people really comparing wearing a binder with having glasses?

Only the disingenuous ones.