Feminism and the idea of a man or woman trapped in the wrong body are contradictory ideas

[EatsBrainsAndLeaves]

This post is in response to another thread where posters wanted to discuss this, but didn't want to derail the thread. So I said I would start the thread here.

A basic element of feminism is that women and men are born as that sex - biologically men/women, but society socialises us to behave as our alloted gender. Gender is the idea that women and men behave in certain ways. And we are all socialised in this even if we reject it or try to as adults.

For example, research shows that people treat the same babies differently depending on whether they are told they are boys or girls. The media pumps images to our DCs about what a girl or a boy should be interested in, play with and wear. Teachers are more likely to allow boys to speak out to the whole class than girls - well researched.

Feminism challenges these gender constructs and says that girls and boys can enjoy doing the same things, etc. Transexuals talk about being born in the wrong body e.g. born in a male body, but feeling like they are really a girl/woman.

But this is obviously at odds with feminism. Sex is a biological fact. You are born in a male or female body. Behaving or feeling like a man/woman is supposed to feel, is an artificial construct. Because what does a man or woman feel like? We only feel like ourselves as individuals. So any idea of feeling a man or a woman or a boy or a girl is based on an artifacial idea of how a boy/girl is supposed to feel.

So the basic idea of being born in the wrong body, is contradictory to the basic ideas of feminism.

I should add there are also people whose gender-identity and biological sex do match, but who desire cosmetic alteration out of personal preference.

Pete Burns is one example of this (he facially looks very feminine and has multiple surgeries to do so, and wears makeup), but completely self-identifies as a man.

There are also many men whose biology and internal gender-identity both match, but who choose to surgically acquire female anatomical traits out of personal preference... eg. men who have breast implants, but still identify as men.

In an ideal world, this would be possible for everyone without the societal backlash.

Fortunately, it appears many people who are transgendered are beginning to feel confident enough to keep their own anatomy and not change it (unless they wish to out of personal preference), and perhaps this is the first step to feeling they do not have to alter their superficial external appearance either (unless they want to).

Whiteshores for me, I am picking out some wisdoms in what you are saying. Though I'm not sure what you self-reflect in 'neither male nor female gender-identity'. (on a slightly frivolous part, I have often been referred to as just a 'big girls blouse' on a few issues when my reactions to stuff are inconsistent with my male physicalness - but that is just frivolous, though a bit revealing about expected gender conducts).
But what you post there is sensitive and imagined specualtion on how you consider trans people are probably thinknig. Some of it may be right. A lot of it doesn't refelct the experiences and explanations of trans people I know though.

the OP asks 'is trans contradictory to feminism'? As a non-declared feminst I don't wish to add to that question directly. But some of the points made in this thread, and the prevous one regarding the nature of transsexuality, are wildly misleading, and are worthy of being challenged by non-feminists. imho.

Ah, I'm not trying to speak for all transgendered people at all. I'm just trying to explain why its possible for society to have an influence on people's actions without them necessarily being aware of this, or raising it as a reason (because they are unaware of it).

This is just personal speculation I freely admit, but it is personal theory that doesn't expect the individuals involved to necessarily agree because one of the major premises is that they do not need to be consciously aware to be influenced.

I fully mean what I say when I self-identify as neither male nor female gender-identity... there is a post on this thread that explains it a little better, but the short version is that my body is just a container for me, and is not the same as me. I do not necessarily expect to be in this body forever (am exploring reincarnation which may also help explain), and while I am in it I do not agree with any gender role at all being expected of me, nor gender-identity imposed upon me other than what I say it is (neither).

I do hope that if you find any of my comments wrong or misleading, that you will engage with me over them. I am here to learn, and while some of my opinions and beliefs are firm, none are fixed. :)

I'm still not convinced by the idea that you can tell from looking at a brain scan whether someone is male or female. I don't think it's true. It's not like skeletons where there are clear anatomical differences (e.g. the shoulder and pelvis).

If you look at brains, you can say on average women tend to have more connections between the two sides, and men tend to have bigger brains (just as they tend to have bigger bodies) and on average this gender has more grey matter and that gender has more white. BUT the range of variation is huge. Individual men may well have lots of connections and individual women may have big brains. Same as you can't tell from shoe size whether someone's male or female - size 9 feet may be more common among men but some women have size 9 feet and some men size 7.

People fall quite quickly into talking about 'male' brains and 'female' brains as if those categories exist and are meaningful for distinguishing between individuals. I doubt very much that they are.

There are more than 6bn people on this planet - the number who have had brain scans is a tiny, tiny fraction. There are dead brains and dead brain tissue, but a. it's dead, you can't see how it worked in action and b. I'd be prepared to bet that the number that have been objectively assessed for 'maleness' or 'femaleness' is quite limited.

edam

I'm not convinced either, but for the sake of discussion, I don't even see how its relevant even if it was possible.

Looking at the structure of the brain and its chemistry only tells you about the biological brain, and not the mind.

Therefore, if there was such a thing as a 'female brain' or a 'male brain', it would be just the same as having 'female genitalia' or 'male genitalia', or internal reproductive organs, or bone structure etc. etc.

Which means that a biological female (XX) for example may theoretically have 'the wrong brain' and yet they would still be biologically female, because biology does allow for occasional variations.

This would be the same sort of mismatch we already find occasionally in for example biological males (XY) with androgen insensitivity (who may have a vulva instead of a penis). They are still male (XY), have testicles, no internal female reproductive organs, but one biological part does not match - the external genitalia.

Using the same argument, a biological female (XX) for example, who was found on a scan to have a 'male brain' (whatever that may be), would simply have one mismatching biological part, and would still be biologically female (because the only consistent biological factor is chromosomes - all other biological features are usually there, but not always).

I think people get confused because they think of the brain and the mind as the same thing. The brain is a physical structure and is biological. The mind is not physical and consists of intangible things such as thoughts and feelings.

The brain can influence the mind and vice versa, just as the rest of the body can influence the mind and vice versa. But the brain is still just another biological part of the body.

A brain scan will never be able to tell you your gender-identity, because your gender is what you say it is (based on your feelings in your mind). The two things may happen to match, in which case great. :)

But in a case where a biological brain scan did not match your internal gender identity (mind), then I would expect mind to have the final say... which means gender identity is about the mind and not the brain (though it may be influenced by it).

.

Yes, that's my problem with the claim that research 'proves' whatever about trans people 'because their brains are more like those of the gender with which they identify'.

Thread's so long now I forget where that came in. But it bothered me when it did!

If someone feels their gender identity doesn't match their body, who am I to argue with them. Although I am a bit puzzled by how you'd know what it feels like to be a man (or woman) if you aren't already clearly a member of that gender. Which is presumably my own ignorance as I haven't had to face that particular hurdle.

I think most people would agree that no one knows how anyone else feels.

So a person only knows what being a biological female feels like unless they are a biological female themselves.

However, 'a feeling regarding self-identity in your mind' is now coming to have its own recognition and so needs a name (a lot of people use the word 'gender' or 'gender-identity' for this).

The person feels how they feel (whatever that may be), and they choose the label for that feeling based on their personal idea about what that label means.

Unless there is an external definition for what 'female gender-identity' and 'male gender-identity' actually mean, then the terms don't really mean anything concrete except to the individual (who knows what they mean by them).

For example, I am biologically female, but would call myself neutral (or absent) gender-identity, because that is the term that has the most meaning to me. It does not make me anything other than a biological female with a neutral gender-identity.

A person who is MtF transgendered would be a biological male with a feminine gender-identity.

As a result of the use of the words 'man' and 'woman' by both those who are biologically male/female, and those who gender-identify as masculine/feminine, 'man' and 'woman' have basically become umbrella terms and really need to be divided into two subsections to make it clear which people are talking about when they wish to talk about the specifics.

kim147 Just wanted to let you know I enjoyed your very insightful post, and that I wish you both the happiness and the acceptance that every human being deserves.

I think the 'biological male entering women only space' only comes up because it is only relatively recently that 'women' came to mean anything other than biological women.

Some biological women do still want a space for biological women, in my case this could feasibly come about because I do not internally 'gender-identify' as 'woman' and so my biology is what links me to other women and nothing else - this would be the commonality I would wish to share.

Similarily, I might want to join a group with people who are bisexual (as I consider myself), and do not see any reason why people who are heterosexual or homosexual would feel hurt or excluded as a result of such a grouping.

I can feasibly see a future where there are groups for biological women, groups for people who female gender-identify, and groups for 'women' (which may well be an umbrella term for both gender/biological groups).

I hope and pray for a world where biological males and females are treated as individuals and not as their biology. Then the situation you describe with the changing rooms would never exist, and I would not face the gender role forcibly expected of me (which I reject). :)

Pan wrote - "Really problematic post vesuvia. Throughout there is an assumption that inviduals are making decisions within their perception of the existence of a patriarchy - they they are 'bowing' to a superstructure. I know this isn't the case for the 3 transgendered people I know. Their knowledge of themselves was outside of a notion of a patriarchal superstructure."

A person's level of awareness of patriarchy does not change the reality that societies are patriarchal. Most people who are not familiar with feminism haven't given it much thought and any person can still bow to a superstructure, wittingly or unwittingly.

Pan , you described yourself as a non-declared feminist. What is that?

vesuvia - yes, the people I refer to are/were unhappily wittingly aware of patriarchy - it just wasn't the winning influence for any of them. They were equipped to make their own intimate decisions outwith what patriarchy was telling them.

'non-declared feminst?' - I'd have thought it was self evident. A few posters have declared their 'status' on the feminist spectrum - I was indicating I am not a feminist so wasn't going to be arrogant enough to comment on whether transsexuality is consistent with feminism. No more than that.

hth

I think its good to declare your "status" as it just means you are being honest i.e. this is where I am coming from, judge what I say on that basis.

Argentina follows suit in reducing the meaning of woman to "something a man feels". Argentine men can keep their penises and testicles and can still be given legal status as women.

www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/argentina-approves-transgender-rights-id-changes-sex-change-operations-and-hormone-therapy/2012/05/09/gIQAToWAEU_print.html

"Any adult will now be able to officially change his or her gender, image and birth name without having to get approval from doctors or judges ? and without having to undergo physical changes beforehand, as many U.S. jurisdictions require.

?It?s saying you can change your gender legally without having to change your body at all. That?s unheard of,? said Katrina Karkazis, a Stanford University medical anthropologist and bioethicst who wrote a book, ?Fixing Sex,? about the medical and legal treatment of people whose physical characteristics don?t fully match their gender identity."

Despite all the quoting of science on this thread and the attempts to dress up "internal gender identity" as a scientific fact grounded in brain structure or chemistry (which it isn't), the only test for trans still is a man claiming he's a woman or vice versa. People just have to take the man's (or woman's) word for it.

What a wonderfully complete summary of that piece of news, Nyac.

Do you know why the reverse doesn't apply? Why the meaning of man hasn't changed to "something a woman feels"?

It would be very interesting to find out why it only worked one way, in such a slap in the face for feminists everywhere.

O WAIT LULZ IT TOTALLY DUSNT SAY THAT.

It does work both ways. You only mentioned one side of the story.

What an omission! You must feel a bit silly.

Regardless of science, then, why not take their word for it? They're hardly going to put themselves through all that upheaval for sh*ts and giggles, are they?

I am finding the discussion about internal gender identity very interesting: and kim's post was illuminating on this, I thought. I had wondered in the past about whether I would be able to hump through the hoops required to 'prove' I am a woman. I'm just not very girly, and never have been. Maybe I'm more neutral, like Whiteshores. Although, tbh, since I think a lot of OTT 'girlyness' or 'masculinity' really is cultural anyway. And my family is not particularly conventional (in fact, my grandmother was adopted, along with her siblings by a woman who lived as a man, and her sister married an intersex woman who sex changed before they married).

So, yes. I think the points people have made about a sort of social 'gender fluidity' perhaps allowing people to just be who they are as opposed to having to fit a narrow definition, are good ones. I think it would take a lot of work now, though, especially as there's so much hypersexualisation in the media these days...

What a dainty piece of sarcasm Bruxeur.

If men feel their reality is under attack from the fact that FTM are deemed to then I'm sure they can pipe up.

The fact is that the redefinition of woman presents a clear danger to women, allowing men into women's spaces where they wouldn't have been before, and denying the human reality of women, in favour of men's feelings. It's handy for them to have a few FTMs to hide behind so they can claim "women do it to", but it doesn't detract from the political reality that trans undermines the existence of women, and therefore our work to politically organise to overthrow male supremacy.

Erk. 'Jump' through hoops, not 'hump' through them.

women are born into the class that is oppressed by men.

you see i don't agree with you nyac. I see the patriarchy more like racism. A group is defined as being different from the norm and therefore less important. Cod science and biology is used to justify this difference. To me scientific findings that cast doubt on there being two clearly separate genders are, like scientific findings that cast doubt on the idea of clear biological racial differences entirely consistent with my feminism.

Do you spend a lot of your time feeling angry, Nyac? I would, if I saw the world in the way you do.

Chromosomes are the only consistent variable (and what medics consistently turn to if in doubt), even brain scans would just indicate another biological 'bit' like any other body organ, they are not scanning the mind.

If the words 'man' and 'woman' are indeed changing into words that describe feelings as the prime determinant over biology, then I am no longer a woman (as I, and I am not alone, do not gender-identify in my mind as such).

I personally am not that bothered by the idea, as I do see it as just a word really (but I would require a new 'name', not a statement, to describe my biological female state regardless of gender-identity).

This word would essentially replace what 'woman' has historically/traditionally meant (biological), and the new word 'woman' means a feeling (without any necessary objective definition - unless someone actually has a proposal for what this might be).

In this case, 'man' and 'woman' would both actually become obsolete terms in terms of societal interaction, because anyone I pass on the street is a 'ManorWoman' until they tell me which they are.

The only thing that would happen is that society would still judge you on your biological appearance, and we still need names for the biological identity of a person who either cannot communicate their gender-identity (babies, persons with relevant physical/mental disability, unconscious, even deceased), who wish to keep their gender-identity private, or whom gender-identify as neither man nor woman (myself included).

As I said, I do not personally feel that attached to whichever words are ultimately used, but I can honestly empathise with people who feel protective of the 'woman' as 'biological female' definition, because this has been their identity, and has meant something particular to them (not just what anyone says it means). I empathise, it is not a fight I personally feel passionate enough about to engage in... but I do not think their views are invalid or intolerant (although I have often seen them get labelled as such).