Consquences of self-identification

[MrsKCastle]

Sorry if this has already been done. I've been doing a lot of thinking about current trans thinking in the media.

As far as I understand it, this is the predominant view:
Anyone can be man or woman, male, female or neither. It doesn't depend on your genes, appearance or potential ability to hear young. What's important is how you identify. We should always treat people as they identify, with regard to how we speak about and treat them, and what spaces/roles we allow them to access.

What I'm interested in, is how this self-identification will or could change society. I'd love to hear your thoughts as I think it will help me to get things straight in my head.

So far I'm thinking:
No more single-sex schools
No more single-sex hospital wards
No more single-sex clubs, whether that's Brownies or exclusive golf clubs
Anyone can apply for any scholarship or award, regardless of sex

What else?

"Differentiating the two isn't that simple however - as the line isn't quite so black and white. "
The issue is that the line is fairly straightforward if you stick to sex (apart from intersex people, but their issues have been appropriated enough already!). But if you decide you aren't going to assign toilets/changing rooms/pronouns based on sex, then someone has to decide where to draw an administrative line.

The current GRC (gender recognition certificate) was an administrative and legal process and drew such a line. The poster below seems to agree there are important distinctions, whereas the self-identification line seems to be that there shouldn't be a line at all, and all that is required is that someone defines themselves to be X today by walking through the door labelled X (but they might walk through a different one tomorrow). Or that we shouldn't have any marked doors/sexed pronouns/distinctions etc whatever.

Other thoughts -- this feels increasingly to me like something akin to a religion. In that some people believe in gender and gender identities, and feel their personal gender identity and how they feel about it and how they want to be addressed is important (and possibly at variance with their bodily sex). As with religions, you have a right to your own beliefs. But also, many other people don't have the same beliefs about gender, or feel they have a gender identity. You have the right to your own beliefs, just as people have a right to their religion, act according to their religion etc etc, but as long as they respect the right of others not to believe. It may be uncomfortable/distasteful/challenging to find that not everyone believes, but just as I don't expect day to day name-calling as an evil atheistic non-believer who is going straight to hell, so I don't expect to be labelled a TERF (or even a cis-woman).

Some of us don't believe in (innate) gender, get used to it!

I'm currently going through the lovely paperwork processes right now of changing gender markers etc. and looking forward to my pap smear letter...

I don't understand how you can 'joke' about this and say you're not lying ... although you actually said you're not lying about your gender, just as you talk about gender markers. What's relevant to your medical treatment is your sex, not your gender.

Good points, well explained, by Errol regarding invasion & consent. In the same vein, by Felas and Monkey. We have been gawped at, objectified, yelled at, molested, attacked, judged and judged and judged, since before puberty. We are constantly on the alert for danger, constantly taking protective and avoidant measures; we are well trained in the art of defusing aggression by giving ground. Our privacy is hard-won and continually under threat. Our boundaries are porous.

And yet a bunch of biological males come along and say "Shove over, women! We're coming in! Don't complain or we'll shame you and threaten you."

We have been hearing this from males all our lives.

I don't agree that terminology's an issue. I'm a woman. You are not like me in the way 52% of the population is. You are like you. Call yourself a transwoman, a transgender woman, a unicorn if you like. I'll go along with that. But you can't have my name, and you can't change it.

Some of us don't believe in (innate) gender, get used to it!

I might have this printed on t-shirts :) Or hire the Red Arrows to fly it all over the country once a day!

But you can't have my name, and you can't change it.

I should have said descriptor.

www.express.co.uk/news/world/714481/Transgender-man-gives-birth-OWN-BABY-world-first

Further down the rabbit hole?! Biological male and biological female have a child. Fucking marvelous and newsworthy, absolutely a first?

Straight non-gender conforming couple have a child?

I also take issue with Gender identity and sexuality are totally unrelated things (from TransMum).

Gender is the cultural construction of sexuality. (Which is why it isn't innate - it's constructed differently in different societies, places, times, classes, groups, even families, and varies throughout the lifecycle).

Um.... Sexuality or sex?

Um.... Sexuality or sex?

Good question. I'm not sure what I mean by sexuality any more, having been taught anthropology in the 1980s.

TransMum wrote, "There are people out there that get aroused by wearing women's clothes. They are different people from trans women. Transvestic fetishists and autogynephiles exist. Trans women are neither. "

No, this is completely wrong. As I will explain below, but first...

Wanking Monkey wrote, "Yet 'trans' is nothing to do with homophobia?"

No, it does not... and the answer to both the above erroneous assertions is that the majority of transwomen in the English speaking nations are gynephilic... that is to say, that they are sexually attracted to women, not men... and those transwomen are also autogynephilic. This is in contrast to the smaller number of transwomen who are exclusively androphilic... which are universally NOT autogynephilic.

Please read the following links that reference peer reviewed science paper that support my assertions:

sillyolme.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/better-the-second-time-around/

sillyolme.wordpress.com/category/confirming-two-type-taxonomy/

Finally... Even for those transwomen who ARE exclusively androphilic, the majority of them were extremely gender dysphoric BEFORE they reached an age where they would have understood that they were also androphilic.

For full descriptions of these phenomena, please refer to my FAQ:

sillyolme.wordpress.com/faq-on-the-science/

"So like I said there isn't an easy answer to this issue."

There is actually -- we retain spaces differentiated on the grounds of sex as regards changing rooms and loos, and we either deal with male violence or fear of it for transwomen in the mens loo or changing room, or you demand separate safe spaces for transwomen. Rather than demanding access to the sex-segregated areas for which you are not qualified.............

And just because some transwomen have negotiated with known groups of women to use the ladies, or can 'pass' well enough to not get challenged does not negate the principal of segregation on the grounds of sex -- just as no one spotting Rachel Dolezal for years negated the existence of black women. Annoyed quite a lot of them though........................

Hi Sillyolme. I had a quick skim of your blog and it looks interesting.

Do you find you get a lot of push back from the more vocal elements of transactivism with regard to being so open about the existence and prevelance of autogynephelia? Such acknowledgement seems quite unusual in today's climate of "transwomen are women, period". Refreshing, actually.

ATransMum

Interesting posts and you have obviously thought about your situation in depth and have your own clarity about it.

Unfortunately, your clarity jars with that of lots of women. Many think that gender is a load of old shite, pertinent only because it's a box that other people put them in because of their biology. And not only put them in, but define them and place them on a lower rung of a hierarchy as a result. So, your clarity doesn't really help them and, in fact, only serves to reinforce that from which they are trying to liberate themselves.

I honestly don't know where you're going with the medical stuff - you can't have validation in the form of your whole life being rewritten to document a different sex (how on earth did that become a thing?!) and also receive appropriate medical care for the sex you are. What solutions do you propose?

(life seldom is nice and binary) but that's what you're living. If it weren't for a (false, imho) gender binary, then you would be seen, rightly, as part of a subset of men. The binary is biological and that is something you can't identify your way out of,try as you might. And it's only by the existence of a gender binary in the minds of others that you have something to identify with or against. At this point, I have to ask you - what is a woman?

SomeDyke From third link

Gender atypicality and/or gender dysphoria is in-born and cannot be caused by how parents nurture their children.

I honestly do not understand how this can possibly be true? As 'gender' in itself depends on where in the world you are born too. So I just cannot get my head around a difference in the brain that makes you this way, which is how this comes across? Unless I have misunderstood a LOT of the post.

I have tried to think of a way to explain my views on this and this is the best i can do, though such a study could obviously not be made because it would be abuse.

Tale 100 babies. 50 male and 50 female. Isolate them from the world, and let them grow up in a TOTALLY gender neutral environment, with equal input from both male and female rolemodels.

Would these babies, on reaching adulthood..have any 'gender' as it is known? Or would the only difference between them be entirely biological? I strongly think the second tbh...but this is probably because I am nearly certain that 'gender' (or personality and socilisation as I prefer to call it) is an entirely man-made (or person-made...lol) thing.

Lorelie76 asked, "When did the word "transsexual" change to "transgender" and why? It might just be semantics of course but increasingly I think it's possibly because transsexuals would have had surgery but transgender more likely not?"

I see that ATransMum hasn't answered, so if I may?

The term shifted in the 90s... originally, "transgender" which was coined by"Virginia" Prince, Ph.D, an autogynphilic full-time cross-dresser who had no desire for ANY medical interventions of any kind, Dr. Prince defined the term to EXCLUDE "classic" MTF transsexuals (feminine from birth, gender dysphoric from an early age, and exclusively androphilic). In the '90s, more and more non-transfolk and some "newbies" to the scene began to use the two terms indiscriminately. This actually caused flame wars in and between the various "trans" communities (yes, plural). These have mostly died down... but occasionally you can find arguments about it.

( I can still recall the extreme anger I felt the first time that I was called "transgender* by a doctor in 1996... given that I had transitioned as a teenager in the mid'70s and had up 'til then understood that "transgender" described fetishistic (autogynephilic) cross-dressers only. For my bio: sillyolme.wordpress.com/about/ )

The problem with these words is that anyone can use them in any fashion to mean almost anything.... Some tried to define "transsexual" as only those who were post-op... but this never quite stuck. And the term "transgender" got more and more inclusive such that it meant just about anybody who cross-dressed, even secretly in private. This is why the press reports that their are 1,400,000 people who "identify" as "transgender" in the United States... but only 90,000 who actually have had their legal identity changed (and thus represent actually living "as the opposite sex"... with various medical interventions from nearly universal HRT to 30,000 of them "genitally post-op" - the difference reflecting cost and for FtM's the rather poor results of phalloplasty.)

We are still having rather heated discussion about the fact that there are two completely separate biological etiologies leading to "transgender"... and they are often conflated and confused by the media... and even deliberately by many in the "transgender" community:

www.transkids.us/faq.html

Hope this has answered your question.

Sorry, my previous post was to sillyolme not somedyke. Read UNs wrong somehow...

FreshWaterSelkie asked, Do you find you get a lot of push back from the more vocal elements of transactivism with regard to being so open about the existence and prevelance of autogynephelia? Such acknowledgement seems quite unusual in today's climate of "transwomen are women, period". Refreshing, actually."

Yes... I get a LOT of push-back... but as to why I can speak so openly about it? Well... because of my history... I feel compelled to speak out because "our" type of MTF transsexual is being made to be "invisible" by the autogynephilic type:

www.transkids.us/invisible.html

Oh... and "Kay Brown" is a pen name.

What's the debate? There aren't two different biological etiologies leading to transgender, unless you are referring to both MTT & FTT.

I'm a bit puzzled by the road you're going down Sillyolme Why does it matter in terms of trans definitions to whom transpeople are attracted, beyond who is in your pool, as it were? That has nothing to do with sex or gender.

Sillyolme As someone who has transitioned, does it annoy you being lumped in with those who simply 'identify' or do you understand why some seem to be pushing for people like yourself and some random guy who 'feels' like a woman to be...the same?

The issues recently, with the 'transphobia' have came about because of t his self identification thing. Also because a lot of people seem to not understand that changing rooms and the likes are not separated by 'gender' but 'sex'. Every transsexual (sorry I use this to describe someone who has transitioned or plans to) I have spoken to, or read about seems to agree that they do not feel safe/comfortable in the room of their natal sex. But they would be happy with their own 'safe space' away from that of men (its always people wanting out of mens...never seen the other way round) whilst not imposing on women who don't want this?

Whilst the issues at the forefront of the effective flame wars thats going on right now, the massive class between translobby and feminists is, from what I see, guys who simply 'identify' (but do not wish to change anything) wanting access to women. Where those who have empathy with women understand why they would feel uncomfortable around native blokes...as they feel uncomfortable themselves? Not sure I am making myself understood here or not :/

Basically..do you agree with the trans-narrative that women (natal) should just roll over and accept all 'non-men' into their spaces regardless of their concerns, and for them to voice concerns means they are 'terfs'? Or do you agree that there are biological reasons for sex segregation?

WankingMonkey...

The gender atypicality is biological. We know this because it is highly correlated with sexual orientation in adulthood. The gender dysphoria is more complex... but still has very little to do with parental influence because everyone grows up in a larger culture and while parents can influence some thing... they can't control EVERYTHING.

We see transkids coming from every kind of household from very supportive to very condemning... and it doesn't make much difference. The larger culture though may... and in fact, in a more supportive and understanding culture, many, many more MTF transkids may result:

sillyolme.wordpress.com/2016/05/22/nature-vs-nuture/

This suggests, that in hateful, femmiphobic (misogynist) culture like ours, the smaller number that do fight their social restrictions to live as they feel they (we) must... is evidence that it must be very powerful.

SomeDyke, yes, I thought of it as being like religion too.

Silly, thanks for that. ATransMum did answer but very differently.

One of the things that causes problems here is the need to label thing that don't need labelling, I think. Gender non conformity for example. I don't think I agree with the whole idea of a gender spectrum either. Gender is just a label that fits a particular social construct, one which I really thought we were doing well with in terms of getting rid of it, until recently.

It is that concept that leads us to statements like "living as a woman" which I'm happy to accept from what I used to understand as a transsexual who had received treatment. I can't accept it from the guy who wanted to change in the women's area at Urban Outfitters.

FirstShinyRobe...

Please read my Blog... there are already many links. There are two and only two completely separate biological etiologies leading to MTF "trans"... they are VERY different:

sillyolme.wordpress.com/2014/02/14/a-clinical-view/

Where's the biology?

The gender atypicality is biological

I would suggest that 99% of the planet is actually 'gender atypical' though. I agree gender is non-binary. And I would argue that knowing what non-binary actually means (in simpler form, not following stereotypes associated with each 'gender') a hell of a lot of people would 'identify' as such. This doesn't make then trans though? Simply not fitting nicely into societys gender box. I fail to see how this can be any more biological than ones personality is.