Pregnant trans men Guardian article

[Todayissunny]

www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2018/mar/22/story-one-mans-pregnancy-trans-jason-barker

I just find this so confusing....
It tells me that we should just be able to live how we want to. We should absolutely not be defined by gender.

Or am I just really, really old fashioned that this is just absolutely crazy.

Borntobequiet,

Yes, whilst I disagree entirely re dolls (I never played with mine because as an isolated youngest child I never saw an admired adult interacting with a baby)but I take your point

“It's pretty clear that the aspect of gender that TIMs embrace is exclusively the social construct”

So can’t we agree on that and move on.

But why does it matter if Stillscreaming tends a bit more towards the nature argument whereas I tend to nurture?

It doesn't.

Unfortunately the problem is far bigger that somebody on the internet believing something questionable.

This is an extract from a leaflet produced by East Sussex Council, with the endorsement of the head of Children's Services. (In which 'trans' is defined as: Transgender, Transsexual, Cross-dresser, Neither male nor female, Androgynous, A third gender, Or who have a gender identity which we do not yet have words to describe)

Scenario 1
My daughter doesn’t want a boy changing next to her, what if he looks at her body?

For example, in this scenario it would not be appropriate to remove the trans person from the changing rooms if a concern is raised by a parent or carer. In this situation, it would be far more appropriate to look at offering an alternative changing arrangement for the child who feels uncomfortable around the trans person. A Human Rights response would be to state that although the individual in question may have the body of a boy, they are in every other respect a girl and as such have the right under the Equality Act to change with the girls and to be treated fairly as such.

The legal advice here is questionable - the equalities act still recognises sex as a protected characteristic, self ID is not yet law, but what on earth does 'in every other respect a girl mean?' What is the head of children's services (a middle aged man, by the way), trying to tell girls about what it means to be a girl and their rights to set boundaries?

Here is another example:

Scenario 2
It’s not fair that he enters the 100 metres race for girls when he is a boy/Or Won’t she get injured playing rugby with boys?

Similarly, pupils or students who feel that a trans* child should not be involved in certain sporting activities may themselves need to be supported to do a different activity.
This kind of support acknowledges that some individuals may struggle to understand trans people or initially feel uncomfortable around them, but does not support the idea that trans people should be treated any differently to cisgendered people. The responsibility lies with the individual who has the problem to deal with that problem, not with the trans* person to accommodate for that person’s insecurity around them or their child.

Girls, don't compete to win! Your problem isn't that you don't want to compete against people with male bodies! You are just insecure! Find something else to do!

Ideology is dictating policy, and deliberate attempts are being made to silence politicians and academics who question the ideology. It's as though after the MMR controversy the government decided they weren't just going to ban all vaccinations, they were going to prescribe homeopathy instead.

Agreed.

"Gender is a social construct" is useful shorthand but too simplistic (as is the "nature vs nurture" dichotomy).
Some "gendered behaviours" probably do originate in biology... while others probably don't

This is exactly it, I completely agree. I do feel that the mantra-like repetition of "gender is a social construct" so disregards the "nature" aspect of behaviours, putting it down entirely to "nurture".

It's pretty clear that the aspect of gender that TIMs embrace is exclusively the social construct. They are probably incapable of understanding the biologically based behaviours. And this includes fear of random males with penisis.

I'm not sure though how you work this out; do you have the book on exactly which behaviours relate to nature and which to social construct? Can you see no reason why a trans person might choose to ape the stereotypical behaviours as well as anything they feel they have innately?

I'm pretty sure a whole load of transwomen feel much the same as other women about random men with penises.

“I'm not sure though how you work this out; do you have the book on exactly which behaviours relate to nature and which to social construct? Can you see no reason why a trans person might choose to ape the stereotypical behaviours as well as anything they feel they have innately? “

In all honestly Rat I do struggle with this. I don’t understand it.

“I'm pretty sure a whole load of transwomen feel much the same as other women about random men with penises.”

For fear of being attacked? Especially if they reveal their status to a man who has desired them? Yep I get that.

AFAIK the marker of verifiable fact vs ideological belief is not endless confirmation but falsifiability. Until then it's just a hypothesis.

What empirical findings would convince you that gender is a NOT social construct?

In all honestly Rat I do struggle with this. I don’t understand it.

That's totally okay, it's not too obstructive a difference of opinion in the grand scheme of things :)

For me, I just imagine what it must be like to be trans and to feel very strongly that you're a man (for example), feeling that people aren't going to believe you if you tell them; that they might try to convince you you're just a masculine girl, or gender non-conforming or whatever, but really truly believing you are in fact a man. Knowing you won't be happy with anything less than pursuing a life as close to be accepted as a man as you can achieve, and likely a body as closely resembling one too.

Then I think yeah, in those circumstances I would probably try and put as much weight behind my claim to be a man rather than just a masculine girl as I possibly could, because so much would depend on it. I'd probably ape all the stereotypical behaviours I possibly could for fear of not being believed. That seems logical to me.

Then I imagine if I were trans and I were quite a lot more confident that I would be believed, and that I would be accepted. And I imagine I wouldn't feel the same need to ape behaviours beyond my normal self-expression. I might feel like I could retain some of my more stereotypically "girly" preferences because I'd have less fear that they'd be used to evidence me not really being a man at all.

Honestly it's so complex, there's so much to consider, I'm just trying to come at it with empathy - not saying others aren't, just that this is my own personal thought process.

What empirical findings would convince you that gender is a NOT social construct?

Well that's not going to work is it, because I think gender is a social construct... AND perhaps something innate to a person as well.

Rat,

So you are wondering whether a more complete affirmation might lead more trans people to relax and drop the ultra-girlie stuff?

I see what you are saying. I have a feeling (warning: random anecdote based on nothing but a feeling) that gay men may display fewer camp behaviours nowadays because they are more accepted than previously.

Sorry, I meant not exclusively a social construct. The "gender is exclusively a social construct" belief strikes me as ideologically motivated.

I see what you are saying. I have a feeling (warning: random anecdote based on nothing but a feeling) that gay men may display fewer camp behaviours nowadays because they are more accepted than previously.

EXACTLY.

Peter Rankin, a neuropsychologist & Hillsborough survivor has said, "If your most significant experience is invalidated… and… not believed by the rest of the world, then you have to fight for that to be corrected otherwise you don't really exist as a person."

Disbelief drives people crazy. These people are fighting for their existence. If we stopped denying it the whole time they would probably calm the fùck down.

So

“What empirical findings would convince me that “gender” is not exclusively a social contract?”

Christ, even thinking about it makes me feel trapped and afraid.

I am happy to accept that my “it’s a socia” construct” position is political/concerned with my own safety and advancement.

The "gender is exclusively a social construct" belief strikes me as ideologically motivated.

Precisely, equally as motivated as anyone trying to say gender is entirely innate, "pink brain, blue brain and there's nothing more to it" bullshit.

So you are wondering whether a more complete affirmation might lead more trans people to relax and drop the ultra-girlie stuff?

I think overall it probably would. And it's a shame I think that this is what angers so many feminists so very much, because to me it just seems like the totally obvious thing that someone in that position would do - purely in order to ease acceptance - and that that should be the thing that might prohibit it just seems really sad to me.

And it's a shame I think that this is what angers so many feminists so very much

The "this" being that transwomen in particular seem to peddle and reinforce the damaging gender stereotypes that we are fighting to erase. Of course I understand why it would anger feminists, I just think it's so unfortunate.

Really interesting points.
I’m more than happy to describe my own position (nurture) as ideological. I personally also feel sure it’s correct but I can’t prove that. That’s just a feeling in a woman’s head.

I’m glad you unpacked that Rat!
(In fact can you unpack a little more)?

I think that before deciding whether gender is innate you have to define what gender is and also explain why, when finding those qualities in a woman, your conclusion would be that they are a man, not that those qualities are also clearly present in women.

I personally also feel sure it’s correct but I can’t prove that. That’s just a feeling in a woman’s head.

That's perfectly reasonable (and I see what you're getting at, I think ).

The thing is that the world each of us living are living in, despite being the exact same place, is probably a completely different place to each of us inside our heads.

My vision of a tolerant, inclusive and humane society is one where everyone's vision is accommodated as far as is possible without undue hardship caused to others. That doesn't mean no hardship, that just means a fair and equitable distribution of that burden between every single one of us, in order to achieve that society.

So to me, it's not fair and equitable that no transperson should ever be offended or assaulted or inconvenienced if that means women suffer extensively as a result. Likewise it's not fair for no woman ever to feel uncomfortable, inconvenienced or even (god forbid) be assaulted if the price of that is a far greater suffering to transpeople.

It's more complicated than that of course, but that's my general premise. So I guess my "it could be nature or it could be nurture but most likely it's both" is ideological too, given that the above is the position I'm coming from.

Hope you didn't mind me waxing lyrical a bit there, I went off topic!

your conclusion would be that they are a man

Trans isn't something that's externally imposed on people as a result of their behaviour or appearance though is it; so it wouldn't be my conclusion that they are one thing or another.

My conclusion would simply be to accept the version of reality in that person's head and to tolerate it and accommodate it as far as I reasonably could.

Obviously the point of disagreement comes when trying to work out what's reasonable; how to equitably dole out the shit bits of sharing the world with other people; and by "shit bits" I mostly mean managing the fact that some of those other people are total fuckwits!

“That doesn't mean no hardship, that just means a fair and equitable distribution of that burden between every single one of us, in order to achieve that society.”

Yes.

If you solve that one, let us know!

"Obviously the point of disagreement comes when trying to work out what's reasonable; how to equitably dole out the shit bits of sharing the world with other people; and by "shit bits" I mostly mean managing the fact that some of those other people are total fuckwits!"

Rat - v well put.

*My conclusion would simply be to accept the version of reality in that person's head and to tolerate it and accommodate it as far as I reasonably could’.

Unfortunately science, politics and society pretty much depends on people being able to use language in a way that has an agreed and specific meaning, particularly when you are defining the rights of an oppressed group with specific needs.

(Apologies for my demeaning "calm the fùck down" line.)

I have a feeling (warning: random anecdote based on nothing but a feeling) that gay men may display fewer camp behaviours nowadays because they are more accepted than previously.
I disagree. There have always been gay men who were not flamboyant in their behavior. In fact the vast majority of gay men are not now nor ever have been the theatrical stereotypes. They act like people because they are people. If I misunderstand what you mean by "camp behaviors" please correct me.

When people's identity is threatened, they reaffirm it. At least some of what you see as entitlement I see as insecurity.

That's what I see too spoonless.