What broader issues has the trans (lack of) debate opened your eyes to?

[FredFlintstonesTunic]

For me, it's really exposed how large media platforms (i.e., a few very rich and powerful people) can shape public perceptions (e.g., by blocking, shaming, nudging and belittling certain ideas and/or people, and promoting others).

I'm no longer so quick to dismiss other people's unusual opinions, or to label them "conspiracists" without looking as openly as possible into what they're talking about (including from sources associated with intelligent people not necessarily in the mainstream media). I don't trust Wikipedia (or Urban Dictionary) without question (which I shouldn't have anyway, but...). I have more respect for people who are willing to say unpopular things (e.g., left-wingers who don't like the EU). In general, I'm far more likely to take news stories with a pinch of salt.

Anyone else?

How so

One of the big points for reflection, for me, arising out of the whole trans issue, has related to the claims or suggestions that there are no inherent differences between men and women/ between the sexes...That every behaviour is socially constructed......if they relate to behaviours associated, in general, with sexes. That given generous enough paternity leave, men are just as likely to choose staying at home with young children, as women, for example.And if they don't it is because they are misogynistic and selfish, or haven't been trained or taught properly.

I simply no longer believe, if I ever did at all, that biology, hormones & genetic programming do not play a part somewhere in certain traits and tendencies, preferences, when expressed by males and females.

I spent a good amount of my younger years celebrating goddess type feminism/being grounded in the earth and in the natural world.....certainly for me it was never the sexed body that I wanted to reject at all.

That is not to say that we must follow our deeper drives, tendencies, impulses etc....They can be modified or even repressed.......but that does not mean they do not exist. ( See earlier discussion on the thread: 'Do women already have equal rights in the West).

The trans agenda is a confused one. On one hand it goes along with the idea that being born male or female makes no difference to one's identity;; even suggesting that sex, itself, is socially constructed; and that the only real difference is one that is internally identified.

Of course this 'felt identity' relies on stereotypes of the two sexes.....one's felt idea about what a man is like, or what a woman is like.......and so on.

But my feeling is that people instinctively intuit a difference between the sexes, that goes deeper than just the physical body.We intuit maleness and femaleness, or male and female qualities; and the reason is that maleness and femaleness are not just socially constructed, but arise from deep archetypes..both biological/natural as well as cultural.

A generation of younger people are now brought up to think and believe that equality effectively means sameness...than men and women, given socially constructed conditions of 'equality', will make the same choices....and that the only difference between people arises out of individuality rather than out of one's sex.

The body is not just a costume one assumes, or which one may attempt to disguise. It is not, I believe, without internal connection, significance or effect. The physical manifestations of sex are outward significators of deeper programmes.

Of course we all exist along a spectrum of possible individual expression, and biological and natural impulses and tendencies can be modified to a greater or lesser extent, depending on the individual...but, still, some women are always going to exhibit at the extremes of 'femaleness/femininity' and some men likewise at the extremes of maleness/masculinity.The archetypes remain untouched and are rooted in biology.

I do think a lot of people think that to be treated with respect and as 'equals' means you have to assert that everyone is exactly the same. Any differences that are highlighted automatically means you support sexism or racism, for example. Acknowledgment of differences is not the same as asserting that one category is superior to another.
We shouldn't necessarily base collective respect and good treatment of others on the assumption that we're always the same, but rather everyone deserves to be treated well and viewed as an equal even if we are different. Equality can be fostered by nurturing what we have in common, but it can also be cultivated in spite of our differences.

Sexual dimorphism arises out of evolution and evolution doesn't magically stop at the neck. The human body and mind have evolved in response to our environment as well as the selective pressures on our species, including sexual selection by women on men and men on women.

Of course we all exist along a spectrum of possible individual expression, and biological and natural impulses and tendencies can be modified to a greater or lesser extent, depending on the individual...but, still, some women are always going to exhibit at the extremes of 'femaleness/femininity' and some men likewise at the extremes of maleness/masculinity.The archetypes remain untouched and are rooted in biology

Justadathought I agree with you that some behaviours classed stereotypically masculine/feminine are rooted in biology (sexual orientation, for example) but I think that the conflation of femininity with femaleness and masculinity with maleness is foundational to the belief in gender. So I'm wondering if you intended to say 'femaleness/femininity'?

I'm also just wondering if you can explain what you mean by 'archetype' - do you just mean stereotype (possibly based on statistically correct traits) or do you mean it the way it's used in Jungianism?

The funny thing is, I think if I believed in Jungianism I'd probably be much more likely to believe in a gender identity, because it seems to involve a belief in male and female 'essences'. Maybe I've got the wrong impression? Just very interested in understanding this better because I've noticed a lot of gender critical people are into Jung, and I'd expect the opposite.

I do think a lot of people think that to be treated with respect and as 'equals' means you have to assert that everyone is exactly the same.

YY, equal does not mean exactly the same as. It means of equivalent value.

Mermoose

I'm not Justhadathought obviously, but I think I tend to agree with her on this overall.

I think that what we think of as masculine and feminine in many cases are composed of associations that get built up over time with maleness and femaleness. Human beings are good at recognising patterns amongst groups, even when they are weak patters, and sex is one of the most significant and most human class divisions we have. If we recognise a pattern of greater aggressiveness among men, for example, that sets a dichotomy of aggressive/gentle as part of masculinity/femininity. If we associate biological elements of motherhood like carrying a child or nursing and infant with women, that begins to associate a certain kind of protective and caring nurture with femininity. Some might be very biological, as in associating men with a greater height or more body hair and vice versa.
Some other associations may be more culturally determined, like clothing, but the fact that they differ may function simply as a way to notate an awareness of difference between the sexes. It doesn't matter f you associate blue with men or women, it still functions as a culturally recognised shorthand.

The women's movement has had some unexpected effects in trying to downplay these differences, I think, and even the awareness of the differences. The goal in part was to say that individual men and women don't necessarily conform to these patterns and shouldn't be held to them, but this was taken up into a denial that the patterns exist at all, and often a claim that the idea of masculinity and femininity needed to be completely destroyed in order for women to be free.

But who would have thought, for example, that you could have a large number of young women actually unaware that men and women have significant strength differences? Who would have thought that teaching that individuals should be able to wear what they want would lead to the idea that doing so was important to their self-actualisation - ie was an important part of their identity? Can we really just remove the associations of motherhood from the group women without also losing an understanding of the biological foundations of motherhood?

What it's come down to for me is that I do not think we can prevent the existence of cultural significance and understanding of sexual dimorphism, and if we try and suppress that altogether, the results are not great.

Goosefoot thanks, I always find your posts interesting, but I think you've misunderstood me. I agree with you that there are statistical differences between men & women, and that these often get sorted into feminine/masculine behaviours. What I don't think is that femininity = femaleness, or masculinity = maleness. This is a conflation that the transgender movement makes, which is why I was drawing attention to Justhadathought's use of 'feminity/femaleness' and 'masculinity/maleness'. I'm pretty sure it was inadvertent, but I think it's a key error made by people who do believe that, for example, masculine women are somehow 'really' male'.

One thing the trans movement has made me more aware of, is how you can't believe what you read online. Some people are openly dishonest, some circulate rumours that aren't true - and the more people are repeating the rumour, the more believable it gets.

The one I'm thinking of in particular is the 'purple triangle' rumour. A TRA called 12thGuelph made a facetious comment on Mumsnet that trans people should wear a purple triangle. The comment was deleted but not before it was screenshotted and circulated widely as 'this is what people on Mumsnet think'. Just the other day I saw a TRA on Twitter, who probably believed what they were saying, claim that 'Mumsnet wants trans people to wear purple triangles'.

Goosefoot thanks, I always find your posts interesting, but I think you've misunderstood me. I agree with you that there are statistical differences between men & women, and that these often get sorted into feminine/masculine behaviours. What I don't think is that femininity = femaleness, or masculinity = maleness. This is a conflation that the transgender movement makes, which is why I was drawing attention to Justhadathought's use of 'feminity/femaleness' and 'masculinity/maleness'. I'm pretty sure it was inadvertent, but I think it's a key error made by people who do believe that, for example, masculine women are somehow 'really' male'.

Yes, I agree, I think that is the mistake they've made, that maleness and masculinity are equivalent and the same for femaleness and femininity.

Maybe that's what happens when you deny anything inherent or real in masculinity or femininity? People reinterpret those things, when they encounter them, as maleness and femaleness?

Maybe that's what happens when you deny anything inherent or real in masculinity or femininity? People reinterpret those things, when they encounter them, as maleness and femaleness?

To be honest, I've never successfully followed the logic of people who believe in gender identity trumping sex, so I don't know if this is their line of thought. The idea that being feminine=being female certainly doesn't seem to follow logically from the idea that being female=/= being feminine, or that femininity is the result of socialisation.

I don't think it's a logical chain.

But there is a sort of principle...? I guess you'd call it, where if you fail to acknowledge something basic or inherent, it's still there - it will just assert itself in a different way. And another related idea where you often find opposite ideas present in a society that pull against each other, and the more extreme one becomes the more extreme the other becomes.

It seems like when we try and make very basic changes in belief or language, the unanticipated effects are often significant, and sometimes almost seem the opposite of what you'd expect.

I think it's very likely that claims that women are physically as strong as men, for example, has helped create the idea that it doesn't much matter who is classed as male and who is classed as female.
A lot of sex-based rights are only necessary because there are differences between men and women.

I've said this earlier in the thread so sorry for repeating, but I think there are two strands to the gender movement: one is the belief that feminine men are really female; the other is the belief that it doesn't matter if they are or not. So I think that aspects of feminism have certainly contributed to the second strand, but if they've contributed to the first (maybe they have), it's not clear to me how. But I agree with you that the outcome to things we do is often unforeseeable, and that it's a bad idea to assert things that aren't true even when we'd like them to be true.

I'm also just wondering if you can explain what you mean by 'archetype' - do you just mean stereotype (possibly based on statistically correct traits) or do you mean it the way it's used in Jungianism

Yes, archetype in Jungian terms...Archetype as the deeper root/form of stereotype..which has its foundations in the collective unconscious.....which itself has roots not just in the collective memory, but in the deeper biological roots; and in the roles which arise out of the biological functions and differences.

The funny thing is, I think if I believed in Jungianism I'd probably be much more likely to believe in a gender identity, because it seems to involve a belief in male and female 'essences'. Maybe I've got the wrong impression? Just very interested in understanding this better because I've noticed a lot of gender critical people are into Jung, and I'd expect the opposite

Jung would have said that we all contain an element of the opposite sex within us, in the form of the anima ( for men), and the animus ( for women). It is the archetypal pattern/impression of the essential female/masculine that resides in each of us.

An archetype has very deep and powerful roots......and resides in the imaginal life; in the dream life; the religious life; in the shape of symbols.I don't think it is quite the same as saying that there is such a thing as a 'gender identity', though, although people can become fixated on anima or animus images.

But I think that the conflation of femininity with femaleness and masculinity with maleness is foundational to the belief in gender. So I'm wondering if you intended to say 'femaleness/femininity'

I guess that gender is the very outward manifestation of essential maleness or femaleness......which has become calcified into a rigid form....which is then applied in rigid ways. That is what I'd call a stereotype, as opposed to an archetype. A stereotype is devoid of real life. It is cut off from its roots.....and is a like a mask or costume.

Ive seen some interesting Jungian analysis of gender theory/transgenderism that see manifestations of gender issues as related to a failure to integrate the anima and animus in a mature way. So just like a woman who hasn't really made friends with these archetypes might on the one hand resort to trying to live up to the most overt and superficial image of the anima, another expression of the same problem would be to reject the expression of the anima and try and live as an image of the animus.

Can I just add that the anima/animus figures are not uniform and the same in all of us...they do differ...although along a spectrum of feminine/masculine archetypes.

So for example....the Puer is one possible dominant female animus: the youthful, sprightly male, of quicksilver responses to the world - but who also resists commitment to the world of mother and home. Beautiful and romantic, but unreliable/unfaithful. The senex would be the older, wise man/father figure.....who provides safety, security and knowledge, but who on the flip side stifles and imprisons..and so on.....

I guess that gender is the very outward manifestation of essential maleness or femaleness

But to me, this sounds like a belief in gender identity - in a male or female essence? I don't believe in gender identity because I think we're just male or female, and then that carries a statistical likelihood of having certain behavioural characteristics. I don't think there's anything else 'there' - like a female or male soul, or male or female archetypes (except in the sense of stereotypes - whether fair or unfair stereotypes).

So just like a woman who hasn't really made friends with these archetypes might on the one hand resort to trying to live up to the most overt and superficial image of the anima, another expression of the same problem would be to reject the expression of the anima and try and live as an image of the animus

Yes, and some of this may stem from relational difficulties with either parent, or with male /female personifications and representations.

The way that some of us very much identify ourselves as 'our father's daughter', and some of us are very much tied to or identified with our mother. And even if we reject one paren/parental image, than it still constellates itself in our unconscious and exerts a pull and a power over us.

I often see that many gay men are taken over by their own anima, as they identify or fixate on the mother/anima image: hence the drag; hence the mother attachments; hence the hyper feminised mannerisms and camp'ness that some express.

But to me, this sounds like a belief in gender identity - in a male or female essence

I'd say that a fixed 'gender identity' is a kind of bastardised form of an 'essential essence'; a sterile persona - which is made up of stereotyped traits, behaviours and mannerisms........which is why they don't flow naturally; are often highly stilted or practised......they are cut off from real roots. They are a performance of gender.

I'd say that a fixed 'gender identity' is a kind of bastardised form of an 'essential essence'; a sterile persona - which is made up of stereotyped traits, behaviours and mannerisms........which is why they don't flow naturally; are often highly stilted or practised......they are cut off from real roots. They are a performance of gender.

But, in fairness, many trans people (or people who identify as 'cis') would reject this, and say they don't base their identity on stereotypes. And indeed, a lot of people who believe they have a gender identity (cis or trans) don't behave as stereotypes.

I mean, that's the whole puzzle - when I talk to someone who believes in gender identity, I say to them, if it's not sex, and it's not stereotypes, what is it? They believe there's something else - something that makes them essentially male or female (or non-binary, etc). But it seems like Jungians believe in that too.

It's the way the sexual body and the material correlates of that manifest in the personality, in relationships, in culture, in the mind.

"Gender identity" is one reductive way to talk about that, and stereotypes are another. So a stereotpe of a mother is maybe an image of someone who cradles an infant, or bakes bread to feed her family, or protects her children from harm, teaches them, whatever. But it's just going through the motions if you think those things are motherhood.

Those images however are a reflection of something real, the fact of motherhood - we recognise them when we see them because it's something we know, it has a pattern. If mammals reproduced through division like amoebas, there would not be a recognisable pattern of human motherhood because it wouldn't be a thing. You couldn't have a story about a made up mother that seemed authentic or compelling because no one would have any real reference for it.

This might be a clue to part of the problem that's arisen with male/masculinity - female/femininity - when the pattern is no longer recognised as having a root or being an reflection of something real, it becomes a kind of zombie image, unattached to anything, and not only that, it can begin to degrade the sense of the material thing it is meant to be a reflection of.

But, in fairness, many trans people (or people who identify as 'cis') would reject this, and say they don't base their identity on stereotypes. And indeed, a lot of people who believe they have a gender identity (cis or trans) don't behave as stereotypes

Does anyone really "identify as cis"? Surely the 'cis' adjective arises from the ideology of transgenderism. You have to embrace the ideology in order to embrace 'cis' as an identity.

My feeling is that if one has to adopt an identity, it is almost like an artificial construct. People tend to identify with things, not as things most of the time, and most of those identifications are unconscious. Although, I guess we do develop 'identities' over time, as we associate ourselves with particular things that reflect our passion, our feelings, our values and so on.

Does anyone really "identify as cis"? Surely the 'cis' adjective arises from the ideology of transgenderism. You have to embrace the ideology in order to embrace 'cis' as an identity.

Yes, it does of course arise from the belief in gender identity. That's what I'm saying, is that they believe they have a gender identity (male/female) in line with their biological sex. But to believe that, they have to believe that there is a part to being male or female other than the physical, biological aspect. As do you, no?