How do/would Buddhists view gender?

[whowhywhenwhat]

I didn't know whether to post this in the religion/philosophy board as it does cross over to there. But have chosen here because I think it so pertinent to the discussions on here.

In Buddhism, if I understand it correctly, sense of self, ego, is rejected. So where would that leave gender? Is it religious discrimination to insist on people disclosing a gender on forms etc?

This article talks about this - www.lionsroar.com/does-my-transgender-identity-conflict-with-the-teachings-on-no-self/

Ah. Hmm. So it might or might not, I suppose....(?)

The insistence might cause problems, though.

It’s so interesting how all those responses acknowledge the fundamental contradiction between transgenderism and Buddhism (and with any kind of scientifically informed understanding of the “self”), though they aren’t saying “don’t be trans.”

I wonder if the person who wrote in got what they was looking for. If they took it seriously I don’t think they could end up as the toxic, delusional kind of TRA. A transwoman Buddhist should understand very clearly that they are not a woman, (but then the ego is very tricky.)

I look forward to this conversation, OP. I think we will find a different perspective between the (mostly) US-centric woke culture presented in Lions Roar and tricycle.org/tag/transgender/ on the one side and the more foundational and orthodox view that gender identity might be an expression of holding on to self and something to be let go.

I was very irked recently by an article in Tricycle by a trans person complaining that the Zen group they were sitting with wasn't supportive enough - because the author found it uncomfortable sitting with a binder and a packer. While the Zen centre had marked a previously male toilet block as being gender-neutral (and keeping the women's as is) they complained that women weren't using the gender-neutral one and therefore not being supportive! Sorry, I just had to vent. I couldn't find a link to the article, unfortunately.

Some people say that it's better to talk about 'buddhisms' than 'Buddhism' as an edifice. There is such huge range of approach between Zen, Theravada, Mahayana and contemporary Western/secular Buddhism that most broad questions like yours can only really be answered with 'maybe, it depends'.

Buddhism doesn't have a canon, or a bible, per se, so much of it depends on local cultural traditions and an absolutely vast literature that was initially oral but is now spread across many, many texts.

That said, there is still a LOT of sexism in Buddhism, as with many/most religions.

To go back to older Buddhist texts, the Buddha was said to have taken quite a bit of persuading to allow that women could study to become enlightened. He did eventually, and women were accepted. Again, though, that should be looked at in context of 2500 years ago Nepalese society.

'sense of self, ego, is rejected' - not exactly, although that could get quite a long discussion in itself. Ego is acknowledged but examined carefully to be seen as a construction. 'Non-self' is a foundational belief of Buddhism in a way but again, that can get complicated and Buddhists can spend an awful lot of time discussing the nuance and shading of this question. It's perhaps more usefully described as having no belief in a soul or permanent 'self'.

www.britannica.com/topic/anatta

Ego isn't necessarily the same as 'gender', though.

• and sorry, to get back to your original question, this is an issue that is debated within Buddhist groups to much dissent and disagreement, as with everywhere else!

Ego isn't necessarily the same as 'gender', though

Ah, yes, I can see how someone views this could be the crux of it. Does sense of gender identity come from ego or something else.

- and sorry, to get back to your original question, this is an issue that is debated within Buddhist groups to much dissent and disagreement, as with everywhere else!

Which is ironic! I mean debating (versus more collaborative discussion) surely comes from self ideation?

I mean, I agree to conflate ego with gender is probably way too reductive. But I would say that if we talk about identity and ego there is a large overlap. The focus on identity as constitution oneself in a fundamental way would be really hard to square with non-self.

TBH I think that all the major religions, while there are differences in the way they think about it and the language they use, point to ego as a kind of prison, and freedom from ego, from constructed identities, to being key to real freedom or self-understanding or unity with the divine.

Ego also does not necessarily equal self. Yes, there is overlap, but 'ego' is for a start a term stemming from Freudian theory, it's a distinct idea from 'self' - and especially from the way 'self' is described/understood in Buddhism(s).

Debating is sensible, natural, and often necessary, whowhy. Buddhists disagree on lots and lots of things. In fact, some traditions have debate built into the curriculum for monks:

And discussion, questioning and free enquiry is arguably one of the principles the Buddha was quite clear on:

encyclopediaofbuddhism.org/wiki/Kalama_Sutta

'don’t go by oral transmission, don’t go by lineage, don’t go by testament, don’t go by canonical authority, don’t rely on logic, don’t rely on inference, don’t go by reasoned contemplation, don’t go by the acceptance of a view after consideration, don’t go by the appearance of competence, and don’t think ‘The ascetic is our respected teacher.’ But when you know for yourselves: ‘These things are unskillful, blameworthy, criticized by sensible people, and when you undertake them, they lead to harm and suffering’, then you should give them up.'

Final point, I would say that Buddhism doesn't have 'divinity' or 'the divine' as we understand it, really. It's an apophatic theology to use a difficult but (I think) accurate phrase.

In practical terms, we all have ego, it's a natural and often useful feature of being human. Freedom most likely comes from understanding, acceptance and choosing skilful responses, rather than a renunciation of ego. I hope that makes sense.

if we talk about identity and ego there is a large overlap - yes, I think that's probably accurate.

@ArabellaScott, thank you. Some thought provoking stuff there.

TBH I think that all the major religions, while there are differences in the way they think about it and the language they use, point to ego as a kind of prison, and freedom from ego, from constructed identities, to being key to real freedom or self-understanding or unity with the divine.

@SantaClawsServiette, yes, I see that as being a common theme. From there I was wondering how trans ideology would fit with it. How much is sense of gender identity connected with self versus non-self? The criticism of people for stating they don't experience an internal sense of gender identity would surely conflict with ideas of discernment between what is self and non-self and finding freedom from self?

One of the Buddhist central tenets is not lying, and the importance of how you use speech.

Buddhists shouldn't lie about a person. Even if the person asks/begs them to lie.

'right speech' means abstaining from false, divisive, abusive or idle speech. Using the right words at the right time.

A very important part of Buddhist teachings, yes.

My understanding of Buddhism (especially the Zen kind) is that practitioners

• should aspire to see the world as a whole (including themselves) "as it is", as opposed to how they wish it (or fear it) to be
• should practice letting go of their ego (to attain a much "lighter"/unburdened sense of self)

To me that sounds very GC... Lots of GC people mention a belief in objective reality ("what just is"), and don't see themselves as having any gender ("I am just me")

I could imagine a trans person following Buddhist principles, but they might well end up being GC by the end of their journey.
Whether they decide to detransition or not as a result is up to them (they might simply be happy with where they are, and with the full knowledge of who they are, and not feel like announcing it to the world)

But the way a lot of trans people "present" seems very un-Buddhist (way too self-focused, for instance, and concerned with how others perceive them)

@RobotValkyrie & @Linguini, yes, that bit about objective reality is pretty pertinent.

I recently went to some Buddhist teachings with a Lama Rinpoche. One member of the group had recently transitioned from male to female. The Rinpoche addressed the person using their female name.

However in those same teachings I learnt that being on the path to enlightenment means understanding through meditation that I don't exist. That you cannot pinpoint a part of yourself that makes you 'you' which shows that there is no 'you'.

So if Buddhism does not believe anyone has souls then I don't think it can believe in gendered souls.

@SapphosRock

I recently went to some Buddhist teachings with a Lama Rinpoche. One member of the group had recently transitioned from male to female. The Rinpoche addressed the person using their female name.

However in those same teachings I learnt that being on the path to enlightenment means understanding through meditation that I don't exist. That you cannot pinpoint a part of yourself that makes you 'you' which shows that there is no 'you'.

So if Buddhism does not believe anyone has souls then I don't think it can believe in gendered souls.

Why is there a requirement to believe in gendered souls to believe that trans people exist? This isn't a common belief amongst trans people.

@BlueberryCheezecake, this thread is just in terms of trans and Buddhism. Obviously not all trans people are Buddhist. I'm not Buddhist or trans myself. I am interested in aspects of Buddhism, though. And how trans ideology is a new emerging feature in our culture. For this thread, I was interested in imagining how trans ideology would work in reference to Buddhism.

@SapphosRock

I recently went to some Buddhist teachings with a Lama Rinpoche. One member of the group had recently transitioned from male to female. The Rinpoche addressed the person using their female name.

However in those same teachings I learnt that being on the path to enlightenment means understanding through meditation that I don't exist. That you cannot pinpoint a part of yourself that makes you 'you' which shows that there is no 'you'.

So if Buddhism does not believe anyone has souls then I don't think it can believe in gendered souls.

I think the teaching about this is often understood to go beyond the idea of a soul. Eastern religions often have a much different approach to the body as well, though that's less so with western types of secular Buddhism. But yes, it's difficult to see what you could point to in this way of thinking that could account for something like an identity that would be positive.

Why is there a requirement to believe in gendered souls to believe that trans people exist?

I think I might have got your point wrong in a previous post (?). If the part of us which is not transient and in all things is the bit of us which is not self, it can't be gendered can it? If gender belongs to the identity part of our being it is not permanent and should be let go of to alleviate suffering.(?)

Buddhism explicitly denies the existence of a soul. It's what distinguishes Buddhism from Hinduism.

www.britannica.com/topic/anatta

Although there are interesting discussions to be had on the subject of anatta, if Buddhists follow a more literal view of 'rebirth', as some do.

Why is there a requirement to believe in gendered souls to believe that trans people exist? This isn't a common belief amongst trans people.

Because of the idea that 'gender identity' is something that we are born with, separate to our sexed bodies.

A gc feminists says any brain is the sex of the body it belongs to - and says there's no such thing as being 'born in the wrong body'. Or having a 'female brain in a male body', which is how some trans people express their transness (or vice versa, 'male brain in a female body', of course.)

@ArabellaScott

Why is there a requirement to believe in gendered souls to believe that trans people exist? This isn't a common belief amongst trans people.

Because of the idea that 'gender identity' is something that we are born with, separate to our sexed bodies.

A gc feminists says any brain is the sex of the body it belongs to - and says there's no such thing as being 'born in the wrong body'. Or having a 'female brain in a male body', which is how some trans people express their transness (or vice versa, 'male brain in a female body', of course.)

That doesn't infer a belief in the soul, gendered or otherwise.