Push and pull factors in transitioning

[GCScot]

People's motivations in making a change can be categorised into 'push' and 'pull' factors. 'Push' factors are your dissatisfaction with your current state. 'Pull' factors are the perceived advantages of another state.

I started thinking about the possible push and pull factors for people transitioning their gender. It made me realise that there are two distinct groups:

Group 1 = mainly motivated by push factors. i.e. they are unhappy with their sexed body. They include:

• Women/girls with internalised misogyny

• Gay people with internalised homophobia

• Non-genderconforming autistic people who have internalised sexist stereotypes as fact

• Survivors of abuse/trauma who are trying to protect themselves from future abuse/trauma

Group 2 = mainly motivated by pull factors. i.e. they are attracted to being/being perceived to be the opposite sex. They include:

• People who are sexually aroused by the idea of themselves being the opposite sex (AGP/AAP)

• People who think they can gain a personal advantage (sporting/competitive/sexual access) by claiming to be the opposite sex

Group 1 are mainly children and young adults, especially girls. They have gender dysphoria. Because they are trying to permanently and convincingly escape their sexed bodies, they are more likely to undergo medical modifications (surgery, artificial hormones). They have a diverse range of vulnerabilities as a result of their own personal life experiences and the prejudices of society

Group 2 are mainly adult men. We might say they have gender euphoria. Because they aren't trying to escape their sexed bodies they are unlikely to undergo medical modification, preferring temporary and superficial modifications such as clothes, make up, prosthetics, names and pronouns. The majority of the aggressive vocal TRAs come from this group

TRAs deliberately merge the two groups

They know they can utilise the sincerity, vulnerability and innocence of Group 1:
Trans appears in childhood - it must be innate!
Trans appears in childhood - it can't be sexually motivated!
Trans people have gender dysphoria - they're vulnerable!
Look at the lengths they'll go to (surgery, hormones) - they must be genuine!

But when it comes to the motivations of trans people, the TRAs suddenly switch track. They emphasise the pull factor acting on Group 2 ("wanting to be a wo/man") rather than the push factor acting on Group 1 (trying to escape your sexed body). Because any detailed discussion of just why someone might want to escape their body would raise awkward questions about whether wanting to transition is really a cause for celebration and affirmation.

I think it's very important we distinguish between the two groups when discussing objections to gender ideology. They are very different groups with different motivations and consequences. I think part of the reason so many trans allies are resistant to changing their opinions or even discussing the issue is because most of the trans people they know are Group 1s. They recognise these people's sincerity and vulnerability and have been duped by Group 2 TRAs into not examining the underlying push and pull factors of transition

I certainly agree that the genetic and chromosomal hard drive does condition and shape certain types of trait ( the software) in males and females. And that is why men who 'identify as' women still retain their male characteristics.

Man and Woman are not gender types they are biological categories. I think you must be talking about 'masculine' and 'feminine' coded stereotypes.

The point is on average men & women are distinguished by presentation. What happens individually or at the tail end is irrelevant to the category existing AND people identifying with the norm.

On average, yes. Which means you can use this system to discuss populations, not individuals. Ie. it's not any kind of evidence regarding individuals, and you can't argue that individual presentation is evidence of the existence of that thing you call gender identity.

Well you would need to disprove the scientifically supported findings that hormones & genes influence gendered behaviours & they are shared by the sexes . Of course you are welcome to disprove their findings but I won't hold my breath.

Why would I need to do that, since those findings have exactly zero to do with gender identity? Hormones, genes, sex: not gender identity.

Gender being a spectrum refers to a scale masculine & feminine behaviour not that there isn't any evidence of it. Might help if you familiarise yourself with terms to save your confusion.

Says you. Prove it.

Like you 'proved' it with mental illness? There's this thing called 'inconsistency'.
I provided evidence: there's this thing called 'science'. Still waiting for yours. Science called, btw & said not to bother.

Men and women are primarily distinguised by their sexed bodies and all of the physical indicators that are reflected by that. 'Presentation' is superficial dressing. Women can present in 'feminine ways' but it is not the presentation that makes them a woman.

There's this thing called 'biological variation' hope that helps.

Gender being a spectrum refers to a scale masculine & feminine behaviour not that there isn't any evidence of it. Might help if you familiarise yourself with terms to save your confusion.

What do you call "gender"? We were talking about gender identity, not gender.

Like you 'proved' it with mental illness? There's this thing called 'inconsistency'.
I provided evidence: there's this thing called 'science'. Still waiting for yours. Science called, btw & said not to bother.

Indeed, I proved it with mental illness: mental illness is diagnosed on the basis of defined, observable symptoms.

I observe that you have devolved into insulting me. You are aware that this is generally a blatant sign that one is losing one's grip in a debate, right?

Not really...do you want to explain it in more detail?

DSD's, if that is what you are referring to, are disorders of one sex or other. The chromosomal hard drive is what determines your puberty - which in turn fully 'realises' the hard drive.

Gay men are still male ( in spite of 'variation'), and lesbians are still female - if sexual orientation is what you refer to.

Irrelevant. Most trans people are very firmly outside of that biological variation zone.

What is a biological variation zone?

Just like you, I am assuming they are referring to DSDs. But most trans people don't have a DSD to begin with, so bringing DSDs in is irrelevant.

On average, yes. Which means you can use this system to discuss populations, not individuals. Ie. it's not any kind of evidence regarding individuals,

FINALLLLLY! That's why comments like 'I like dressing like a trucker so I must be a man HA HA! by GC's is dumb. Nobody is suggesting gender categories apply to individuals. But what trans people are saying is they at an individual level associate with the category. BIG DIFFERENCE.

and you can't argue that individual presentation is evidence of the existence of that thing you call gender identity.

Yeah I can. Because an individual can have group associations. It doesn't work the other way round tho. which is where you are getting confused,

An individual who plays cricket associates with the category of cricket players
The category of cricket players doesn't associate with all individuals.

Why would I need to do that, since those findings have exactly zero to do with gender identity? Hormones, genes, sex: not gender identity.

Well, if you are relating to a behavioural identity category its because you have it.

You clearly do not know what 'internalised' means.

There may be other things you don't understand, I stopped reading at that stage because why burden myself with nonsense.

But even with a DSD the vast majority of people with this type of condition go through either male or female puberty - based on their chromosomal hard drive.

I presume she's talking about DSDs.

Which seem to have almost nothing to do with trans identification.

They're only brought into the conversation as an attempt to muddy the waters.

The vast, vast majority of 'transwomen' are unambiguously biological men

This is beautifully put

But what trans people are saying is they at an individual level associate with the category.

So... they associate with dressing like a trucker to signify their association to the male gender? Or what?

Yeah I can. Because an individual can have group associations. It doesn't work the other way round tho. which is where you are getting confused,

How is a group association related to an inner feeling??

Well, if you are relating to a behavioural identity category its because you have it.

Obviously not. Everyone can relate to stuff outside of one's own category. That's basic humanity.

Making an association between yourself and someone/something else does not make you into that person or thing. I associate myself sometimes with early morning birdsong..it reflects the beauty and the feeling of the dawn of a new day. But I am not, and never will be, a blackbird or a finch.

I can mimic their song as much as I like, but should I climb that tree or hedgerow I'd never fit in their nest ,and I'd most definitely destroy their eggs should I attempt to sit on them. I suspect should I attempt this stunt my friends and family may well be concerned for my mental well being.

Oh yeah, I totally agree! Bringing in DSDs when discussing trans is silly on several different levels.

Is it jumbo on the right?

FINALLLLLY! That's why comments like 'I like dressing like a trucker so I must be a man HA HA! by GC's is dumb. Nobody is suggesting gender categories apply to individuals. But what trans people are saying is they at an individual level associate with the category. BIG DIFFERENCE.

So you're saying that we can't assume that a woman dressed like a trucker identifies as a transman because gender categories don't apply to individuals.

But when a transman dresses like a trucker, she is saying that at an individual level she associates with the category of men.

Observers, not being able to see inside her head , don't know whether or not she identifies as a transman.

So looking at men who are trying to look like women, we can't tell whether they identify as transwomen or are just plain old crossdressers. I think most of us knew that already, but thanks for confirming it from a male/TRA point of view.

Gender being a spectrum refers to a scale masculine & feminine behaviour not that there isn't any evidence of it. Might help if you familiarise yourself with terms to save your confusion.
What do you call "gender"? We were talking about gender identity, not gender.

The conversation about gender spectrum arose from your comments about gender stereotypes remember?:

Seethlaw · Today 09:10
Not all trans people are out of the closet & as such don't express their gender identity.

And lots of trans people who are out of the closet don't express the gender stereotypes of the gender identity you think they ought to have.

Indeed, I proved it with mental illness: mental illness is diagnosed on the basis of defined, observable symptoms.

Not depression & anxiety you didn't.

I observe that you have devolved into insulting me. You are aware that this is generally a blatant sign that one is losing one's grip in a debate, right?

Perhaps your perceived insults are more related to you being owned again & again so now its time to shift gears to the defensive posture of victim?

What's actually observable is you are repeatedly misremembering your own comments so it might be time to step away from the key board.

I’m often quoting Mary on the need to push back against the ubiquity and mainstreaming of pornography and its adjacent tenets. It’s interesting that the then rejection of her campaigning was on the basis of her holding evangelical Christian beliefs, which included her just plain wrong views on homosexuality.

Yet, it is very likely that it was those same Christian beliefs that propelled and motivated her to campaign against the rise in pornography and exploitation of the young. Many would have agreed with her on many of her views on exploitation, the dangers of an unchecked technology, of the opportunistic commodification of women’s and children’s bodies. But few would have driven themselves to the intensely focused campaigning of Mary’s.

Going by this bbc article, the result of her campaigns meant that she was responsible for some vitally important child protection legislation. Her case also points to the complicated nature of debate. We can agree with some people on some issues but vehemently disagree with them on others. Much time is wasted resorted to ad hominem attacks. We see that on these threads.

Finally, I thought that this was interesting about framing: Update 19 July: This article has been updated to include more details about Mary Whitehouse's views on homosexuality. Did the BBC initially use her views to criticise her more? Or did they soften the views by referencing her religious beliefs?

Ah. You're that type. Pity.

I'm referring to biological psychological traits that exist on a spectrum.