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

But unlike gender identity, a lot of mental illnesses are perfectly observable... Like, when someone has a psychotic break, you don't need them to tell you. When someone is deeply depressed, there are visible symptoms. And so on.

You say the same about trans people where they exhibit behaviours & inclinations similar to cis women/men on average.

If the standard is behaviour now you have to be consistent.

They don't though, it's always a caricature. And I reject cis.

It's the best it can be, it is never real.

MH symptoms are clearly defined.

"behaviours & inclinations similar to cis women/men on average" are not.

And if they are, then I have a problem, because my hobbies are typically female, so I suppose I'm not really a transman?

caricature

You could say that about a hellva lot of cis women. Are they 'deluded' caricatures too? Or could that be just a common preference amongst cis women?

So are you suggesting other than conversations about reproductive issues, men & women's conversational content on average is identical?

Nobody's conversation is identical to anyone else's, we all have different interests and knowledge. What am I supposed to talk about as a woman? I tend to hang out in mixed sex groups so maybe there's a conversation happening in single sex groups that I've just not been party to. Or do you mean the tendency to mansplaining whatever the topic is? I haven't noticed transwomen being any less inclined to do that than other men.

MH symptoms are clearly defined.
"behaviours & inclinations similar to cis women/men on average" are not.

Are you suggesting you don't notice anything different in presentation between men & women on average that's clearly defined? C'mon. Be serious here.

And if they are, then I have a problem, because my hobbies are typically female, so I suppose I'm not really a transman?

No. Because identity is an individual subjective belief based on personal values.
It's upto an individual whether they identify more with their natal sex or gender similarities to the opposite sex. Just because gender categorisations exist doesn't mean an individual defines themselves by them just as they don't sex categorisations. Its upto them.

Nobody's conversation is identical to anyone else's,

Stop distracting. On average behaviours is the point here not individual.

Average behaviours like these?

Are you suggesting you don't notice anything different in presentation between men & women on average that's clearly defined?

But "on average" means nothing since by definition it means there will be plenty of people who fall outside of said average. So you can't determine if someone is a man or a woman by their presentation, since you don't know if they fall within the average or not.

It's upto an individual whether they identify more with their natal sex or gender similarities to the opposite sex.

Which is yet another reason why this whole matter of average presentation is pointless, since you don't know if any individual aligns with their gender, sex or whatever.

But "on average" means nothing since by definition it means there will be plenty of people who fall outside of said average. So you can't determine if someone is a man or a woman by their presentation, since you don't know if they fall within the average or not.

Same way you can't with mental illness. A person could be severely depressed & suppressing their symptoms publicly so nobody knows. It relies on self reporting.

Which is yet another reason why this whole matter of average presentation is pointless, since you don't know if any individual aligns with their gender, sex or whatever.

Like mental illness it relies on self reporting. Just because you can't 'see' something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

'A trans woman's body still works like a man's so they couldn't have anything psychologically in common with women on average'

Quite the leap.

A transgender-identified male is still a male, even if he thinks he's a woman. Whatever he may have in common with women is because it's shared between the sexes to begin with. There is no one trait that TIMs have that differentiate them from males.

It's not much of a leap at all to suggest that the differences between men and women are held on the basis of their sex, which is not shared between TIMs and women.

TRAs never understand this part - The reason women want TIMs out of our spaces is because of a shared trait we all have, our sex, and how society has treated us because of it.

TIMs do not respect this, because they do not share our experience of being treated this way, because they are male.

So they lack both the biology of being female, and also the resulting experience of being a woman.

If they truly understood women, then they would respect the boundary on our spaces. They would say "Although I feel myself to be a woman, I want women to feel safe, so I will not intrude." That would generally be the response of someone who's raised as a girl, who's been made to feel she should put everyone else's needs ahead of her own.

Instead, we get a narcissistic display of anger, and another "No. I'm coming in whether you like it or not, and if you don't get out of my way..." Which is exactly how someone raised as a boy would respond.

Living with someone who's trans, and coming slowly to terms with the realisation I'm non-binary while still (at present) identifying as a cis woman, is a decent qualification, cheers.

As is reading trans voices in an attempt to understand how trans people have to navigate the world. Plus having trans adult friends and actually listening to them.

Trying to justify rejecting & being abusive to yout own trans children (one example I see here a lot - what the hell is wrong with parents who fo that?!) is a bit different.

I'm sure done of you do know trans people - yet you've chosen to dehumanise and demonise them as a whole. That tells me pretty much everything.

Besides, it's deeply abnormal and antisocial to treat a minority as a hive mind and analyse them like they're Star Trek villains.

The OP is not conducting analysis, simply justifying their own worrying obsession with trans people by repeating propaganda like they're doing it for GCSE.

You ain't anthropologists, my loves. Or ethnographers. Just people who spend way too much time engaged in hateful behaviour and attempting to justify it with paranoid conspiracy theories.

The pipeline:

• Trans people are in my life. They're all valid!
• Huh, I empathise with them, and don't feel like a woman. I must be some form of trans by their ideology.
• No, I'm not all the way trans. I'm non-binary. (You are here)
• Oh, I just thought I was non-binary because I don't have a gender identity. Does that make me agender?
• Wait, if I don't have a gender identity, then I'm not trans or non-binary.
• Wait, does anyone have a gender identity?
• Oh, it was a lie. There's just male and female.

You want to do right by the people you love. It's okay, and it comes from empathy. But sometimes we enable them, and sometimes we get caught up in their delusions too. You'll get there.

Whatever he may have in common with women is because it's shared between the sexes to begin with. There is no one trait that TIMs have that differentiate them from males.

The one trait that distinguishes males from females is on average behaviours. That the sexes share behaviours doesn't change that.

TIMs do not respect this, because they do not share our experience of being treated this way, because they are male.

In fact trans women do share misogynistic treatment with women like street harassment, workplace discrimination and sexual objectification. They are more likely to be harassed than trans men for a reason.

If they truly understood women, then they would respect the boundary on our spaces. They would say "Although I feel myself to be a woman, I want women to feel safe, so I will not intrude." That would generally be the response of someone who's raised as a girl, who's been made to feel she should put everyone else's needs ahead of her own.

Not all women agree with not feeling safe as exemplified by the huge generational & cultural divide when it comes to single sex spaces. In many countries no such widespread concerns exist.

Instead, we get a narcissistic display of anger, and another "No. I'm coming in whether you like it or not, and if you don't get out of my way..." Which is exactly how someone raised as a boy would respond.

Women never say no, resist or rebel against injustice? 'Feminism' ring a bell?

The one trait that distinguishes males from females is on average behaviours. That the sexes share behaviours doesn't change that.

Surely the one trait that distinguishes all males from all females is that males have a male body and females have a female body.

Anything that may be noticed about behaviour is secondary to biology.

And average behaviours are just that. Averages. Some women will show traits in behaviour more like the average male, and some men will show traits in behaviour more like the average female. (Apart from behaviours specifically linked to male or female anatomy, of course.)

You can't specify that some behaviours are 'male only' or 'female only' if they can be exhibited by both sexes. They are just human behaviours which may, for cultural reasons, sexism or personal preferences, be more common in one sex or the other. So what? In western democracies in 2026 we have a lot of freedom to behave according to our own preferences. It's not the Victorian era or Afghanistan

And average behaviours are just that. Averages. Some women will show traits in behaviour more like the average male, and some men will show traits in behaviour more like the average female. (Apart from behaviours specifically linked to male or female anatomy, of course.)

You are making an ecological fallacy here. Applying aggregate group data (like demographic trends or averages) to an individual is a major statistical error. A group average describes the collective, not any single member.

Trans people aren't saying the collective applies to all individuals, just to them.

So what? In western democracies in 2026 we have a lot of freedom to behave according to our own preferences. It's not the Victorian era or Afghanistan

And yet the collective still applies….regardless of patriarchal influences substantially reducing.

I'm not making any sort of statistical error. I'm certainly not "Applying aggregate group data (like demographic trends or averages) to an individual". If anyone's doing that, it's you.

And I have no idea what you mean by the phrase "the collective applies".

Trans people aren't saying the collective applies to all individuals, just to them.

This makes no sense.

You are claiming that collective gender doesn't exist because individuals differ & you think you can prove this by saying individuals don't reflect the norm which is ….bonkers. Its like saying there can't be a category for black crime in the US because not all black people commit crime.

Trans people aren't saying the collective applies to all individuals, just to them.
This makes no sense.

An individual may or may not reflect the norm. That they don't does not mean the norm doesn't exist.

Well, you're inferring a lot of things I didn't say from what I did say, and you have even managed to infer that what I meant was the opposite of what I said.

You are claiming that collective gender doesn't exist because individuals differ & you think you can prove this by saying individuals don't reflect the norm

I haven't claimed this, and I have no idea how you have understood anything I've said to be claiming this. I haven't even used the term 'collective gender', let alone commented on it's existence.

I'm not totally sure what you mean by 'collective gender', but if you mean the stereotypical traits which are attributed to the sexes, then of course they exist. But the point is that no one is compelled to comply with these stereotypes.

An individual may or may not reflect the norm. That they don't does not mean the norm doesn't exist.

We can agree on this, at least.

Lets say i am a trans man. Maybe I am "pulled" towards having a body that feels more like mine. It doesnt necessarily compute that this is a "push". Maybe i am "pulled" towards having relationships with men from the perspective of another man, rather than a woman.

I think the push, pull thing might be valid and a useful way for people to talk about how they feel. But the attempt to make it into the "good" trans people who are pushed away from their sexed bodies and the "bad" trans people who just want to get off.

That's not to say that sexual fetishisation can't be or isnt a pull for some people. But I also think people who lack that sexual arousal element can be "pulled" towards a different gender identity.

Same way you can't with mental illness. A person could be severely depressed & suppressing their symptoms publicly so nobody knows. It relies on self reporting.

That would work for some mental illnesses such as depression. It absolutely wouldn't for plenty others such as bipolar, psychosis, and so on.

Like mental illness it relies on self reporting. Just because you can't 'see' something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

But sometimes that's exactly what it means. And remember: the burden of proof is on those positing that something does exist, not on those arguing that it doesn't, since you can't prove that something doesn't exist.

That would work for some mental illnesses such as depression. It absolutely wouldn't for plenty others such as bipolar, psychosis, and so on.

So are you suggesting depression & anxiety don't exist because they are unfalsifiable?

But sometimes that's exactly what it means. And remember: the burden of proof is on those positing that something does exist, not on those arguing that it doesn't, since you can't prove that something doesn't exist.

False.

"The burden of proof always lies with the person making an assertion—whether that assertion is that something exists or that it does not. Whoever is making a positive truth claim bears the responsibility to back it up, while the opposing party simply requires that evidence be provided before accepting the claim. 1, 2, 3]
A useful way to understand this is through the concept of the Burden of Proof Fallacy. It is considered invalid reasoning to present a claim and then demand that others disprove it, rather than providing evidence for the assertion yourself. 1, 2]"

Trans people aren't saying the collective applies to all individuals, just to them.

Except we don't. Lots of us do not fall within "the collective" or "the average". We can't be properly identified as men or women by our behaviours.

So if you can't identify neither trans people nor non-trans people by those average behaviours... what good and use are those average behaviours to begin with?