That “obvious” next to benefit is carrying a lot of water there.
The unspoken implication there is that “no obvious to Riemann benefit” = “no benefit at all”, but there may be a whole world of benefits you’re just not seeing.
So, rather than hinting at some mysterious benefit that I am not seeing, are you seeing the payoff from being trans in our fucked up society, when we’ve got a very active current thread about how half the country wants to exterminate trans people?
I suspect that you’re trying to twist my words into an inference that “people shouldn’t be trans because there is no benefit” or something. But of course it’s not a cost-benefit analysis at all. People are trans or non-binary because it is their nature, and being who you are allows happiness and fulfillment.
My point is that trans and non-binary people assert their nature despite any cost imposed by society, so it just seems nonsensical to suggest that social factors are causing them to be trans, rather than their intrinsic nature.
I think people are misunderstanding @Riemann at this point. I think what he means by “no obvious benefit” is that the non-obvious benefit is being more comfortable in your skin, and that’s a big enough benefit to offset the more obvious costs society has thrown up.
nods
We tend to be oblivious to the privations endured by those who are part of the normative world. Just as the socially-shared rhetoric about marginalized identities paints them as awful, and those who occupy those identities as suffering miserably, the rhetoric depicts the normative people as happy and living rich fulfilling lives. Those not doing so tend to blame themselves individually, rather than seeing that they’ve been sold a bill of goods.
Being marginalized — whether because there’s something built-in and intrinsic putting you on there or a sequence of events and experiences and decisions that had that result — has a few hidden advantages. One of them big ones is that once you decide you simply aren’t going to pass as normative, you tend to stop trying. Instead of tucking in your odd corners so that people won’t see them, you cease to give a shit about yet one more way in which you’re atypical. Heck, you may even start taking pride in it. You may still face a lot of external oppression, but you’re less likely to be acting as your own oppressor.
But that doesn’t mean Riemann’s conclusion about the differences being built-in at the biological level is an accurate one.
I’m saying that you’re discounting in-group membership as a tangible benefit. That being part of a loving and accepting community can be a huge positive in spite of larger society’s negativity.
I suspect you’re wrong.
Errm…maybe, pick a lane?
You seem to be implying, here, that “social factors” can only be the majority consensus society’s. But influences from subcultures/small groups, such as affirmation, love and acceptance from your own group, are also a social factor.
Although I wouldn’t say that causes anyone to be trans, it certainly means they will be more willing to accept being so.
Asserting your identity to achieve happiness and fulfillment is hardly non-obvious. That is the obvious proximate reason - people assert a trans identity because they are trans. But what we’re discussing is where does that identity come from in the first place. What are the causal factors that determine gender identity - social factors, non-social environmental factors, or innate factors.
When I say “no obvious benefit” I mean that people are not asserting a trans or non-binary identity in Western culture because society is encouraging them to do so and rewarding them for it. Quite the opposite. Our society has consistently persecuted people for being trans or non-binary. So it makes no sense to suggest that a trans person’s gender identity is determined solely by social factors. To come back to OP’s point: there must be innate or non-social environmental factors that establish gender identity, making it refractory to cis-normative social pressure. Trans and non-binary identity has been consistently and persistently asserted by many people throughout history in defiance of social factors.
You persist in ignoring the important distinctions that I have pointed out several times, so please don’t attempt to state my conclusions. You now appear to be attacking a straw man of genetic determinism.
First of all, the factors that determine gender identity may not be innate. Gender identity may be attributable to non-social environmental factors, and social factors are undoubtedly relevant. But my assertion is that it is highly implausible that gender identity is solely attributable to social factors.
And even if the factors that determine gender identity are innate, this does not imply that anything is “built in”. Genes only mean something when an environment is specified. Gender expression is no doubt largely a social construct. The fact that the “available options” of possible gender identities in a given society may be socially constructed does not imply that a person’s identity within that society (which of those options they align with) is socially determined.
That is a good place to start and debates on contentious issues seldom do that.
A man or a male? a female or a woman? What does it mean to be physically a man/male? or a woman/female?
Your sentences above seem to use the concept of sex and gender interchangeably and I struggle to understand the point you are making unless we can clearly define what you mean by each concept.
I see that sex/gender conflation happen all the time and it seems to stymie pretty much all conversation on the subject.
Your conclusion
…seems to rely upon having a working definition of sex and gender that we can agree on and is useful. Do we have that? can we get to that?
Unless you are a doctor, or trying to make babies, sex is rarely relevant. So if i say someone is “male” or is a “man”, i am referring to their gender.
I do want to apologize up front for my adversarial tone earlier - as I mentioned, this is (obviously) a topic I’m intense about. While I do think that the way you phrased your statements bore correction, I do acknowledge that you’re arguing with nuance and in good faith.
I also think I tend to agree with your position, broadly speaking. “Gender is a social construct” doesn’t mean that it simply arose in a vacuum - society itself is a product of biological factors. So it’s a contradiction in terms to suggest that there is no biological basis for gender - there’s a biological basis for literally everything we do and everything we are.
There’s obvious issues with declaring there to be a solely biological basis for gender identity (not least of which being that a good chunk of apparently-cis people have atypical chromosomal makeups) just like there’s issues with saying “it’s all made up and doesn’t matter.” The “truth” about gender (insofar as there can be a “truth” about something so strange and complex) is very complicated and includes social, biological, and psychological factors. This is why the gold-standard and party-line among most trans folks and advocates remains: We believe that people are who they say they are.
I’m going to echo what NinthAcolyte just said, @Riemann. I agree, you do argue from nuance and I apologize if I’ve painted your position with an overly broad brush.
Yes. It’s worth noting that in the context of sex and gender, the terms “biological” or “physical” can be fundamentally misleading, since they often carry the implication (intended or not) that mental states are somehow less physically real. Hence the bigoted canard that we cannot just accept what people claim about their identity, or where will it end?
But neurons have just the same objective physical reality as chromosomes or sex organs. A person’s gender identity resides in their neuron configuration, and the way we find out about someone’s neuron configuration is by listening to what they tell us about who they are.
Well, we have agreed-upon useful working definitions of sex chromosomes, gametes, and sexual organs, including their spectrum of intersex variants. In circumstances where we need to talk about those things, the official technical vocabulary for them is well established and clearly defined.
In other circumstances, I concur with puzzlegal and other posters that it’s fine to default to treating sex and gender primarily as self-identification categories, rather than trying to shoehorn them into some set of objectively unambiguous and rigidly defined classifications that we insist everybody has to officially interpret and apply in the same way.
Same like with the recent increased acceptance of variety in sexual orientation, for example. Just as most people no longer freak out with confusion over the concept that, say, most married women have husbands but some married women have wives, it will stop being such a matter for freakouts to consider that, say, most women have vaginas but some women have penises. We don’t need a single universally applicable and unambiguous definition of “woman” to be able to cope with that fact.
It seems to me that the existence and personal experience of trans people who choose not to medically transition is all it takes to invalidate OP’s argument.
Just Christianity. Prophet Muhammad had a trans woman friend who hung out with his wives where men visitors were prohibited. The 13th-century Islamic jurist al-Nawawi wrote that trans women are legit according to Islamic law. The ugly transphobic attitudes Muslims are displaying today are a hangover from being colonized by Christian imperialists.
Fair enough! I do recall that Iran was at one point the #1 worldwide performer of vaginoplasty for trans women because while being a male homosexual was proscribed, being a trans woman was not - so many gay men wound up ‘transitioning’ so that they could be with the men they loved.
Exactly. Perhaps not coincidentally, Iran was one of the few Muslim lands not colonized by any Christian nations.
There was a time when it was easier to get gender affirming surgery in Saudi Arabia than in most of the US. For much the same reason.
I didn’t know that! But I did know that the chief mufti of al-Azhar, who has the biggest following in the Sunni Muslim world, has ruled in favor of trans people being legit. That ought to settle it. Alas for the gap between ought and is!
A trans friend told me that at the time. Well, I didn’t know she was trans at the time, and all her comments were in the context of “speaking for friends”. But she was very cranky about how hard it was to do in the US, and commented about it being approved and available in Saudi Arabia.