I’ve often wondered if gender identity is more like a spectrum than a choice of black or white. Some people might have an internal mental gender orientation that strongly agrees with their physical bodies, while others have one that disagrees. Still other people might have a weaker internal mental gender orientation or none at all. catsix’s notion that gender is purely physical might apply very well to her but poorly to others. In general, I think it’s a bad idea to assume that that which applies to oneself is universally true.
Joe_Cool, you are ignoring the fact that from the perspective of the transgendered, it is not dishonest to say that they are the gender that they identify with. You may believe that they are objectively incorrect, but it is never dishonest to present as the truth that which one believes to be true. You are asking that the transgendered adhere to an extraordinary degree of disclosure in order that they avoid any possibility of offending potential romantic partners. I think this is entirely unreasonable. You have no right not to be offended by unpleasant truths.
Put very simply: The bit of your brain where gender identity lives isn’t the same part of the brain (I keep typing “brian”) where your personality lives.
Your likes, dislikes and hobbies are your personality. Society can peg them as masculine or feminine if it wants to, but that makes bugger all difference to you as a man or as a woman…
… because the sense of “I am a man” or “I am a woman” comes from a tiny part of the brain that has nothing to do with personality.
In the vast majority of cases, the factory-issued nubbin of the brain that says “man” or “woman” agrees with the factory-issued body and genitals - and does so so well that you barely notice it. Genitals and body shape are visible, the hypothalamus isn’t, without some fairly drastic brain surgery which would probably not be compatible with continued life. So the genitals and body shape serve as an indicator of sex, and are more immediately available to answer the question “what makes you feel that you are a woman”.
When it doesn’t match up, then there’s a problem.
re: your comments about shared experiences between natal women, yes menarche is something that natal women have in common, but it’s not of great psychological importance to all of us. Remembering when I got my first period is of so little impact to me as “me” and to me as “woman”, too. I suppose I give it less importance than you do. No big deal, but don’t assume that because something is important to you in your day-to-day experience of your identity that it’s going to be important to everyone in the same way.
And once again, I’m telling you that all my life I too saw girl parts on me if I was undressed, and that didn’t stop me to think that I was not a woman.
My own view of gender identity is that: some people think of them as woman, some as men, some as as blend of both, some as neither, some as something totally other.
Gender expression being a similar spectrum, with people behaving
more masculine, feminine, gender-neutral or androgynously.
I myself is someone who doesn’t have many interest specifically masculine or feminine, I’m pretty neutral when it comes to my gender expression, this doesn’t stop me to think of myself as a boy (well a transboy more precisely).
This is a big pet peeve of mine, people mixing up gender identity and gender expression.
Catsix said, "And I still find it insulting to the things that made me who I am that someone can say biology doesn’t matter at all. That’s hurtful and intolerant to me, because my experiences in life are very important to how I feel as a woman. "
Obviously, the physical aspect of it isn’t unimportant, or people wouldn’t be having the surgery! All KellyM is saying is that those physical experiences you had aren’t the ONLY things that make you identify as a woman. When a boy reacts to certain things like his sisters instead of like his buddies, THAT is one clue that he may be transgendered. There are a million things that make me a woman, and my body is just a small part of the equation.
If you were to bind your breasts and wear masculine clothes and walk like a guy, you would still feel like a woman, because that is what your brain tells you to feel. That’s what KellyM and Eve are saying here.
Susanann said, “I specifically asked about transexuals in “European history”, or “american history” in the 1800’s, who identified themselves as being the wrong sex. Not women who dressed like men(most of whom still considered themselves to be women). Where are all the men on the American Frontier who lived as women, who said they were women? Where are all the men in England, France, Germany, Denmark, Italy, Switzerland, PRIOR to the 1900’s, who called themselves women, and women who called themselves men?”
While there might have been people who lived as the opposite physical sex, who in their right mind would have come out and said it? I mean, they’re transgendered…not crazy! The social structure of the time would have forbade it. There wasn’t enough study done for anyone to even understand scientifically or emotionally what it was, and they already felt as though they were insane. Keeping one’s mouth shut in those days was self-preservation.
…there’s not much to argue about your personal feelings. But I think that some of your feelings seem to come across in the tone of this discussion, which is not constructive. I may be wrong, certainly, but some things seem to read that way. I’d be happy to be incorrect.
I’m cutting mid-sentence to focus on one point. Would it be a fair description then that your belief is that transsexualism / transgenderism is false, or not real? That is, would it be fair to say that apparant external physical-based gender is the sole qualifier of gender?
Alternately (or in conjunction with that), would it be fair to say that you also feel that all people fall firmly into two gender categories? As opposed to a “sliding scale” of gender and sex which is backed up by different levels of hormones and different effectiveness of said hormones in the womb?
Now, this is reasonable, but I think it leads to several other questions like I posted on Page 4.
What about religion? Surprise revealations of religion have sunk marriages; I’ve witnessed this happening. Medical history? I know people who left a partner because they were scared off by medical fears. Criminal record? That seems a lot more important to me. Drug/alcohol abuse, even if it’s far in the past? Financial status? And since so many people lie about this, should people be bringing their last few months pay-stubs to the date?
Or fertility? This one gets hidden a lot, I feel.
You say that gender is the most important qualifier - I agree that it is an important qualifier. But I would be more worried about a person who lies about their employment, drug use, and criminal record than sex. What if you fell in love with a girl who told you on your wedding night that she was an devout muslim, currently lapsed, who has decided with the joy in her heart surrounding the marriage to become devout again, and who fully expects you to convert? Don’t laugh, I’ve seen a very similar thing happen! (it was a jewish girl and catholic boy - marriage ended a month later)
I don’t feel these are facetious examples - but what level of disclosure is going to be needed?
And finally, I think there is a disagreement on the “deception” aspect of it. Transgendered and transsexual persons are, for the vast majority of them, not deceptive nor deceiving because they firmly believe and have faith in what they are. They don’t wake up one day and say “Hey! Those Old Navy skirts look both cool and fashionable! Maybe I’ll go see the surgeon…”
Try to do the mind experiment that was suggested earlier in this thread. Think of a lifetime of dysphoria, think of hating all mirrors and reflective surfaces because you hate and fear how you appear. Think of not even looking really male or female, but sort of “in between”. Think of going for extended professional help and having them tell you that your feelings and psyche and personality matches that of the “opposite sex”.
The transsexuals and transgendered persons I know not only do not feel they are decieving others in any way, they don’t ever even think of themselves as their apparant external birth sex. It makes as much sense to them as saying they are the orangutang in your example.
Another way to put it is is that they have a faith and belief in themselves that is at a minimum as valid as a religious faith. Someone can come up to you and tell you that “God is a fairy tale”, and you’re not going to slap your head and say “You’re right! I was so confused! I don’t believe in nothin’ no more! Now I can finally go to law school!*” Of course not, you would take offense - perhaps extreme offense. And transgendered and transsexual persons are taking offense at being told that they are icky, weird, deceptive, unreal, unnatural, or whatever they encounter online or IRL in the form of verbal abuse.
Here are the key points that I would like to respectfully recap here, Joe:
I think we need to have some understanding on whether trans persons (to use the shorthand, my fingers don’t work well in the morning since I’ve become more ill) are intentionally “deceiving” persons they would want to date or have sex with with malice and forethought. Or, that is, there needs to be some understanding that trans persons are NOT intending to deceive, they simply are being what they know and have faith that they are.
I think there has to be some recognition that there is an onus on the dater to know the person they are dating. I know that casual sex with near-anonymous strangers may be all the rage with many on the SDMB, but that doesn’t make it a safe or intelligent act.
I think we have to stop putting things just in terms of the sexual side of it, and recognize that there may be other factors which are as important in determining whether someone is datable, relationshippable, or marriageable.
Every relationship is different, and we may be focusing on outliers here. If two people have a non-sexual relationship of love for 3 years before deciding to get married, neither of them want children, and then it is revealed that one of the two is trans - and the trans person is abandoned - I guess you have to ask yourself who was really doing the deciving here. You can’t grow to truly love someone over a long period of time and then drop it all over something like that - IMO - and really say that you were ever in love. If we couch our arguments in terms of dating and short relationships, versus long term, things appear differently.
It could be, as many of the pieces which appear in the papers seem to focus on that, almost from a visceral “Springerfied” aspect of it.
Having actually worked with a post-op transsexual and heard the slurs, jokes, and veiled sickness directed as a person who in no way was seeking romance (she was already married) AND was in no way trying to hide her status to anyone, I think I would be very afraid to be in her same situation of being out. There are a lot of very violent, disturbed, and scary people out there - and not just straights or “fundies” as they are called, either. Some of the gay men I’ve met or interacted with online are either openly or secretly violently misogynistic to the point where it would be scary to be alone with them. And some in the gay communities are very opposed to trans persons. Lesbians in particular can be very, very, VERY mean and even evil towards transsexual women, who are sometimes considered to be “men trying to infiltrate their world”, “traitors” (although to what cause, I’m uncertain), and I’ve even heard the word “subhuman” used too.
Transsexual persons have a good reason to be afraid.
Thanks for the story. I do recall hearing of Chalie before, but it is nice to learn more about “her” pretending to be a man.
The link that you provided points out that the motive for Charlie is unclear, and that she may have lived as a man just to be able to stay in the stagecoach business.
The link also points out that Charlie may have been pregnant, and may have had a child(not something that a FTM transexual usually does).
The link also points out that Charlie seemed to have difficulty warding off women who were attracted to him(which means she probably was not a transexual).
Nearly every case of a woman living as a man in Europe or the American 1800’s seemed clearly to be a result of the fact that these women had to live as men to do the things they wanted to do - be a pirate, be a soldier, be a stagecoach driver, etc. The employment opportunities for women were so limited, that if a woman wanted a male occupation, she had to pretend to be a man.That in no way implies at all that she wanted to be a man, or even more to the point, that she believed herself to be a man.
I also dont buy that the historical records are missing. I dont buy that we had white transexuals in the 1800’s but that we “mis-identified them as homosexuals”. And I dont buy that it was just as common back then as it is now.
The fact that transexualism among the american indians WAS identified as transexualism, the fact that amerian indian men living as squaws was not uncommon and HAVE been heavily documented and diagnosed correctly, proves that we in fact did have the means to identify such behavior back then, it proves that the people back then(indian men who said they felt like women and chose to live as women) were able to distinguish themselves between homosexuality and transexualism.
It is also clear that female indians, did not say they were men, even if they took on male roles, went on hunting missions, and went on war parties. Those female indians who chose to do mens jobs, did not claim to be transexuals, they just wanted mens jobs, very similar to the white women who took on mens jobs such as ONe Eyed Charlie.
even if I give you the benefit of the doubt and concede that Charlie may have been a transexual(which I doubt) you still have not provided one single instance of a male trying to live as a woman in the american west, and there is no record at all of any white man claiming to feel he is a woman - yet we have many cases of indian men of the SAME time period who did do so.
I was familiar with that Chavler deon, but I considered him to be of the 1700’s time period. The record of the 1800’s is particularly devoid of men living(or wanting to live) as women in the 1800’s in Europe and America.
My point is that it is totally non-existant or extremely rare to find more than a single case of white men of europe or america who identified as women, and lived as women, although we find many cases of indian men who did so. There are no cases of white men claiming to be of the wrong sex.
We also find that most of the instances of women living as men, were most probably doing so because of the job opportunities that it opened up for them - and not because of gender confusion. Nearly all the women of the 1800’s “pretended” or “masqueradated” as men, soley to get mens jobs. I dont see any cases of women living as men in the 1800’s who claimed to be men - even among the indians.
I have studied this time period extensively, and I have studied genealogical records extensively in this time period. I DID find numerous cases of transexualism among indian men in this time period. I did NOT find any cases of white men saying they were women, I did NOT find cases of indian women claiming to be men even if they took on mens jobs, I found very few cases of white women living as men(and those cases were most likely was because of employment reasons).
It isnt until the 1900’s that we find white natal women not just living or dressing as men, but actually claiming to be male.
The 1800’s is NOT a “prehistoric” age. We have records(LOADS of them!!!), family histories, newspapers, official records, church records, etc. We have an abundance of information of that time period. We also have abundant records of indian men identifying themselves as women and actually choosing to live as women. I dont think the absense of transexualism among white people in the 1800’s is from a lack of records, nor because it was misdiagnosed as homosexuality.
Therefore, what I am contending, is that transexualism is INCREASING today. Transexualism among whites starts appearing in the 1920’s, and then the evidence increases in each decade since then.
So what? I know you’re not saying they’re justified-at least, I sure as hell HOPE you’re not-BUT, what are you trying to prove here?
I think the majority of transgendered individuals would be honest when it comes to having sex with someone. However, if they don’t, to equate that with RAPE is ridiculous. It’s also insulting to anyone who really HAS been raped. You’ve been duped, but that’s YOUR fault for having random sex with strangers. (I don’t mean you, as in you, Joe, just a general you.) And quite frankly, if someone gets so angry at something, that they would KILL someone over it-well, then that indicates a problem on THEIR end.
And if someone doesn’t reveal right away that they’re transgendered, so WHAT? I would think they’d reveal it as things start to get serious. Why should the person then get mad? “Because if they had known they wouldn’t have dated them in the first place?” Well, some people wouldn’t want to date another person if they found out if this person didn’t have lots of money, or perhaps they didn’t have a lot in common, etc. Big fwapping deal. If you’re not interested, you’re not interested, and then you say so. Politely and cordially. If a kiss from a transgendered person “traumatizes” you, well, perhaps you have deeper issues. If THAT is the worst thing that ever happens to you, well, you’re damn lucky.
BTW, Lazz, I find it very interesting that you said you can’t cry from sadness anymore. If only because we always say that it’s social conditioning that stops men from crying. But perhaps it’s not? (Not that it matters if SOME men cry, of course!)
Oh, and as Anthracite mentioned that some in the gay and lesbian community are hostile towards the whole trans issue, I also see it in some feminist circles. They insist on womyn-born womyn, meaning trans women are not welcome.
shrugs
(Oh, and I REALLY meant no offense asking about people who have multiple sex changes. I just wondered what would explain THAT, and if these people were just lying to get on tv.)
“Transexualism among whites starts appearing in the 1920’s, and then the evidence increases in each decade since then.”
—That’s because sex-reassignment surgery first became a possibility in the 1920s. Prior to that, transgendered people had to simply keep their mouths shut and either try to live as the sex their bodies indicated, or kill themselves. It’s not easy to just up and move away and start a whole new identity as the opposite sex. When surgery became an option in the 1920s, we finally started speaking up.
It is also possible that the administration of hormones to pregnant women in recent decades has caused an increase in transgendered babies.
Susanann, do you really think transsexuals are just pretending to be the opposite sex? I have to say this doesn’t fit with reality well. I love KellyM dearly, but I don’t think she could pretend to be anything for more than a minute or so at a time. She doesn’t have the imagination for starters. I feel confident that Eve has the imagination and fortitude, but I really can’t believe someone that real, someone that vivid, is just putting on an act. I feel more certain that Eve is not only a woman, but also a lady, than I do of the gender of most people I know in person.
We DO have cases of quite a few white women wearing the clothes of men and doing mens jobs! (Clamity Jane never claimed to be a man - and in fact, had the hots for Wild Bill, considered herself to be a woman and wanted to be Wild Bills wife).
Clamity Jane did NOT keep her mouth shut. She clearly and openly violated socieities rules.
We DO have cases of indian men actually living and identifying as women.
We DONT have cases of white men wearing womens clothes or doing the job of women. We dont have cases of indian women saying they are men.
The social structure of the time, forbade Clamity Jane to live and dress as a man, just as much as if she had claimed to be a man(which she did not). We can find many white women who clearly violated the social structure by dressing and living as men, but not white men dressing and living as women.
If white women could violate the social structure back then, then why didnt white men do it?
If indian men could violate the social structure back then, then why didnt indian women?
I was specifically talking about my guess as to the motives of One Eyed Charlie, and other women who “pretended” to be men, or lived like men(like Clamity Jane) just to get mens jobs.
Susanann, maybe you could start a new thread, about transexualism and gender roles in history.
Simply because it’s really too much of a hijack. Yes, in the past, some women disguised themselves as men to get jobs or power or whatever, but they weren’t what you’d call “transexuals.” I guess they were more “tomboys?”
Then how come a Souix or Cheyenne male could accurately describe his feelings that he was a female in side, and that he thought himself to be a woman, and that he chose to live as a woman, and the white trappers and settlers who observed this transexualism among indian men were completely informed of transexualism among the indians and DID understand it!!!??
The DID understand it. The DID accept it. The did distinguish it from indian homosexuality also.
Depends on what you mean by real. I guess I agree with the (unsubstantiated) military description of its being a psychological defect, rather than a physical one (born with the wrong set of pipes).
Well, sort of. I do believe that all people fall into two categories, but with allowance for variation within each. In fact, transsexualism and transgenderism don’t refute the “two categories” idea - they reinforce it. If it were truly just a sliding scale, then it wouldn’t be so big a deal as to require surgery and dressing up as what they claim to “really be”: They would be free to just be themselves with whatever mind and body they were born with, and just occupy a different point on the sliding scale.
I agree that your example is fair. And if that happened to me, well, then I’d be in for a rough ride. It would be my fault for not finding out that she was a Muslim before that, but it would be a big problem. JD and I discussed religion and faith very early in our dating relationship (within the first couple of weeks), and if she had been anything but Christian, I would not have continued with it, and vice versa. Incompatible faith IS a disqualifying factor, but if I had had any idea that she was not female, I would never have asked her out or even agreed to meet her in the first place.
I would agree, except that they know the expectation the rest of the world has about perceived sex. You’re expected to be (physically) what you portray yourself as, and using the rationalization that “I truly believe that I am what I say I am” to knowingly circumvent that reasonable expectation is deception, no matter how much the person may believe what they say.
My point is that they know that the majority expects them to be what they appear to be, and knowingly “deceive” even if they might fully believe the packaging to be the “real me” rather than the biology.
I couldn’t agree more with you on this. But “not sterile”, “Not really blonde”, “boobs aren’t really this big”, “not really Muslim”, and similar false presentations a person might make are not the same caliber as “Not really female”. And the majority of people who approach a female would NOT be willing to approach a male, and failing to disclose that fact is deception on the part of the trans.
I agree. But to most, the primary factor in those questions is MALE or FEMALE.
I disagree. If I found out today that my wife was a trans, the marriage would be over and I would be absolutely livid.
Not a fair characterization of my attitudes. I’m not talking about somebody who’s been sleeping with the trans for years and finally finding out that it’s not so, or having it sprung on them (“Honey, I was born a man!!”). I’m talking about the fact that I would not even consider a relationship with somebody who was not born the sex they appear to be. Period. I would not ask them out on a date, I would not hold hands, nothing.
I have a close friend in Wichita who I recently found out is transgendered. I had a hard time with it at first and didn’t know how to deal with him anymore, but we had quite an open dialog (he told me I could feel free to ask him anything I wanted to, and he’d answer. I tool full advantage). I still don’t understand it at all, but we still talk. And yes, I can tell you for a fact that there are transsexual/transgendered “people like Joe_Cool and Jerseydiamond”. He used to be one of the strongest Christians I had ever met (but it’s funny how strength of conviction changes when it doesn’t match up with how you want things to be - he isn’t the same person he used to be - for obvious reasons as well as not so obvious).
Anyway, I need to leave for work, so I can’t finish this now. Back later.
Susanann, Indians understood it under a different social contract than the white man. White society simply didn’t allow people to feel this way (and live to tell about it). And Calamity Jane can’t be put into this particular discussion simply BECAUSE she wasn’t claiming to FEEL like a man. She was doing it for economic/career reasons – not because she identified with being male.