Why do the terms "Cisgender" and "Transgender" Exist?

[MMX2010]

I'm frustrated with the terms cisgender and transgender because I feel that they don't describe anything real, and should therefore not exist. 

 

A metaphor.  I was born atheist (because we all are), was introduced to Born Again Christianity from a very young age, believed in it rather deeply throughout my childhood, and stopped believing at age 17 or so.  Now I'm told that Jesus is fundamentally a spiritual being, and so I can describe my life-path (if I wanted to) as: born cishuman, became transhuman, and reverted to being cishuman.  (Or: born transpiritual, became cisspiritual, reverted to being transpiritual.)

 

But that would be stupid because there exists no objective evidence to support the existence of "spiritual beings", so I could only have been human the entire time.  And because using terms like "cisspiritual" gives credence to the existence of "spiritual beings", which I find annoying. 

 

I also believe that "gender" is identical to "spiritual being" in that there's no objective evidence to support the existence of "gender".  But it's even more annoying, because I despise people who haven't studied evolutionary biology, and yet comment on "gender issues": they're trying to use anti-knowledge (gender-related studies) to overpower knowledge (biologically-related studies of sex). 

 

So, why do the terms "cisgender" and "transgender" exist?  And do they have any philosophical value?

[PatrickC]

This is because they are classist's terms, like middle and working classes. They are segregated in order to create an 'imaginary' divide between them. Just another way for slaves to fight amongst themselves, albeit for some, perhaps unconsciously. The masters of course benefit from this divide, as they rule over them.

[Kevin Beal]

What the word "gender" means has actually changed in popular perception not long ago. Originally gender did not describe people, but nouns. There were only 4 of them: masculine, feminine, undetermined and neuter. "Bull" is masculine, "hen" is feminine, "dog" is undetermined and "book" is neuter since no gender can be possible for it.

 

Putting people in labels like "cisgender" or a homosexual woman in a man's body and all of these frankly stupid categorizations is convenient for people who want to manipulate you through language. In this case it's a desire not to frame people who have sex changes and the like as an aberration, in the same way we wouldn't just say that I'm normal and then there are these gay people out there.

 

I would feel incredibly anxious to have to deal with feeling that I have the wrong sex body and all of the social awkwardness (or hostility) that comes with going through a sex change. But I don't think that inventing terms like cisgender and cis-privilege actually helps with that at all. In fact, I find it really irritating and I think it gets in the way of me empathizing with people who have had to deal with these issues.

 

And sometimes it's about creating a "worthy victim" narrative where it's okay to be racist and sexist against white men. Because it's not actually about principles, but rather using a convenient outlet for their own pathological rages with impunity.

 

There are things which are not black and white. Sexual orientations can blend and people can even be born with both sets of genitals. I am not my sex, gender or race. My name is Kevin Beal. "Hi there, nice to meet you. If you want to be real with me, I want to listen".

 

I would much prefer a frank discussion about these things rather than a feminist monopolized language game where I always lose. And from what I can tell, women, gays and transgenders also lose in that game.

 

Don't you feel like you are being made the enemy by being given all these labels? I'm not anyone's enemy because of sex or race or sexual orientation or anything like that, and yet I've been told that I am repeatedly by people who don't know anything about me beyond how I fit those labels.

 

/rant

[Pepin]

I am rather confused by the posts in this thread. I feel like there is something I am missing. I do know that there are certain people who use the term in a similar manner that other use "white male", but is it that bad? Maybe it is how conversations can go bad through the use of a single word and the person is unwilling to have any acceptance or curiosity about where you currently are.

 

In talking with my girlfriend who has spent a lot of time around the LGBT community and has studied sexuality a decent amount, I've found that sexuality is rather complex. Sexuality isn't just a measurement of your sex and who you are attracted to, but also how you express your sexuality, and how you identify. Someone who is female and attracted to men, but expresses sexuality in a very masculine manner is quite different than someone who is female and is very feminine. Men who are considered metrosexual are attracted to females, yet express their sexuality in a feminine manner. This idea seemed a little odd to me at first, but it is at play everywhere.

 

The identification aspect to me is the least important aspect of sexuality, but it seems important to most people.

 

I think it is important to accept people who have these distinctions, or rather to not care unless they are a close friend, or unless you are intrigued in the subject. Discussions about this subject matter can be tricky as their flight or flight response tends to be easily triggered, and it is quite likely that a large portion of this person's life has revolved around thinking about their sexuality, while our own is likely something that hasn't taken up too much mental space.

 

My main issue with the approach of most of this is that there is the premise that "the culture enforces false gender notions", which I can agree with especially in regard to religious institutions, but they will then talk to people as if they haven't been taught these notions. It is like if you are talking with a Christian who this is true of to a large extent, you don't talk about their Christianity as if it wasn't something they were indoctrinated into you. You don't get offended or amazed at stupid statements because you understand quite clearly that they were forced as a child to accept these notions.

[PatrickC]

I know a lot of post modernists like to suggest there is a difference between gender and sex, but really there isn't. There are men and there are women, of which some choose to identify themselves with whatever they feel most comfortable with. I have no problem with that. They are free to gender bend as they please. I would just wish they would stop using their preference or self described (sexual/gender) identity as a political or cultural sword against those that don't (and have no reason too) feel the same as them. Categorizing yourself as one thing or the other, is not an ethical or moral issue, it's a private one, despite the howls.

[...]

.

[DaVinci]

I would argue that a male brain in a female body or vice versa is very real and can be proven through science, so the idea of someone referring to themselves as transgender in regards to this happening with themselves is okay by me. I don't see any reason for the term to not exist.

[MMX2010]

 

Don't you feel like you are being made the enemy by being given all these labels?

 

Absolutely. 

 

But what's most frustrating is that I can detect the UPB-violation quite easily.  (Warning: I haven't actually read UPB, just listened to all of the podcasts on it.) 

 

If "transgender" is to be considered a "real term", then it must only be because a lot of people feel (despite the lack of any objective evidence) that "transgender" is to be considered a "real term".  And no one is allowed to judge this conclusion negatively, nor discriminate, in any way, against such feelings. 

 

Fine, I say, reluctantly.  No one is allowed judge these feelings-based conclusions negatively, nor discriminate in any way against such feelings.  Universal moral rule; got it. 

 

But when a transgendered person says, "You're discriminating against me, because I'm transgender.", I can easily reply, "Not at all.  I'm merely feeling extraordinarily creeped out by your presence.  And, no, I don't need to provide objective evidence that my feelings are logical, because you established earlier that 'No one is allowed to judge these feelings-based conclusions negatively, nor discriminate, in any way, against such feelings.'  So, I don't like you because you creep me out, and you're not allowed to say it's 'discrimination because you're transgendered.'"

I would argue that a male brain in a female body or vice versa is very real and can be proven through science, .

 

Has it been proven through science though?  And is there a mathematical formula for semi-accurately predicting the percentage of infants born this way? 

[DaVinci]

Absolutely.  But what's most frustrating is that I can detect the UPB-violation quite easily.  (Warning: I haven't actually read UPB, just listened to all of the podcasts on it.)  If "transgender" is to be considered a "real term", then it must only be because a lot of people feel (despite the lack of any objective evidence) that "transgender" is to be considered a "real term".  And no one is allowed to judge this conclusion negatively, nor discriminate, in any way, against such feelings.  Fine, I say, reluctantly.  No one is allowed judge these feelings-based conclusions negatively, nor discriminate in any way against such feelings.  Universal moral rule; got it.  But when a transgendered person says, "You're discriminating against me, because I'm transgender.", I can easily reply, "Not at all.  I'm merely feeling extraordinarily creeped out by your presence.  And, no, I don't need to provide objective evidence that my feelings are logical, because you established earlier that 'No one is allowed to judge these feelings-based conclusions negatively, nor discriminate, in any way, against such feelings.'  So, I don't like you because you creep me out, and you're not allowed to say it's 'discrimination because you're transgendered.'" Has it been proven through science though?  And is there a mathematical formula for semi-accurately predicting the percentage of infants born this way?

From what I understand everyone starts in the womb as a female and then is dosed with testosterone. This testosterone then will change the female pattern brain into a male pattern one and a female body into a male body. It is just sometimes the levels of testosterone are not what they should be and you end up with a female pattern brain in a male body or vice versa.

[Pepin]

To push back a bit, what would it mean for these terms to not be real? That the experience of a person's sexuality is not valid? That they are lying? That the varying expressions of sexuality are not measurable? That they sexual makeup ought to be something than what it is?

 

Why the terminology? Because it refers to something real and is important to the person in their relationships. These terms are not pulled from thin air, but are generated through the study of a large sum of unconnected people who have a similar way of describing the same experience.

 

I want to be clear that I am not in support of this language in political contexts, but rather only in scientific and relational ones.

[MMX2010]

To push back a bit, what would it mean for these terms to not be real? That the experience of a person's sexuality is not valid? That they are lying? That the varying expressions of sexuality are not measurable? That they sexual makeup ought to be something than what it is?

 

Why the terminology? Because it refers to something real and is important to the person in their relationships. These terms are not pulled from thin air, but are generated through the study of a large sum of unconnected people who have a similar way of describing the same experience.

 

I want to be clear that I am not in support of this language in political contexts, but rather only in scientific and relational ones.

 

Right.  But if you study a large sum of unconnected people who have a similar way of describing the same experience, you can also (quite easily) get: (1) Racists and (2) Christians. 

 

I think our confusion is as follows: "Sex isn't at all the same thing as sexuality."  Sex is a biological reality, sexuality is just an opinion. 

[Pepin]

Has it been proven through science though?  And is there a mathematical formula for semi-accurately predicting the percentage of infants born this way? 

 

Fetal development has a lot do with it. We are all born females as the video below discusses.

 

 

A hypothesis is that excesses and deficiencies in various sex hormones during fetal development can result in a female brain with a male body, vice versa, or somewhere in the middle. The genitals form very early in, while the brain develops much slower. Though most people think in terms of chromosome being the determinant of gender and sex, it is actually the influence of the chromosomes as far as its sex hormone production in relation to the sex hormone and other chemicals the mother produces. If the mother doesn't consume certain nutrients, the fetus's y or x chromosome may not be able to fully express itself.

 

To go more indepth in this, a small percentage of people are born neither male or female. They might have a vagina, but it would also appear that they have a small penis. What happened here is that during fetal development, the fetus grew as a female but then began to grow as a male towards the end up development while resulted in the clit turning into a penis. As another example, those with micropenises likely developed mostly as a male, but during the phase where their clit was to enlarge, it did so very little due to little presence of testosterone.

 

As a final example, those going through sex changes will be given sex hormones and their bodies will actually start to morph into the other sex. This is most notable during puberty as it is when the most amount of changes are made in terms of bone structure and brain development. Females taking testosterone will actually begin to develop very large clits, and some will have mini-penises. This isn't just true of those trying to become the other sex, but of female bodybuilders. The follow picture is NSFW and is of the clit of a female bodybuilder.

 

Though I am focusing on the physical manifestations of this, it is only because it is easier to illustrate the points than with the neurological ones. It is the same sort of factors that cause a female to be born with what looks like a penis as it is for a male to be born with the brain of a female. I don't wish to give the impression that this is the whole story in all instances, and that there aren't other factors, but fetal development is a huge factor.

 

Human sexuality is very complex as the chemicals interplay in our sexual preference and expression and even our bodies change quite frequently over our lifetime. The line between male and female is far more ambiguous than it is made out to be, but even more so in instances where a person develops in a non-typical way.

Right.  But if you study a large sum of unconnected people who have a similar way of describing the same experience, you can also (quite easily) get: (1) Racists and (2) Christians. 

 

I think our confusion is as follows: "Sex isn't at all the same thing as sexuality."  Sex is a biological reality, sexuality is just an opinion. 

 

I don't quite understand your response. Scientific study of human sexuality requires the observation and inquiry of human preference across large segments of the population. When particular results appear frequently enough, they are classified into a class and likely studied further.

 

For instance, in studying sexuality you may survey 1,000 people and find that 10 of those people report having no sexual desire entirely. You may then proceed to question these people further, and to search for more people who report feeling no sexual desire. After enough research is done to find that sexual desire is not necessarily innate to all humans and that this is not the result of extreme circumstance, then it is possible to create a classification which pertains to those who experience no sexual desire.

 

As far as your conclusion goes, I'd agree that it is a conclusion, but it certainly isn't an argument. I don't quite know what the words mean, I can guess, but I'd prefer to choose not to. I just made a post previous to this going over someone the details of fetal development and the interplay of hormones in sex determination and sexuality, and I believe I've made a pretty decent case that the matter is not all that black and white.

 

Even if we are to assume that this is a black and white matter with 90% of the population due to fetal development going very smoothly, the matter becomes quite gray in considering the 10% that have irregularities in fetal development.

 

As said in a previous post, none of this really matters unless you have a friend who it matters to, have an interest in it, or are scientist studying human sexuality. I can't really bring myself to care about if someone is gay, transexual, crossdressing, or whatever... Unless I suppose I am attracted to them.

[fractional slacker]

If you live in the world of words, this non-sense makes sense.

You can twist perception. Biology won't budge.

[Wuzzums]

So, why do the terms "cisgender" and "transgender" exist?  And do they have any philosophical value?

I always thought they were a clever way of describing the gender given at birth by referencing chemistry. Cis/Trans being ways a molecule can be configured in a 3D perspective. There are guidelines for determining sex at birth since it's not always clear, and cases where a mismatch happens aren't exactly rare. Thus transgender means the person doesn't have the sex their birth certificate says they have, just a technicality. But most people use it as if it's a new kind of gender to be acknowledged and valued before anything else...

[MMX2010]

Fetal development has a lot do with it. We are all born females as the video below discusses.

 

That's not what the video said.  The video said that we are all conceived as females.  For the first five-six weeks of our embryonic development, we express female physical traits, regardless of whether we have XX chromosomes or XY chromosomes. 

 

That correction is important because: (1) A six week old embryo isn't called a "body"; if it were, abortion would be murder.  (2) A six week old embryo is incapable of surviving outside the womb; hence it isn't a viable human being; hence it has no body.  (3) Therefore, there's no such thing as "an individual who began with a female body that was converted to a male body via testosterone".  There is only "an individual who was conceived as a female, whose body was converted to male by testosterone".

 

-------------------------

 

Now let's consider organ transplants. 

 

A female recipient can receive male organs without fearing, "Zomg, I'm going to wake up feeling gender-confused after the transplant, because I'll have a male body part trapped inside my female body!" 

 

So what body parts are transplantable?  According to the Wikipedia page on organ transplantation, almost all organs are transplantable!  Some of the more "colorful", or "I didn't know we could do that" organs include hands, feet, legs, face (still experimental), penis, and ovary.  Off the top of my head, the only body parts that are not transplantable are the brain and spinal cord.  (You can imagine how impossible it would be to "re-wire" one person's brain / spinal cord to both a recipient's brain and other body parts....) 

 

So I assert: (1) The body itself is neither male nor female, only the sex cells (sperm and egg) are either male or female.  (2) There is no such thing as a "male brain", "female brain", "male body", or "female body".  (3) Therefore, there is no such thing as "a male brain trapped inside of a female body"; hence, there's no such thing as an objectively existing transgendered person.  (There are, however, many people who have the subjective feeling that they're transgendered, which I assert is the same thing as "having the subjective feeling that you're one-with-god" or "having the subjective feeling that certain races are inferior to others".) 

[Pleiades]

I understand some necessity for the term "Transgender" because it describes as very specific and rare type of gender (born to one sex physically and born to the opposite either spiritually or emotionally), and represents approx. 0.3% of the total population.

 

Now, the term "Cisgender" is rather troublesome. Previous to its creation when one would observe a male or female you would associate their body with their internal gender. To date, this is accurate with over 99.7% of the population, and is universally understood in dialogue. So to make 0.3% of the population feel special they came with a special term to describe the "rule" and not the "exception".

 

Basically, they want to change the universally understood dialogue to suite their needs and make them feel like less than a statistically insignificant minority. There may be a shame aspect to with the whole "cis privilege" ad hominem that I hear periodically.

 

In short: in 99.7% of cases a male is a cismale, and a female is cisfemale. And in 0.3% of cases a male is transmale, and a female is transfemale. Why change dialogue that everyone already understands? Well... because when it comes to making a very small number of people not feel sad, liberal hippies would rather the entire world change their views instead of letting people realize that they are numerous enough to justify changing the world's dialogue.

[Kevin Beal]

Is it inaccurate or unsympathetic to treat needing a sex change operation as a tragedy? I would imagine that would have to be a nightmare to have to deal with. Most people feel super uncomfortable, you're infertile, people often will not want to date you, actual and perceived bigotries, sex change operations not being able to do enough to make it as if you were never the other sex.

 

Whenever I hear stuff from feminists, it's always about how nobody can talk about it as if it's anything other than normal or else you are a horrible bigoted person. Let's bring it into the public eye, but let's not actually talk about anything real. That sort of thing.

[MMX2010]

Is it inaccurate or unsympathetic to treat needing a sex change operation as a tragedy?

 

I had an odd "YesNo" reaction to your question, where it felt like the word "Yes" and "No" both entered my brain at the exact same time. 

 

Then I realized I've a skeptical reaction to the verb "need". 

 

If I re-phrased your question as, "Is it inaccurate or unsympathetic to treat undergoing a sex change operation as a tragedy?", I would immediately answer, "No" - because undergoing such a procedure is highly uncomfortable and exposes people to bigotry and shame.

 

But if I kept your question as, "Is it inaccurate or unsympathetic to treat needing a sex change operation as a tragedy?", I would immediately answer, "Yes" - because I'm not sure how many cases involve "genuine need" versus "socially-induced need".  (For example, I think it's never accurate to say that a man "needs to confess his sins to Jesus", because I know that Jesus doesn't exist.  Whereas, I'm not sure what percentage of people who "need" sex change operations actually need them.) 

[DaVinci]

That's not what the video said.  The video said that we are all conceived as females.  For the first five-six weeks of our embryonic development, we express female physical traits, regardless of whether we have XX chromosomes or XY chromosomes.  That correction is important because: (1) A six week old embryo isn't called a "body"; if it were, abortion would be murder.  (2) A six week old embryo is incapable of surviving outside the womb; hence it isn't a viable human being; hence it has no body.  (3) Therefore, there's no such thing as "an individual who began with a female body that was converted to a male body via testosterone".  There is only "an individual who was conceived as a female, whose body was converted to male by testosterone". ------------------------- Now let's consider organ transplants.  A female recipient can receive male organs without fearing, "Zomg, I'm going to wake up feeling gender-confused after the transplant, because I'll have a male body part trapped inside my female body!"  So what body parts are transplantable?  According to the Wikipedia page on organ transplantation, almost all organs are transplantable!  Some of the more "colorful", or "I didn't know we could do that" organs include hands, feet, legs, face (still experimental), penis, and ovary.  Off the top of my head, the only body parts that are not transplantable are the brain and spinal cord.  (You can imagine how impossible it would be to "re-wire" one person's brain / spinal cord to both a recipient's brain and other body parts....)  So I assert: (1) The body itself is neither male nor female, only the sex cells (sperm and egg) are either male or female.  (2) There is no such thing as a "male brain", "female brain", "male body", or "female body".  (3) Therefore, there is no such thing as "a male brain trapped inside of a female body"; hence, there's no such thing as an objectively existing transgendered person.  (There are, however, many people who have the subjective feeling that they're transgendered, which I assert is the same thing as "having the subjective feeling that you're one-with-god" or "having the subjective feeling that certain races are inferior to others".)

I feel like if I take your argument to it's logical conclusion that you would be arguing that there is no such thing as a sperm and an egg, just a collection of atoms arranged in a specific way. So why not just say that?

[MMX2010]

I feel like if I take your argument to it's logical conclusion that you would be arguing that there is no such thing as a sperm and an egg, just a collection of atoms arranged in a specific way. So why not just say that?

 

Because sperm is male and eggs are female. 

 

Asexually reproducing species are the earliest forms of life: they clone themselves by splitting into two halves.  But asexual reproduction has a very serious danger: the genetic-identicalness of the entire species leaves it vulnerable to extinction via one horrible disease.

 

The solution is sexual reproduction, in which each offspring derives half of its genetic material from each of two parents via specialized reproductive cells.  Historically, there have always been two ways to make these reproductive cells: (1) Make a lot of them, which are very small in size, to create maximum possible genetic variety in all offspring.  (2) Make a few of them, which are very large in size, to enhance the long term survival of the fertilized egg. 

 

The first way is called "male"; the second way is called "female"; and there's no such thing as either "a third way" or "a sexually reproducing species which doesn't follow this model". 

[Devon Gibbons]

It's a Brave New World, and we all should transcend sexuality and stop being enslaved to our identities. We are all ambiguous and the same...

 

I equate transcendence with mythological or magical thinking, but then I've yet to try lsd, so I am biased.

 

 

 

Off the top of my head, the only body parts that are not transplantable are the brain and spinal cord.  (You can imagine how impossible it would be to "re-wire" one person's brain / spinal cord to both a recipient's brain and other body parts....) 

Well I learned something about that...

[Alice Amell]

I had an odd "YesNo" reaction to your question, where it felt like the word "Yes" and "No" both entered my brain at the exact same time. 

 

Then I realized I've a skeptical reaction to the verb "need". 

 

If I re-phrased your question as, "Is it inaccurate or unsympathetic to treat undergoing a sex change operation as a tragedy?", I would immediately answer, "No" - because undergoing such a procedure is highly uncomfortable and exposes people to bigotry and shame.

 

But if I kept your question as, "Is it inaccurate or unsympathetic to treat needing a sex change operation as a tragedy?", I would immediately answer, "Yes" - because I'm not sure how many cases involve "genuine need" versus "socially-induced need".  (For example, I think it's never accurate to say that a man "needs to confess his sins to Jesus", because I know that Jesus doesn't exist.  Whereas, I'm not sure what percentage of people who "need" sex change operations actually need them.) 

I would ask you what you mean by "need." Need in order to what? In order to live? In order to feel more comfortable with one's own identity? You could say no one needs the operation in order to live, but some may need it in order to feel more comfortable with their identity. In the latter sense, a "socially-induced need" would also fall under that category. Are you differentiating between where the desire to get the change comes from (whether "socially-induced" or environmental/biological)? I'm curious as to why it would matter if they both need it in order to be more comfortable with themselves. And I may be wrong but I don't think many people encourage others to choose to be transsexual and get sexual-reassignment surgery so I'm unsure where the idea of a "socially-induced need" comes from, but it depends on what you mean by "need." Most people I know that are trans-friendly do not think it is a choice so I'm not sure why they would encourage people to make the choice.

I'm frustrated with the terms cisgender and transgender because I feel that they don't describe anything real, and should therefore not exist. 

 

A metaphor.  I was born atheist (because we all are), was introduced to Born Again Christianity from a very young age, believed in it rather deeply throughout my childhood, and stopped believing at age 17 or so.  Now I'm told that Jesus is fundamentally a spiritual being, and so I can describe my life-path (if I wanted to) as: born cishuman, became transhuman, and reverted to being cishuman.  (Or: born transpiritual, became cisspiritual, reverted to being transpiritual.)

 

But that would be stupid because there exists no objective evidence to support the existence of "spiritual beings", so I could only have been human the entire time.  And because using terms like "cisspiritual" gives credence to the existence of "spiritual beings", which I find annoying. 

 

I also believe that "gender" is identical to "spiritual being" in that there's no objective evidence to support the existence of "gender".  But it's even more annoying, because I despise people who haven't studied evolutionary biology, and yet comment on "gender issues": they're trying to use anti-knowledge (gender-related studies) to overpower knowledge (biologically-related studies of sex). 

 

So, why do the terms "cisgender" and "transgender" exist?  And do they have any philosophical value?

They exist because they represent something, that something being gender identification. Gender doesn't exist, nor do countries. Are you angry at the use of the word country or state or anything that isn't materially existent? Or am I missing your point. Gender may not exist, but that doesn't mean it has no meaning or influence or can't be studied. Transgender and cisgender are just more specific terms to describe someone's gender identification in relation to their sex. If someone's sex is female and gender is female, they are cisgendered. If their sex is female, but gender is male, they are transgender.

 

You call gender-related studies anti-knowledge but how so? Gender is not sex and you are confusing the two. If it is a study of gender then it goes by the gender identification of each individual. If it's a study of sex, it goes by the sex of the individual as determined by sex chromosomes. I'm not sure how studies of gender are "overpowering" knowledge of biology or sex. If you're referring to feminism, that's an entirely different subject - feminists use irrationality and biased and leading surveys to meet their own ends, but that doesn't mean no one can properly conduct a study of gender.

[MMX2010]

I would ask you what you mean by "need." Need in order to what? In order to live? In order to feel more comfortable with one's own identity? You could say no one needs the operation in order to live, but some may need it in order to feel more comfortable with their identity. In the latter sense, a "socially-induced need" would also fall under that category. Are you differentiating between where the desire to get the change comes from (whether "socially-induced" or environmental/biological)? I'm curious as to why it would matter if they both need it in order to be more comfortable with themselves. And I may be wrong but I don't think many people encourage others to choose to be transsexual and get sexual-reassignment surgery so I'm unsure where the idea of a "socially-induced need" comes from, but it depends on what you mean by "need." Most people I know that are trans-friendly do not think it is a choice so I'm not sure why they would encourage people to make the choice.

 

I'm differentiating between "a biologically-induced need" and "a socially-induced need" because that's how homosexuals (the L's, G's, and B's) in the LGBT community campaigned for their own social-acceptance.  Back when people wrongfully believed that homosexuality was a "choice" - (a.k.a. "a socially-induced need"), horrible things like "homosexuality-curing Bible camps", "homosexuality-curing boot camps", and "informal beatings to drive the homosexuality out of you" were common.  But such maneuvers are only tragic and immoral once you realize that homosexuality is a "biologically-induced need" - a.k.a. "not a choice".

 

 Gender may not exist, but that doesn't mean it has no meaning or influence or can't be studied. Transgender and cisgender are just more specific terms to describe someone's gender identification in relation to their sex. If someone's sex is female and gender is female, they are cisgendered. If their sex is female, but gender is male, they are transgender.

 

You call gender-related studies anti-knowledge but how so? Gender is not sex and you are confusing the two. If it is a study of gender then it goes by the gender identification of each individual. If it's a study of sex, it goes by the sex of the individual as determined by sex chromosomes. I'm not sure how studies of gender are "overpowering" knowledge of biology or sex. If you're referring to feminism, that's an entirely different subject - feminists use irrationality and biased and leading surveys to meet their own ends, but that doesn't mean no one can properly conduct a study of gender.

 

Okay, now we're getting somewhere. 

 

If, "transgender and cisgender are just more specific terms to describe someone's gender identification in relation to their sex", and because "sex is a highly complicated biological phenomenon, whose deeper implications can only be incompletely-grasped by those who study scientific papers on sex for years and years", then transgender and cisgender are ill-defined concepts whenever they're used by people who DO NOT study sex in a scientific manner. 

 

Hence, people who deliberately limit their definitions to either, "Your sex is just based on your genitals: penis = male, vagina = female.", or "Your sex is just based on your reproductive cells: sperm = male, egg = female.", are obtuse. 

 

Worst of all, trans-friendly people who maintain such limited definitions show no interest in expanding their definitions by studying sex through scientific papers.  Thus, I can ask such a person, "Who is more empathetic: men or women?".  And they'll immediately answer, "Women!".  And I'll casually remark: "No scientific papers have ever established that women are, indeed, more empathetic than men.  And the only scientific paper I know of asserted that men and women are equally empathetic." 

 

The above exchange is crucial because, "I'm a woman, therefore I'm empathetic.  You're a man, therefore I have to teach you empathy." becomes part of "someone's gender identification" that you're referring to in your statement, "Transgender and cisgender are just more specific terms to describe someone's gender identification in relation to their sex."  If the "gender identification" is a lie, because it contains socially-induced, unexamined myths, but if powerful members in society derive (undeserved) self-confidence and self-efficacy by believing those socially-induced, unexamined myths, then "trans-friendliness" becomes "We'd rather you mutilate your body to suit our need for self-confidence and self-efficacy, than lose our self-confidence and self-efficacy by scientifically examining sex." 

 

(Thanks, by the way, for your push-back.  I couldn't have arrived at what was bothering me without it.)

[Frosty]

I like, and agree with pretty much all of Kevin's points.

 

Gender used to mean sex, but seems to be transitioning into meaning the social and cultural identities of an individual, I've always accepted this distinction because I do observe a trend for social differences between males and females which near as I can tell stems from biological differences. Recently facebook added a massive number of choices to their gender selection, it's something that's getting a bit out of control to be honest. Classification like this is usually done to make life more convenient, to the degree we do it is the degree that it's helpful, having something like 200 gender identities to remember with little practical difference between them is pointless.

 

The cynical side of me thinks that they mostly come from this new age internet born culture of social justice warriors, their natural habitat is Tumblr where everyone strives to be as unique as possible, this is where we see a lot of these terms born and parroted into popular culture.

 

I'm going to go out on a limb with some purely anecdotal observations and opinions, I don't claim any of this as fact - If you look at the culture it spawns from you get a good idea of why it exists, these are people that are often deeply unhappy with how they feel and how society treats them.

 

The SJW like to label their differences and then demand other people acknowledge them, these are the people responsible for popularizing terms like "thin privilege", "genderfluid", "ableism" and a lot of other nonsense. They're essentially thought police who think that if they condition everyone else in the world to change how they think they'll feel better about their own differences, the first step is to label everything so it can be manipulated.

 

I find it all very hard to take seriously, if you want a humorous take on all of this, I recommend Internet Aristocrat on youtube, he has a series on Tumblrisms which is quite funny - https://www.youtube.com/user/InternetAristocrat

[Josh F]

What the word "gender" means has actually changed in popular perception not long ago. Originally gender did not describe people, but nouns. There were only 4 of them: masculine, feminine, undetermined and neuter. "Bull" is masculine, "hen" is feminine, "dog" is undetermined and "book" is neuter since no gender can be possible for it.

 

Putting people in labels like "cisgender" or a homosexual woman in a man's body and all of these frankly stupid categorizations is convenient for people who want to manipulate you through language. In this case it's a desire not to frame people who have sex changes and the like as an aberration, in the same way we wouldn't just say that I'm normal and then there are these gay people out there.

 

I would feel incredibly anxious to have to deal with feeling that I have the wrong sex body and all of the social awkwardness (or hostility) that comes with going through a sex change. But I don't think that inventing terms like cisgender and cis-privilege actually helps with that at all. In fact, I find it really irritating and I think it gets in the way of me empathizing with people who have had to deal with these issues.

 

And sometimes it's about creating a "worthy victim" narrative where it's okay to be racist and sexist against white men. Because it's not actually about principles, but rather using a convenient outlet for their own pathological rages with impunity.

 

There are things which are not black and white. Sexual orientations can blend and people can even be born with both sets of genitals. I am not my sex, gender or race. My name is Kevin Beal. "Hi there, nice to meet you. If you want to be real with me, I want to listen".

 

I would much prefer a frank discussion about these things rather than a feminist monopolized language game where I always lose. And from what I can tell, women, gays and transgenders also lose in that game.

 

Don't you feel like you are being made the enemy by being given all these labels? I'm not anyone's enemy because of sex or race or sexual orientation or anything like that, and yet I've been told that I am repeatedly by people who don't know anything about me beyond how I fit those labels.

 

/rant

Do you think there is value in upholding cultural norms?  

 

Do you think there is value in dispelling cultural norms?  

 

I hate the use of the term privilege anything.  Thats clearly apart of the Social Justice Warrior's rhetorical tool bag.  I can't disagree with your argument that that specific term and its use is designed to dismiss and ostracize people, but the term cisgendered is interesting.  I was originally hostile towards it, I guess I felt like it placed me into some kind of box and inherently from that box I am incapable of understanding or having an opinion on whats going on in those other boxes.  

 

But lets take the goal and the strategy and hold it up to the goals and strategies here.  Society has normalized violence through euphemism.  Through ending the euphemism and calling things how they are, we hope to enlighten people to the realities of the experience.  Taxes are theft.  Spanking is abuse.  Government is violence.

 

 

Similarly, queer theorists hope to end the normalizing euphemisms around sexuality, with the goal of reducing bigotry and discrimination.  Its not "transgendered and normal" its "transgendered and cisgendered."  What other word is there for someone whose gender is in alignment with their sexuality?  What does it hurt?  Isn't it a quite valid conceptual categorization?

 

Like imagine the opposite of anarchist was just called normal.  Surely you'd want to create a word like "statist."  

 

There is so much that could unite the Queer Theory/Gay Movement with Libertarian Anarchism.  In general, they promote self knowledge, therapy, peaceful parenting, and they work to reduce violence, ignorance, bigotry, etc.  They're battles are often against the state (the gay rights movement began with transgendered, gay and lesbian people fighting cops who were raiding their bar in New York called the Stonewall Inn).  In their own terms, they talk about things like RTR in families, and peaceful parenting so that children can feel safe "coming out of the closet" to their parents.  They also have a strong history of deFOO if the parental relationship is bad, and as a community are extremely helpful to one another (on a level this website isn't even close to yet).

 

The SJW's, like white college students in the 70s who claimed to be "active anti-racists" and joined the Black Panthers, are just middle class intellectuals co-opting a movement.  Its akin to Sarah Palin and the Tea Party.  We can probably agree all day that SJW's are annoying and wrong.  I just don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water.  

[Snafui]

Didn't have a lot of time to dive into the discussion but given the initial post perhaps the following will help: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZRD1OdHBA4

[Kevin Beal]

Like imagine the opposite of anarchist was just called normal.  Surely you'd want to create a word like "statist."  

Well, that's a binary proposition. There's really not much in between. But what actually constitutes a transgendered person?

 

Typically, transgender is used to describe people whose gendered identity does not match the body they were born with. But feminists and the like are very eager to say that gender is not binary. Transgender as a classification implies a binary gender, because it's wrongly assigned.

 

Gender is supposed to be a social construct as well which would make transgender something which is not physiological, but from what I've seen brain scans of transgendered people tend to show brains with opposite sex traits. Not actually the brain of the opposite sex, but more specifically in the part of the brain spraying out sex hormones.

 

I think, by any account, this would be considered a genetically diseased brain if it involved any other part of the brain. Pumping out prolactin instead of dopamine, or serotonin instead of adrenaline, could get you in serious trouble.

 

Many people have issues dealing with gender identity. I don't know how much of it is neurological, and probably nobody does. But it affects many more people than strictly "transgendered" people.

 

Trans implies "with gender identity issues", and cis implies "without gender identity issues", when I'm not convinced that's the most philosophical distinction. What about a term describing people whose sex hormones are painful enough to warrant surgery, and those whose sex hormones don't leave them wanting a gender reassignment surgery? Well, because then that would beg the question about it being a disease or not.

 

When we're talking about a disease it's not exactly equivalent to gay vs straight. And I don't know if it is a disease or not. I'm not even close to educated enough to make that determination, but hey, that's why I'm bringing it up!

 

Also, I'm not so sure I want the labels "atheist" or "anarchist". They only exist to distinguish ourselves from mystics. We don't have a word for "a-fairyist", for example. What if "cisgender" is the same?

[Josh F]

Well, that's a binary proposition. There's really not much in between. But what actually constitutes a transgendered person?

 

Typically, transgender is used to describe people whose gendered identity does not match the body they were born with. But feminists and the like are very eager to say that gender is not binary. Transgender as a classification implies a binary gender, because it's wrongly assigned.

 

Gender is supposed to be a social construct as well which would make transgender something which is not physiological, but from what I've seen brain scans of transgendered people tend to show brains with opposite sex traits. Not actually the brain of the opposite sex, but more specifically in the part of the brain spraying out sex hormones.

 

I think, by any account, this would be considered a genetically diseased brain if it involved any other part of the brain. Pumping out prolactin instead of dopamine, or serotonin instead of adrenaline, could get you in serious trouble.

 

Many people have issues dealing with gender identity. I don't know how much of it is neurological, and probably nobody does. But it affects many more people than strictly "transgendered" people.

 

When we're talking about a disease it's not exactly equivalent to gay vs straight. And I don't know if it is a disease or not. I'm not even close to educated enough to make that determination, but hey, that's why I'm bringing it up!

 

Also, I'm not so sure I want the labels "atheist" or "anarchist". They only exist to distinguish ourselves from mystics. We don't have a word for "a-fairyist", for example. What if "cisgender" is the same?

The idea being expressed in Queer Theory is that there is no such thing as a "normal" brain or identity, only a "popular" or "common" identity.  Saying it is a disease to have a certain type of brain would be pretty offensive applied to anyone else (except addicts, they seem to love thinking they have a disease).  But being offensive doesn't make it true or false, so how can we determine if that is true?

 

Firstly, the term disease is extremely broad.  We can say it certainly isn't a byproduct of some external germ like having a flu so the most straight forward definition is out.  The other definition, where it gets broad enough to define gambling as a disease, is the next place.  It is said to be a disease if it causes pain, distress, anxiety, to yourself or others.

 

Wiki says "In humans, "disease" is often used more broadly to refer to any condition that causes pain,dysfunction, distress, social problems, or death to the person afflicted, or similar problems for those in contact with the person."

 

Then yes, by that definition it is a disease.  And so is anarchism, defooing, and telling the truth as they can all create social problems or distress for the person doing it or those in contact with the person.  So lets just say that any logic like this used to diminish the argument for gender theory equally applies to any and all ideas in contrast with "normal" society.  

 

The last definition is the most broad, "In this broader sense, it sometimes includes injuries, disabilities, disorders, syndromes, infections, isolated symptoms, deviant behaviors, and atypical variations of structure and function."

 

So again, in that model anarchist, homosexuals, jews, they're all a disease.  They're either deviant or atypical.  

 

 

 

Trans implies "with gender identity issues", and cis implies "without gender identity issues", when I'm not convinced that's the most philosophical distinction. What about a term describing people whose sex hormones are painful enough to warrant surgery, and those whose sex hormones don't leave them wanting a gender reassignment surgery? Well, because then that would beg the question about it being a disease or not.

Transgender means a gender which does not conform to the persons biological sex.  Cisgendered means it does conform. The reason for those terms is to undermine the "implications" you mentioned, which are based on an assumption that cisgendered is normal and transgendered is abnormal. 

 

This is the entire point of Queer Theory, that there is no such standard called "normal identity."  They also don't make it dichotomous, it isn't transgendered or cisgendered, but a wide array of genders from pangendered to third gender, etc.  In several other cultures, they have completely different gender norms.  There is one offshoot islamic culture, I'll find the name if you're interested, which presumes there are 5 genders.  Gender is a subjective thing, and it may or may not be motivated by biological or environmental factors variably.  

 

So lets do a thought experiment for a second.  Imagine you don't live in the West, but instead you live in Thailand.  In Thailand being transgendered does not come with any label of "identity issues" or "disease" and transgendered people are more common.  Similarly, in ancient greek society there was a lot more homosexuality.  These behaviors and identities are reinforced through cultural norms, not biological realities.  Transgendered people exist everywhere, throughout history.

(Just a little addon, I think a term like diseased might not be as appropriate.  If it is about identity conforming to objective reality, the argument might be that being transgendered is delusional, in that the identity doesn't conform to the objective reality of their sex, assuming they're born male or female.)

[MMX2010]

This is the entire point of Queer Theory, that there is no such standard called "normal identity."

 

I disagree, and I can prove it with an example. 

 

After pondering my own gender for quite some time, I've finally discovered what my gender is - Paragon Male.  A Paragon Male is a man who believes that his gender is best expressed by becoming a paragon of masculinity.  He believes that all men should strive for physical fitness, emotional control, scientific and mathematical prowess, financial independence, philosophical virtue, and should assume the leadership role in all heterosexual relationships. 

 

A Paragon Male doesn't have much patience for non-physically fit men, because non-physically fit men lack discipline, which is essential to being Paragon.  Nor does a Paragon Male have much patience for physically-fit men who fail to assume the leadership role in heterosexual relationships, because such a man is easily controlled by her whims and needs - and therefore isn't Paragon. 

 

How do you respond to my gender identity? 

[Kevin Beal]

Are there transgender people who believe they are born in a male or female body but identify as a third gender? Not that I've ever heard. When people are talking about transgender, they are referring to being in the opposite sexed body. They are saying clearly that they have a female brain in a male body (or vice versa), in binary terms.

 

Because of a rare genetic condition, their brain produces the sex hormones of the opposite sex. Transgender people have reported to me that it's incredibly painful psychologically to be put through that torture, and require years of hormone treatments and even sexual reassignment surgeries. Clearly sexual reassignment surgeries and hormone treatments do not exist in nature.

 

I wonder how much help it is to suggest that this is as healthy as being "cisgender". I somehow doubt this helps anyone. It's subjectivism applied to health.

[fractional slacker]

Please excuse my interruption of the intricate and complex discussion between Kevin, Josh, and MMX.Are sex and sexuality the same thing, or even related? I would argue no.

 

What is sex for? Sex is an objective biological description of an action involving the naughty bits primarily, but not exclusively, for the purpose of producing offspring. In addition, sex is often used as a means for expressing affection or simply for pleasure.

 

What is sexuality? Whatever you want it to be.

 

Would the subject of sexuality and gender ever manifest in a stateless society?

[Carl Green]

Okay so a specific category needs an expansion of terms to categorize for clarity's sake. What's problem here? Am I missing that this anything more than something as simple as a new dog breed, for example?

 

I think any hatin' you guys do on just a term is misguided. I can see having an issue with someone attempting to use terms to manipulate, but a word is just a word.

[MMX2010]

I think any hatin' you guys do on just a term is misguided. I can see having an issue with someone attempting to use terms to manipulate, but a word is just a word.

 

What do you think of my description of my gender identity, Paragon Male? 

[Carl Green]

What do you think of my description of my gender identity, Paragon Male? 

 

Because part of being a Paragon Male is having concern for what others are doing, I know it's not a good description for me. I also would not likely get along with, or want any paragon males in any significant part my life.

[Kevin Beal]

Okay so a specific category needs an expansion of terms to categorize for clarity's sake. What's problem here? Am I missing that this anything more than something as simple as a new dog breed, for example?

 

I think any hatin' you guys do on just a term is misguided. I can see having an issue with someone attempting to use terms to manipulate, but a word is just a word.

According to Josh, it's not about clarity, but about normalizing transgender, like it's as trivial as the kind of music you like. You even equate it to just another dog breed implying it's similarly trivial.

 

I don't hate a "term". And even if I did, so what? What do you care if I hate a term? I have no idea what you mean by "misguided".

 

What I hate is that if I say that transgender is a tragedy, then it makes me out to be a complete asshole, and that the way people talk about it isn't honest. I hate that people are as afraid as they are to talk candidly about it. I hate that people are encouraged to take offense at conversations like this one.

 

You said you'd understand if it were about manipulation, and if the purpose is to frame transgender as trivial, and it turns out that it's not trivial at all, despite it being obviously non trivial, then yea, that's manipulative. So, logically, you should have a problem with it as I do.