Opinion | Judith Butler: When Killing Women Isn’t a Crime

I've been trying to close my eyes on how the world's been going crazy. I mean, we've got people who still go around partying and spreading covid and people dying, yet they need to party. Everything is politicized. LGBT issues? Politicized.
But the more time passed, the more I saw that things were getting out of hand.
I don't even expect anything these days. I don't even expect anyone to read this at this point. I feel like I am an empty space. I feel like it's all my fault.
I was abused by my mother, my sister and her husband. The abuse continued for my entire life. I got cut off abruptly after I told that I was a gay trans man, who was not willing to have children which were biological.
I was called a traitor, I listened for weeks on my mother screaming all things from men are trash to the fact that I should've been a lesbian instead and given my best friend a husband, that both me and my partner were stealing husbands from women. If you've ever seen that Julia Volkova (from t.A.T.u. interview where she says gay men are not okay and should breed more children while lesbians are cool, that's my eastern european reality). I held my patience with her for 6 years.
She said that me coming out as gay man, was worse than her parents dying 6 days apart from long, long fights with stroke and cancer. I took care of them with her. When my parents divorced, I took her side. I bottled up my childhood, I knew that I had to grow up. I remember how the ambulance arrived and that I had to stay for them. The family turned on us. Poverty is still something that I can wake up in the night screaming about. I still can hoard food, I freak out about bills and I do not even do the bills and finance because I just break down and my partner does it for me.
I recall clearly I would get one meal instead of dinner and lunch of porridge and I would ask my mother what about her and she would say she would finish after me (I had troubles with my stomach and I rarely felt hungry, since I was very small and I was born very weak coz the doctors didn't notice the umbical cord around my neck, I took longer to develop), so I would undereat on top, so that my mom would eat too. I always share my food and suggest to people, I can't control it.
She abused me. I was suicidal. I would self-harm and I wouldn't tell. I was depressed.
Summer would come every year.
My sister when I turned thirteen, after already being on shaky ground with me, said "I hate teenagers" and everything she did before paled in comparisson. I had multiple attempts of her trying to hack into my facebook, e-mail, yell at our parents to force me to add her, different websites and etc. She would scream at me for making out with my boyfriend at the time coz someone saw us kissing in the city. Kissing. I didn't even go beyond. She would lock me in her kitchen and she and her spouse would scream at me, demand answers if they wanted a certain topic, scream at how different I was, how unfeminine I was, what did I think of myself? Why did I think so highly of myself? Why would I even think that anyone would ever love me?
"No one will ever love you." That phrase haunted me for years.
"Stop acting like you're the centre of the earth."
"Your purpose in life is to have children." Was screamed at me, when I got diagnosed as infertile due to medicine sideeffects. I was yelled at how would I tell my future husband that and who would want me. My mother stood beside me and allowed it. She would allow my sister to close the door and she would go up, to sleep and I would go up after hearing everything and curl up and sleep in the same position as I would lay in.
I was threatened with physical violence. "If you were my child, I would've beaten the shit of you". I got scared of walking up the stairs with them. I couldn't get the image of them knocking me down, so I always walked behind them and with much delay.
My hands shake due to genetics, but even when I visited them for the last time, my hands shook so badly that I had to hold a tea spoon with two hands, while I would try to put sugar in my tea.
My mother destroyed so many relationships of mine, she would condone my boyfriends, besides my first abusive one, who she fought was the best fit, "because all men do is cheat and he has money and his mom is nice". She went livid on so many of them. She only accepted my current partner after he helped us numerously and even then, she always had something bad to say about him. She would say that he would never look at me, that I was too poor for him.
I had a good friend who was a lesbian. She told me to stop being friends with her in case people thought that I was a lesbian. She screamed at me when I asked why are gays being killed. She said who cares and why don't I care about children getting murdered instead?!
The abuse can be described further and further.
I was also insecure and I was raped by a person who identified as a trans woman at the time of our connection. They had kept misgendering me all the way until I blocked them, because I had a certain genitalia, yet they were a trans woman. I never reported them, because I didn't want more pressure on trans women. Eventually last I heard was that they didn't get HRT because they were denied and then they I believe either idenitified as male again or nb, I am not sure. But the fact that I never reported them, haunts me.
I was already weary with #metoo and how Asia Argento was shoved under the carpet for the same cases that other men were accused of. Rose McGowan identifying as nb and being transphobic and just spitting ´womyn born womyn´ shit made me sour away from the movement all together. My mother is a feminist. All of the idelogy and man hating was from the feminist books she read. I will be honest, I've reached my limit. I usually say, yeah, of course, feminism is different and I understand there are different waves, branches and etc. But the movement is rotten to me, when it comes to the western world.
I mean, you wanna fight for women's rights? Look at Judith Butler as they go into Brazil and Latin America and fight for women's rights there. Also, note that they are nonbinary and owned up to their mistakes in the past. We all do mistakes. Also, they got attacked by some lady who nearly killed her with an airport cart.
LGBT groups are rotten. I was volunteering for them for so many years. I saved so many LGBT people with blood and teeth, I have gotten people to survive one more day and go and live a life they never thought of. I have yelled for gay marriage in protests for countries which didn't welcome me, I raise awareness, I read and consume everything I can to keep myself up to date.
The last LGBT group I was in, the scheduling person was a rotten terf who I fought with because she would give me 30 minute slots and 1.5 hour slots to feminist activists in different day events. I also got asked my pronouns randomly because I showed up in a dress, after everyone had known me for years. And known my style. I ended up reporting the group because the core of the group with the terf (surprise, I know) would say that nb people aren't trans and other nb-phobic things, in front of an nb crowd who would come because I would invite them and they could never get an audience of over 4+ in our city without my help or market to save their lives.
I helped a lot of people get HRT, I would write guides regardless of nb/binary how to get into the system, understanding that at the time it had a massive binary bias.
Now.
I had the worst endo appointment in my life.
I walked outside and I started crying. I started screaming outside a hospital which is overfilled with covid patients and the doctor could've made her time better by helping someone else than using me as a mental punching bag.
I've seen the whole phallo is bad fiasco from years ago. I mean, sure, you don't want it, okay. But it started of with... a choice. Whatever. But as the years went on, I'd see lgbt posters with trans men with "I love my vulva", trans men in lesbian spaces to the brim, trans for trans, people not believing I was gay, because how could I just be attracted to men? I had enough of homophobia from my family, but I would get it after coming out as trans and as male, even when stealth.
The phallo lies would spread like wildfire. The whole idea of self-loving your body was becoming a bit... uncomfortable. A lot of trans men still identified as lesbians, which was nothing new if you go back to people like Leslie Feinberg with their book written when they attended mitchfest "Stone Butch Blues", yet butch subreddits are now filled with transition posts along with crossposts on ftm and the likes. I would fight here and there on my views, but I would get upset, but I never held so much pain in me as I've had for the past few months.
Queue in this last endo.
I was laughed at my name choice, which is male. I was told that it's a shame that the language spoken in the country I reside in now doesn't have gender neutral pronouns, before she even asked my pronouns. I said my pronouns are masculine and I'm binary. She laughed.
I was fat shamed. Made fun of and not believed that I exercise and ridiculed.
I was accused of being an alcoholic with a few jokes. I had to add that my liver was always bad in exams since ever without her even asking.
My partner was assumed "male and fertile" in the most disgust voice used I've ever heard and I got warned about pregnancy twice despite telling her that I had a copper IUD and she was not pleased that I knew of the birth control.
I was asked to confirm that I wanted no surgeries. I was taken back and stated that I want all surgeries as requested. She said yes, indeed, I see a surgery appointment request.
I was yelled at for using minoxidil from a dermatologist, before she even asked what kind. I was accused of sabotaging her job for using minoxidil and torching my liver with minoxidil, again, before I even got the chance to speak.
Who even asks in this situation a confirmation of no fucking surgeries?!
She denied my surgery request. She just sent everything scattered, wished me luck in life, lowered my dose despite saying that my T levels are normal.
I have never been so tired, sad, angry and frustrated.
I see that all subreddits are fighting, everyone is putting the norm of pronouns being asked, no phallo, that we should all be seen, trans rights to the front and visible, only women are pure and men always abuse, when the biggest supporters of my life have been cis/trans gay/bi men/nb.
Also, I wear dresses, I'm camp and that's an issue. I pass. I am gay. I'm a binary man. I do not identify with the trans movement anymore. And I just wanna be left alone and transition, to forget all this shit if this is the way the world is heading.
I just wanna be left alone with all the operations done.

Hey friends.
I’m a 38yo AFAB and recently realized I’m NB. But I also feel this intense sense of imposter syndrome...like this little voice in my head saying “dude, you’ve been watching too many Tiktoks”.
Context: I’ve always known I wasn’t “like the other girls”. At 11 I told my mom (Polish catholic) that I was attracted to women and she promptly said it was a “disease” I’d grow out of and started dressing me in wool and lace Laura Ashley dresses. My mom was an abusive, alcoholic narcissist but the only time I ever stood up to her was when I had finally had enough of the dresses and threw a fit.
For me growing up “lesbian”, I was mostly exposed to either butch or femmes. But I really never found my place in either presentation. Sometimes I like to let down my long hair and prance around in my Victoria secret Brazilians, but other times I relish being called sir at the grocery store.
At uni, I was a big fan of Judith Butler and gained an understanding of gender as a social construct and performance. It was the first time I felt that I was getting closer to something deep inside of me.
Recently I’ve started reading more about the non-binary experience and it just feels like it clicks....like it’s that missing puzzle piece. When I experiment using they/them or even he/they pronouns I get a distinct feeling of excitement and joy. It just feels like YES.
In the past, I understood the non-binary identity was one ONLY for androgynous people. But recently I have come to understand that it truly is about fluidity. a beautiful analogy I heard on Tiktok was that gender is like murmuring birds....which made me weep. This is exactly the feeling I’ve always had.
But, you know, I’m 38 and part of me is like “you’re just having a midlife crisis”, “you just want to stay relevant, you old fart”.
I guess I’m reaching out here for some support to help me quell those voices, that insidious imposter syndrome that makes me so nervous to finally wear my identity with pride.
Thanks 💛🤍💜🖤

• Edit: thank you all so so much for your comments and support. Y’all made me cry a little. It really means a lot.

I was lurking on the detrans subreddit for a while, but have just left and wanted to vent/share my experience with identity/going on and off T. I never subscribe to any trans-exclusionairy ideology, but I did refer to myself as a detransitioner, in the medical sense - and even socially, albeit only somewhat (stopped hrt, changed pronouns).
I was on T from mid 2017 until the end of 2019, and went off because of a bunch of reasons coinciding:

1. I moved countries (Belgium to Germany) and didn't have a job or an endocrinologist, and since I struggle with social anxiety and needed a referral to get an endo, I kept putting it off.
2. I had just moved out of my parents house, where I had been abused by my mom for as long as I can remember, and I was only just coming to terms with the fact that that happened
3. in researching detransition I bumped into a lot of statements about the dangers of HRT, sometimes fair, but often fearmongering. I had always been researching many different views, because I, due to my anxiety, often feel like I can't make any definitive statements on things if I haven't "fully" acquainted myself with the topic (I studied philosophy, so think Chidi of the good place lol). All of this researching send my anxiety down a spiral of worry about my physical health and I would get anxiety attacks thinking I was going to die (and then attributed this feeling to testosterone- never mind that I had always had anxiety, I also suffer from tunnel vision and bad time perception)
4. In my social anxiety I was constantly thinking about gender, every goddamn day and in every social interaction, so I wanted to get rid of this gendering disease and free myself of worry

After 1 year on T I can say: exchanging the worry about being perceived as a woman for the want to be perceived as a woman is ridiculous. Especially if I combine this with my dislike for a feminine gender presentation and the inability to care for stuff like make-up (Im supposed to get up every day and imprison myself in another little box?). Now I'm aware that this is not what makes a woman or whatever, but to be fair, the only ideological position I can fully get behind, especially now that I've read up on theory is gender nihilism. Summed up: gender (either as a binary, or including alternative gender identities) is a societal construct (don't confuse this with the argument that it "doesn't exist", the grouping of sex characteristics into “ideal states” (binary sex as two categories, that we only ever encounter instances of) is of course also a construct, as it is a conceptualization made in a biological framework, and (here comes the ethical add-on) this division of individuals and the importance of this division on a societal level (as opposed to a biological one) is harmful. However, we don’t just get to scrap society and start over, and most importantly of all, I have been socialized in this society, so I too can’t escape the existence of this categorization (no matter how much I’d want it).
None of this is a big revelation by the way, trans people and radical feminists (the Marxist, trans inclusive type, like Judith Butler) have been saying thing similar to this for fucking decades, it’s depressing how often these arguments get misconstrued (especially by terfs).
So, the theory out of the way, it felt nice to be on T, within this binary society I would prefer to be trans over cis and added to this: I prefer living "as a man" to living "as a woman".
Not to mention that I am at a point of masculinization that dressing the way I want to, leads to people seeing me as a man more often than a woman, so even without T it makes more sense.
One important thing I “learned” being off T, is that I am no longer hurt by anyone assuming anything about my gender, I use any pronouns and I’m just vibing. I am also way calmer than I used to be, because I now know that no matter what happens, my chest stays flat and my voice somewhat deep and that makes me so comfortable in my skin.
I have an appointment with an endocrinologist in February, and I will start taking T again.

My immediate reaction was that the marketing department called a meeting with writers and demanded a queer character because it would be good for sales, and the writers responded by coming up with something they knew was going to piss off everybody. Because if I had to guess they're sick of this shit. Because everyone is sick of this shit except Madison Avenue.
I hate that I live in a culture where I have to make this clear, but I do, so here goes. I do not give a single shit if Marvel wants to put queer people in its comics, nor do I have any opinion positive or negative of queer people because I don't waste my time obsessing over other people's sense of self and just judge people on whether they suck as individuals or not. Okay, understood? Oh what am I kidding, I'm gonna type this and somebody's gonna call me alt-right anyway, do whatever the fuck you want. Just know your many angry DMs are distracting me from a far more important conversation
Can most of us just get over our fear of cancellation for a minute and admit that we don't actually fucking care about any of this shit? For the past like 5 fucking years it has been nothing but nonstop bitching from both the left and the right about pronouns and whether cartoons and shit adequately represent said pronouns. Here's reality: we're talking about an issue that has absolutely no relevance to the vast majority of our society. At all. Like, I get it, queer kids don't wanna be treated like shit by the jocks. Fine. I don't believe in treating anybody like shit except the stupid and Dutch. But c'mon man, why is this what our entire cultural conversation has revolved around? We got nothing better going on? Nothing more important happening, we're debating whether that blue haired college student should be called he, her, or them? Who gives a fuck? Like why would anybody be concerned with this shit, never mind threatened like so many of these right wing idiots? Like at most this is a personal issue. It's something you talk about with people in your life. "Hey don't call me X". And it never even really fucking mattered in the first place, which is the thing that's so baffling. Don't get me wrong I understand why this shit is important to people, but it is such a god damn individual thing that I have to question how it became political. I don't give a shit what people call themselves! Why would anybody? Like can we just treat each other as fucking people rather then stereotypes for one god damn minute? It's not even just the right that does this shit, the amount of obscure deconstructionist gender talk I've gotten from leftists is mind blowing, which is fine because I love getting my mind blown, but christ you gonna get angry because people in an otherwise binary culture don't understand what the fuck you're talking about when you say you're "omnigendered" or something? Like guys c'mon I know you read Judith Butler for your sociology class and you're totally psyched on this shit now but most people got better shit to worry about. It is a god damn privilege if you are carefree enough that this is the greatest crusade you can think of fighting.
But the reason I'm writing this rant, the reason I'm having (admittedly) a ton of fun spitting out this nonsense isn't individual morons, no, they don't bother me. It's fucking corporate America's insistence on feeding our bullshit outrage culture under the guise of being socially progressive. Newsflash idiots, when you frame issues in terms of conflict rather then coexistence don't act surprised when you bring it into being. And you definitely shouldn't be surprised when people like me get indignant because you know this, do it anyway, and then shamelessly attempt to profit off said conflict at the expense of a rational fucking culture

My immediate reaction was that the marketing department called a meeting with writers and demanded a queer character because it would be good for sales, and the writers responded by coming up with something they knew was going to piss off everybody. Because if I had to guess they're sick of this shit. Because everyone is sick of this shit except Madison Avenue.
I hate that I live in a culture where I have to make this clear, but I do, so here goes. I do not give a single shit if Marvel wants to put queer people in its comics, nor do I have any opinion positive or negative of queer people because I don't waste my time obsessing over other people's sense of self and just judge people on whether they suck as individuals or not. Okay, understood? Oh what am I kidding, I'm gonna type this and somebody's gonna call me alt-right anyway, do whatever the fuck you want. Just know your many angry DMs are distracting me from a far more important conversation
Can most of us just get over our fear of cancellation for a minute and admit that we don't actually fucking care about any of this shit? For the past like 5 fucking years it has been nothing but nonstop bitching from both the left and the right about pronouns and whether cartoons and shit adequately represent said pronouns. Here's reality: we're talking about an issue that has absolutely no relevance to the vast majority of our society. At all. Like, I get it, queer kids don't wanna be treated like shit by the jocks. Fine. I don't believe in treating anybody like shit except the stupid and Dutch. But c'mon man, why is this what our entire cultural conversation has revolved around? We got nothing better going on? Nothing more important happening, we're debating whether that blue haired college student should be called he, her, or them? Who gives a fuck? Like why would anybody be concerned with this shit, never mind threatened like so many of these right wing idiots? Like at most this is a personal issue. It's something you talk about with people in your life. "Hey don't call me X". And it never even really fucking mattered in the first place, which is the thing that's so baffling. Don't get me wrong I understand why this shit is important to people, but it is such a god damn individual thing that I have to question how it became political. I don't give a shit what people call themselves! Why would anybody? Like can we just treat each other as fucking people rather then stereotypes for one god damn minute? It's not even just the right that does this shit, the amount of obscure deconstructionist gender talk I've gotten from leftists is mind blowing, which is fine because I love getting my mind blown, but christ you gonna get angry because people in an otherwise binary culture don't understand what the fuck you're talking about when you say you're "omnigendered" or something? Like guys c'mon I know you read Judith Butler for your sociology class and you're totally psyched on this shit now but most people got better shit to worry about. It is a god damn privilege if you are carefree enough that this is the greatest crusade you can think of fighting.
But the reason I'm writing this rant, the reason I'm having (admittedly) a ton of fun spitting out this nonsense isn't individual morons, no, they don't bother me. It's fucking corporate America's insistence on feeding our bullshit outrage culture under the guise of being socially progressive. Newsflash idiots, when you frame issues in terms of conflict rather then coexistence don't act surprised when you bring it into being. And you definitely shouldn't be surprised when people like me get indignant because you know this, do it anyway, and then shamelessly attempt to profit off said conflict at the expense of a rational fucking culture

While I believe that it is dumb to argue that the the pronoun that refers to the opposite sex from someone is the objectively “correct” way to address them, I also firmly don’t believe that gender identity is a choice. First I’ll cover the pronouns. The pronouns he and she have been used for millennia to refer to anatomical sex and not mental gender identity, so in the minds of most mainstream people it is deeply ingrained to think of members of the male sex (people with dicks) as “he” and members of the female sex (people with vaginas) as “she”. What is happening is the transgender movement is waging a battle of semantics; they are trying to change the long accepted definitions of words to fit their philosophy, and trying to have their identity be validated by others addressing them as the pronoun of their mental gender, and to change the meaning of the words he and she to make what they desire it to mean the correct.
The OP just comes off as bitter as a bit of a fanatic, as well as a little ridiculous for insisting that it is not good enough to have pronouns used to addressed transgendered people be known as “preferred” pronouns but as “correct” pronouns, as though this can somehow be construed as a fact. Well guess what, if you want to start throwing around the word correct and make things objective we can objectively see if it is correct according to the English language to call a person with a vagina who feels that they are of the male gender “he”.
Let’s go to Webster’s dictionary and first find the definition of “he” to see if you are correct. As a pronoun “he” is defined as “that male”. So now we need to look up the definition of “male”. Here we cannot use the simple definition because male is simply defined in the noun form as “a man or boy”, and if we look up man it is defined as “an adult male”. So to see if how you are insisting the pronouns be used a objectively correct or not we have to use the full definition of male, which is “an individual that produces gametes (as spermatozoa) which fertilize the eggs of a female”. So does a transgender person who identifies as a male but has the anatomy of a female product gametes which can fertilize the eggs of a female? Absolutely not.
Dictionary definitions are fundamentally considered to be the correct way to use words, and it looks like you were talking out of your ass when you claimed that regarding a person with a vagina who identifies as a male the “correct” pronoun to use to address her is “he”,
Let me say that I am going down hard on you because of your demanding attitude that everyone conform to your views and demonstrate this by referring to the pronoun you are called not as you preferred pronoun but as you correct pronoun, and I have just shown how it is factually incorrect according to the English language to call the pronoun preferred by transgender people the correct pronoun. Perhaps you believe it should be seen that way and want the rest of society to believe that as well but making rash declarations that are factually incorrect is not the way to go. You have to understand that in the minds of many, especially instinctively, people fundamentally view the pronouns as referring to sex, which is how they are defined in the dictionary. If you prefer the be called a different pronoun to recognize how inside you feel like your gender does not correspond to your sex I am fine with doing that to be polite, although when no transgendered people are around I will likely go back to using the dictionary definition of the pronouns and anyone who wants to tell me that is not correct can take it up with Webster’s Dictionary.
This post is already way too long but I did want add that it is pretty much known that mental gender is not a choice. Scientists have seen how people who are truly transgender have brains that correspond closer to the shape of the opposite sex than to their anatomical sex, and so naturally with a female structured and functioning brain an anatomical male will come to feel that their true gender is in fact female. That is not a choice but a realization, just like homosexuality is not chosen but is a trait that is realized in a person by their sexual attraction to the same sex, which people who are not homosexual do not feel. Neither orientation involves making a choice... it simply involves accepting reality.
----------------------------------------------------
​
over 98,5% of the population has bodies that /are/ perfectly male or female, since the determination of sex is prescribed by gametes.
Gender is not a social construct, but is determined by biology. the rigid enforcement of gender roles however is pretty toxic, but that doesn't in itself mean that gender roles were just "created" ex nihilo. They came about by people observing the natural differences in behavior between the two genders.
Simone de Beauvoir and Judith Butler's discussions about gender, as well as Monique Wittig's, are philosophical in nature and not grounded in science.
​
​

My family are conservatives but are not far gone. I believe they align with the group and agree on certain things but generally have just fallen into the hole of it by only opening themselves to such ideologies. I believe Natalie is the perfect ice breaker for them and want to get an idea of what you believe to be the ideal order of introduction. On the basis of them not being aware of transgenderism in general, they believe it to be a mental disorder but don’t have any hatred towards it, blissful ignorance. Would starting at The Aesthetic be ideal? Are Traps Gay would be a good start for people coming from an online community but they don’t even have the background of any understanding of transgenderism at all, arguing why language hurts a group they don’t believe in seems futile. I’d say perhaps The Aesthetic -> Pronouns -> The Darkness -> The West -> Beauty -> Gender Critical? This would allow introduction to what transgenderism is with The Aesthetic and how words work with Pronouns, how language works being elaborated on in an applicable manor by The Darkness, disillusionment of The West, self concession with Beauty, and then back into gender with Gender Critical? I’m spitballing here but I do think The Aesthetic would probably be a good one to start with unless there may be a better one to introduce the idea of transgenderism with.

Hey, we're two cis male misogynists, gender critical Chris and queer theory Quentin, and we both love doing misogyny! But of course, we have vastly differing approaches that we've carefully thought out based on our political philosophies.
Gender critical Chris understands that men and women are determined by their chromosomes and their birth genitalia. Chris will never be misogynistic to an MtF trans person, because he understands that they're men, and therefore respects them as equals. Before he grabs someone's ass or underpays them on the job, he takes a DNA sample and runs it to the lab to check for the presence of a removed penis.
Then there's queer theory Quentin. Quentin understands that maleness and femaleness are complex psychological phenomena, and biological sex is just an artificial social construct. He has a signed copy of Gender Trouble on his desk. (Not signed by Judith Butler, he hates all women so he just found a man on the street and had him sign it instead). Quentin is never misogynistic towards trans men. Before Quentin follows someone at a medium distance for several blocks as they walk home at 1 AM, or expresses far more interest in teaching their less competent sibling how to make a simple electric motor in the garage, he makes sure to perform a thorough psychological assessment to ensure that they have a binary female gender identity and no signs of dysphoria when referred to with she/her pronouns.
We're two very real people who 100% exist, so cis women, you're 100% right in telling MtFs that they have male privilege over you on account of their DNA and never experience misogyny, so they need to shut up about you treating them like garbage. And MtFs, please do keep telling FtMs that they have male privilege on account of their male gender identity, so they need to shut up about you treating them like garbage.
Misogyny is very coherent and aligns perfectly with your political philosophy, so please do divide people into binary categories of victims and abusers, the former of whom can do no wrong and the latter of whom have no right to complain about anything ever!

28, AMAB, Agender, and Gay here.
Background: this story revolves around a GrindScruff meetup I had. These are iPhone apps which, for those not in the know, are geolocation primarily intended to facilitate sexual liaisons between queer men. In a Grindr bio, you have a choice to specify gender and pronouns, and of course I indicated that I’m agender and use “they” pronouns. The Scruff bio however doesn’t give you this option. That will be an important distinction later in the story.
Hopefully I’m not insulting anyone’s intelligence with the above paragraph, but with that out of the way, here’s my story:
I just recently relocated to Chicago. In addition to finding a job, I had been hoping to make some friends, go on a few dates, and satisfy a few of my more base desires on GrindScruff.
Eventually I met these two guys on Scruff (where my gender was likely assumed to be “male”) who wanted a threesome. I try to assume the best in others, but these were extremely jocky, white, business-type guys who probably haven’t had to put much thought into an identity or perspective beyond being gay. Not unlike the sort I have learned to be careful around when discussing my gender, or social justice at all.
Regardless, I went to their apartment because I have a libido and it needed quelling. I’ll spare the gory details, but we did the deed and then started laying around snuggling in post coital bliss. It’s not out of custom to check one’s phone during this refractory period, and it was this time that they spotted me on Grindr and the biographical information attached to it.
So to my right, the first guy asks me “You’re agender?” I barely had time to dread the incoming conversation when he immediately said “That’s cool. So you use gender-neutral pronouns. I’d feel bad if I got it wrong.”
“Yeah, I am. It’s this whole journey about how I feel in relation to gender roles. I’d hate to soapbox about it too much.”
Then the guy to my left chimes in “Please do, I’m interested in learning about it.”
So in just as much time as I spent messing with these guys, I also educated them on things like Judith Butler and performativity and how I feel uncomfortable being subject to a particular “role” or set of behaviors merely because of what my genitalia look like. Not once did they try to invalidate or alienate me. They were extremely respectful, asked plenty of questions, and seemed genuinely edified to have met (what I assume) is their first agender person.
The story, I feel, has two takeaways. One, in a sense, is that I ended up being more prejudiced than these two by assuming that I needed to be defensive, ironically, because of how I perceived their gender and personal presentation.
The other is that attitudes, I feel, are changing around gender. I’ve only been out for less than a year now, and I have encountered plenty of hostility and dismissiveness from those just learning about my gender identity. But this was refreshingly different, and gives me hope that the we, and especially the next generations, can be proud and less afraid of who we are.
In discussing this exchange, I hope to highlight the ways that things are improving for us, and that more and more people are accepting of the idea that gender is not an absolute based on biology, but relative to just about everyone.
Thank you for reading!

Ok, so here is something that would lead to a heated debate with hateful rhetoric flying back and forth in other reddits, I think this one should be able to have a reasonable conversation.
The more I look at society around us the more I see it as progress in certain ways and complete structural collapse in other ways.
There are two main driving factors in my mind:
the first is the exchange of information between larger, more diverse groups of people at much faster rates. Being able to talk to and interact with people who are different helps to develop our own opinions on topics and change prejudices that may have existed due to viewpoints handed down by those who raised us. This is why segregation generally leads to much higher levels of racism, white people and black people in segregated areas have caricature like views of each other. Interacting with others in person helps us to understand people as individuals and not as members of groups. I think this was the real driving factor in reducing racism and improving women's and minority rights, not through forcing acceptance but through subtle changes in thinking over time. However these interactions did not negate statistics or underlying facts and it was ok to say truths without offending. This is important because the only true way to solve a problem is to acknowledge the causes regardless of the offense it may cause, if we ignore it for the sake of feelings then we not only negate an opportunity to solve the problems, we actually enable and perpetuate them.
The second force that has driven change is a destabilizing force that strives to impose beliefs regardless of interaction simply by assigning individuals to empowered or oppressed groups. I want to stress here that I am not saying oppression doesn't exist in forms or that discrimination doesn't exist, simply that individual cause and effect is no longer taken into consideration when observing a group as a whole. We perceive differences in groups as some ghost in the system rather than the culmination of the interactions of all the individuals within the group. Additionally reason is thrown out the window as a tool of oppression, meaning feelings take priority over facts.
These two forces that have driven change have their roots in philosophy, the first one occurring during the enlightenment and best encompassed by John Lock, who in the 1700's was one of the first to actively speak out against slavery as well as the belief that men were superior to women, however all of his conclusions were based in reason. He came to his conclusions ask why or how anything could or should be, his conclusion was that true freedom meant having the right to make personal decisions that ultimately lead to different outcomes, the government is a necessary evil but should be limited. The second came in the form of Carl Marx and the eventual culmination of the Frankfurt School of thought. A communist ideology that intended to subvert society through cultural warfare, whose ideas when applied correctly actually requires the sacrifice of all individuality for the sake of the whole. People cannot have different ideas or think of each other differently, it's the idea that an equal outcome for all people should be all that matters. John Locke understood the nature of man to be self-serving, charity exists but true altruism is rare, therefore a community that works only for the whole will absolutely require a tyrannical eradication of individual thought.
I had been talking about this concept for a few years and I've been called crazy more times than I can count, but those same people are now debating the merits of communism with me as though they didn't used to think it was a bad idea. It's almost like they don't even realize their opinions changed through the same exact method I said would be used, the exploitation of their feelings to override reason. I get in frequent arguments with people calling me racist, etc. The strange thing is I want as many people to live happy lives as possible too, I even agree the war on drugs is bad, our legal system is biased and our education system sucks. However those are only components of what is wrong and while racial disparity can be found in proportions the culture of certain areas combined with these issues can't be denied as contributors. If we want to really improve the lives of these communities that cannot be taboo to talk about.
If you think I'm some crazy person for believing our country has been subverted that's fine, but there is historical documentation and books written about this exact strategy being implemented by subverting academia.

1. Capitalism is now a bad word, to carry an American flag is racist. I disagree with nationalism and populism, but c'mon.
   
2. Freedom of speech is actively being shut down on college campuses, something that began with the idea of triggers and micro-aggressions, literally treating ideas or thoughts you find offensive as violence and thus justifying actual physical violence to shut it down and promoting conformity of thought. Milo Yiannoupolis is a scumbag, but Ben Shapiro is being treated as a white supremacist even though he doesn't have a racist bone in his body. He's Jewish and was the number one recipient of anti-semitism on twitter last year and people who have never even listened to him are calling him a nazi.
   
3. The terms such as white privilege, gender fluidity, micro aggression and the idea that minorities can't be racist all stem from Critical Theory, an idea developed for the sole purpose of causing chaos in society by communists but is currently taught as a way to "identify problems". The problem is it throws out all possible ways to find causation by assuming all information is wrong and therefore only acts to create tension without the means to solve it. The hope was that the conclusion would be reached that the whole system needs to be torn down.
   

(Look up Judith Butler at Berkeley, she is on the forefront of Critical Theory)

1. We are normalizing the unusual, demonizing the idea of statistical analysis to suit the needs of their cause. This can be seen mostly in the attempt to eliminate genders. Gender roles have absolutely existed in the past and for those who truly are transgendered or have "body dysmorphia" I will absolutely refer to them by their preferred pronoun, but the normalization of it in trying to eliminate the idea of gender as a whole is insanity. There are hermaphrodites and other people who don't fit cleanly into a category, however the idea that gender is a construct is another step in eliminating all perceived individualities between us. Like I said, there can't be any individualism in communism, we must all see each other as exactly the same, we're reaching the extreme of that idea. To even acknowledge physical differences between men and women or the effects of hormones on behavior, or even certain evolutionary reasons for the existence of certain gender roles is to be considered sexist, throwing all logic and reason out the window.

If you feel like race relations have gotten worse in the past 10 years it's because they have, and the sad part is it was intentional. The crazy part is the people promoting these ideas really do think they're improving society, they don't realize they're the ones tearing it apart. That's what makes this type of subversion so sinister and I'm afraid it might be getting too late to turn it back. I'm not saying that capitalism is perfect or the government doesn't need to regulate because that is stupid, for that reason I would not consider myself a libertarian. I'm an independent, I use logic and reason on individual topics and then use that to build a bigger picture, but my way of thinking is quickly becoming demonized as unfeeling and bigoted.
Remember, every single case of tyranny that rose out of democracy did so under the guise of achieving equality.

Hey, just to be clear I haven't read any of Judith Butler's work but I think I have a crude understanding of her theory.
My question is if gender can be performed through masculine/feminine traits (which is somewhat subjective to each persons understanding if iirc), but what makes gender special that it can't be applied to other categories such as races? Note that I do believe in the sex/gender distinction so I don't believe that chromosomes=/=gender but is race tied into genetics (assuming that the category of race is valid)
Also are there any other theories/justification (note that I'm not implying that transpeople have to have a reason to exist or anything) to explain other people who act feminine but use he/him pronouns or vice versa? Or is it just that they prefer to use those pronouns and that's justification enough
Thanks for reading and I hope this doesn't come off as anti-trans since these questions (not all) came up when trying to convince other people of trans legitimacy.

I recently read an interesting article regarding a conflict that I had assumed was simply ignored within the wider feminist community, but seeing as it not only is an actual point of contention and there is a specific (probably derogatory) term for those on one side of the argument (trans-exclusionary radical feminist, or TERF), I wanted to see what feminists on reddit thought regarding the issue.
I'm going to have to make some assumptions in this post, but I want to lay out where I'm coming from and what those assumptions are from the beginning.

1. Feminist theory generally follows a "social constructivist" view of sex/gender, as generally explained in this philosophy article. In other words, gender (and sometimes sex) is not innate to humans; it is a socially constructed concept that we internalize throughout our lives. In other words, a child is a girl or a boy because society treats them that way, and the characteristic behavior they adopt matches the social construct of their gender.
   
2. Feminist generally see these social constructs as harmful; in the ideal world, there would be no distinction between the social constructs of men and women. For many, true equality cannot exist until this distinction is eliminated.
   

I recognize that these views do not cover all feminists or feminist theory, but they are the starting point for my question. My last major assumption is based on the concept of transgenderism.

1. Transgendered individuals identify with the gender typically considered opposite of their biological sex. This condition often shows up extremely early in an individual's life and currently the only form of successful treatment is gender reassignment or social acceptance as a member of the identified gender, and can rarely be reversed. Failure to treat the condition results in over 40% suicide rates, a rate nearly as high as psychological diagnoses of depression. Most psychologists generally agree that trying to convince a transgendered individual to identify with their biological sex does not work and is harmful to the individual, and reassignment surgery and counseling to accept their preferred gender identity are currently the only approved treatments for transgenderism.

This reality seems like it presents a severe problem for the social constructivist view described above. If we assume it to be true, then a boy is a boy because he is socially encouraged to be that way. In that case, it is reasonable to assume that transgender children are likewise socialized as their biological sex. Yet they still tend to reject this socialization, even as children. This seems to imply that social constructs regarding gender cannot be the sole determining factor of gender identity; otherwise all children treated by their parents and society as the gender of their biological sex should, in theory, end up identifying as that gender. Homosexuality would seem to pose a similar problem if, as Judith Butler proposes, sexual preferences are also social constructs.
It seems that one of two things must be true:

1. Social construct theory in feminism is false, and that gender identity is at least partially biological.
   
2. Transgenderism is a social construct, and trans men and women are being socialized by their parents to identify as a different gender than their sex.
   

If the first is true, a lot of built-in assumptions about sex in feminism as a social construct designed to benefit males is likely flawed. If the second is true, and this misgendering of transgender individuals results in 40%+ suicide rates, I would argue parents of transgendered individuals should be charged with child abuse. Obviously I lean towards the first being correct, and would object to such measures in the latter case, but it seems like a logical conclusion if you assume the transgender condition was socialized in those affected rather than a result of genetic variation.
Given all that, here are my initial questions:

1. Does feminist theory generally accept transgenderism as a biological condition, and agree that currently accept methods of treatment are ethical?
   
2. Do feminists generally view attempts to "convert" or otherwise coerce transgender individuals to identify with their biological sex as unethical?
   
3. If so, how is this squared with the intent to remove are redefine gender identity for cisgendered people? How is acceptable to treat a transgendered individual's identity as "real", even to the point of proposing (and passing) legislation where misusing a gendered pronoun is considered hate speech or unlawful harassment, while at the same time denying the reality of cisgender identity, or labeling a particular identity as toxic and oppressive?
   

I ask this because, of all the aspects of feminism I've examined, the attitude and beliefs towards (usually male) gender are the ones I have the most difficulty understanding and accepting. Equality between sexes is an easy concept; people should be, in my opinion, free to do as they wish...as long as they are willing to own the consequences and difficulties associated with their choice. Excluding a gender from any activity because of their gender seems clearly wrong.
But going from there to eliminating or redefining gender entirely seems both problematic and unrealistic to me. The existence of transgenderism seems to be a nail in the coffin of the "social constructivist" view, yet both concepts seem to be simultaneously argued for in feminist writings, even though they appear (to me) inherently contradictory.
My assumption is that this confusion is due to a misunderstanding on my part, but my initial research has not given me any clues and I don't really know where to look. I was hoping those more familiar with these topics could explain it. Please be patient with me for follow up questions; I tend to ask direct questions to counter-points as a method of identifying reasonable beliefs, so don't take at as me trying to "get" you; I'm usually trying to identify counters to obvious objections.
Thank you in advance for your time.

TL;DR: An update on my horrible identity crisis, where this time I think I may actually be a man, but a GNC transman.
​
So a little under a month ago I posted a long ramble about how I feel with my identity https://www.reddit.com/transgenderUK/comments/9jfopl/identity_ramble/
(Basically rambled about whether I'm a transman or non-binary/agender as well as other things.)
​
But of recent I was at the checkouts and the guy serving me called me Sir instead of Ma'am (Which is what I usually get.) and I actually felt really happy, in the giddy way, considering I'm pre-T and that I present in a more a androgynous way anyway, it was like weird for me.
So I think I may actually be a man, a gnc transman, but still a man none the less. I mean I personally believe Judith Butler's theory and thoughts of gender, it's a performance. Like wear what you want! Gender roles are dumb and everyone should just do what they want! Like a girl should be able to race cars and work out as much as a guy should be able to knit and bake! Of course Transpeople and dysphoria are still a thing, I may believe gender is a load of bs when it comes to which gender can do what, but I also believe that not identifying with your birth given sex/gender is so much so a thing too!
As mentioned in my last post, I want to go on T and have surgeries to reduce my chest. I am most comfortable when people call me they over she, I have yet to be called he. But you know, I think I like they/he pronouns. I also feel most comfortable wearing a binder.
I think the biggest thing that puts me off of coming out properly and living as the identity I feel most comfortable with is the fact that if I did, I would have to tell my family. My family is one of those that judge women who lift weights/gain muscle and men who wear leggings. For example the other day my step-dad was insistent that I'm 'delicate' which I kept saying No I'm not, I am clumsy and round, I can take a hit. But he just wouldn't take it. That and I feel like I would have to preform in an over-masculine manner for my family to accept me. Like if I even remotely liked anything too 'feminine' then game-over, which is why I stay in this safety bubble of 'if they don't know then nothing bad will happen'.
Though I think my family know on a low-level, like I changed my name on facebook to my preferred name which is just a shortened and unisex version of my birth name, which I have been called my entire life anyway. But older brother had to bring this up, like the way he said it just really made me think 'does he know?'. I derailed it with some other reason, but idk.
I want to be fully out and comfortable but I feel like it would be impossible with my family, like even if they accepted me, would they say stuff behind my back? Probably.
I just feel like a mess. I mean I think I do want to go by male pronouns and just be chill with that, but like idk man, everything is a mess and I don't need extra stress on my life ahhhhhhhhhhh.

Gender identity is one's personal experience of one's own gender.[1] Gender identity can correlate with assigned sex at birth, or can differ from it.[2] All societies have a set of gender categories that can serve as the basis of the formation of a person's social identity in relation to other members of society.[3] In most societies, there is a basic division between gender attributes assigned to males and females,[4] a gender binary to which most people adhere and which includes expectations of masculinity and femininity in all aspects of sex and gender: biological sex, gender identity, and gender expression.[5] In all societies, some individuals do not identify with some (or all) of the aspects of gender that are assigned to their biological sex;[6] some of those individuals are transgender, genderqueer or non-binary. There are some societies that have third gender categories.
Core gender identity is usually formed by age three.[7][8] After age three, it is extremely difficult to change,[7] and attempts to reassign it can result in gender dysphoria.[9] Both biological and social factors have been suggested to influence its formation.
Age of formation
There are several theories about how and when gender identity forms, and studying the subject is difficult because children's lack of language requires researchers to make assumptions from indirect evidence.[9] John Money suggested children might have awareness of, and attach some significance to gender, as early as 18 months to two years; Lawrence Kohlberg argues that gender identity does not form until age three.[9] It is widely agreed that core gender identity is firmly formed by age three.[7][8][9][10] At this point, children can make firm statements about their gender[9][11] and tend to choose activities and toys which are considered appropriate for their gender[9] (such as dolls and painting for girls, and tools and rough-housing for boys),[12] although they do not yet fully understand the implications of gender.[11] After age three, core gender identity is extremely difficult to change,[7][13] and attempts to reassign it can result in gender dysphoria.[9][14] Gender identity refinement extends into the fourth[13] to sixth years of age,[9][15] and continues into young adulthood.[13]
Martin and Ruble conceptualize this process of development as three stages: (1) as toddlers and preschoolers, children learn about defined characteristics, which are socialized aspects of gender; (2) around the ages of 5–7 years, identity is consolidated and becomes rigid; (3) after this "peak of rigidity," fluidity returns and socially defined gender roles relax somewhat.[16] Barbara Newmann breaks it down into four parts: (1) understanding the concept of gender, (2) learning gender role standards and stereotypes, (3) identifying with parents, and (4) forming gender preference.[11]
According to UN agencies, discussions relating to comprehensive sexuality education raise awareness of topics, such as gender and gender identity. [17]
Factors influencing formation
Nature vs. nurture Main article: Nature versus nurture Although the formation of gender identity is not completely understood, many factors have been suggested as influencing its development. In particular, the extent to which it is determined by socialization (environmental factors) versus innate (biological) factors is an ongoing debate in psychology, known as "nature versus nurture". Both factors are thought to play a role. Biological factors that influence gender identity include pre- and post-natal hormone levels.[18] While genetic makeup also influences gender identity,[19] it does not inflexibly determine it.[20]
Social factors which may influence gender identity include ideas regarding gender roles conveyed by family, authority figures, mass media, and other influential people in a child's life.[21] When children are raised by individuals who adhere to stringent gender roles, they are more likely to behave in the same way, matching their gender identity with the corresponding stereotypical gender patterns.[22] Language also plays a role: children, while learning a language, learn to separate masculine and feminine characteristics and unconsciously adjust their own behavior to these predetermined roles.[23] The social learning theory posits that children furthermore develop their gender identity through observing and imitating gender-linked behaviors, and then being rewarded or punished for behaving that way,[24] thus being shaped by the people surrounding them through trying to imitate and follow them.[25]
A well-known example in the nature versus nurture debate is the case of David Reimer, otherwise known as "John/Joan". As a baby, Reimer went through a faulty circumcision, losing his male genitalia. Psychologist John Money convinced Reimer’s parents to raise him as a girl. Reimer grew up as a girl, dressing in girl clothes and surrounded by girl toys, but did not feel like a girl. After he tried to commit suicide at age 13, he was told that he had been born with male genitalia, which he underwent surgery to reconstruct.[26] This went against Money’s hypothesis that biology had nothing to do with gender identity or human sexual orientation.[27]
Biological factors Several prenatal, biological factors, including genes and hormones, may affect gender identity.[18][28] The biochemical theory of gender identity suggests that people acquire gender identities through such factors rather than socialization.
Hormonal influences are also complex; sex-determining hormones are produced at an early stage of foetal development,[29] and if prenatal hormone levels are altered, phenotype progression may be altered as well, and the natural predisposition of the brain toward one sex may not match the genetic make-up of the fetus or its external sexual organs.[citation needed][30]
Hormones may affect differences between males' and females' verbal and spatial abilities, memory, and aggression; prenatal hormone exposure affects how the hypothalamus regulates hormone secretion later in life, with "women's sex hormones usually follow[ing] a monthly cycle [while] men’s sex hormones do not follow such a pattern."[31]
Intersex people Main article: Intersex A survey of the research literature from 1955–2000 suggests that more than one in every hundred individuals may have some intersex characteristic.[32] An intersex human or other animal is one possessing any of several variations in sex characteristics including chromosomes, gonads, sex hormones, or genitals that, according to the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, "do not fit typical binary notions of male or female bodies".[33] An intersex variation may complicate initial sex assignment[34] and that assignment may not be consistent with the child's future gender identity.[35] Reinforcing sex assignments through surgical and hormonal means may violate the individual's rights.[36][37]
A 2012 clinical review paper found that between 8.5% and 20% of people with intersex variations experienced gender dysphoria.[38] Sociological research in Australia, a country with a third 'X' sex classification, shows that 19% of people born with atypical sex characteristics selected an "X" or "other" option, while 52% are women, 23% men, and 6% unsure. At birth, 52% of persons in the study were assigned female, and 41% were assigned male.[39][40]
A study by Reiner & Gearhart provides some insight into what can happen when genetically male children with cloacal exstrophy are sexually assigned female and raised as girls,[41] according to an 'optimal gender policy' developed by John Money:[36] in a sample of 14 children, follow-up between the ages of 5 to 12 showed that 8 of them identified as boys, and all of the subjects had at least moderately male-typical attitudes and interests,[41] providing support for the argument that genetic variables affect gender identity and behavior independent of socialization.
Biological causes of transgender and transsexuality See also: Causes of transsexualism Some studies have investigated whether or not there is a link between biological variables and transgender or transsexual identity.[42][43][44] Several studies have shown that sexually dimorphic brain structures in transsexuals are shifted away from what is associated with their birth sex and towards what is associated with their preferred sex.[45][46] In particular, the bed nucleus of a stria terminalis or BSTc (a constituent of the basal ganglia of the brain which is affected by prenatal androgens) of trans women is similar to cisgender women's and unlike men's.[47][48] Similar brain structure differences have been noted between gay and heterosexual men, and between lesbian and heterosexual women.[49][50] Another study suggests that transsexuality may have a genetic component.[51]
Research suggests that the same hormones that promote differentiation of sex organs in utero also elicit puberty and influence the development of gender identity. Different amounts of these male or female sex hormones within a person can result in behavior and external genitalia that do not match up with the norm of their sex assigned at birth, and in a person acting and looking like their identified gender.[52]
Social and environmental factors In 1955, John Money proposed that gender identity was malleable and determined by whether a child was raised as male or female in early childhood.[53][54] Money's hypothesis has since been discredited,[54][55] but scholars have continued to study the effect of social factors on gender identity formation.[54] In the 1960s and 1970s, factors such as the absence of a father, a mother's wish for a daughter, or parental reinforcement patterns were suggested as influences; more recent theories suggesting that parental psychopathology might partly influence gender identity formation have received only minimal empirical evidence,[54] with a 2004 article noting that "solid evidence for the importance of postnatal social factors is lacking."[56] A 2008 study found that the parents of gender-dysphoric children showed no signs of psychopathological issues aside from mild depression in the mothers.[54][57]
It has been suggested that the attitudes of the child's parents may affect the child's gender identity, although evidence is minimal.[58]
Parental establishment of gender roles Parents who do not support gender nonconformity are more likely to have children with firmer and stricter views on gender identity and gender roles.[52] Recent literature suggests a trend towards less well-defined gender roles and identities, as studies of parental coding of toys as masculine, feminine, or neutral indicate that parents increasingly code kitchens and in some cases dolls as neutral rather than exclusively feminine.[59] However, Emily Kane found that many parents still showed negative responses to items, activities, or attributes that were considered feminine, such as domestic skills, nurturance, and empathy.[59] Research has indicated that many parents attempt to define gender for their sons in a manner that distances the sons from femininity,[59] with Kane stating that “the parental boundary maintenance work evident for sons represents a crucial obstacle limiting boys options, separating boys from girls, devaluing activities marked as feminine for both boys and girls, and thus bolstering gender inequality and heteronormativity.”[59]
Many parents form gendered expectations for their child before it is even born, after determining the child's sex through technology such as ultrasound. The child thus arrives to a gender-specific name, games, and even ambitions.[28] Once the child's sex is determined, most children are raised in accordance with it to be a man or a woman, fitting a male or female gender role defined partly by the parents.
When considering the parents' social class, lower-class families typically hold traditional gender roles, where the father works and the mother, who may only work out of financial necessity, still takes care of the household. However, middle-class "professional" couples typically negotiate the division of labor and hold an egalitarian ideology. These different views on gender from a child's parents can shape the child's understanding of gender as well as the child's development of gender.[60]
Within a study conducted by Hillary Halpern[60] it was hypothesized, and proven, that parent behaviors, rather than parent beliefs, regarding gender are better predictors for a child’s attitude on gender. It was concluded that a mother’s behavior was especially influential on a child’s assumptions of the child’s own gender. For example, mothers who practiced more traditional behaviors around their children resulted in the son displaying fewer stereotypes of male roles while the daughter displayed more stereotypes of female roles. No correlation was found between a father’s behavior and his children’s knowledge of stereotypes of their own gender. It was concluded, however, that fathers who held the belief of equality between the sexes had children, especially sons, who displayed fewer preconceptions of their opposite gender.
Gender variance and non-conformance
Main articles: Gender variance, Transgender, Transsexual, and Genderqueer See also: Cisgender Gender identity can lead to security issues among individuals that do not fit on a binary scale.[61] In some cases, a person's gender identity is inconsistent with their biological sex characteristics (genitals and secondary sex characteristics), resulting in individuals dressing and/or behaving in a way which is perceived by others as outside cultural gender norms. These gender expressions may be described as gender variant, transgender, or genderqueer[62] (there is an emerging vocabulary for those who defy traditional gender identity),[63] and people who have such expressions may experience gender dysphoria (traditionally called Gender Identity Disorder or GID). Transgender individuals are greatly affected by language and gender pronouns before, during, and after their transition.[64]
In recent decades it has become possible to reassign sex surgically. Some people who experience gender dysphoria seek such medical intervention to have their physiological sex match their gender identity; others retain the genitalia they were born with (see transsexual for some of the possible reasons) but adopt a gender role that is consistent with their gender identity.
History and definitions
Definitions The terms gender identity and core gender identity were first used with their current meaning — one's personal experience of one's own gender[1][65] — sometime in the 1960s.[66][67] To this day they are usually used in that sense,[4] though a few scholars additionally use the term to refer to the sexual orientation and sexual identity categories gay, lesbian and bisexual.[68]
Early medical literature In late-19th-century medical literature, women who chose not to conform to their expected gender roles were called "inverts", and they were portrayed as having an interest in knowledge and learning, and a "dislike and sometimes incapacity for needlework". During the mid 1900s, doctors pushed for corrective therapy on such women and children, which meant that gender behaviors that were not part of the norm would be punished and changed. The aim of this therapy was to push children back to their "correct" gender roles and thereby limit the number of children who became transgender.[69]
Freud and Jung's views In 1905, Sigmund Freud presented his theory of psychosexual development in Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality, giving evidence that in the pregenital phase children do not distinguish between sexes, but assume both parents have the same genitalia and reproductive powers. On this basis, he argued that bisexuality was the original sexual orientation and that heterosexuality was resultant of repression during the phallic stage, at which point gender identity became ascertainable. According to Freud, during this stage, children developed an Oedipus complex where they had sexual fantasies for the parent ascribed the opposite gender and hatred for the parent ascribed the same gender, and this hatred transformed into (unconscious) transference and (conscious) identification with the hated parent who both exemplified a model to appease sexual impulses and threatened to castrate the child's power to appease sexual impulses.[24] In 1913, Carl Jung proposed the Electra complex as he both believed that bisexuality did not lie at the origin of psychic life, and that Freud did not give adequate description to the female child (Freud rejected this suggestion).[70]
1950s and 1960s During the 1950s and '60s, psychologists began studying gender development in young children, partially in an effort to understand the origins of homosexuality (which was viewed as a mental disorder at the time). In 1958, the Gender Identity Research Project was established at the UCLA Medical Center for the study of intersex and transsexual individuals. Psychoanalyst Robert Stoller generalized many of the findings of the project in his book Sex and Gender: On the Development of Masculinity and Femininity (1968). He is also credited with introducing the term gender identity to the International Psychoanalytic Congress in Stockholm, Sweden in 1963. Behavioral psychologist John Money was also instrumental in the development of early theories of gender identity. His work at Johns Hopkins Medical School's Gender Identity Clinic (established in 1965) popularized an interactionist theory of gender identity, suggesting that, up to a certain age, gender identity is relatively fluid and subject to constant negotiation. His book Man and Woman, Boy and Girl (1972) became widely used as a college textbook, although many of Money's ideas have since been challenged.[71][72]
Butler's views In the late 1980s, Judith Butler began lecturing regularly on the topic of gender identity, and in 1990, she published Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity, introducing the concept of gender performativity and arguing that both sex and gender are constructed.[73]
Present views
Medical field As of 2014, there is some changing of views and new discrepancies about the best way to deal with gender nonconformity. Some members of the medical field, as well as an increasing number of parents, no longer believe in the idea of conversion therapy.[74] On the other hand, there are still a large number of clinicians who believe that there should be interventions for gender nonconforming children. They believe that stereotypical gender-specific toys and games will encourage children to behave in their traditional gender roles.[69]
Transsexual self-identified people sometimes wish to undergo physical surgery to refashion their primary sexual characteristics, secondary characteristics, or both, because they feel they will be more comfortable with different genitalia. This may involve removal of penis, testicles or breasts, or the fashioning of a penis, vagina or breasts. In the past, sex assignment surgery has been performed on infants who are born with ambiguous genitalia. However, current medical opinion is strongly against this procedure, since many adults have regretted that these decisions were made for them at birth. Today, sex reassignment surgery is performed on people who choose to have this change so that their anatomical sex will match their gender identity.[75]
In the United States, it was decided under the Affordable Care Act that health insurance exchanges would have the ability to collect demographic information on gender identity and sexual identity through optional questions, to help policymakers better recognize the needs of the LGBT community.[76]
Gender dysphoria and gender identity disorder Gender dysphoria (previously called "gender identity disorder" or GID in the DSM) is the formal diagnosis of people who experience significant dysphoria (discontent) with the sex they were assigned at birth and/or the gender roles associated with that sex:[77][78] "In gender identity disorder, there is discordance between the natal sex of one's external genitalia and the brain coding of one's gender as masculine or feminine."[66] The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (302.85) has five criteria that must be met before a diagnosis of gender identity disorder can be made, and the disorder is further subdivided into specific diagnoses based on age, for example gender identity disorder in children (for children who experience gender dysphoria).
The concept of gender identity appeared in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders in its third edition, DSM-III (1980), in the form of two psychiatric diagnoses of gender dysphoria: gender identity disorder of childhood (GIDC), and transsexualism (for adolescents and adults). The 1987 revision of the manual, the DSM-III-R, added a third diagnosis: gender identity disorder of adolescence and adulthood, nontranssexual type. This latter diagnosis was removed in the subsequent revision, DSM-IV (1994), which also collapsed GIDC and transsexualism into a new diagnosis of gender identity disorder.[79] In 2013, the DSM-5 renamed the diagnosis gender dysphoria and revised its definition.[80]
The authors of a 2005 academic paper questioned the classification of gender identity problems as a mental disorder, speculating that certain DSM revisions may have been made on a tit-for-tat basis when certain groups were pushing for the removal of homosexuality as a disorder. This remains controversial,[79] although the vast majority of today's mental health professionals follow and agree with the current DSM classifications.
International human rights law The Yogyakarta Principles, a document on the application of international human rights law, provide in the preamble a definition of gender identity as each person's deeply felt internal and individual experience of gender, which may or may not correspond with the sex assigned at birth, including the person's sense of the body (which may involve, if freely chosen, modification of bodily appearance or function by medical, surgical or other means) and other experience of gender, including dress, speech and mannerism. Principle 3 states that "Each person’s self-defined [...] gender identity is integral to their personality and is one of the most basic aspects of self-determination, dignity and freedom. No one shall be forced to undergo medical procedures, including sex reassignment surgery, sterilisation or hormonal therapy, as a requirement for legal recognition of their gender identity."[81] and Principle 18 states that "Notwithstanding any classifications to the contrary, a person's sexual orientation and gender identity are not, in and of themselves, medical conditions and are not to be treated, cured or suppressed."[82] Relating to this principle, the "Jurisprudential Annotations to the Yogyakarta Principles" observed that "Gender identity differing from that assigned at birth, or socially rejected gender expression, have been treated as a form of mental illness. The pathologization of difference has led to gender-transgressive children and adolescents being confined in psychiatric institutions, and subjected to aversion techniques — including electroshock therapy — as a 'cure'."[83] The "Yogyakarta Principles in Action" says "it is important to note that while 'sexual orientation' has been declassified as a mental illness in many countries, 'gender identity' or 'gender identity disorder' often remains in consideration."[84] These Principles influenced the UN declaration on sexual orientation and gender identity In 2015, gender identity was part of a Supreme Court case in the United States called Obergefell v Hodges in which marriage was no longer restricted between man and woman.[85]
Non-binary gender identities
See also: Third gender and Genderqueer Fa'afafine Main article: Fa'afafine In some Polynesian societies, fa'afafine are considered to be a "third gender" alongside male and female. They are anatomically male, but dress and behave in a manner considered typically female. According to Tamasailau Sua'ali'i (see references), fa'afafine in Samoa at least are often physiologically unable to reproduce. Fa'afafine are accepted as a natural gender, and neither looked down upon nor discriminated against.[86] Fa'afafine also reinforce their femininity with the fact that they are only attracted to and receive sexual attention from straight masculine men. They have been and generally still are initially identified in terms of labour preferences, as they perform typically feminine household tasks.[87] The Samoan Prime Minister is patron of the Samoa Fa'afafine Association.[88] Translated literally, fa'afafine means "in the manner of a woman."[89]
Hijras Main article: Hijra (South Asia) In some cultures of Asia, a hijra is usually considered to be neither a man nor a woman. Most are anatomically male or intersex, but some are anatomically female. The hijra form a third gender role, although they do not enjoy the same acceptance and respect as males and females in their cultures. They can run their own households, and their occupations are singing and dancing, working as cooks or servants, sometimes prostitutes, or long-term sexual partners with men. Hijras can be compared to transvestites or drag queens of contemporary western culture.[90]
Khanith Main article: Khanith The khanith form an accepted third gender in Oman. The khanith are male homosexual prostitutes whose dressing is male, featuring pastel colors (rather than white, worn by men), but their mannerisms female. Khanith can mingle with women, and they often do at weddings or other formal events. Khaniths have their own households, performing all tasks (both male and female). However, similarly to men in their society, khaniths can marry women, proving their masculinity by consummating the marriage. Should a divorce or death take place, these men can revert to their status as khaniths at the next wedding.[91]
Two-spirit identities Main article: Two-Spirit Many indigenous North American Nations had more than two gender roles. Those who belong to the additional gender categories, beyond cisgender man and woman, are now often collectively termed "two-spirit" or "two-spirited." There are parts of the community that take "two-spirit" as a category over an identity itself, preferring to identify with culture or Nation-specific gender terms.[92]

So as you can probably guess from the title, I'm genderqueer, but in many senses, I'm still trying to come to terms with it for a variety of reasons I'd like to just get out there if you don't mind.
So for the longest time, I've identified as a cisman. In a lot of ways, I still do, and I feel comfortable with that and don't feel any sense of regret or otherwise dysphoria for doing so in my 23 years of life. At the same time, I've started to understand the more feminine aspects of myself. If anything, this comes out more in my behavior: delicate sort of movements with my hands, chipper and outgoing attitudes towards others, tenderness, etc. Of course, just writing that, I sort of take issue with, because it's a fucking shame that behaviors that are traditionally coded female men can't explore and are often faced with violence and even killed for displaying any sort of femininity.
At the same time, I have no real desire to even present myself as female or even present in feminine coded ways. I feel perfectly comfortable having a beard, having broad shoulders, wearing jeans and plaid because, well that's what I feel comfortable with. If anything, I only want to call myself genderqueer just so people don't mistake my experience with my body and gender with that of a cisman. But if it were my perfect world where people don't experience violence for the way they present themselves or for who they are, I wouldn't really call myself any gender besides the gender that only I occupy, which of course grows and moves where I grow and move. I don't feel like any gender really quite fits my actual experience with my identity and my relationship to the world, even genderqueer feels like a limiting sort of identification for me.
It really started to hit my yesterday when I was watching a documentary on Judith Butler who was talking about her gender experience and she said (and I'm heavily paraphrasing), "Do I subscribe to everything the lesbian and gay movement says? Do I come out as a lesbian and gay person first before I identify as a woman, a Jew, a philosopher? No. It's not the only identity. So these are communities where one belongs and one does not belong." and "I've never felt at home in my gender. I'm sure other people have. To me gender is ambivalence." In so many ways, that was really applicable to so many of my experiences as a biracial Mexican-American, as a someone who presents male, as a genderqueer person, as someone who is bisexual, etc. Nothing really quite fits and I don't really feel like any label and any label I've given myself doesn't fit. Even calling myself a nonman doesn't feel right. If anything, genderqueer seems to just be a decent catch-all term to at least contextualize something.
I've had an unfortunate experience trying to talk about my gender stuff with someone who recently came out as a transwoman, and honestly, it felt kind of invalidating and made it harder for me to talk about. I felt like I was being pulled into one way simply because she thought her experience was universally applicable to mine, so I haven't talked to the queer circles I'm a part of since, because I don't want to feel that invalidated again by anyone, cis or trans.
I said this to my girlfriend the best, "If I could call myself a gender that was just my name and then live my life as I want to, I'd feel at home." That's really the only thing that actually makes sense to my experience. And more than anything, I'd just like some people to acknowledge that as valid. Then I can feel justified in living my life as a male-presenting genderqueer person who goes by he/him pronouns because why not and that's what I'm the most comfortable with. Just don't assume I'm a man because of that, which admittedly is a bit of a social snafu I'm putting myself in, but that's what makes me the most comfortable and I don't want to apologize for this because I don't really feel like I should. All gender experiences are valid, including mine, so don't try to force me or anyone else one way or another.
I hope this makes sense to anyone who was kind enough to read this. I just want to be able to communicate this in my way and my terms to someone I feel like can understand.

Hello, I am studying philosophy in school and am currently reading a lot of poststructuralism and queer theory. I've been focusing on Judith butler and her idea of performativity for some time now. I had originally thought that her theory was the basis for the construction of new gender pronouns, but I have since found myself mistaken. In reading much of the feminist philosophy I currently have assigned for class, I am unable to locate any theorists or activists advocating for the use of new gender pronouns like the ones you will hear about in he media. I was wondering, where did the idea of introducing these pronouns come from? Do they have any relevance to queer theory? Why do pronouns seem to be of such importance to some people?

I'm a biological male. I'm totally fine with the pronouns "he" or "him." However, I take issue with describing myself as a "man," in the sense that I have no concrete definition of what a man is to begin with. Are there certain behaviors, qualities, and appearances necessarily bound to being a "true" man or woman? Can there be a such thing as an ideal man or woman who purely exemplifies these things?
For instance, I've never really been into sports. Or when my dad is mad at me, he says, "now I'm going to talk to you like a man" and starts yelling and swearing. Is being a man marked by aggression, strength, and emotional insensitivity? (I know that peoples' concepts of "manliness" can differ from this, but this shows that there is no absolute definition.) And if the ideas of a "true" man or woman don't actually exist, aren't we all genderqueer, in a sense?
Am I to be defined by a vague category that society assigns me? I'm also multi-racial, middle class, and left-handed. These things also play factors in who I am (more or less.) But I don't think any of these labels can accurately give someone an idea of who I am. To me, "man" or "black" are pretty empty ways of really describing an individual. Sure, there may be practicalities in identifying a person as such. "Black" can speak to the environment and past struggles a person has been in. But people can be pigeonholed with others who bear huge differences from them. To create this dichotomy of "man" and "woman" seems to ignore the vast diversity that can exist within each of these labels.
For this reason, I'm hesitant to call myself cisgendered. I've pondered on this for the past couple days. Judith Butler's Gender Trouble is next on my reading list. Thoughts? (Btw, first post on this subreddit.)

Hey genderqueer!
I’m coming out to my dad. Well, I guess I’ve already come out to him, but he doesn’t quite “get” it.
Luckily, my father is pretty supportive of transgender people. There are quite a few trans women at his church and plenty of gay couples. My deceased mother, the previous minister, counseled plenty of gay & transgender people. Their interim minister is a transman. Neither of my parents really conformed to gender roles. My dad loves “girly” things and my mom loved “manly” things. They were always pretty open about that, and supported me in my gender expression.
What my dad doesn’t get is my desire to transition and identify as not a woman. His excuse is that he knows plenty of women who are very masculine, and that there’s nothing wrong with that. He confuses gender identity with expression and socially constructed gender roles.
The problem is, my father is not really educated on the trans* spectrum. So I need your help.
First, a little about me: AFAB. 25 years old. Transmasculine. Still definitely figuring this shit out. I think I’m more on the “FTM” side of things - but right now i’m happy just to be somewhere in the middle. I like suits and skirts. I don’t really care for the term “genderqueer” personally, as it conflates gender and sexual orientation in my mind. Androgyne and bi-gender don’t seem to fit either... Anyways, not having the language is certainly difficult. All I’ve really told him is “I don’t feel female... I’m not sure I’m a man, but I know I’m not a woman”. His response? "Well, Baylemtree, I don't really see you as a man" ouch
I need resources to help explain non-binary transgender identity and why this is important to me for him to change his pronouns around me, and why I’m even doing this. I’m writing him a letter to explain my personal situation and tell him my story. I’m still working out a lot of this with a therapist & my spouse (who is super supportive), and I’m a long way from coming out to the rest of my family, coworkers and friends. However, I want my dad to be informed enough to be a support as I discover more about myself. SO - I need your help in finding resources to help educate him.
He’s an incredibly intelligent and science-y guy though. No tumblr or “Everyday Feminist” articles will do. Ideally, peer-reviewed abstracts would be great, but I’ll settle for what I can get. I want something that explains non-binary gender identity succinctly as well as why non-binary trans people need to transition. He loves academic stuff, but he’s pretty critical of new wave & the SJW brand of feminism (hence why tumblr will not do).
Here’s what I’ve compiled so far: http://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/transgender.aspx ww.versobooks.com/blogs/2009-judith-butler-on-gender-and-the-trans-experience https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFBU7h7fqLc
Also, any do's and don't's you might have in coming out to your folks? Would love any insight or personal anecdotes and stories.
TL;DR: Coming out to my dad and I need serious links to send him. No tumblSJW stuff though!

Judith Butler, preferred pronouns, etc.
Do you feel it has affected your discussions/activism in a constructive or hindering way?
Has anyone felt that it has led to reactionism or sectarianism, and if so, is attention to it worth it? Or has it largely served to build solidarity?

| by Malhar Mali |
“There is no reason to assume that gender also ought to remain as two. The presumption of a binary gender system implicitly retains the belief in a mimetic relation of gender to sex whereby gender mirrors sex or is otherwise restricted by it.” ― Judith Butler
While visiting L.A. for Thanksgiving, I spoke to a friend — a women’s studies minor — who told me, a little proudly, about a feminist professor acquaintance from Yale who was raising her child as gender neutral. She was putting her son in dresses and discouraging “gender roles and ideas of being.” When I objected to this treatment and expressed that it troubled me, she responded with: “But as much as she tries, she can’t stop him from playing with trucks and traditionally ‘male’ toys.” Some might consider this as strange behavior from a parent, let alone a professor at one of the world’s most prestigious schools, but, as the adage went, “it’s 2016.”
In 1990, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity was released. It’s main hypothesis? That gender is a performance rather than innate; that it is taught through the repetition of actions and engaging in gendered roles. Judith Butler made it clear that the body is not a stable foundation for gender expression and that gender does not necessarily mimic sex. Amongst her wilder claims? That biological sex is also a cultural construction — gender subsumes sex.
Twenty seven years later we have the collateral from this idea, widely accepted in the humanities and pontificated upon in the social sciences (upon which queer theory is built). Tinder, the popular dating app, lets a user choose among 37 genders. Facebook offers 58. A part of our culture has obsessed itself with debating gender fluidity and sexuality. If gender is a performance, then the next step is that it can be influenced by the way you act. Enter Tumblr and concepts like Aerogender:
“A gender which relies highly on their setting and/or atmosphere, which can be composed of a great number of things (ex. who they’re around, their level of comfort, the temperature, the weather, the time of day/year, etc.)”
Lest you think these ideas and discussions about gender exist in the radical fringes of our society, consider the thriving YouTube community of users who claim to be able to shift between genders; the pronoun wars taking place on college campuses (xe, xim, xers, shims; shers, they); Bill C-16 in Canada and Jordan Peterson; Transgender bathrooms; University of Oregon’s decision it might discipline faculty “for suggesting that there are, on average, biological differences in temperament or talents between men and women,” and the thousands of gender studies departments across the Western world.
These concepts are not out of the vogue. They are just starting to gain traction in the mainstream. Papers deploying variations of and building off this hypothesis — that sex and gender are socially constructed — are frequently published in the social sciences and humanities. Judith Butler herself was invited to Yale’s prestigious Tanner Lectures in 2016.
Where have these concepts sprouted from?
The elephant in the room (the one which is tip-toed around because any criticism of it equals misogyny for its ideologues): feminism. While strains of feminism exist which do not make claims about the cultural construction of gender and sex, dominant ideologies within Anglo-American academic feminism do. This idea — that gender and sex are a social construction — was created for a noble purpose. Many Anglo-American Academic Feminists believed (and continue to believe) that it is the distinction between sexes which has led to historical discrimination against women. It is a distinction they wish to move past altogether. But they have held onto this ideology in the face of mounting evidence. Feminists who hold this view, and their divergence from equity feminism, are best explained by Steven Pinker in his book, The Blank Slate:
“Equity feminism is a moral doctrine about equal treatment that makes no commitments regarding open empirical issues in psychology or biology. Gender feminism is an empirical doctrine committed to three claims about human nature. The first is that the differences between men and women have nothing to do with biology but are socially constructed in their entirety. The second is that humans possess a single social motive — power — and that social life can be understood only in terms of how it is exercised. The third is that human interactions arise not from the motives of people dealing with each other as individuals but from the motives of groups dealing with other groups — in this case, the male gender dominating the female gender.”
Gender feminists believe that gender is a social construct and all distinctions between men and women we see in life are simply culturally and socially constructed — biology plays no part. Ergo all differences in distributions we see between males and females are simply the result of discrimination. If this is the case, they believe we can achieve equality of outcome through quotas, teaching men to be less dominating of women (the articles you might read about “toxic” masculinity), and dismantling the hetero-patriarchy and gender binary. Other than the tyrannical thought of instituting outcome equality, it is basically the idea of biology vs. the blank slate; biological imperative vs. social constructionism; nature vs. nurture. Gender feminists firmly believe that it is all nurture. The consensus in the scientific community is the opposite: Cultural conditioning does play a part, but biologically we are a dimorphic species.
Tell a biologist or evolutionary psychologist that gender and sex are a social and cultural construct and you’re sure to receive confused looks, incredulity, and even outright contempt for your stupidity. If men and women are socialized to like certain things and behave in different ways, then why do newborn male and female children, who haven’t yet been influenced by social and cultural factors, show a distinction in what they find interesting? Male infants show a stronger interest in the physical-mechanical-mobile while female infants show a stronger interest in the face (the proxy for “interest” here being the time of fixed gaze). These exhibitors of biological dimorphism also emerge in rhesus monkeys, with toy preference paralleling those of human children.
If men and women are simply socialized by culture to like certain things and behave in different ways, then why do men and women in 55 different countries show clustered patterns in the big five personality traits — with women reporting higher levels of neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness than do men across most nations. You would think if men and women are only socialized to behave in a certain way, the results from this survey would produce wildly variant results.
These contrasts also extrapolate into adulthood. Now consider how these sex differences impact what interests men and women have when choosing careers and jobs and you get a fairer understanding of phenomena like the “gender wage gap,” more men in STEM fields, and more women in caring, social roles. Sex differences are biological in origin — Butler’s idea of “performance” plays little to no role.
In fact, when social stigmas and roles are removed and populations are the most free — for example the Scandinavian countries — this is where we see the most divergence in what men and women choose to work in. People pursue what they’re adept in. And men and women are naturally adept, on average, in different things. None of this is to say, of course, that women are of more value than men or men are of more value than women. Only that we are different. And that these differences play out in different ways in our populations.
The objection to all this is: “Gender and sex are not the same thing, you bigoted transphobe! Gender is socially constructed and if a person is born a particular sex what’s stopping them from being a different gender?”
Of course there are social expectations like pink being considered a feminine color and blue masculine, or women encouraged to take more domestic roles while males are guided into others. There are cultural norms which encourage men and women to conform to certain behavior. Some individuals want to break free from these norms — more power to them. I suppose I don’t even mind if someone wants to identify as Vibragender (a gender that is usually one stable gender but will occasionally change or fluctuate before stabilizing again), my issue is when you start forcing myself and others to comply to inarticulate beliefs with pronouns and disciplinary action.
Specifically, though, the claim I am addressing is the one that cognitive, psychological, and behavioral differences do not exist between the sexes and are all culturally taught and socially programmed. They are not. Biological sex determines and influences how individuals behave (their gender, if you like). In this way gender and sex are inextricably linked.
Let me hedge: there is a part of our population who do not feel comfortable with the sex they’ve been born into. Data by the Williams Institute found that 0.3 % of Americans identify as transgender and exhibit signs of gender dysphoria. David Schmitt, on Psychology Today, also makes a compelling case that sex/gender should be viewed as “dials not switches,” positing that there are many dimensions on which individuals range — but even his position is rooted in biological realities of the specific individual’s natal developmental conditions, activational effects (such as puberty), and genetic effects.
Socialization plays a little to a small part.
But when confronted with this information, and studies that show non-socialized sex differences in cognition between men and women, social scientists, gender scholars, and gender feminists have a tendency to deny, obfuscate, downplay, and deflect like the most devout of believers. What do they believe in? The blank slate. That we are all born, in Lockean terms, tabulae rasaes. Or, they refer to relativistic ideas about “scientism” and posit that it’s not possible to “objectively” know these things.
Interestingly, esteemed publications have jumped into this debate as well. National Geographic released a piece titled “How Today’s Toys May Be Harming Your Daughter.” The article mentioned the gender difference in toy preference but failed to account that sex is the reason for this occurrence. Could it be that girls naturally prefer looking at faces, are better at fine motor skills and manipulating objects, and boys have an aptitude for mental rotation and spatial processing?
National Geographic’s print issue also featured a nine year old transexual girl on its cover, Avery. Nine is too young to make a life-altering decision of such magnitude — especially when, and as sex researcher Deborah W. Soh notes, the relevant literature shows that 61% to 88% of gender dysphoric children desist and grow up to be gay adults. Soh writes:
“… ignoring the science around desistance has serious consequences; it means some transgender children will needlessly undergo biomedical interventions, such as hormone treatments. Even detransitioning from a purely social transition can be a difficult process for a child. In one 2011 study of 25 gender dysphoric children, 11 desisted. Of the desisters, two had socially transitioned and regretted it.”
Soh paints a disturbing picture: one of hardline transgender activists and gender feminists ignoring the science in favor of their ideology. Who suffers? The children they profess to want to help.
The David Reimer and John Money case also comes to mind. John Money was the father of gender theory who introduced terms like “gender role” and “gender identity.” David Reimer was part of a pair of twins. His penis was lost in a botched circumcision which is where Money stepped in and suggested gender re-assignment — because in his view gender was only a learned identity. Long story short, David Reimer had a troubled childhood, eventually transitioned back to a man, and then killed himself. This is not to say that Avery’s case is not legitimate. But stories such as the Reimer case should serve as a tale of caution of forcing ideologies onto children.
Where I would posit that this is a political affliction rather than a real condition is with individuals who claim to transition from Caelegender one day to Genderwitched the next. I’m sure transsexual individuals exist on both sides of the political aisle while individuals who shifts from Trigender to Hydrogender (a gender which shares qualities with water) or claim to be Otherkin (people who identify as dragons, lions, wolves, etc.) are only found on the political Left.
But those who believe in the blank slate are everywhere — and working to promote the idea that it’s only nurture which impacts us. To them, if we’re born blank slates, then the next step is: what we’re attracted to is a social and cultural construction as well. Michael Shermer wrote an article for Scientific American in which he exposed right-wing attempts to hint at homosexuality being a choice as opposed to an innate attraction. From this mindset is where you get abominations like gay therapy camps — which advocate that you can simply “teach” homosexual men and women to find the other sex attractive.
My friend, who is a gay man, also informed me about the criticism he receives because he’s attracted to masculine men over feminine ones. He forwarded me an article in which its author, as well as accusing gay men who are attracted to masculine men of exhibiting “internalized homophobia and misogyny,” revealed the social constructionist and gender feminist — nurture over nature — mindset that is so popular with young writers these days (Think Huffpo, Salon, Jezebel, Everyday Feminism, Bustle, MTV, etc.). The author stated:
“We are all products of the societies that we live in, and so are our ways of thinking — even what we find to be attractive. We are all imperfect in this way. But we must constantly question the systems of power in our lives.”
These writers pathologize our sexuality through the lens of social constructionism and fail to account for the biological markers human beings look for when seeking healthy mates. If we really are a blank slate and what I’m attracted to is taught by society and culture, blank-slaters would have to entertain the idea that the only reason I find Elsa Hosk more attractive than Lena Dunham is because I’ve been socialized to feel that way.
I hope even they would see that as a laughable leap.
In part, I don’t blame these writers for their views. They are being brainwashed by some university and college departments and certain media outlets in the Western world to believe that gender and sex are social constructs. If you buy into that concept, then you buy into a series of cascading and even more ludicrous notions.
While we rightly condemn and laugh at the right-wing creationists who seek to teach our children debunked ideas like the world was created in six days or that human beings and dinosaurs lived alongside each other, why do we turn a blind eye to these science denying ideologues when they have free rein to indoctrinate our children in universities and institutes of higher learning?
I think a few reasons:
There is a genuine worry that the existence of differences and distinctions between sexes and races could be used to justify maltreatment, denigration, and “social darwinism.” Jerry Coyne succinctly summarizes this view:
“These claims [that there are no differences between sexes and races] are based not on biological data, but on ideological fears of the Left: if we admit of such differences, it could foster racism and sexism. Thus, any group differences we do observe, whether they reside in psychology, physiology, or morphology, are to be explained on first principle as resulting from culture rather than genes.”
This might be true. But it might also be true that uncovering these differences does not compel us to make moral judgements or ascribe policy based on these results. Learning the minute contrasts that characterize humans could actually be helpful in looking for certain medical conditions in different populations, or applying divergent methods of treatment for men and women. Perhaps this fear also comes from a time when LGBTQ+ citizens had little to no rights and protections — but the moral panic I’m witnessing over these issues is out of proportion. For a political side so concerned with living in a post-truth world, it seems the truth of biology is being overpowered by ideology.
The second is that any opposition is akin to victimization. If you claim the idea of gender and sex being a social construction is false and incoherent, you are tarnished with the brand of bigot, homophobe, and transphobe. Colin Jost found this out when he joked on Saturday Night Live about the 37 genders Tinder offered. Jost was quickly accused of being transphobic and condemned in a series of left-wing publications. This instance is demonstrative of a worrying trend taking place which equates words with violence.
This whole “my gender is a social construct and what I feel inside” movement shows we are increasingly valuing what we feel as true over what is true to the best of our knowledge. We, as a culture, are placing mini-narratives above and beyond the concept of a meta-narrative. Worse, whenever anyone pushes back against a mini-narrative the knee-jerk reaction is to clutch at victimhood, persecution, and oppression.
The French postmodernists are probably laughing at us from their graves.
Judith Butler, a postmodernist herself, says in an interview with Big Think that her ideas have been quite controversial. While she’s only a part of this bigger puzzle — comprised of gender feminists, social science and humanities scholars, science denialists, gender studies, women’s studies, etc. — I would go further and say that her ideas have been downright wrong, idiotic, and have promoted dangerous obscurantism in our society.
The blank slate myth still thrives and persists.
https://archive.is/HlsOP