I feel that the school of thought that "gender is a social construct", doesn't explain all of gender diversity, but perhaps there is some key piece I'm missing. So I would like to understand how it explains the existance of transgender people?
I'm being intentionally open-ended to try not to bias answers
The rabid transphobia is due to the fact that trans folks mere existence is a deep theat to patriarchal assumptions.
Even a casual glance at transphobia shows it's solidly rooted in misogyny. Just looking at the difference in how trans men and trans women are framed makes it pretty clear cut.
Patriarchy grants women two powers - - that of sex and motherhood - - and reserve the rest for men.
TERF rhetoric is ironically the most clear on this (it's rather eye opening how many patriarchal principles they cling to).
They openly casting trans women as sexual predators and deviants, doing so solely out of perverse sexual desires. Trans men they cast as deluded girls seeking a man's power and TERFs spend a lot of time bemoaning how trans men are "mutilating" or "ruining" their bodies and fertility.
Trans men are, in a TERFs mind, destroying the only thing of worth they have (sex and motherhood) while trans women are destroying everything they're worth (all the power of men) in return for sex.
So they (transphobes, not just TERFs) turn to conspiracy, hate and lies to cover up the cognitive dissonance between observed reality and internalized misogyny and patriarchal programming because it's a lot easier questioning the basis for their worldview.
I think a big part of the clash is that some people want to live in a world of objective reality. And if it can’t be measured or observed, people won’t consider it to be objective or part of reality.
Anyone can say they are anything. Talk is cheap, so to speak. I guess the objection is to people being able to “choose” their identity, versus being what you are and accepting and embracing that — or, perhaps, also an objection to putting too much weight on our own “feelings” versus what we can be objectively observed and measured.
I’m not saying I completely agree with that, I’m just saying that it’s close to the position of many.
And if it can’t be measured or observed, people won’t consider it to be objective or part of reality...
....“choose” their identity, versus being what you are and accepting and embracing that
Here's the thing though, they're not choosing their identity, no one would ever choose to be part of perhaps the most oppressed group in the LGBT+ community and face horrific abuse. They are being their genuine selves, they are the objective reality to which you have also spoken. People don't reject trans people as objective or part of reality because they can't see them, they do so because it threatens the fictional version of reality their worldview is built upon.
Doesn't this suffer from the fallacy that people know themselves the best, even though that is hardly ever true?
Also, doesn't this subjugate the value of truth, a value that should triumph over everything to have a functioning and moral society?
It feels like your position isn't tested philosophically to a rigorous extent, if I may say.
Doesn't this suffer from the fallacy that people know themselves the best, even though that is hardly ever true?
No
Also, doesn't this subjugate the value of truth, a value that should triumph over everything to have a functioning and moral society?
Also no
If you are looking for the root and reason why someone feel uncomfortable in their gender or body and how this happens, I don't think anyone knows that. Could be genetic, upbringing, childhood, etc, or a combination of them.
Also note that trans is a wide umbrella term, not every trana person feels the same and have the same motives and goals, for example for a lot of trans people a big part of it is about body, and the physical sexual characteristics of the body. That part is not performative or constructed. Yes, the way people perceive you is affected by those body characteristics, but that's not all the motive. For example, if I was living alone on an island, I would still like to transition medically and change my body to feel more comfortable in it. Again, it's not the same for all trans people.
As for why I feel this way, I don't know, and I guess it doesn't matter. And you never can feel and understand how other people exactly feel no matter how much they explain it. But I can give an example that might help you better sympathize with it (it's just an example, and im not trying to be insensitive about cancer survivors suffering). I have seen cis women who went through mastectomy due to the cancer. That feeling afterward that your body is lacking something is somehow (not completely) how dysphoria works in trans people.
Also gender being a social construct doesn't mean it's not real. It is a very complicated matter interconnected with one's body, society, etc, which affects pretty much every aspect of our lives.
I hope this was helpful.
I agree with you. I say the same thing: if I lived on an island, I'd still have body dysphoria.
I do think we should deconstruct gender as much as possible, but trans people should always get the medical care they need and the acceptance they deserve.
What part doesn’t square for you? Gender is socially constructed and largely a matter of performance and perception — what we consider to be masculine and feminine and to constitute a man and a woman are determined by us as human beings — they are not natural or biologically innate. That does not mean that gender is not important, or impactful or an inherent part of how we live our lives, but all of that is fundamentally a result of human social constructions and machinations.
Under this conception of gender, trans people are individuals who feel like their identity and experience of gender align more with some other gender than the one that they were assigned (that’s a key word) at birth as a result of their bodies having certain characteristics.
That answer doesn't make any sense to me
We don’t define a person’s gender by how “masculine” or “feminine”.
It seems like you are conflating gender and gender roles.
While gender and presentation don't have to go together, for many people they do, and that's okay. I make this point because trans people are often accused of perpetuating gender stereotypes.
Tying gender with presentation *is* perpetuating gender stereotypes
So if I cut my hair short because it makes me feel like a man, am I perpetuating gender stereotypes?
Gender is culture. People like to do things that affiliate them with their cultural groups. Sometimes that means they wear a dress because that makes them feel like a woman. Doesn't mean everyone who wears a dress is a woman or that you become a man by cutting your hair short. But it's perfectly okay to see someone's presentation and consider whether they are actively trying to message to you what their gender is.
I understand you're trying to argue that tying the two together can be bad. You're right about that. But you can't swing in the other direction so hard that you deny the important role gender plays in people's lives.
Trans people don't do that though. I'm no less of a woman when I'm not presenting feminine, and neither are my trans friends. Dressing feminine is a way many choose to signal to the world that they are women, but it's not an intrinsic part of their womanness. We just aren't at a stage culturally yet where trans people are accepted enough that no one feels the need to perform their gender in order to be seen as valid.
What part doesn’t square for you?
Well, the part where Trans kids run directly contrary to the overwhelming socialization to be Cis, for one. If it was truly 100% socially determined, you wouldn't have kids bucking their ubiquitous and ovewhelming education they receive, pretty much from minute one, would you?
There's clearly a biological component to gender that has them running directly contrary to our core socialization.
If it was truly 100% socially determined, you wouldn't have kids bucking their ubiquitous and ovewhelming education they receive, pretty much from minute one, would you?
I said quite explicitly that gender is assigned based on biological characteristics. Did you just miss that, or what? Do you usually not actually read comments before you launch into your transphobic talking points?
Do you not think your own ideologies through before you repeat their mythology back to people?
Yes, gender is ASSIGNED based on biological characteristics, but these kids buck what they are assigned from minute one. Their parents expect dear Johnny to be male, because he's phenotypically and genetically male. Society expects him to be male. Teachers expect him to be male. Friends and family expect him to be male. Every last ounce of his socialization and training, from pretty much everyone in his life will be towards being Cis.
But ... he's female. Internally, he feels female and over time his parents will have to accept that and accept that no matter what they want him to be, or society wants him to be, he's a she.
The logical conclusion to that fact of raising Trans kids is that there's something innate that they are born with that has them bucking all that socialization and running CONTRARY to what they are assigned. The minute you see that contrary behaviour, you have to know that gender cannot possibly be 100% sociology. The core claim you made that gender is socially constructed cannot possibly be completely true. There has to be biological components to it driving this innate behaviour.
Stating that is not in any way Transphobic, and you should be ashamed of yourself for devolving to that BS as an attempt to deflect.
This is nonsense, and you're still not reading what they're saying. Nobody is saying there is nothing biological here, you've made it up entirely. You're also framing this like it's somehow wild af for people to not do what they're supposed to? What planet do you live on?
My sister was a girl, now she's a woman. She was expected to be a lot like me, her older sister, who was quiet, and well behaved, and well mannered, and considerate. She was directly taught to be those things by everyone in her life. She wasn't though. She was loud and wild, couldn't sit still or stop talking to save her life! Omg does that mean that nobody is being pressured into filling gender roles because she didn't????
you should be ashamed of yourself for devolving to that BS as an attempt to deflect.
So how can a "mismatch" occur? If gender is socially constructed then how can a boy with gender dysphoria feel like a girl "on the insixe" when they have been socialized to be a boy their entire life? Doesn't the fact that these exist prove that gender socialization has a limited effect?
I think the social construction view is actually transphobic, because it is saying "you only like those things because society told you to like those things" which implies that conversion therapy should work.
Nobody says only, you both are tilting at windmills here. Zero people deny biology is at play. The existence of people outside norms doesn't mean norms aren't real. Trans people don't disprove the role socialization has on gender, just like people allergic to Tylenol don't disprove how it affects 99% of people. Additionally, socialization does in fact deeply affect trans people. Try listening to one
Yes but my confusion is why? If we are taught to do gender a certain way why do they not do gender performance like everyone else?
as a result of their bodies having certain characteristics
I think this is more what I'm looking for, why are they differing from the one assigned at birth?
I would say because the process of forming relationships with those around us, the process of of identifying with different people, cuts across genders. Identity is not always in line with how we are expected to perform gender. If it was, the changing gender roles we have seen would be unimaginable because we would all be determined by gender norms with no means of resisting them. Efforts to socialise us into gender can and often do fail because as individuals, we form their own connections, developing our own mental associations around who we are in relation to those around us. While social pressures and restrictions impact that process on a general level, they do not determine the process. Gender socialization may better be described as probabilistic rather than deterministic. What I mean by this is that if someone is assigned male, there is a high probability that their identity will develop in line with certain gender norms; there is a high probability that they will behave in certain ways, participate in certain activities, spend lots of time around other men etc. However, probability just exposes patterns resulting from societal pressures, expectations etc. It is not demonstrate that our experiences and identity formation are determined by such pressures.
That reminds me of my own experiences of growing up as trans. I wanted to have the same experiences growing up as other girls and didn't really have the same interests as the other people I thought of as boys. What those stereotypes for each gender is though are completely arbitrary and defined by society.
I imagine that if society for example encourage girls to drive quad bikes around muddy fields and discouraged boys from doing the same I would of felt just as unhappy for being denied doing that as I did about stuff like wearing makeup and other stereotypically feminine activities.
Also don't forget transness isn't just about performance of gender, there's definitely a biological aspect of dysphoria. For a lot of trans people the physical aspect of having the certain hormones in our bodies and having surgery to change body parts in itself alleviates dysphoria.
Absolutely. I totally agree. To be honest, as a queer person myself, I don't subscribe so much to the nature versus nurture debate. From what I understand, the big question being asked now is not nature or nurture but rather how does nature interact with nurture. However, my personal stance is that we exist regardless of whether we are product of nature, nurture or both. I read a good article that asked what is wrong with becoming queer and problematised this idea that we are only granted acceptance on the basis of biology and the idea that we ‘cannot help it’. Sod that, if I could help it, I would still choose to be with my partner because it would be a valid choice. I say this because everything you just described is valid with and without dysphoria. We are human beings connecting with other human beings and shouldnt be forced into asssociatinng with everything coded male-masculine-heterosexual just because of an arbitrary label assigned to us. Someone recently made a good point to me about gender being a social construct but also a social reality, which made more sense to me because these constructs organise the world, our bodies, our desires, and the associations we come to make; they allow us to make sense of ourselves in relation to that world. I like this way of thinking because it means that irrespective of where people sit on the debate around biology etc, we are still real and valid.
Edit: I am still a little unsure about the word performance anyway because it kind of sounds like we are putting gender on. I prefer the idea of doing gender.
Someone recently made a good point to me about gender being a social construct but also a social reality,
Gender being a social construct doesn't mean it's not real... money is a social construct, it's definitely real! Lots of social constructs are very real in day to day life, they are just also constructs of our society...
👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
Yes but my confusion is why? If we are taught to do gender a certain way why do they not do gender performance like everyone else?
I mean, historically most trans people have “done gender performance just like everyone else.” We have seen it demonstrated time and time again that you can force people to live as they’re assigned gender, and they’ll likely suffer from miserable, and very treatable dysphoria as a result.
I think this is more what I'm looking for, why are they differing from the one assigned at birth?
We don’t have a single definitive answer for that question, and we likely never will. It’s doesn’t really matter why trans people are trans — that’s what they are, and they should be able to live their lives as they please.
why do they not do gender performance like everyone else?
why does anyone do anything? Why don't you feel uncomfortable with the bounds placed on you by a gender that's just a social construct, the way a lot of trans folks do? Why do people insist there's only two genders, if it's all a social construct?
It seems pretty obvious. They do not feel they belong or associate with that gender.
That's it. Feelings, emotions, mindset.
Why do they have those feelings? No one really knows yet.
I don't think it really matters though
It's a silly question. Why is my favorite color purple? Why do I hate mayo? It's just the way I am.
I will probably be downvoted into oblivion for this post
No, you will be banned for transphobia. Goodbye.
You need a spartan kick gif with ur face on the spartan.
I can’t speak for them, but from what I’ve heard, it’s because that one feels right. Try to imagine waking up in the opposite gender body you were born in. Would you keep acting like the gender you’re used to? Or would you try to change your behavior? Now just think of that and imagine you’ve felt that way about yourself for a long time. Some say they always felt wrong, even as children.
The same reasons every single one of us does things on a daily basis we're not "supposed" to
Thing is with you look of ways my answer to how many gender there are is 0. As the concept of a men or woman as a gender doenst really exist to me from that pov.
Bease there infinite gender only cause society agree there are. Or there are only 2 genders cause society agree there are only 2.
And if there factor that decides how many genders there are is society then my answer would be 0 as same as god with concept it only exist cause to many poeple believe it exist.
Take believe away and its gone.
Physical gender dysphoria is not associated with social constructs, as one trans person can be in a genderless paradise with no social norms, yet still feel wrong in their body.
Gender presentation/roles are social constructs, but gender identity isn't, instead it's ingrained in each of us and there are infinite ways our brains can define its own gender(s), (or for some, a lack thereof). For most people their gender identity is the same as the gender their parents/doctors guessed as a baby (cis people), and for some it isn't (trans people). What's socially constructed is the way people of specific genders are expected to express their gender.
Gender is social, but gender dysphoria isn't. If we hypothetically lived in some kind of post-gender utopia 6000 years from now, it would still feel viscerally wrong to me to have facial hair for example, in terms of brain-to-body incompatibility.
Under the social constructionist view of gender, why would only two genders exist?
Just because something is a social construct doesn't mean it isn't meaningful.
Sex, as categorized by us, is a social construct. Biologically, whether we impose language and scientific categorization or not, people will still have differences and similarities in hormones, genetics, genitalia, and secondary sex-characteristics.
Gender may be a mix of extrapolating from biological sex to a societal and cultural environment and only make sense in that kind of context, but that doesn't mean that deconstructing it as a social construct makes it meaningless.
Gender isn't 'just' a social construct. It isn't arbitrarily interchangeable with other social constructs. It isn't volatile to the point of completely changing within a generation or two. And even disregarding some kind of intrinsic meaningfulness, it's still meaningful for understanding oneself and others, it's still important when interacting with others as individuals and groups (regardless of whether that meaningfulness comes from misogyny or not).
Transgender people find meaning and/or peace in rejecting their assigned gender at birth. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter if that meaning is intrinsic to gender or not; intrinsic to the person or not.
Under patriarchy, society frames patriarchal social constructs as 'natural' or having 'intrinsic essence' while others are framed as either unnatural or without a meaningful foundation (and thus meaningless). Combined with an immaturity to lash out at things that challenge this "natural, patriarchal order", gender as a social construct is considered either hogwash or as an excuse to continue with patriarchal gender norms because they use the flawed logic that all other realizations of gender lack meaning (or intrinsic essence / value). (Which is why patriarchy has a bias against non-STEM while simultaneously imposing sexist, racist, ablist, etc bias into STEM).
We've had this discussion before, and I didn't want to disturb you by further pushing the above view, but since I may have played a part in provoking this question and you are asking for an explanation, I hope this at least helps you understand me.
Another way to think of it is: just because gender is so personal and flexible doesn't erase cultural meaning, and nor does having cultural meaning erase personal meaning. Regardless, I personally always have and always will react to claims of a 'universal essence' to gender as making shit up, often to justify sexism, racism, etc. Gender is a social construct, and that gives us a way to better understand it (or use it). Bullies abusing it (with flawed logic) as an excuse to disrespect its meaningfulness or to disrespect people doesn't make it any less true.
In the end, to me, gender is a useful way to view and understand people. It's why astrology and tarot can have meaning as tools to guide awareness and introspection regardless of an 'intrinsic essence' or the meaningfulness of their foundation. Gender exists because we gender (as a verb) people, both ourselves and others. But gender is not only useful, but rife with sexism. So regardless of how you understand yourself behaviorally or biologically, whether due to or in spite of the patriarchal imposition of what gender is, or something else, gender has enough meaning to create life-dominating gender euphoria or dysphoria for many on top of any other meaning it has (societally or personally).
I hope the conflation of "it is a social construct" and your transphobic bullies' "if it's a social construct, then it's meaningless" was adequately addressed.
transgender people exist as much as cisgender people exist. one gets assigned at birth and aligns with the assignment and the other doesn’t
if no one was assigned anything at birth we’d have a lot more names for gender variance
Abigail Thorn of Philosophy Tube, a brilliant trans public educator, just did a fantastic video essay on Judith Butler, the philosopher most directly linked to the social construct view of gender. There literally could not be a more direct answer to your question—plus, she's funny and does costumes.
Gender identity has historically been binary, and assigned as male or female. But most people have a unique mix of generally-feminine and generally-masculine traits and non-binary people were always around. There could be any number of gender labels rather than 2 or 3, but the first understandings of biological sex allowed two options and it hasn't really shifted.
Trans people are assigned a label that doesn't fit, and their traits and expression better fit a different label. The gender labels/boxes are socially constructed but it isn't really possible to ignore them or live outside of them. It is still really hard to be recognised as non-binary and under that umbrella is things like agender or genderfluid that are smaller and less known groups of people. I think everyone is a unique gender and might have ongoing changes over time, but labelling yourself and being seen as more yourself is really important so we end up with commonly recognised labels.
It hasn’t been historically binary. There are many cultures, both historical and contemporary, which have more than two genders.
Gender is a performance dictated by the social structure of the days. The most powerful man in Europe once regularly wore curly-haird wigs, tight stockings, makeup, and heeled shoes; as did all the men imitating him. These are all things we see as feminine today, but there's nothing inherent in being XY or XX which requires these things. If you grow up in a society that says curly wigs, stockings, makeup, and heeled shoes are for men, you wear those things to express your masculinity. If you grow up in a society that says these things are for women, you wear those things to express your femininity.
The nature vs nurture debate begs the question of a dichotomy that doesn’t exist. People’s identities are neither SOLELY biological nor SOLELY sociological. They’re complex and individual combinations of multiple factors, including biology, society, experience, spirituality, traumas, culture, choice, etc... Which will literally be different for each person.
Ultimately, my take is that I don’t know another person’s complexities more than they do. So if someone tells me their name is Mary and their pronouns are she/her, I just need to accept that Mary knows more about herself than I know about Mary and respect her identity.
I do think the rabid transphobia that exists in our society is culturally based. There is no reason for me to feel threatened by Mary or try to tell Mary she is a man named Todd cuz she was AMAB and her parents named her Todd unless our society socialized me into thinking difference is a threat and there is only one right way to define gender identity.
Mary is not telling me to transition. Mary is not disrespecting my identity or pronouns by asking me to respect hers. Mary is literally no threat to me. Mary is just asking that I respect her knowledge of her own complex identity.