Jump to content

Recommended Posts

to me the transwoman in the video seems like an actor. very stilted and while you would say she is authentic if you knew that she is a theater actor I would call her appearance inauthentic as an actual person. I can't describe it but she constantly seems like disguising her voice to a higher pitch, reciting a well rehearsed speech and acting like a caricature of a women. don't get me wrong, I have no problem with it at all and she makes some excellent points about gender inequality/inequity. but it's a bit weird to watch a person that appears so fake talking about the "call of authenticity"

 

Leaving aside for a second that you're judging as inauthentic the performance of someone on a stage, in front of an audience, what she's doing with her voice is compensating for a medical issue.  Learning to compensate for the damage done by testosterone is somewhat akin to learning to walk again with physiotherapy.  You could say it comes across as inauthentic, but that's kind of missing the point.  Testosterone's effects are generally (though not completely) more prominent and irreversible than oestrogen's, which is why trans men tend to pass for cis better than trans women.  Trans men don't need to learn to compensate for the effects of oestrogen on their voice, but I think it would be absurd to say they're more authentic than trans women.  Similarly, trans women who transition before puberty also don't have to compensate for the effects of testosterone on their voice, and again, because they don't have to learn to compensate for a medical issue, I don't think we can say they're any more "real", just that their voices haven't been ruined by a medical condition.  So there's that.

 

Incidentally, the term you're looking for is "trans woman", adjective then noun.  You wouldn't talk about a "gaywoman" (etymology of "lesbian" aside), a "blackwoman", a "lefthandedwoman" etc.  Same here.  All are types of women, not in a separate category entirely.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 582
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Please don't drag me into your argument. Or here non-argument. I very much appreciate zoebs contributions around here. She just wrote a long response to you. If you want to engage, please do. If not, ...euh just reread your post. Was that warrented?

 

@mixl

Edited by goDel
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would also think that misogyny is why trans women are more visible in the discourse than trans men. Considering there's this whole TERF thing too.

 

Yes, I think it's partly because there are biological reasons why trans men can pass for cis better than trans women (assuming transitioning after puberty, which is thankfully less often the case now), and partly the one-two punch of bigots misgendering trans people and also being sexist against who they perceive as women.  Even TERFs, who attempt to be against who they perceive as men, treat trans women as men who they therefore assume are predators, and trans men as women who they therefore assume were passively tricked, apparently being unable to think for themselves, and lacking their own agency.  TERFs have very bad ideas, apparently the result of internalising a lot of misogyny.

 

See also: lesbians are represented more than gay men in fiction, but not in a realistic way, so much as a stereotypical way intended to cater to the assumed straight male audience's gaze.  You ever notice that double standard where a lesbian couple are assumed to grow out of it and be two straight women one day, whereas a guy who even thinks about dating another guy is forever tainted as gay?  Society has issues, manifesting as bizarre double standards.

 

Trans women are popular in fiction, but only as tragic figures, punchlines, and serial killers.  Comparatively, still far too many people don't seem to realise that trans men even exist.  (Even scientists focused on trans women rather than trans men, and only straight trans women at that.)  This makes sense if you suspect that's because all these depictions are for the benefit of straight, cis men, who might fetishise "exotic" women but not men.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I would also think that misogyny is why trans women are more visible in the discourse than trans men. Considering there's this whole TERF thing too.

 

 This makes sense if you suspect that's because all these depictions are for the benefit of straight, cis men, who might fetishise "exotic" women but not men.

Interesting posts, but want to push you back a bit on this. As it attempts to explain something as some malign conscious effort, which is, imo, mostly born from ignorance instead of a conscious effort. As most things people say or do are in a way self-beneficial in the sense that things we say tend to confirm our own realities. This is not a thing uniquely to cis straight men. And, imo, it really doesnt help anyone to give it a stamp like that.

Fact of the matter remains that the way transgender can be portrayed in culture can be ignorant and hold little relation to reality. But there's also a sense of irony. Especially when it comes to fiction. As fiction is essentially what it says it is: fiction. At which point we could enter a discussion where we might argue about what a world would look like with fiction respecting all kinds of perspectives people might have. And what that fiction would look like. But ultimately we have to accept that mainstream culture is a thing of the masses. And a reflection thereof. Whether we like it or not. Would I want a new and improved culture? Most definitely! Could we please get rid of this superhero culture? Yes please!

Addressing cis male dominance can be useful. And is def a thing to address. But saying "all these depictions are for the benefit of..." really destorts the issue we're trying to improve, imo. Or in others words, being a cis straight man, I don't see any benefit for me and my "compatriots" to begin with. Could be my prevelidged ignorance. But it's equally likely there's a more benign explanation. To say the least. And from where I'm standing, that looks like a better explanation, tbh.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please don't drag me into your argument. Or here non-argument. I very much appreciate zoebs contributions around here. She just wrote a long response to you. If you want to engage, please do. If not, ...euh just reread your post. Was that warrented?

 

@mixl

I'm not dragging u into it, u just mentioned b4 that making jp-like arguments around here ends in shitstorm so I don't wanna go there. that's all.
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

But there IS a difference between women and transwomen?

In a purely reproductive sense I suppose, but kissing a trans woman won't make you gay dw ;)

 

There's this idea that trans women are being deceitful if they don't immediately divulge their trans status before any sort of physical contact, like they have HIV or something.

Should a man with a micropenis divulge that information on a first date? Should a lady with extra long dangly fanny flaps warn a man about it before they've shared their first kiss?

Men and women are different in more than a reproductive sense. Come on. Look at most species on the planet and things like sexual dimorphism or whatever, the idea that the only differences are in sex organs is completely ludicrous

We're not talking about the differences between men and women though are we? The subject is transgenderism, and depending on the stage of their transition a trans person can to all intents and purposes be identical to their cis counterpart, except for the reproductive system. Especially if they started their transition before puberty.

My comment was more about it being unusual for anyone to discuss their genitals when first meeting someone, or in the earliest stages of a relationship, yet it's expected of trans people lest they be murdered. Completely fucked

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I would also think that misogyny is why trans women are more visible in the discourse than trans men. Considering there's this whole TERF thing too.

Yes, I think it's partly because there are biological reasons why trans men can pass for cis better than trans women (assuming transitioning after puberty, which is thankfully less often the case now), and partly the one-two punch of bigots misgendering trans people and also being sexist against who they perceive as women. Even TERFs, who attempt to be against who they perceive as men, treat trans women as men who they therefore assume are predators, and trans men as women who they therefore assume were passively tricked, apparently being unable to think for themselves, and lacking their own agency. TERFs have very bad ideas, apparently the result of internalising a lot of misogyny.

 

See also: lesbians are represented more than gay men in fiction, but not in a realistic way, so much as a stereotypical way intended to cater to the assumed straight male audience's gaze. You ever notice that double standard where a lesbian couple are assumed to grow out of it and be two straight women one day, whereas a guy who even thinks about dating another guy is forever tainted as gay? Society has issues, manifesting as bizarre double standards.

 

Trans women are popular in fiction, but only as tragic figures, punchlines, and serial killers. Comparatively, still far too many people don't seem to realise that trans men even exist. (Even scientists focused on trans women rather than trans men, and only straight trans women at that.) This makes sense if you suspect that's because all these depictions are for the benefit of straight, cis men, who might fetishise "exotic" women but not men.

Great post. I had definitely subconsciously noticed that double standard re gay men and lesbians, thank you for elucidating it. Porn 100% enforces that false lesbian trope, I wonder to what extent it's responsible for it in the mainstream

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

But there IS a difference between women and transwomen?

In a purely reproductive sense I suppose, but kissing a trans woman won't make you gay dw ;)

 

There's this idea that trans women are being deceitful if they don't immediately divulge their trans status before any sort of physical contact, like they have HIV or something.

Should a man with a micropenis divulge that information on a first date? Should a lady with extra long dangly fanny flaps warn a man about it before they've shared their first kiss?

Men and women are different in more than a reproductive sense. Come on. Look at most species on the planet and things like sexual dimorphism or whatever, the idea that the only differences are in sex organs is completely ludicrous
We're not talking about the differences between men and women though are we? The subject is transgenderism, and depending on the stage of their transition a trans person can to all intents and purposes be identical to their cis counterpart, except for the reproductive system. Especially if they started their transition before puberty.

My comment was more about it being unusual for anyone to discuss their genitals when first meeting someone, or in the earliest stages of a relationship, yet it's expected of trans people lest they be murdered. Completely fucked

But the biological difference between men and women isn't only genitals and the things that can be changed via a transition operation. The brains of men and women are different. E.g. men's brains are larger.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Welp, guess you guys arrived at the point I wanted to make by yourselves so here goes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

and so im curious as to how much of what is commonly known as male privilege has to do exclusively with being male and/or having more disagreeable/assertive personality traits..

 

It's a combination of

  • employing stereotypical masculinity, such as walking in a straight line and assuming everyone else will get out of your way, and
  • other people, perceiving you as male, employing stereotypical femininity, such as walking around you so that you can do so

Which is, interestingly, formalised in old fashioned dancing, with its leader/follower dichotomy, those roles given to men and women respectively. Only there's these rules for everything, and much like learning a language, people learn to intuit and internalise them while young rather than sitting down and reading them. Which is another way the whole aspie thing comes into play, as such people often don't pick up on these cues.

 

This is why some newly-transitioned trans men (who were mistakenly raised as girls) will still walk around others even though they don't need to, and some newly-transitioned trans women (who were mistakenly raised as boys) will walk into people. Only it applies to absolutely everything. (Such as having the audacity to actually speak up at meetings, and other people having the politeness to actually hear you, two separate and very much related issues.) Trans people often have pretty good insights into how bad sexism is because they have firsthand experience of seeing it from two different angles. For instance, when Ben Barres gave a seminar after transitioning, a faculty member famously remarked how his work was "much better than his sister's". He gave the exact same man's work more credibility when he wasn't mistaking him for a woman.

 

This is why we're trying a multi-pronged approach in feminism, to encourage women to be more assertive, and also to promote the idea that being less assertive isn't a bad thing. Though these two messages can lead to infighting, I think it's important to decouple them, to realise both that women aren't inherently feminine and men aren't inherently masculine, and also that femininity is as equally valid as masculinity.

 

Of course, this is all a gross oversimplification.

 

Here Zoeb asserted that men aren't inherently masculine and women aren't inherently feminine. The science currently challenges that viewpoint.. which is in part why I linked that documentary.

 

The idea here is that the differences in interest and temperament between men and women are socially constructed, this however would predict that as societies become more egalitarian (everyone has more equal opportunity) men and women would become more the same, THIS IS NOT THE CASE (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0153857)

 

See, you're trying to deconstruct the binary category of gender the crucial issue is this: if there is a biological reason for differences between men and women in interest and temperament when you have abolished the idea of gender and let people have equal opportunity the gender categories will set themselves up again of their own accord (and this is exactly what is happening in the scandinaviancountries.. the more equal opportunity the more men and women become different, not the same)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting! Hormones can on the long run indeed change brain activity and brain chemistry but they can't fix strucrural differences.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/hope-relationships/201402/brain-differences-between-genders

that's a good example of shit science that psychology is generally full of. the main issue is that they go on alluding causal effects of genders on brain working of different kinds before considering the pretty well accepted notion that genders themselves are constructed.

Edited by eugene
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Interesting! Hormones can on the long run indeed change brain activity and brain chemistry but they can't fix strucrural differences.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/hope-relationships/201402/brain-differences-between-genders

that's a good example of shit science that psychology is generally full of. the main issue is that they go on alluding causal effects of genders on brain working of different kinds before considering the pretty well accepted notion that genders themselves are constructed.

 

 

The ascriptions that are assigned to genders are socially constructed, e.g. roles and stereotypes. But sexes aren't a social construction, they are a biological reality. If you uncouple sex and gender completely then the term gender can simply be replaced with the term identity. There must be a connection between gender and sex. Which doesn't mean that the number of genders has to equal the number of sexes. Often there is a confusion of terms when talking about men and women. I believe "gender"in this article means "sex" (which is what it meant before gender studies existed). A slightly imprecise terminology doesn't mean that the neurobiological facts about men and women brains are just made up

Edited by darreichungsform
Link to post
Share on other sites

How do I get some of that people-getting-the-fuck-out-of-my-way male privilege? Would be handy as fuck in London.

 

Yeah, completely agree. I guess I'm not man enough, because I personally tend to zigzag through the crowds. Evading people as much as possible. Guess the man-test is to see whether or not people will go out of their way for you. Game-of-chicken through life, if you will. I should make more use of my genetically and biologically acquired privileges. I'm a failed specimen. An exception to the rule. :(

 

Also, genders are constructed is a pretty well accepted notion? In what context!?

Edited by goDel
Link to post
Share on other sites

well accepted notion that genders themselves are constructed.

a notion whose predictions have tuned out wrong as stated above end therefore not a "well accepted one" in fact, most likely a wrong notion.

 

edit: note it doesn't refute the notion that gender is partially a social construction but it definetly means that gender differences in interest and temperament are not only due to social construction

Edited by MIXL2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting! Hormones can on the long run indeed change brain activity and brain chemistry but they can't fix strucrural differences.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/hope-relationships/201402/brain-differences-between-genders

 

That article is trash, he cites nothing. Further, the writer is trash, he's just trying to sell books. Would honestly be surprised if his doctorate is in anything vaguely related or legitimate. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Interesting! Hormones can on the long run indeed change brain activity and brain chemistry but they can't fix strucrural differences.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/hope-relationships/201402/brain-differences-between-genders

that's a good example of shit science that psychology is generally full of. the main issue is that they go on alluding causal effects of genders on brain working of different kinds before considering the pretty well accepted notion that genders themselves are constructed.

 

 

The ascriptions that are assigned to genders are socially constructed, e.g. roles and stereotypes. But sexes aren't a social construction, they are a biological reality. If you uncouple sex and gender completely then the term gender can simply be replaced with the term identity. There must be a connection between gender and sex. Which doesn't mean that the number of genders has to equal the number of sexes. Often there is a confusion of terms when talking about men and women. I believe "gender"in this article means "sex" (which is what it meant before gender studies existed). A slightly imprecise terminology doesn't mean that the neurobiological facts about men and women brains are just made up

 

that's a shallow view of what genders are, they're not just roles and stereotype magnets, they are an internalized mode of existing as a person of certain biological sex, and it's simply unthinkable that they wont affect how the brain will actually work (that by itself is a very much malleable organ). in order to fix the methodology behind that article one needs to control for that social gender, and it's pretty much impossible unless you indulge in some ethically insane experiment where you put a female and male toddler in some separate lab compartments and expose them to identical  social content for decades. but if you're not doing it you can't seriously claim that you successfully separated the social and the biological in such studies and assign some essentialist qualities to biological sex.

Edited by eugene
Link to post
Share on other sites

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_sex_differences

 

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/04/study-finds-some-significant-differences-brains-men-and-women

 

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/371/1688/20150115

 

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/371/1688/20150109

 

etc.

countless sources...

 

 

Interesting! Hormones can on the long run indeed change brain activity and brain chemistry but they can't fix strucrural differences.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/hope-relationships/201402/brain-differences-between-genders

That article is trash, he cites nothing. Further, the writer is trash, he's just trying to sell books. Would honestly be surprised if his doctorate is in anything vaguely related or legitimate.

Edited by darreichungsform
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Interesting! Hormones can on the long run indeed change brain activity and brain chemistry but they can't fix strucrural differences.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/hope-relationships/201402/brain-differences-between-genders

that's a good example of shit science that psychology is generally full of. the main issue is that they go on alluding causal effects of genders on brain working of different kinds before considering the pretty well accepted notion that genders themselves are constructed.

The ascriptions that are assigned to genders are socially constructed, e.g. roles and stereotypes. But sexes aren't a social construction, they are a biological reality. If you uncouple sex and gender completely then the term gender can simply be replaced with the term identity. There must be a connection between gender and sex. Which doesn't mean that the number of genders has to equal the number of sexes. Often there is a confusion of terms when talking about men and women. I believe "gender"in this article means "sex" (which is what it meant before gender studies existed). A slightly imprecise terminology doesn't mean that the neurobiological facts about men and women brains are just made up

that's a shallow view of what genders are, they're are not just roles and stereotype magnets, they are an internalized mode of existing as a person of certain biological sex, and it's simply unthinkable that they wont affect how the brain will actually work (that by itself is a very much malleable organ). in order to fix the methodology behind that article one needs to control for that social gender, and it's pretty much impossible unless you indulge in some ethically insane experiment where you put a female and male toddler in some separate lab compartments and expose them to identical social content for decades. but if you're not doing it you can't seriously claim that you successfully separated the social and the biological in such studies and assign some essentialist qualities to biological sex.
That's my point. Gender and sex are inseparable but not the same. And there are differences in the human brain of females and males that are observable, e.g. mass of grey and white brain matter.

 

You can't really change sex, even with surgeries (yet). Of course you can fake the other sex more or less well if that matches how you feel like more, but you cannot become the other sex.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That's my point. Gender and sex are inseparable but not the same. And there are differences in the human brain of females and males that are observable, e.g. mass of grey and white brain matter.

so with that being the case how do you know what causes those differences, the environmental/social or the biological? my point is that you can't know unless, as i mentioned, you control for social gender which is pretty much impossible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Interesting! Hormones can on the long run indeed change brain activity and brain chemistry but they can't fix strucrural differences.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/hope-relationships/201402/brain-differences-between-genders

that's a good example of shit science that psychology is generally full of. the main issue is that they go on alluding causal effects of genders on brain working of different kinds before considering the pretty well accepted notion that genders themselves are constructed.

 

 

....

 

that's a shallow view of what genders are, they're not just roles and stereotype magnets, they are an internalized mode of existing as a person of certain biological sex, and it's simply unthinkable that they wont affect how the brain will actually work (that by itself is a very much malleable organ). in order to fix the methodology behind that article one needs to control for that social gender, and it's pretty much impossible unless you indulge in some ethically insane experiment where you put a female and male toddler in some separate lab compartments and expose them to identical  social content for decades. but if you're not doing it you can't seriously claim that you successfully separated the social and the biological in such studies and assign some essentialist qualities to biological sex.

 

 

Eugene, couple of points:

When you say darr's argument is shallow, couldn't you also argue that your argument, the genders themselves are constructed, is equally shallow? (I completely agree with your point on causality, btw)

 

And another point about controlling for social gender: to what extent would you have to control for social gender? Or rather, how big of an impact would social gender have to be in order to have any statistical significance with respect to biological/genetic gender? Because it may very well be that the amount of X-chromosomes of a person highly correlates with the activity of either white or gray matter. So high that this social gender has become irrelevant.

 

Coming back to the point on shallowness: obviously I'm not an expert and knowledgable of research in this field. And more obvious is that we can't expect everyone to be one. So why even bother saying something is shallow when it comes to a subject like this? 9 out of 10 comments will be shallow. How about embracing our shallowness? You're a sociology major, right? You should know! ;D

Edited by goDel
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...