Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Being mtf or ftm trans is conforming to gender stereotypes with extra steps. Abolishing gender stereotypes and letting everyone express themselves however they want would be far better for society overall.
I don't mean that in a negative way and fully support respecting self identification because that has the best outcomes in the real world.
Sure, but if you're gonna claim that trans people having either binary gender identity is necessarily conformity to gender stereotypes, then you need to accept that a cis person being either a man or a woman is even more so.
So the thing is, deviating from the norm is always going to be a bigger thing that just going with the flow.
There are masculine women, feminine men, and a wide spectrum in between. Many drag queens are playing the role of exaggerated gender stereotypes without identifying as a woman outside their act. A woman wearing pants was a huge thing in the US in the last century and that was just about not needing to follow gender norms separate from self identification. Cis doesn't mean actively choosing to conform to gender stereotypes, it just means accepting the label society slapped on the person.
I've also thought about that a bit. The way I see it, transgender people definitely are following local cultural terms. Not the ones that they are expected to follow, but still.
What's considered masculine or feminine isn't standard across different cultural contexts either. For example, wearing skirts or pink aren't exclusively feminine. In a western context they currently are, so that's why western MTFs are currently inclined to wear those.
However, that wasn't always the case. If the same person had been born a few centuries ago, pink would not have meant the same thing, and they they would have probably felt differently about that color. Also, what westerners would consider a skirt these days, can be a masculine or gender neutral piece of clothing in other cultures. Even today, there are place where mean wear something that westerners would call a skirt.
Not all mtfs wear skirts or conform to gender stereotypes. In my case it's more about feeling dysphoria with my body/hormones and wanting to change that (and then presenting in a way that looks normal for my gender in the society I happen to be in), but I'm also nonbinary, so there's that.
My controversial opinion is that if everyone has the right to self identification, I have the right to reject that identification. I am under neither logical nor moral obligation to accept another person's beliefs about themselves or the world. Keep in mind I firmly assert that all people deserve to be treated with kindness and respect, I am making a descriptive not a normative statement. This is strictly a question of retaining the right to epistemological determination, "self identification" being based on that same exact fundamental premise.
I don't fully understand. Can you give a concrete example? Like you meet someone who seems like a woman to you, they say they're a man, and you're like, "no, no, you're a woman, I reject your self identification of being a man"?
I don't see you as less of a person, I don't see you as a bother, I don't see you as challenging to my views or, a shock at all, really.
I guess the cold hard truth is that I just don't care.
If you wear your gender as your first, most outstanding personality trait, it doesn't speak much for the rest of you.
Do I care if you keep it up, don't stop and tell everyone you know? Have at it.
It's just not my business. It's not important in the grand scheme of whether or not you're an asshole. Your shoe size is more indicative of who you are, to me, anyway.
This sounds similar to the "I just don't see race" perspective.
Do you also just not see race?
If they're different, what differentiates these topics in your thinking?
I recognize the concepts of feminine and masculine and the blends of both, but I suppose that just doesn't tell me a lot about who you are, how you are, what your interests are or your life.
I could ponder stereotypes, get an idea for who you are based on telling me you're trans, but listen to how that sounds.
Would you want me to have an idea about you from one word, without even knowing you?
Thank you for your reply.
I appreciate that you recognize that masculinity and femininity are concepts, and that these can co-exist and blend within many people's experiences.
Unfortunately, the "I don't care" position that you've described does still sound to me like the practice of "colorblindess." For instance, it sounds like you are describing a similar false dichotomy; where you are saying, broadly, that either you "just don't care" about a person's experience of their identity features; or that, if you do care about a person's experience of their identity features, then you would be forced to use that information to "ponder stereotypes."
What about a third option? Could you see people as individuals rather than stereotypes; while also acknowledging that our experiences are affected by the contexts of our lives; including multiple layers of relationships with ourselves, each other, and broader societal forces?
There might be this third path, like you are saying, but some people still might not care even about that. Like, what if someone just genuinely does not care at all about any of this stuff? Is that wrong? Are we obligated to care?
Huh. I was going to write my own reply but I will defer to your argument, it perfectly encapsulates how I see it too, no notes.
Do you just never use gendered language in real life?
I don't think about it. I don't understand the question, honestly. I see people as men or women, short or tall, blue eyed or brown eyed, they come they go. It's not important to me how they see themselves, it doesn't interfere with my daily business or interactions with people, I try my best to treat everybody with respect and mind my own business. They can think they're the Queen of England for all I care.
That's a fair perspective.
I appreciate your acknowledgement that all people have the right to their own self-determination; and I appreciate your affirmation that all people deserve to be treated with kindness and respect.
I would also ask, though, when you assert your right to your own evaluation of another person, do you also practice awareness that it is fundamentally your interpretation, and that your interpretation may be factually inaccurate?
Do you say, "My experience is that I think that person is a man," or do you say, "I declare based on my observations that I know that that person is a man" ?
Most of the time, we have no way of knowing what sex organs someone has, regardless of the expression of their outward appearance. It's true that we may often recognize certain characteristics that lead to familiar assumptions, but in almost all scenarios we are still either making our own guesses about someone else, or we are choosing to believe that they are whoever they say they are.
Also, when considering intersex people and other variations in sexual development, even if we guess correctly about the sex organs or characteristics that someone may have been born with, we may still be wrong about the person's underlying genetic make up or hormone balances.
I guess I wonder, when you hold your right to determine your own evaluation of another person, is your thinking flexible enough that you can hold your own assumptions lightly?