...However, this isn't what people are talking about when they compare transgenderism to the imaginary phenomenon of humans deciding to call themselves dolphins, or of Anglo people suddenly deciding that they're Asian "on the inside." When people draw this comparison, they're pointing out that they simply don't understand what gender is, and that they have confused sex (physical traits) with gender (behavioral traits). They've also confused the desire to transition-- something that trans people do so that they can function without ridicule and "pass" for their own gender-- with a cosmetic, delusional, or curious urge to have a different kind of body.
My four-year-old daughter occasionally tells me that she is a dog, a train, a dinosaur, or an elf. These are not real identities, because these make-believe personas are based entirely in a set of traits that my daughter simply doesn't have. My kid is not, and will never be, a transspecies tiger. My partner, on the other hand, has all the traits associated with the female gender, even though she lacks the traits associated with the female sex. I'm confident that I can take my partner's identity as a woman seriously, while interpreting my daughter's idea that she's a pony as exactly what it is: a fun fantasy.
(Disclaimer: I work for Yahoo!. My job doesn't include posting this here. I found it very moving and have cited it frequently in conversations since it was published, so I thought I'd share.)
I feel that maybe this article makes its argument on the wrong basis. I don't think there's any need to try and shoot down other hypothetical trans-whatevers, especially since, IMO, transracialism is probably every bit as legitimate as transgenderism in theory. It even comes off a bit hypocritical with the child's-play comparison, as gender-bending is certainly something children do. Why be so quick to brush one off and not the other? The author merely needs to refute these arguments on the basis that such arguments are a formally defined logical fallacy. All else is wasted words.
I think that one of the greatest causes of misunderstanding is that for most people, gender isn't actually the same thing as it is when spoken of by academics, psychological practitioners or transpeople; they do not think of it in the same ways, and it is rarely explicitly conceived of at all. Then, there are places and moments of rupture - as when one sees a man wearing a dress - that violate the unspoken, vague and sometimes contradictory webs of "gender" that exist individually and collectively in our society. Perhaps the mistake is that either understanding is correct.
Very interesting how the language we use can shape our view (in this case and many others). Perhaps transgender is a poor word, a loaded word that automatically leads to misunderstanding. I don't know what a better word might be, but I think that such a dry, academic term subconsciously tells us that this is a mental disease. A softer term may go a long way. I think people have accepted the term gay, because it is so nice and non-threatening. It therefore allows one to see the people behind the term, and in my opinion may have possibly contributed to our acceptance of gay people in society. Homosexual on the other hand is cold and clinical, and do you know any gay people who describe themselves as a homosexual? I don't, personally. Maybe transgender should be replaced.
I recall reading that native americans would call transgendered people names like "two spirit", and would celebrate their uniqueness. I agree about the words gay/homosexual. Conversely, the term "straight" implies that the opposite is somehow askew.
Exactly. I only wish to point out that there are problems on both sides. For example, I know a person who identifies as a man but has a female body. He gets offended when people call him a "woman," because as far as he is concerned, he is a man. But in a very real sense, to everybody else she is a woman. There's a disconnect between how the trans community seems to talk about gender (in my own brief experience with it) and how most people actually think about it.
I seem to disagree with every third sentence in this essay, but have no problem with trans people in my day to day life. I think it's sad that a person feels like they are a woman trapped in a mans body, it's a tragedy. The expense and pain of going through the surgeries to become the semblance of a man or woman must be terribly expensive and painful. I'm not saying that they should just learn to play the hand they were delt, just saying that it seems like a hard thing to go through. This essay makes it plain that it's controversial and even offensive to say that I don't think that saying you are a woman trapped in a male body means you are a woman or the fact that you have gotten the surgery to make your physical appearance resemble the appearance that you feel you are inside makes you what you tell me you are. In my honest opinion I don't really know what to think and feel that it's really beside the point. I deal with gay, straight, male, female, cross dressing, trans gendered, women with beards, ambiguous and what ever other labeled people you can think about on a pretty regular basis at my job and in my community. The only thing I really find significant about all these people is that they should be treated with the same respect that I treat the next person. I try and treat people in accordance with what they seem to see themselves as, because that is probably what they are looking for out of life, to be accepted as who they want to be. I guess I accept it even if I find it confusing sometimes.
That's awesome. You're supportive. So if someone sees themselves as a turtle, you'd give them $4,000/month to pay for their mortgage and brand new car payments (because turtles can't work human jobs)? At what point do we need to put reality above people "feeling good and wanting things"?
That's a really strange jump, to go ftom letting people self identify as what they want to paying their rent. I knew a guy who self identified as a rug, he was off his rocker for sure, I didn't feel the need to try to convince him that he wasn't a rug every time I saw him, I just said "what's up rug."
Thanks for the disclaimer, Saydrah. But TBH I don't much care as long as the content interests me. I think it's problematic and somewhat hypocritical if we demand that MSM create quality content, but then deride them for trying to share it. At least here where we can follow, share, and ignore, I don't worry about who posted it: the author, their employer, or a reader. That said, I think the best case scenario is where any connection is fairly obvious. A statement in the bio, etc. But, I'm not making it my business to establish the connections of posters. People can decide for themselves, I think.
I think furries see them selves as Trans-species.
would a trans-gender person deny happiness to a person who felt like they are a dolphin? what gives the right and authority to the trans-gender person to deny the happiness to that person who feels they are a dolphin? they should be able to have children, health insurance, all paid for by taxes (and dolphins don't have jobs -- they just swim around, so this person isn't bound by normal rules of human self-reliance). What gives a trans-gender person the right to judge someone who wants to live as a dolphin???
What's up with your desire to make this a monetary issue where we pay for other people to find their own happiness? If I think I'd be fulfilled in life if I was a pilot does that mean you should pay for my pilots licence? How is it you are linking transness and happiness with money?