Hey all,
So I'm looking to take an active step here to understand better some things that my straight/white/cis/middle-aged male brain has had a tough time wrapping itself around, particularly in the gender identity front.
I'm working from the understanding of physical sex as the bio-bits and the expressed identity as being separate things, so that part is easy enough.
What's confusing to me though is like this. If we take gender as being an expression of your persona, a set of traits that define one as male, female, or some combination of both then what function does a title/pronoun serve? To assume that some things are masculine or feminine traits seems to put unneeded rigidity to things.
We've had men or women who enjoy things traditionally associated with the other gender for as long as there have been people I expect. If that's the case then what purpose does the need for a gender title serve?
I'll admit personally questioning some things like fairness in cis/trans integrated sports, but that's outside what I'm asking here. Some things like bathroom laws are just society needing to get over itself in thinking our personal parts are all that special.
Certainly not trying to stir up any fights, just trying to get some input from people that have a different life experience than myself. Is it really as simple as a preferred title?
Edit: Just wanted to take a second to thank all the people here who took the time to write some truly extensive thoughts and explanations, even getting into some full on citation-laden studies into neurology that'll give me plenty to digest. You all have shown a great deal of patience with me updating some thinking from the bio/social teachings of 20+ years back. π
Lets see if I can explain this clearly enough on the first try.
So your question is, "If we take gender as being an expression of your persona, a set of traits that define one as male, female, or some combination of both then what function does a title/pronoun serve?"
Well, this is both weirdly complicated and absurdly simple. Gender isn't just a set of personal traits, but also a social concept. In that framing, titles and pronouns are a signal that one gets from other people in society that tells them how their visible presentation is being perceived and interpreted.
One can relate this to the social distinction between the nobles and commoners of yore. Even though the only visible differences between the two groups are their attire, for a person that sees themselves as a member of the aristocracy to be spoken to as if they were a commoner can be a grave insult.
Likewise, most people find it discomforting when their innate sense of their own gender is contradicted by the people around them. Specifying our pronouns/titles when we introduce ourselves can provide context for folks who might have otherwise assumed someone's gender incorrectly.
Elder millennial trying his best to improve. I had issue with a friend, who identified as queer, who recently married a trans man and wanted me to use the pronoun "thier" for this person. I mean, I'm supportive, but I don't want to butcher the English language. I mean it's even uncomfortable for me to type that out as I feel like walking on eggshells to accommodate, and someone seems to be pissed off.
Singular they/them/their is a concept brought to English in the 14th century. It's not butchering the English language to use they/them/theirs to refer to one person. You probably do it automatically without realizing it when referring to people wholly unknown to you when nothing can cue you in about their gender, like when referring to somebody that somebody else is talking to on the phone: "Who was that? What did they want?"
No, I've always 100% of my entire life used they/them unless someone referred to themselves is he/she or otherwise. Always thought it was weird when people used masculine pronouns when writing and there's zero indication of traditional female/male.
My friend would want me to say something like, "Do you and Their want to go out later?" when referring to her trans husband, I'm the asshole if I say, "Do you and Alex want to go out later?"
That is indeed a new one. It'd take me a while to get that right too. It's odd that your friend and her husband are wound up by you using her husband's name
Have you asked her husband how they want to be referred to? It may be a miscommunication. Other ways to approach this would be to use other words like "y'all" or "you two" or "you and your husband". English is a pretty flexible language so you can probably find another way to avoid this, but it sounds like they are using "their" as a name and want you to never give this person pronouns and only use the name "their" as a point of reference.
Yet you use the singular you? Singular they has been a normal part of English longer than singular you, which is why you used "are" with you even when it is used as a singular and "are" is plural. Edit: noticed later that their want you to use their/their/their, not they/them/their. Edited some of it of the comment.
Interesting. Weird using possesive form for everything. Still hardly seems like something to get upset about.
you intentionally refer to people with names they don't want. Its not like they asked you to call them something like "cunt" or something and you have some moral opposition to ever saying that word. Showing clear disrespect for no reason is kinda asshole behavior. Especially if they're the spouse of someone you claim to be your friend.
Read above the friend wasn't asking to use they/them/their which would be completely reasonable and something I do by default 100% of the time. The only pronoun my friends husband wanted to be referred to is "their." I don't request people use "Lord" as my preferred pronoun because that's fucking stupid and I'm not a titled Lord. I'm not using a determiner improperly.
That'd be a "neopronoun", typically used by folks who feel like none of the standard pronouns fit them.
They're rather uncommon for the reasons you've described, even I have trouble remembering to always use xie/xir or fae/faer for my queer friends that identify as such.
Fortunately, the folks that do use neopronouns are aware of this and most are quite patient about it. So long as you show your friend and their husband that you're making an effort to recognize thier unusual gender, such as by quickly correcting yourself and moving on if you catch yourself using the wrong pronoun, then they won't think any less of you for it. π
I mean, I'm comfortable with using what you describe as neopronouns for people asking to use fae, Xi, and others, but I have a problem butchering established grammar. Her husband doesn't own or possess me. I'll use "husband" as that's an identifier my friend used or the name "Alex" they chose but to make it a point, I have to use "their" is a bit much.
Edit: I'm leaving my comment below for posterity and in case others are confused, but it actually isn't what the above is about. See jarfil's reply to this for context.
The use of "they/them/their" in the singular is a long established part of the English language. It's not new, and you're not butchering anything by using it. People who claim otherwise may either be poorly informed or intentionally being malicious. Hope this helps!
@[email protected] @[email protected]
The problem seems to be asking to use the posessive determiner "their", as a personal pronoun. That's a weird one, and contrary to the established meaning of "their" that you mention.
bingo
If that's the case, I apologise. So, the person is asking you to say like...
"Alex had an appointment today. Their said it went well"?
As opposed to "Alex had their appointment today"?
Correct. This friend has always been trificult.
The singular "they" is actually a couple hundred years older than using "you" instead of "thou" as a second person pronoun.
I'm sorry to say that your English teachers were pulling a fast one on you when they told you "they/them/their" couldn't be singular.
I believe that isnβt the issue here, rather that they seem to be using the possessive βtheirβ in all cases of the use of that pronoun.
Oh! Well that is interesting!
It'd take me a while to get the hang of that. πΊ
Admitting a lack of knowledge is a first step. Queer has been another aspect confusing to me. Aside from the old use as a slur (kids around my area back in the 80s used to play something of a reverse tag game they called 'smear the queer' where they tried to tackle the one who was it) it always seemed like a catch-all for not fitting into the base mold.
I suppose my followup to that would be what gives someone a specific sense of gender? To say 'I am a woman' is taking societies interpretation of woman as being right. What differentiates that from 'I am a man who likes womanly things'?
What separates the 'tomboy' woman from a trans-masc?
(Please excuse any terminology missteps if I use things wrong too)
We're not sure about the neurological mechanism behind the innate sense of gender as of yet, but we have been able to confirm that there are structural differences between masculine and feminine brains that are more consistent with people's reported gender identity than their genitalia.
And that's the fundamental difference between tomboys and trans men, the former are gender-nonconforming women and the latter are men's brains in female bodies.
It's difficult to explain what gender dysphoria feels like to someone whose gender identity is consistent with their sex. There's a sense of "wrongness" that can suffuse through everything from one's interactions with other people in society to one's own thought processes under the influence of the wrong set of sex hormones.
Actually, there's almost no differences between masculine and feminine brains at all. The book delusions of gender by Cordelia Fine goes into this in detail, but the long story short is that just about all science on the difference between men and women is actually just bias of the researchers or poor study design. Honestly it's a super interesting read if you're curious about how the brains of men and women are different (spoiler alert, the difference is pretty much entirely social convention and those social pressures can be overcome in very interesting ways) and just how pervasive gender is in our society (babies start to recognize social patterns of gender before even one year of age) and just how deeply it shapes all of our lives.
Actually, a recent study contradicts that:
https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2024/02/men-women-brain-organization-patterns.html
The differences aren't in terms of gross anatomy, but activity levels in the default mode, striatum, and limbic networks.
Yes I caught that study! It's a fantastic foray into how existing brains which have already been influenced by social pressures interact in the real world. Unfortunately, however, it isn't explanatory and there's a lot of methodological considerations which still need to be explored. Of note, much of what I'm going to bring up below are also brought up by Cordelia Fine in the fantastic book I mentioned above as they are considerations often overlooked when designing studies to find differences between sex or gender.
It should be noted first and foremost that most brain imaging data is not a reflection of structure itself, it's a reflection of activity in specific areas of brains. But even that is circumspect for a number of reasons, most notably that you can reliably detect brain activity in individuals which are not alive. Ignoring some of the technical issues with detection of activity itself, in the context of activation patterns, we should expect significant difference from individual to individual in how thoughts are processed, and we likely should see patterns amongst individuals which share commonalities such as social identities. We can, for example, see reliable patterns of activity amongst world class athletes as compared to those with no training. Patterns of activity in the motor cortex based on physical requirements of one individual isn't quite comparable to a social identity, however, and for a closer analogy we could look to language or social status to see that patterns of activation are rather malleable and can denote all kinds of social roles.
Applying that to social roles, such as gender, it is not surprising in the least that we can detect gendered differences based on how society treats us and what roles it provides and gives us access to. For example, ignoring brain imaging studies for a moment, we can detect reliable differences between the sexes when we give them math tests. However, a deeper analysis on this difference reveals that this can be easily reversed and influenced merely by priming the individuals. In fact, when we go a step further and look at brain imaging and activation patterns, we also see that there are sex differences in how the math areas are activated. Unfortunately, however, I have yet to see a design which combines those two concepts together - how do brain activation patterns differ when an individual is primed with a narrative which runs counter to that which they have internalized from society?
To take this point even further, I think it's important to note that the study you are linking includes exactly zero transgender individuals. It also doesn't attempt to investigate nor discover differences in gender expression or conformity to social roles. The patterns that they have detected could very easily be a reflection of internalizing the values which society instills in us based on our gender roles - there is simply no way to separate the two with this existing literature. But to take that a step even further, even if we did find that there were reproducible sex-based differences which persisted even across a representative sample of gender diverse individuals, we would need to also conduct this kind of imaging at different points in these individuals lives (especially early on and through childhood where one's concept of gender evolves) to understand just how much is biological and how much is an influence of nurture. Even then we would still only have at best an understanding of brain activation profiles which happen to meet statistical significance, a trait shared with brain activation profiles of completely dead individuals, which calls into question the statistical validity of the precision at which the imaging technology is calibrated - we would need to redo all of that research with more precisely tuned imaging to be sure it's an accurate reflection of brain activation... and we still would not be able to make any definitive statements about structural differences because activation is a reflection of action potentials at a specific point in time (notably all action potentials, not just the ones used in the cognitive process of the task at hand, but also those involved in living and perceiving an environment and thinking about other things) and not a true understanding of the underlying architecture which supports these action potentials (two very different circuit boards can produce the same electrical current in the same spatiotemporal area).
That dysphoria is the part I really hope to understand I guess. It seems to me that would be a lot of social pressure to conform to an expectation, but to my cis-brain it would seem easier to just say who cares what the 'norms' are and just do what you like.
The best analogy that I can imagine is this: Imagine that you went to go get fitted for a suit. You go to a seamster, get fitted, and they make you a suit. You put the suit on and it doesn't feel right. You tell the seamster and they insist that the suit was made to your measurements and that it is correct (they even have patterns and measurements to prove it.) You shrug, pay the fee, and leave with your new suit. Wearing it out, you confide in your friends that the suit doesn't fit, but they all tell you that you look great. Despite your insistence that the seams on your shoulders don't line up and that the waistline is far too off-center, your friends insist that your suit is well-fitted and you look great-- that you should be happy and grateful to have such a fine suit. Meanwhile you feel awful; dreadful. You just know that somebody is going to notice and call you out on your bad suit. You're trying your best to accept and maybe even show off your expensive, non-refundable, sold as-is attire, but the weight of it and off-balance feeling it provides is a latent part of every move you make and every word out of your mouth. Furthermore, present circumstances have made it impossible for you to have another suit made. Even if you did, they'd just use the same measurements, come up with the same patterns, and make the same mistakes-- No, you're the one that has to wear the suit; they don't. You have to feel the fabric against your skin. You have to feel its seams snaking over your body. After wearing it all night, you know what's wrong with it (or at least what will make it feel right.) Your only recourse is to find a tailor willing to help you alter it to your specifications or to alter it yourself. Let the opinions of everyone else be damned. After all, they're happy in their suits.
Probably about as close to a direct understanding as I might get. Kind of puts me to a philosophical thought, if society didn't have any kind of gender norms somehow, would that disquiet still exist?
So, I'm a trans woman.
Lets say I was raised on an island of men. I had no idea of the concept of women, and all of the people I'd ever seen were male.
In this world, clearly, my self perception would be different. I wouldn't have a crystalised identity, I wouldn't be able to tell you my gender. What I would have, is a life long discomfort that I could never identity or address. My body would have been wrong, but I couldn't have told you why. I'd have been different to the men all around me, but I couldn't have told you how.
It's similar to how I processed my trans identity before I had exposure to trans people or and understanding that transition was a thing.
For some of us yes, and for others no.
It's difficult for me to even imagine the complexities of such a world that lacks gender norms. Would there be fewer trans people? Possibly. But in such a world, there would still be trans people like me that feel a strong need for surgery.
Edit: Forgot to mention HRT, which many of us would still need.
That makes me wonder what personal expression would look like. Clothing might have been developed completely differently if certain garments were made to fit more body types.
You kind of described how I've been feeling about having a flesh body, instead of a robot one... I don't even care about its gender, all of it feels "wrong". sigh
My body is a machine that coverts nutritional input into society challenging thought patterns, and sometimes small bits of energy I guess...
I hate the experience of not being able to turn off and on again; of not keeping a backup; of not being able to upgrade pieces, or even to replace the broken ones; of not being able to quickly download or upload, both data and software; of not being able to migrate my processes to other bodies, or to create multiple copies to process stuff in parallel.
I've always felt trapped, and it's getting much worse with age.
Interesting! I guess this is only a possibility because of how we designed computers and machines to work? Like I often feel frustrated that I cannot pause or rewind someone who is speaking to me. Or digitally search for where my stuff IRL is. We really are all cyborgs and part of our brains is already fused with computers.
One identifies as a woman; the other does not. It's really that simple.
I find that the less you try to intellectualize gender, the better because it's something that's deeply personal to each person. What I view as being a man is undoubtedly different from what you do, yet we both identify as men.
I've found that the easiest way to deal with gender is to simply respect other people's identities because it's frankly none of my business why anyone identifies the way they do.
I'm 7 years transitioned and I can't answer that question for you.
It's not something I rationalised myself in to. It makes no sense. It just is. It's important to remember that you don't need to understand to accept.
A lot of these comments have also muddied my understanding of terms now which originally took on a neat physical/psychological = sex/gender split. Looking about the web that still seems to be the common delineation but like the range of people on the planet there are personal interpretations and flavors to such things too.
I get the suspicion that some of the more spirited discussions so far came with a tinge of suspicion that I'm one of the bad folks looking to invade spaces and sow discord, but that's not the case. For me it's not a question of acceptance, but really of understanding something foreign to me. I'm a hyper-logical type, does engineering things for fun, 'feels-like' for me could be pretty directly translated as 'makes rational sense' to the point where many get frustrated.
Yeah, we generally have to have our guard up, especially in these types of threads. I don't know if you're familiar with the "just asking questions" type of transphobe, but it is a very real problem for communities like this one. The topic or phrasing of a question can raise red-flags for sure.
But I believe that you're being sincere.
Yeah, never watch them but I hear of the 'just asking questions' frequently from a lot of the far right. Say something wretched and then a 'just asking, but what do I know?...' kind of disclaimer.
For me it's coming from a place of just not knowing better, or processing late. I have a friend who's Korean and at one point we started talking about new year celebrations there and I asked 'so does that follow with the Chinese luner new year' and only later realized that it probably sounded pretty presumptuous like 'all is China in Asia', when it really was just because it's next door and I expect a big culture has influence on neighbors.
The psychological is rooted in the neurobiological. Psychological can rarely be cleanly separated from the physical. For example, autopsies show some parts of the brain that were thought of as reliable predictors of sex actually correlate much better with gender. And its not just a matter of hormones changing it: trans people who never medically transition are the same as cis people of their gender. Likewise, trans people sometimes experience phantom limb syndrome for parts they've never had. And trans women who have bottom surgery basically never had phantom limb syndrome, despite cis men who lose their member often do. Medical transitioning is largely about changing one's sex to match one's gender. Additionally, physical markers are part of how people initially gender people. You don't need to medical transition to be trans, or even want to transition medically, but its an extremely common desire.
I think you also are misreading some peoples comments For example: https://lemmy.socdojo.com/comment/1596353 What you replied to was focused on the social construct that is sex, yet you bring up gender in ways that seem unrelated to the comment you replied to and seem to be conflating the two constructs more than anyone else I've seen in the thread.
Also, a lot of mainstream discussion does a bad job at representing a lot of trans people. For example, a lot of trans people don't want you to ask their pronouns: they want to be at the point where people instinctually gender them correctly. And some closeted trans people don't want to be asked their pronouns because it either forced them to misgender themselves or come out of the eggshell when they may not be ready for it. Yet the mainstream discussion by allies often misses such nuances. Another example is the "trans people know they're a [boy/girl] since they were a toddler and fit childhood gender expectations" narrative, which is quite harmful to a lot of eggs who assume they're not trans just because they didn't fit that narrative and also leads to people being confused about trans women who are tomboys, trans men who are femboys, and/or why tomboys and femboys aren't all just trans. But it helps sell a narrative emotionally, so that's what a lot of people repeat.
IMO, that's part of the problem. I'm generally the same way, which is why I often get annoyed at myself for being happy about things that make no rational sense. Gender isn't something that can be understood logically yet in my limited experience.
That would be part of it, or more aptly that a bit of the commentary on sex refers to it as a construct. When I think of constructs it brings to mind more the social expectations and acknowledged norms. While the notion of sex as being a binary thing might be taken as a construct in itself, how I've been approaching it is that sex is a set of largely fixed (short of external intervention) tangible and measurable traits, physical things. How we might interpret them is perhaps another matter. So some of it is I guess just a missed communication on some of what I'm asking.
I often wish I could shut off the rationalizing and analytical part of my mind, though at least I make active efforts to counter balance it with more free-form things in the off time.
That's totally cool! Many so far have presented philosophical answers based more in application of reason than empirical inquiry when you might perhaps prefer an answer based in biological science.
Very neat stuff there. Some here have talked a bit about the neuro formations differentiating things, but he gives a nice condensed format for it.
On the whimsical side though since he used music from Super Mario in the citations it ended up making me wonder if mushroom people would have gender and sex, or just spores...
As a binary trans woman my very being in and for myself imparts upon me a capacity for directly revealed self-knowledge regarding my gender, which is to say how I wish to be as a presence and present myself to others within the world.
Perish the thought! In general however I might reveal my gender it is as an invitation to others for them to interact with me and understand me as a woman. Try to think of this as less a matter of being right or wrong and more one of how you and another might best both enjoy your interactions together.
Gender does! It is literally that simple.
They would through their understanding of their own genders which grants truth or grants falsehood to statements regarding their gender.