42
FediForum Has Been Canceled
(wedistribute.org)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Apr 2025
42 points (97.7% liked)
Fediverse
18321 readers
100 users here now
A community dedicated to fediverse news and discussion.
Fediverse is a portmanteau of "federation" and "universe".
Getting started on Fediverse;
- What is the fediverse?
- Fediverse Platforms
- How to run your own community
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Her comments cover everything from "trans women are mostly autistic boys who have been gaslit" to "there are only two sexes" to "trans people are unfit to play in their gender's sport." However, there are far worse comments floating around out there that talk about genital mutilation and all kinds of other heinous shit.
So the other stuff is clearly wrong and gross, but I'm confused by the "only two sexes" comment. Gender being a spectrum makes sense but I always thought we all pretty much agreed that biological sex was a binary function in humans. Sure there are genetic disorders that create exceptions, but aren't those exceptions that prove the rule instead of break it?
This is a genuine question. I'm a computer guy not a biology guy.
So...while biology does account for male and female reproductive systems across a variety of species, they have found that, as they continue to study many different forms of life, that they actually have to keep adjusting the model of what they once thought. Life is weirder, more complex, and accounts for a tremendous amount of variation in how this whole thing works.
I'm not a biologist, there are experts who can speak extremely well on this subject. Within the field of biology, the whole "two sexes" thing is kind of an oversimplification. Even if we just focus on humans and not, say, some form of algae with 500 different sexes, there are plenty of divergent forms of human beings that manifest as some form of intersex, with quite a few different variations.
Even if intersex people are a fraction of a fraction of the population, they are a compelling case study for why things don't definitively boil down across some kind of sexual binary across the board for absolutely everyone. Heck, even males and females in the traditional sense of sexual dimorphism tend to exhibit traits of the other sex in one way or another.
TL;DR - it's a huge complicated can of worms, and people who try to shutdown discussion of nonbinary or transgender identities with "there's only two sexes, it's just science!" tend to have a grade-school understanding of biology.
I feel like were straying back into "sex and gender are the same thing" territory which seems reductive to me.
Not sure why we would focus on algae when we're clearly only talking about humans.
I get that intersex/other genetic disorders exist. But I still don't get how that breaks the rule instead of proving it. The rule is that humans have two arms and two legs. Just because there's one armed people doesn't mean that rule is broken. It means they're an exception to that rule.
Another thing to consider is that humans have a brain powerful enough to override human instincts. For example, we are born with an instinct to reproduce, but we can choose not to.
This also applies to our sexuality, personality, gender, behaviors, preferences, and more. We don't have to conform to instincts, norms, or stereotypes.
Since that is the case, unless you're strictly talking about anatomy, two sexes aren't an accurate way to describe human sexuality.
I don't think that the problem is saying that there are "two sexes." The problem is that many people who say that tend to assign a specific gender or stereotype to that sex. In other words, what they really mean is that "men are supposed to be one way and women are supposed to be another," with the implication that someone isn't a real man or women if they are not that stereotype. That notion dismisses the reality for people who do not conform to those stereotypes. Trans people are the most obvious expression of gender fluidity, but I think most people don't conform to society's rigid standards. They just hide behind a mask, and if they are lucky, express it in the bedroom with a trusted partner.
But, as someone who does not fit gender stereotypes, I can say that there are only four anatomical configurations that people are born with: female genitalia (vagina), male genitalia (penis), both male and female genitalia (vagina and a penis) and no sexual genitalia. Most people are the first two. It also should be noted that a person can have surgery to alter this, and that babies born with both genitalia usually have surgery shortly after birth so they only have one, not both.
So a lot of the reaction to that statement is what people are reading between the lines, and not those specific words themselves.
I think what they often imply is that for them gender is just a way to refer to male and female sex, and not really a stereotype. If someone is female/male then in their eyes they are a woman/man regardless of what they look or how they behave, because it's not about social stereotypes for them. Even if a man looks and behaves like a stereotypical woman, it would not stop being "a real man" because for them gender isn't about looks, behavior or feelings of identity.
However, the trans community sees gender as something that relates to what stereotype (social construct) a person identifies with, and this makes gender independent of sex, because you can identify with a gender stereotype that does not match the stereotype that you might typically associate with your biological sex.
I don't think "identifying with social stereotypes" is really an accurate representation of what being trans is.
Sure, there are some people who transition and identify as stereotypical members of their desired gender, but there are also people who transition and are gender nonconforming after their transition, but still identify as binary trans.
Identifying with social stereotypes also doesn't account for physical dysphoria, which is very real for a lot of trans folks. Some trans folks change little about their presentation when they transition but still want hormones and/or surgery.
What I said is that for a trans, "gender relates to what stereotype (social construct) a person identifies with". I did not say their gender matches a particular stereotype, but that it relates to it.
Someone who does not identify with a typical stereotype and believes that this makes them be of a different gender, is defining their gender based on whether they fit (or don't fit, in this case) a specific social stereotype.
However, someone who does not believe gender relates to stereotypes at all would not see that person as having a different gender because that person's gender (for those people) would be unrelated to whether they match (or identify themselves with) a stereotype or not.
Yeah, no, that's not how being trans works.
I don't believe that gender relates to stereotypes.
I'm a trans woman. I don't "get" femininity, and to me, when I perform it, it feels like a performance. It has zero to do with my understanding of my own gender.
I'm still very much trans.
Stereotypes are complicated.. when I say "gender stereotypes" I don't mean that there are only 2 stereotypes.
Is perfectly possible (in fact, it might be common) to have in mind different stereotypes for the word "feminine" and for the word "woman".. otherwise terms like "feminine man" or "masculine woman" would make no sense.
The stereotype of what's a woman (ie, what makes people consider a person a woman independently of their lower bits) is not necessarily the same as the stereotype of a feminine person.
What makes me a woman is that I'm a woman. It really is that simple and has nothing to do with stereotypes. Stereotypes influence the way we express ourselves and our identities, they influence our behaviours, and the language we use. But they don't determine who we are.
I would be trans on a desert island. I would be trans if I was raised on an island of men and had never seen a woman. The language I use to talk about my identity would obviously be different, and even the way I understand it would be different, but underneath it all, I'd still be trans, even if it manifested differently.
And that's what I'm getting at. Sure, I'll argue that the fact I use the word "woman" is based on the social context in which I was raised, because gender is at least partly socially defined. But the identity that I'm describing with that label, that exists at a level below social norms, and below stereotypes, even whilst being influenced by them.
Ok, then I see we are talking about different concepts. I was talking about the label itself. To me "woman" or "man" are just labels, they don't define what I am and don't affect in any way the image I have of myself.
By your definition I'm neither a "woman" nor a "man" because I don't personally feel like I should box myself in an identity to fit any particular definition of a label.
However, I'll be perfectly ok with boxing myself in one particular label so other can better understand my behavior and the language they use.
So I'm not a woman or a man, but the result of my behavior can be commonly classified as one.. and that's the only thing that makes me, commonly, refer to myself in public as one of those roles. But I'm not adapting my behavior to those roles.. it's the other way around: the roles are created to classify my behavior. People would commonly say I'm "cis" because the category that fits me best happens to be the same one that I was assigned at birth, but the category does not have influence over what I am.. it's the category the one that fits me, not me who fits the category.
To me, the words "woman" and "man" only make sense when linked to specific properties that the label is trying to find ways to describe as a group. They only make sense as stereotypes, they don't make sense in a deep internal level because what I am is more complex than a set of specific behaviors and looks... the expression of my internal complexity might be classifiable after-the-fact (for example, you could say I'm a person who drives themselves by logic, sometimes a bit too much), but they are just external aspects and not something that goes much deeper than a set of behaviors I appear to present to the outside world.
I don't know if you're familiar with the term, but what you're describing is similar to the experience that many agender folk describe.
Suffice to say, I experience gender very differently to you. I've "felt" my gender since before I hit puberty. Before I had the words to understand it, before I knew what femininity or masculinity even were, before I experienced my sexuality...
I don't know, I would not say that I knew automatically when I was born what's the difference between "man" and "woman". Of course I have had feelings about what I am since I was born, but I don't think that's what determines what label I fit in.. I would not want to deeply link my feelings to a fuzzy archetype that seems to rely on social behavior and simple instinctive desires.
To me, "man" and "woman" can't be labels that go beyond the external because I don't know what it feels like to be a man anymore than what I know it feels like to be a woman.. I only know myself, I can't possibly compare what I feel to what others feel, because those feelings are a "qualia" that cannot be simply be transmitted with words.
And without a reference, I could not judge whether what I feel is "man" or "woman". To me is logically impossible to set a gender at such a deep level.
An analogy would be how I can never be sure that other people experience the same thing I experience when we both see and point to the color "green". "Green" is a construct based on our common understanding of the experience a particular wavelength that is emitted by an object we are pointing to. But it cannot go beyond that, because what I experience in my brain when the impulses caused by that wavelength reach it could perfectly be different than what you experience when your impulses reach yours.
I think your take is reductive. Gender isn't about stereotypes. I'm sure that for many trans people, part of their trans discovery was not feeling like a stereotypical member of their sex, but there's more to it than that. You can say that gender relates to a lot of things. Gender is ultimately an internal experience that means different things to different people, and isn't necessarily related to identifying or not identifying with any given stereotype.
Bioessentialism in turn reduces people to genitals, and sort of refuses to address intersex people because something something "outliers don't count". At best it says sure, you can dress up however you want, but it's super important that everyone know What You Really Are so they can put you in a box and appropriately segregate society.
It's reductive if you see "stereotypes" as something simple. Imho, stereotypes are very complex (or perhaps another word would be "archetypes", if the word "stereotypes" has too many secondary connotations for native speakers, maybe).
To me the "stereotype" (or "archetype", or "social construct" like I pointed in my first comment) of a "woman" includes every characteristic or aspect that could make someone identify a person as a "woman". Not all aspects might manifest in all women, the more aspects match, the more confidence the person would have to identify the other as a woman. Same for "man", in fact, it could be a person matches both stereotypes/archetypes at an equal amount. Also there can be other gender stereotypes outside those two, because as long as you are using a word to describe a category of people you'd often have a complex set of properties that people would use to define whether it fits that category or not.
I agree that putting people in a box is just contributing to segregation, but I did not choose that, I'm just trying to understand how people are using the words other people invented. It's almost inevitable, even the word "trans" is in some way a category, and there are even super and sub categories... like say "LGBTQ+" or "non-binary".
And there are also people like me. I am feminine and have male anatomy. I don't feel the need to have surgery to conform to other people's gender stereotypes. I am a feminine man. People just have to deal with the fact that not everyone conforms to society's stereotypes. And, while I respect other people's right to alter their bodies how they see fit, I don't think I should change my body just because someone says men aren't supposed to be feminine.
@Melmi
What do you mean by that? Wouldn't that mean you were born with female sexual equipment and act like a stereotypical female? I thought that was CIS. Or are you referring to someone who had surgery to change their sex?
I'm a trans woman. Before I transitioned, I wasn't feminine. I never experimented with family members makeup or borrowed their clothing. Even now, 8 years after coming out and transitioning, I'm still not feminine. No one looked at me after I came out and said "Oh, it all makes sense now". I don't wear makeup, I don't have my ears pierced, I'm loud, argumentative and competitive. I ride an illegally overpowered fat tyred monster bike, and I'm happiest in a tshirt and jeans.
Yet I'm still very much a woman and very much trans.
Of course, many trans folk do embrace gender stereotypes, but you need to understand, that is "after the fact". For some folk, it's simply a matter of protection and ensuring that their gender doesn't get denied them by society. For others, it's a source of joy, being able to embrace something that they were not able to explore earlier in their lives. And for others, it is inherently tied to how they experience their gender.
But for all of us, it is not our gender, even if it is strongly connected.
Of course you (or anyone) don 't need to have surgery to conform to other people’s gender stereotypes. But I don't think that's what was implied here.
What's "feminine"? is that not a gender stereotype? I don't think there's anything wrong about being a man that closer fits a feminine stereotype than a masculine one.
I'm not sure who "they" are in your sentences, but I personally consider myself a male because I have male equipment. I could have surgery and change that, but I didn't. It has nothing to do with my identity, personality, sexuality, self-view, demeanor, philosophy, or anything else. I was born with a certain anatomy and I'm okay with that. I don't fit gender stereotypes, and that took longer to get comfortable with especially with the bullying in my youth. But I've come to terms with that too.
Other people have their own experiences and situations, so what feels right for me may not feel right for someone else. If they want to alter themselves and change their configuration, they are welcome to do so. I'm just describing my personal experience which may be different than other people's.
I say "feminine" for lack of a better word. I'm not trying to be a "woman" and don't wear women's clothes but my default personality traits, preferences, and demeanor are closer to that end of the spectrum, what most people consider feminine and what most people think of as not masculine. I'm also capable of being more assertive, but that was a learned skill and not my default way of being. In the end, I'm me, whatever you want to define that. I'm not trying to be something else. The word "feminine" is used to give people a reference point, not used to define me.
Fair enough. Thanks for clarifying :)