I have encountered quite a few dinosaurs, who say that children should be helped to live with the sex identity, they've been given, and should be educated away from gender non-conforming.
I don't see gender simply as a set of stereotypes, in any case. I see it as a mosaic, with different elements co-existing. This is something that Jung talked about, with his idea of the anima and animus, basically contrasexuality. But gender is extremely complex, I doubt if anyone really understands it.
Well there's half an hour of my life gone. What is this "Quillette" I wondered. Surprise surprise - it boasts it supports "free thought" - this is generally code for "alt-right" these days. And lo and behold Toby Young is involved in it.
The article itself is a rehashing of the normal objections. The underlying issue though is it's still cisgendered people cisplaining (did I just make that up? Don't know) to transgender people what's going on in their own heads, and what's good for them. Do I trust what some writer of whom I've never heard on a right-wing site tells me, or what actual trans people tell me?
Yes, I sometimes muse why the right wing are so against trans. They will say, think of the children, with a catch in their throat, but presumably there is a resistance to apparently impregnable pillars of society such as sex/gender/sexuality, being questioned. Short version, they are bigots.
The problem with that Economist article is that it continues to say things like:
The rules say, for example, that if a child expresses a cross-sex identity to a teacher, there is no need to tell parents. If one child queries the presence of another of the opposite sex in a single-sex activity or space, it is the child with concerns who should be removed.
Now, there are no references to say where these "rules" come from, but
if a child expresses a cross-sex identity to a teacher, there is no need to tell parents.
is not true for schools - it may be advice from one of the charities suggesting what schools should do to support transgender children, but it doesn't fit either the Scottish or English guidelines, see here.
If one child queries the presence of another of the opposite sex in a single-sex activity or space, it is the child with concerns who should be removed.
Not according to the Technical Guidance accompanying the Equality and Diversity Act in England and Wales, see above, which says that a transgender child is better using private or staff changing facilities rather than single sex provision.
What is happening in new build or renovations in schools and sporting spaces is that changing rooms and toilets are being built as unisex provision, with cubicles for decency and privacy. That's how the swimming pool in the Stratford Olympic Park works. It is partly being done to reduce vandalism and bullying and in the case of the swimming pools, allows children to change with whichever parent they are with. This is working to provide spaces that do not require gender provision.
I suspect that what will also happen is that uniforms will become more unisex too. And makeup will continue to be worn by whoever wants to risk it.
I have realized that there is no point in fact-checking right-wing articles, a lot of the content is unsupported by any evidence, or even a link, a lot of it is based on anecdotes, and I suspect that some of it is invented. And there is a ton of pearl-clutching.
Yes, I sometimes muse why the right wing are so against trans. They will say, think of the children, with a catch in their throat, but presumably there is a resistance to apparently impregnable pillars of society such as sex/gender/sexuality, being questioned. Short version, they are bigots.
The polarization of views as rightwing / leftwing is a serious problem. There are more opinions than those two opposites. There's much more this binary conceptualization. In fact some opinions are fluid, and change depending on the circumstances. For example, young children and adolescents are a different crew than adults.
I don't see gender simply as a set of stereotypes, in any case. I see it as a mosaic, with different elements co-existing. This is something that Jung talked about, with his idea of the anima and animus, basically contrasexuality. But gender is extremely complex, I doubt if anyone really understands it.
I see opinion as a mosaic as well. If there's actual data, then we go with that. Until then, there's a mosaic of opinion, not "rightwing versus leftwing".
Guys, isn't it better to refute positions one disagrees with by argument than abuse? Rejecting a conclusion on the grounds of its source has little to commend it. Perhaps the heated nature of the discussion indicates how ideology makes up for poor conceptualisation and ignorance.
A point not made so far, is the apparent presence of trans people in other cultures, obvious examples being the hijras of India, Two Spirit people in Native American communities, and similar in Hawaii, Thailand, and so on. One big danger is cultural overlay, so in fact, hijras may not map directly onto our conception of trans. In fact, European anthropologists often angered people in the US, and the term "berdache" was hated, and has now been dropped, (a man in woman's clothing, doing women's work).
And apparently, Christian missionaries and boarding school teachers tended to suppress and punish any such manifestation, but then, maybe it cannot be fully suppressed. (Patriarchal society also had a hand here.)
I forgot to say, this has been used as an argument for social construction theories of gender, since trans identities vary a lot, and for example, Thailand seems to have gender identities that we don't, e.g., kathoey, apologies if that's a bad term.
A point not made so far, is the apparent presence of trans people in other cultures, obvious examples being the hijras of India, Two Spirit people in Native American communities, and similar in Hawaii, Thailand, and so on. One big danger is cultural overlay, so in fact, hijras may not map directly onto our conception of trans. In fact, European anthropologists often angered people in the US, and the term "berdache" was hated, and has now been dropped, (a man in woman's clothing, doing women's work).
And apparently, Christian missionaries and boarding school teachers tended to suppress and punish any such manifestation, but then, maybe it cannot be fully suppressed. (Patriarchal society also had a hand here.)
This is often said: "Two spirit people". This isn't actually very accurate. It reminds me of the "50 Eskimo words for snow" nonsense, often said to make a point, but not factual. In this province (Sask), the main cultures, Cree, Dene (Chipewayan) and Saulteaux, are more different from each other as Tibetan is from English, it's not at all like varieties of Europeans, such as French and German, or varieties of religion with shared roots like Christians, Muslims. Far more different. There is no broad or general "Native American", or First Nations culture. The LLRIB (one of the 10 largest in Canada) in northern Saskatchewan, for example, isn't accepting at all of the sort of diversity you suggest.
The fact that not all Native cultures recognize the concept of "Two Spirit" does not negate the point that some do, and it is a traditional belief predating European invasion.
The point being is that there is no model nor comparison from indigenous cultures for what we're discussing. The things equated with transgender aren't actually that at all, they're embedded into a complex cultural milieu. It would be more reasonable to compare it to the ideas of see-ers and people with spiritual gifts who contribute something to the community.
I am aware that some cultures seemingly accommodate what we might call trans. I would, however, like to know more about how they are treated and what roles their status permits them to play in those contexts.
The point being is that there is no model nor comparison from indigenous cultures for what we're discussing. The things equated with transgender aren't actually that at all, they're embedded into a complex cultural milieu. It would be more reasonable to compare it to the ideas of see-ers and people with spiritual gifts who contribute something to the community.
Oh for fuck's sake, did you see me say that there is a danger of cultural overlay, and hijras may not map onto "trans". Guess not.
The LLRIB (one of the 10 largest in Canada) in northern Saskatchewan, for example, isn't accepting at all of the sort of diversity you suggest.
The link you provided had no information about whether the Lac La Ronge bands "accept or do not accept the sort of diversity you suggest." The beauty of the internet is that I could email their social services and find out for myself if they have a policy on transgender identity. I don't have to walk to Stanley Mission to find out, nor would I necessarily believe the first person I spoke with is representative of the entire community.
In the absence of such a policy, or even cultural observation, on their website; in the absence of a proper polling process and posted results on LLRIB's perceptions about trans identity; let me ask you: Do you think you have the right to represent what LLRIB thinks about this?
If you backpedal and say, "Well no, that's just what I observed" then would you agree that there is diversity of opinion within communities about trans issues, and the people you spoke with may not speak for or represent their whole community?
The point being is that there is no model nor comparison from indigenous cultures for what we're discussing. The things equated with transgender aren't actually that at all, they're embedded into a complex cultural milieu. It would be more reasonable to compare it to the ideas of see-ers and people with spiritual gifts who contribute something to the community.
Oh for fuck's sake, did you see me say that there is a danger of cultural overlay, and hijras may not map onto "trans". Guess not.
So it does not support your points, is this what you mean? If it does not "map" then why use it at all in the discussion?
The link you provided had no information about whether the Lac La Ronge bands "accept or do not accept the sort of diversity you suggest." The beauty of the internet is that I could email their social services and find out for myself if they have a policy on transgender identity. I don't have to walk to Stanley Mission to find out, nor would I necessarily believe the first person I spoke with is representative of the entire community.
In the absence of such a policy, or even cultural observation, on their website; in the absence of a proper polling process and posted results on LLRIB's perceptions about trans identity; let me ask you: Do you think you have the right to represent what LLRIB thinks about this?
If you backpedal and say, "Well no, that's just what I observed" then would you agree that there is diversity of opinion within communities about trans issues, and the people you spoke with may not speak for or represent their whole community?
Merely a link to locate them. This is about culture not policy.
There's a road now into Stanley Mission, which incidently has the oldest Anglican church in the province. You don't walk there in any case. Either road or by water. We canoe.
...
Merely a link to locate them. This is about culture not policy.
... .
Well, actually, it's you telling us about their culture and policy. I've been told that a great deal of modern-day prejudice in many nations and communities against LGBT is a result of the imposition of Christianity and the horrific abuses committed by those Christians. Any aspects of traditional culture in conflict with Christian teaching were resolutely suppressed by both government and churches. But hey, that was just an Indigenous person from Saskatchewan, so what do I know? And what does it have to do with the price of eggs or non-Indigenous trans identities?
I'm really trying to figure out what the point of this discussion is, other than to try to get someone to agree that, "Yeah, ok, those trans kids aren't really trans - they're depressed/influenced/defiant/trendy/emo/tomboy/whatever" despite the fact that we know nothing about them. Kids may explore and question identity for a variety of reasons, and each kid deserves freedom and protection to do that as an individual, not have a bunch of adults project a "syndrome" on them.
I'm really trying to figure out what the point of this discussion is, other than to try to get someone to agree that, "Yeah, ok, those trans kids aren't really trans - they're depressed/influenced/defiant/trendy/emo/tomboy/whatever" despite the fact that we know nothing about them. Kids may explore and question identity for a variety of reasons, and each kid deserves freedom and protection to do that as an individual, not have a bunch of adults project a "syndrome" on them.
We're having this discussion because how much freedom individuals have and how much they should be expected and encouraged to confirm to cultural norms is a political issue. And whether we want this set of cultural norms or that set is a political issue.
Projecting a "trans identity" onto a disparate collection of individuals who have issues around gender is just as much of a forcing-into-a-mould as any other.
If "sex" refers to biological maleness/femaleness and "gender" to sociological male/female roles and self-presentation, then the "pro-trans" argument seems to be that
- we don't understand sex
- but we'll use the possibility that it isn't quite as binary on the inside as it appears on the outside
- to argue for multiple genders.
And those on the far left of the radical-to-conservative spectrum want every last trace of binary-gender expunged from society straight away to reflect our "new knowledge" that this is oppressive to a minority, and those on the far right want to understand everything before changing anything.
Is not the logic of your position that a society that has boys' schools and girls' schools is oppressive to the people who self-identify as don't-know or I-reserve-the-right-to-change-my-mind ?
Is not the logic of your position that a society that has boys' schools and girls' schools is oppressive to the people who self-identify as don't-know or I-reserve-the-right-to-change-my-mind ?
Is not the logic of your position that a society that has boys' schools and girls' schools is oppressive to the people who self-identify as don't-know or I-reserve-the-right-to-change-my-mind ?
I see you are ducking the question. There is a big girls' school near me, with about 10 trans pupils. I haven't spoken to them, but the headmistress seems very supportive and positive about it. I don't think trans people or non-conforming, abhor non-trans people. Of course, the irony is that some trans people seem to preserve binary gender.
If "sex" refers to biological maleness/femaleness and "gender" to sociological male/female roles and self-presentation, . . .
And those on the far left of the radical-to-conservative spectrum want every last trace of binary-gender expunged from society straight away . . .
Interesting point. If a woman wears pants is she undermining "binary-gender" with her "self-presentation"? How about if a man wears a skirt? What if he's a (true) Scotsman? A lot of the assumptions of what constitutes the division of binary gender seem pretty obviously social constructions.
quetzalcoatl: Of course, the irony is that some trans people seem to preserve binary gender.
What proportion of trans hold this position? And, what are we to conclude from that observation?
I don't know any stats. I have become more aware of trans nonbinary people, but for some trans people, binary seems to be preserved by reversing it.
Conclusions? Who can say, there are shifts going on, but it seems difficult to say how extensive it might become. Maybe gender has been deep frozen, and is thawing, but that's a guess.
I've been reading around about the issue of trans kids in schools, and the reactions by schools vary enormously, from head teachers who won't countenance it, to affirmative places. Of course, it involves a lot of issues, including clothes, names, toilets, changing rooms, and so on. Bullying is a bad problem in some schools, and kids may be moved or even home schooled. Yet there are schools, where it seems to go smoothly, but then there have been LGBT groups in schools for decades, although the T has often been overlooked. It's interesting how gender segregation is so deep-rooted, or is it?
This article is mostly about sex, but it touches on gender. The short version: Sex is way more complicated than male and female. Lots of people, probably most, are neither fully male nor fully female.
Thanks for that reference, Josephine. I was particularly attracted to its observation "that doctors are taking an increasingly circumspect attitude to genital surgery," particularly amongst young children, because I think that at the end of the day a 'solution' based on 'acceptance' that sex/gender (whatever) is non-binary is preferable to medical intervention designed to uphold a scientifically questionable categorisation. Of course, one is constrained in expressing any view too strongly as the boundary between objective science and subjective social values is difficult to establish with precision.
One is also aware that this discussion is taking place in English, where most nouns are not engendered. How are these issues conceptualised in cultures where that is not the case?
Fascinating stuff. It suggests that intersex children were dealt with, not according to medical and personal needs, but ideological concerns. But this insight can be broadened out to cover sex/gender as a whole, despite the urging of some that it's all binary (and biological).
I'm curious to see how the Trump administration is going to deal with this, as there were threats that sex/gender would be treated as a binary, and trans people would actually be erased. But they can't do this with intersex people, surely? It seems to be trans people they are gunning for, I guess the good Lord is mighty keen on binaries.
We did discuss the development of gender and/or sexual characteristics back on page 8, 9 and 10 in July links here and here
Yes, we did, but it's good to get more evidential backing for non-binary views of sex/gender, so that it's not seen as a pipedream by ideologically fixated feminists and fantasists, or as a lifestyle, or in fact, something chosen.
I've been reading around about the issue of trans kids in schools, and the reactions by schools vary enormously, from head teachers who won't countenance it, to affirmative places. Of course, it involves a lot of issues, including clothes, names, toilets, changing rooms, and so on.
Where a girls' school is (or you think it should be) "affirmative", does that mean accepting applications from children who are
- boys on the outside but say that they feel they're girls ?
- girls on the outside but say that they feel they're boys ?
Or does it just mean being supportive of existing pupils having mental health problems ?
I've been reading around about the issue of trans kids in schools, and the reactions by schools vary enormously, from head teachers who won't countenance it, to affirmative places. Of course, it involves a lot of issues, including clothes, names, toilets, changing rooms, and so on.
Where a girls' school is (or you think it should be) "affirmative", does that mean accepting applications from children who are
- boys on the outside but say that they feel they're girls ?
- girls on the outside but say that they feel they're boys ?
Or does it just mean being supportive of existing pupils having mental health problems ?
What interesting wording "say they think they are" is.
If it's a girl's school I would expect it to teach girls. Trans girls are girls. Trans boys are not.
I've been reading around about the issue of trans kids in schools, and the reactions by schools vary enormously, from head teachers who won't countenance it, to affirmative places. Of course, it involves a lot of issues, including clothes, names, toilets, changing rooms, and so on.
Where a girls' school is (or you think it should be) "affirmative", does that mean accepting applications from children who are
- boys on the outside but say that they feel they're girls ?
- girls on the outside but say that they feel they're boys ?
Or does it just mean being supportive of existing pupils having mental health problems ?
Your language is so derogatory, there's no point in dealing with it. Have you stopped beating your wife?
Interesting discussion on being a real woman, as he seems to question this, but his informant says, oh yes, she's a real woman, about someone who was a boy. It seems to be based on social roles, not genitals. For various reasons, in the West you are seen as genitals on legs, although generally these are not inspected in adult life, unless it's your lucky day.
Further notes on gender variance: Oman has had the category of xanith or khanith, although this may refer to gay men; Ethiopia had ashtime, formerly eunuchs, but seems to be used about men living as women; Indonesia has a number of terms, calabai, bissu and waria, denoting various kinds of gender variance; the well known fa'fafine of Samoa, often described as 3rd gender, and one that is new to me, femminielli, in Italy, who seem to hover between gay and trans. Any corrections or additions gratefully received.
Another point that I forgot, cultures that have shamans seem to have 3rd gender as well sometimes. I was thinking about Siberian shamans and yes, there seems to be 3rd gender people, in fact, some shamans are. How many Ph. D. theses are waiting to be written here!
According to a study done by the Williams Institute at the UCLA law school, using data from the CDC's Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, 0.7% of people between the ages of 13 and 24 identify as transgender. That's about 1 in 137.
For people who are over 65 years old, it's 0.5%, or about 1 in 187.
It's a far higher number than I would have expected. According to the study, transgender people are unusual, but hardly rare.
A commonly given stat for the UK is 300 to 500, 000. But I read an NHS boss, who estimated that 2 million people would visit gender clinics in the future, but not all of these would trans. I suppose they are factoring in recent increases. 2 million is 3%. Wait for the Daily Mail headlines.
Comments
I don't see gender simply as a set of stereotypes, in any case. I see it as a mosaic, with different elements co-existing. This is something that Jung talked about, with his idea of the anima and animus, basically contrasexuality. But gender is extremely complex, I doubt if anyone really understands it.
The article itself is a rehashing of the normal objections. The underlying issue though is it's still cisgendered people cisplaining (did I just make that up? Don't know) to transgender people what's going on in their own heads, and what's good for them. Do I trust what some writer of whom I've never heard on a right-wing site tells me, or what actual trans people tell me?
So hard. So very hard.
Now, there are no references to say where these "rules" come from, but is not true for schools - it may be advice from one of the charities suggesting what schools should do to support transgender children, but it doesn't fit either the Scottish or English guidelines, see here.
Not according to the Technical Guidance accompanying the Equality and Diversity Act in England and Wales, see above, which says that a transgender child is better using private or staff changing facilities rather than single sex provision.
What is happening in new build or renovations in schools and sporting spaces is that changing rooms and toilets are being built as unisex provision, with cubicles for decency and privacy. That's how the swimming pool in the Stratford Olympic Park works. It is partly being done to reduce vandalism and bullying and in the case of the swimming pools, allows children to change with whichever parent they are with. This is working to provide spaces that do not require gender provision.
I suspect that what will also happen is that uniforms will become more unisex too. And makeup will continue to be worn by whoever wants to risk it.
viz.:
I see opinion as a mosaic as well. If there's actual data, then we go with that. Until then, there's a mosaic of opinion, not "rightwing versus leftwing".
And apparently, Christian missionaries and boarding school teachers tended to suppress and punish any such manifestation, but then, maybe it cannot be fully suppressed. (Patriarchal society also had a hand here.)
This is often said: "Two spirit people". This isn't actually very accurate. It reminds me of the "50 Eskimo words for snow" nonsense, often said to make a point, but not factual. In this province (Sask), the main cultures, Cree, Dene (Chipewayan) and Saulteaux, are more different from each other as Tibetan is from English, it's not at all like varieties of Europeans, such as French and German, or varieties of religion with shared roots like Christians, Muslims. Far more different. There is no broad or general "Native American", or First Nations culture. The LLRIB (one of the 10 largest in Canada) in northern Saskatchewan, for example, isn't accepting at all of the sort of diversity you suggest.
Oh for fuck's sake, did you see me say that there is a danger of cultural overlay, and hijras may not map onto "trans". Guess not.
The link you provided had no information about whether the Lac La Ronge bands "accept or do not accept the sort of diversity you suggest." The beauty of the internet is that I could email their social services and find out for myself if they have a policy on transgender identity. I don't have to walk to Stanley Mission to find out, nor would I necessarily believe the first person I spoke with is representative of the entire community.
In the absence of such a policy, or even cultural observation, on their website; in the absence of a proper polling process and posted results on LLRIB's perceptions about trans identity; let me ask you: Do you think you have the right to represent what LLRIB thinks about this?
If you backpedal and say, "Well no, that's just what I observed" then would you agree that there is diversity of opinion within communities about trans issues, and the people you spoke with may not speak for or represent their whole community?
So it does not support your points, is this what you mean? If it does not "map" then why use it at all in the discussion?
Merely a link to locate them. This is about culture not policy.
There's a road now into Stanley Mission, which incidently has the oldest Anglican church in the province. You don't walk there in any case. Either road or by water. We canoe.
Well, actually, it's you telling us about their culture and policy. I've been told that a great deal of modern-day prejudice in many nations and communities against LGBT is a result of the imposition of Christianity and the horrific abuses committed by those Christians. Any aspects of traditional culture in conflict with Christian teaching were resolutely suppressed by both government and churches. But hey, that was just an Indigenous person from Saskatchewan, so what do I know? And what does it have to do with the price of eggs or non-Indigenous trans identities?
I'm really trying to figure out what the point of this discussion is, other than to try to get someone to agree that, "Yeah, ok, those trans kids aren't really trans - they're depressed/influenced/defiant/trendy/emo/tomboy/whatever" despite the fact that we know nothing about them. Kids may explore and question identity for a variety of reasons, and each kid deserves freedom and protection to do that as an individual, not have a bunch of adults project a "syndrome" on them.
We're having this discussion because how much freedom individuals have and how much they should be expected and encouraged to confirm to cultural norms is a political issue. And whether we want this set of cultural norms or that set is a political issue.
Projecting a "trans identity" onto a disparate collection of individuals who have issues around gender is just as much of a forcing-into-a-mould as any other.
If "sex" refers to biological maleness/femaleness and "gender" to sociological male/female roles and self-presentation, then the "pro-trans" argument seems to be that
- we don't understand sex
- but we'll use the possibility that it isn't quite as binary on the inside as it appears on the outside
- to argue for multiple genders.
And those on the far left of the radical-to-conservative spectrum want every last trace of binary-gender expunged from society straight away to reflect our "new knowledge" that this is oppressive to a minority, and those on the far right want to understand everything before changing anything.
This one seems likely to run and run...
Is not the logic of your position that a society that has boys' schools and girls' schools is oppressive to the people who self-identify as don't-know or I-reserve-the-right-to-change-my-mind ?
@Russ - It's a lot quicker to simply type "No".
I see you are ducking the question. There is a big girls' school near me, with about 10 trans pupils. I haven't spoken to them, but the headmistress seems very supportive and positive about it. I don't think trans people or non-conforming, abhor non-trans people. Of course, the irony is that some trans people seem to preserve binary gender.
What proportion of trans hold this position? And, what are we to conclude from that observation?
Interesting point. If a woman wears pants is she undermining "binary-gender" with her "self-presentation"? How about if a man wears a skirt? What if he's a (true) Scotsman? A lot of the assumptions of what constitutes the division of binary gender seem pretty obviously social constructions.
I don't know any stats. I have become more aware of trans nonbinary people, but for some trans people, binary seems to be preserved by reversing it.
Conclusions? Who can say, there are shifts going on, but it seems difficult to say how extensive it might become. Maybe gender has been deep frozen, and is thawing, but that's a guess.
One is also aware that this discussion is taking place in English, where most nouns are not engendered. How are these issues conceptualised in cultures where that is not the case?
Yes, we did, but it's good to get more evidential backing for non-binary views of sex/gender, so that it's not seen as a pipedream by ideologically fixated feminists and fantasists, or as a lifestyle, or in fact, something chosen.
Where a girls' school is (or you think it should be) "affirmative", does that mean accepting applications from children who are
- boys on the outside but say that they feel they're girls ?
- girls on the outside but say that they feel they're boys ?
Or does it just mean being supportive of existing pupils having mental health problems ?
What interesting wording "say they think they are" is.
If it's a girl's school I would expect it to teach girls. Trans girls are girls. Trans boys are not.
Surely this isn't that hard to understand?
Your language is so derogatory, there's no point in dealing with it. Have you stopped beating your wife?
Interesting discussion on being a real woman, as he seems to question this, but his informant says, oh yes, she's a real woman, about someone who was a boy. It seems to be based on social roles, not genitals. For various reasons, in the West you are seen as genitals on legs, although generally these are not inspected in adult life, unless it's your lucky day.
Very eloquent. Some of the comments are hair-raising, e.g., people with gender dysphoria must carry their cross. Thanks for that.
For people who are over 65 years old, it's 0.5%, or about 1 in 187.
It's a far higher number than I would have expected. According to the study, transgender people are unusual, but hardly rare.
(Read a summary here. Or read the entire report.