I'm still trying to wrap my head around this whole gender concept. On the one hand, I agree with the idea that no one knows what it is like to be anything other than him- or herself. I am an adult male human, but I do not know what it is like "to be a man" in the general or categorical sense; I only know what it is like to be me. So it i…
I'm still trying to wrap my head around this whole gender concept. On the one hand, I agree with the idea that no one knows what it is like to be anything other than him- or herself. I am an adult male human, but I do not know what it is like "to be a man" in the general or categorical sense; I only know what it is like to be me. So it is meaningless for me to say that I feel like a man, or that I feel like a woman. (Thomas Nagel addressed this idea more broadly in his paper "What It Is Like to Be a Bat".)
On the other hand, I am not persuaded that there is nothing more to the idea of gender than stereotypes. I cannot help but wonder whether there is something deeper going on, perhaps along the lines of an archetype, and whether this is something more deeply seated in the psyche. However, whatever gender is, I don't believe it can negate the objective reality that there are only two sexes. No one is born in the wrong body; they are born in their own body (albeit a body that might have something wrong with it). I have no problem believing that some people very strongly feel that they are or should be the opposite sex from their biology; but what one feels does not change the biological facts. Rather, I believe that the gender dysphoria is a simplified self-interpretation of feelings which are associated in some manner with ideas of gender.
I am not dismissing the feelings, which I don't doubt are very real. And perhaps in some cases it is easier to change one's body to smooth over this kind of dissonance than it is to rework one's mindset and mental models. If an adult makes that choice, who am I to say they are wrong to do so? But the thing about feelings in general is that they need to be taken seriously, not necessarily literally.
"On the other hand, I am not persuaded that there is nothing more to the idea of gender than stereotypes"
My sense of this just comes from the hundreds of conversations I've had where people were unable to define the concept of gender in any terms other than stereotypes. Not to mention the countless articles I've read on the topic that, if they went beyond dresses and makeup, went directly to the most bizarre, misogynistic, sexual cliches.
But yes, the wider point is that it doesn't matter if it's just stereotypes or some as yet unseen internal archetype. I believe that gender dysphoria is a real condition in the same way that I believe Body Integrity Identity Disorder is a real condition. I don't need to understand it for it to be real. But I do think there should be a serious and rigorous system of evaluation before people start chopping of body parts. And I do think, in the case of gender dysphoria, that there should be an equally serious and rigorous effort to weed out people who aren't genuine before allowing them into *any* female spaces. And I think that there should remain certain female spaces that they *never* get access to because they aren't female. No matter what their feelings might be.
As I've pointed out before, there used to be a serious and rigorous process of evaluation to be legally recognised as a trans women. And while it was in place, vanishingly few people had any issue with trans inclusion. It's only when people abandoned any attempt at objectivity that it quite rightly became an issue.
Everything you said above should reference "gender identity disorder," not "gender dysphoria."
The latter has no diagnostic criteria and accepts even the most frivolous self-reports as sufficient to commence hormonal treatment that very day, even when the patient is severely mentally ill, as many are.
Most people I talk to, even medically educated people, believe that treatment doesn't begin until after a rigorous diagnosis and a year living as the opposite sex. Neither has been required since 2013.
I'm still trying to wrap my head around this whole gender concept. On the one hand, I agree with the idea that no one knows what it is like to be anything other than him- or herself. I am an adult male human, but I do not know what it is like "to be a man" in the general or categorical sense; I only know what it is like to be me. So it is meaningless for me to say that I feel like a man, or that I feel like a woman. (Thomas Nagel addressed this idea more broadly in his paper "What It Is Like to Be a Bat".)
On the other hand, I am not persuaded that there is nothing more to the idea of gender than stereotypes. I cannot help but wonder whether there is something deeper going on, perhaps along the lines of an archetype, and whether this is something more deeply seated in the psyche. However, whatever gender is, I don't believe it can negate the objective reality that there are only two sexes. No one is born in the wrong body; they are born in their own body (albeit a body that might have something wrong with it). I have no problem believing that some people very strongly feel that they are or should be the opposite sex from their biology; but what one feels does not change the biological facts. Rather, I believe that the gender dysphoria is a simplified self-interpretation of feelings which are associated in some manner with ideas of gender.
I am not dismissing the feelings, which I don't doubt are very real. And perhaps in some cases it is easier to change one's body to smooth over this kind of dissonance than it is to rework one's mindset and mental models. If an adult makes that choice, who am I to say they are wrong to do so? But the thing about feelings in general is that they need to be taken seriously, not necessarily literally.
"On the other hand, I am not persuaded that there is nothing more to the idea of gender than stereotypes"
My sense of this just comes from the hundreds of conversations I've had where people were unable to define the concept of gender in any terms other than stereotypes. Not to mention the countless articles I've read on the topic that, if they went beyond dresses and makeup, went directly to the most bizarre, misogynistic, sexual cliches.
But yes, the wider point is that it doesn't matter if it's just stereotypes or some as yet unseen internal archetype. I believe that gender dysphoria is a real condition in the same way that I believe Body Integrity Identity Disorder is a real condition. I don't need to understand it for it to be real. But I do think there should be a serious and rigorous system of evaluation before people start chopping of body parts. And I do think, in the case of gender dysphoria, that there should be an equally serious and rigorous effort to weed out people who aren't genuine before allowing them into *any* female spaces. And I think that there should remain certain female spaces that they *never* get access to because they aren't female. No matter what their feelings might be.
As I've pointed out before, there used to be a serious and rigorous process of evaluation to be legally recognised as a trans women. And while it was in place, vanishingly few people had any issue with trans inclusion. It's only when people abandoned any attempt at objectivity that it quite rightly became an issue.
Everything you said above should reference "gender identity disorder," not "gender dysphoria."
The latter has no diagnostic criteria and accepts even the most frivolous self-reports as sufficient to commence hormonal treatment that very day, even when the patient is severely mentally ill, as many are.
Most people I talk to, even medically educated people, believe that treatment doesn't begin until after a rigorous diagnosis and a year living as the opposite sex. Neither has been required since 2013.