#no actual basis for a gender binary biologically

[mister13eyond]

I think people in general would be less weird about gender and trans people if it were just made more clear how incredibly artificial the idea of a human sexual dichotomy really is

External genitalia is the same basic structures configured in slightly different ways, and it's less of a binary set of options than a spectrum between two poles as intersex people fully prove

Secondary sex characteristics are entirely dependent on hormones, which means they a.) already have a wide variety of natal presentations across genders (ex cis women capable of growing facial hair, cis men with breast tissue etc are all completely normal (if slightly uncommon) outcomes) and b.) Are extremely easy to change with HRT

Hormones can affect PHYSICAL reactions to emotions (higher testosterone making anger an easier physical reaction to stress than tears, and higher estrogen vice versa) but it doesn't actually affect the ways you think about or react to things, just what your body does with that emotion.

Social and behavioral differences are EXTREMELY affected by nurture more so than nature and there are no inherent neurological differences between men and women's brains.

Our bodies are so similar to one another that transition- while socially and financially potentially difficult- is MEDICALLY incredibly fucking easy. The fact that we can just alter our secondary sex characteristics with medications and our external genitalia with fairly simple surgeries should be a clue how incredibly close all human bodies are? We Have the possibility to change so easily because there are not inherent, hardwired unmovable differences. The only real difference at this point is the capability to carry and birth children, and with the way science is going that doesn't seem like an impossible breakthrough at this point.

Idk, I'm so tired of seeing discourse from other trans people that upholds that there are fundamental differences between men and women. Until we all start agreeing that these categories are artificially enforced and that they aren't really biologically inherent whatsoever we're never going to get anywhere

[nerdy-chocobo]

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1ee39wn30xo

This country is fucking ridiculous. an article like this gets posted every other day and it's always full of the most horrendous dogwhistles and blatant transphobia. Fuck this fucking country, fuck this government and fuck this jurisdiction system

[feminist-furby-freak]

Could you elaborate on how gender ideology is misogynistic?

Sure. So gender ideology (see previous ask for how I define it) is misogynistic because it denies the present and historical reality of the sex-based oppression of women, reinforces the gender binary through its obsession with gender and gender roles, and jeopardizes women’s safety by privileging AGP men. Here are some examples:

It erases gender non conformity as a normal expression of the self. We see this through the “transing” of gender non conforming children and adults, particularly feminine gay men and masculine lesbian women. TRAs love to scream that we (GCs and TERFs) are obsessed with gender roles and uncomfortable with gender non conformity when they are the ones that promote the idea that men who present feminine and women who present masculine actually need to transition. I know so many detrans butch women who were told as teens and young women that they needed testosterone and surgery to fix them. What is more regressive than telling GNC people they actually need to become the opposite gender?

It denies the reality of sex and sex-based oppression. There are two camps for gender ideologists: gender identity is more important to one’s lived experience than their biological sex and gender is real but biological sex is not. Both of these ideas are misogynistic and false. Women’s subjugation for millennia across the world is not due to their “gender identity.” To say that femaleness isn’t real or that it is something an individual chooses to be is to say that women opt/opted into their oppression, or worse, that sex-based oppression never existed at all. How does the taliban chose which children can go to school? Do you think they go up to every child and ask them their gender identity? Of course not. It is unbelievable how TRAs have brainwashed so many people into denying the existence oldest and most universal form of oppression. This falsehood is so prevalent in academic spaces it has created a revisionist history and permeated science and medical research. Periods, pregnancy, and women’s health issues are now considered TERFy and we have to do this linguistic dance with dehumanizing terminology to discuss our own bodies. Ideology is more important than reality and medical authorities are parroting lies (TIMs can safely breastfeed, puberty is reversible, testerone does not have dangerous side effects) with no scientific basis without repercussion.

It privileges trans identified men over women. Gender ideology is not more scientifically or psychologically sound than gender critical ideology. Gender ideology has been arbitrarily accepted as The Truth by the left. TRAs will say that it is the compassionate or moral opinion and thus correct but this privileges the interests of trans identifying men over the interests of women. After all, morality is subjective. Take sports for example, women want a fair chance to participate in athletics and trans identifying males want to be validated by playing in female sports. The two interests conflict but the left has decided that the wants of the male athletes are more important than the wants of the female athletes, and this is treated as the obvious morally correct stance. But is it so obvious? I don’t think so. Nobody can answer why trans identifying males (because let’s be real trans identifying females never get special privileges) are prioritized over everyone else.

Feel free to send another ask if you have more questions.

[allthecanadianpolitics]

The elephant in the living room that the Trans & Queer communities and their allies have been tiptoeing around is that their conception of gender is essentially a religious belief: that all people have a gender, which reflects their true self, independent of any observed reality (a soul in all but name). If you believe this, modern ideas about gender identities, transitioning, etc. follow logically. If you don't, gender discourse will seem like incoherent nonsense.

You're really sending this garbage to an extremely political Trans Scientist and expecting me not to actually bring receipts?

It is Terfs and Transphobes like you whose ideology has no basis in reality.

[malloryrowinski]

You're a transphobe!!! You should be embarrassed

Okay this is getting old now. I know you probably won’t read this reply as you’re clearly refusing to educate yourself on what I stand for, but I wanna have this on my blog regardless so here we go.

I’m a radical feminist, and I’m gender critical. Being gender critical means recognizing that gender is a social construct made to keep women, as a class, oppressed on the basis of their sex, and uphold the patriarchy. The sex you’re born with is a fixed set of characteristics and is immutable (this is a fact. Sex is binary, not fluid. before you try to pull the intersex card, @/not-your-intersex-pawn here on Tumblr has posts that will explain this to you in much greater detail than I can, like their response here).

Now, your sex doesn’t say anything about you! It doesn’t mean a single thing, it just recognizes which set of biological characteristics you were born with. It doesn’t indicate your personality, hobbies, likes and dislikes, whatever. You are a whole person and your sex is just your sex. Women are and have been historically oppressed on the basis of their sex. Not because they identified as anything connected to the female sphere, they were forced into this sphere of subordination and yada yada (gender roles!) on the basis of them being born female. 

Gender, on the other hand, is an identity. Even the gendies themselves have lost the plot a little in my opinion as everything regarding gender now is just so… vague? But basically gender is an identity. Some say it’s innate, some say it isn’t. Most agree that you can change your gender, or at least “reclaim” it, if you believe it’s innate and that you were "born in the wrong body". You can claim any gender, actually, and define it however you please. 

Calling me “cis” would be incorrect not because I’m not a woman, but because I’m not part of the gender craze, meaning that’s an ideology I don’t subscribe to altogether. I don’t believe in it. There’s no such thing as gender. I’m just a woman, neither cis nor trans. 

There’s also an additional note that I would like to make here: as long as we as a society recognize gender, we’re gonna have people either conforming to it or resisting it, or claiming a different gender identity. This is basically the same as “as long as catholicism exists, we’re gonna have catholics, atheists, and people either converting to catholicism or abandoning it”. This does not refer to the group of people who go through physical sex dysphoria. This group may choose to access what you would call “gender-affirming care”, which isn’t gender-affirming for them, because they do not have a problem with their gender to begin with, and most of the time don’t even recognize gender as important/real. Their voices have been unfortunately silenced by the “new wave” of TRAs over the past 5 to 10 or so years, and I do not wish to speak on their behalf, you can do your own research on this, or listen to amazing people such as @/buct-reidentified here on Tumblr. 

If you disagree with me and do believe that gender is an important part of oneself - I don’t have a problem with that! You’re entitled to your own opinions just like I am to my own. If you read all this and still think I’m transphobic, I’m afraid there’s nothing I can do to help you. 

The reason I don’t include trans women in my feminism isn’t because I don’t respect their identity. But their identity is irrelevant when it comes to a movement focusing on the liberation from sex based oppression. What matters is their sex, whether you like it or not, because women are oppressed on the basis of their sex. You can identify as a trans woman but I genuinely hope that you’ll see how being a trans woman is different than being born with a female body. These two will face radically different experiences and challenges, each unique to that group. 

I do believe that trans people, of any kind, do need their own protections, safe spaces, etc. because they clearly are discriminated against and no one should be able to attack or discriminate against anyone because they don’t agree with their identity/the way they present themselves/whatever. 

I do support the preservation of same-sex spaces for women, but this isn’t rooted in fear of trans women but in protecting women from predatory men who exploit gender theory to gain access to these spaces and harm women. I’m sure we can both agree that these cases have happened and I’m not fear-mongering. This is not because all trans women are predators. This has happened and continues to happen because when you give predators and abusers a chance to be predatory and abusive with little to no repercussion by hiding behind an ideology like the gender one, they are typically eager to take it. Women have a right to their same-sex spaces because of the sex-based oppression they’ve faced throughout centuries. Taking these away or reforming places that are specifically sex-exclusive into inclusive ones is not fair to women and results in a zero-sum game. 

So basically, if you identify as a trans man and want me to accommodate you by using he/him pronouns, I have no problem with that. The same goes for they/them or she/her. I’m happy to respect and use your preferred pronouns because I respect you as a person. However, this doesn’t change my understanding of your biological sex. I simply recognize that you identify as trans, which is part of who you are, and I respect that. You believe in gender and I don’t, that’s okay. If you take it to the “I should be able to access sex-exclusive spaces because I identify as trans”, I would politely explain to you why I disagree with that and what options I believe we should make available instead. 

There a ton of points I haven't touched but that are related to this topic, but this is the basics.

[womenaremypriority]

What is gender?

Instead of asking “what is a woman?” I propose we should ask more what gender is.  The transgender movement is, fundamentally about placing gender above sex, in language and law- although claiming sex is a spectrum or a complete construction is becoming more common.  ‘Woman’ and ‘man’ aren’t sex terms, they’re genders, sexual attraction is based on gender, not sex, and public planning should be based on gender.  So, what is it?  

The roots of the word gender came from Latin, and originally meant ‘category, group.’  It has etymological roots with the word genre, and this is partly why we have the term grammatical gender in many languages.  Gender became a synonym for biological sex hundreds of years ago, and is used partly as a more family friendly alternative.  As a separate entity, however, gender refers to the social roles of male and female.

Here are a few definitions and helpful information:

Let’s look at the specifics of the different interpretations of the word ‘gender’.

Gender roles: Self explanatory. What feminists are against. What transgender activists claim to be against, and what they claim is not the basis for transgender identity. This seems to be the most clear and understandable definition, to me, anyway.

Gender identity: An internal sense of gender. This has been claimed to exist, but how this could possibly present or feel has not been in anyway demonstrated. Studies have shown transgender people have the brains of the gender they identify as, but those studies are shoddy and flawed. Brain scans aren’t required to transition, these studies don’t account for nonbinary-identified people, and the brain sex argument has fallen out of favor- so, we’ll say that’s not what’s being discussed here. So, what is? What is this internal gender identity? Can we find it? How do we know everyone has it? And why should it be prioritized over birth sex? What’s being described is, frankly, unverifiable and flimsy. Not to mention quite useless. This doesn’t mean I think that people who claim to have this feeling are lying- they could have something that is interpreted as gender, but that doesn’t mean it’s experienced by the general population, and this feeling could be caused by any number of areas. If this feeling is, indeed, dysphoria at being referred to a certain way, and/or euphoria at being referred to a certain way, again, how can we know this is a symptom of some deep held identity, or a sign of something different? How can we verify this, and while I understand personally adapting language to accommodate someone in your life, why should this take priority over sex for the general population? Gender expression- How is this different than sex stereotypes, and gender roles? While I’m told that this doesn’t need to match general societal expectations, how does that actually work? If you’ve expressing your gender- whether that’s man, woman, or some form of nonbinary- even if you know anyone can dress how they want, even if you say ‘feminine’ or ‘masculine’ means something different to everyone, you are still making a connection between gender and how one looks- and according to the Miriam-Webster photo, acts. Not only is this, again, ridiculous to elevate this above sex in language and law, it’s unhealthy to hyper focus on how others see you, not to mention confusing and harmful message to constantly use the terms ‘gender identity’ and ‘gender expression’ together. I’ll be honest, even if transgender people claim the movement isn’t about stereotypes, I don’t believe that’s the case. At the very least, it’s not the message every one of them got. Conflating gender with sex, and the words ‘men’ and ‘women’ with personality, a feeling, clothes, vibes, interests, or an aesthetic, is a dangerous and ridiculous concept. Instead of what it’s claiming to do- breaking the gender binary- it’s putting men and women in a box, yourself. You are the one limiting what men and women can be. Even if everyone decided to identify as some form of nonbinary, this would not affect the reality of sexism and the perceived inferiority of 50% of the population- it would only paint a coat over it. It would make communication and activism impossible. By conflating experience of autism, or interest in space, or interest in a certain style of dress- with the terms man and woman, you are perpetuating stereotypes, not breaking them.

[silverity]

"science says that human beings are either female or male" science is a tool used and defined by humans (and the societies/cultures they live in) to interpret the world around them. claiming "x is objective fact because Science Says So" is an extremely lazy argument (& implies that there is just one singular belief to be drawn from whatever is being researched in the first place). what actual function does it serve to categorize humans into "male" and "female"? who benefits from the enforcement of "male" and "female" categories? what traits do we ascribe to these categories and why?

im not claiming science is completely objective. as you've said, cultural biases can affect the way things are interpreted and understood. women know this more than anyone with the way biological essentialism has been used to define us as physically inferior and solely in existence only to reproduce. i'm also Black, and well aware of scientific racism and the history of pseudoscience claiming we are racially inferior on account of our skulls. so you really don't have to tell me anything about this.

what isn't a product of the biases of human culture or human society, however, is that humans are either one of the two sexes or a rare variation of the two. science is empirical observation, and we have observed this to be true, not just in humans but in other mammalian species. it's not a product of human society if it exists and is observable in nature. our interpretation and understanding of the two sexes, however, is what can become distorted through biases or misinterpretation. a good example being how scientists determined sperm in fertilization "conquers" the egg, but modern studies suggest the egg is actually extremely selective, and entraps/pulls the sperm inside. right? nobody can disagree humans don't reproduce via eggs and sperm. it's the interpretation of the process of it that is affected by cultural bias— particularly the assumption that anything female is inherently passive, and anything male must be active/aggressive.

"what actual function does it serve to categorize humans into male and female?".

most radfems, and a lot of marxfems such as myself, support gender abolition. sex, in our view, is a neutral thing that exists in nature and need not say anything about how you should behave or of your role in society. it is only through the social imposition of gender (which radfems define as a system of hierarchy of males over females and everything that reinforces this, not an innate identity as trans people would say) and it's maintenance via the enforcement of "femininity" (infantilization, sexualisation, submission) for women and of "masculinity" (aggression, control, dominance) for men, that certain traits, roles, behaviours are assigned to men and women. natural sex and it's observation through science do not assign any traits to the sexes. since humans have evolved to become civilized social beings we are no longer ruled by our animal instincts or natural biology.

so in relation to your latter questions, i think we are probably in agreement? we both disagree with the current social order of the sexes, but we disagree about how to eradicate this. the pro-trans side argues in favour of gender identity and the irrelevance of sex. but this doesn't really do away with gender stereotypes, does it? it just allows a few to switch to the opposite side of the gender binary. and making sex irrelevant (though, interestingly, "gender affirming care" is completely about mimicking biological sex markers associated with your "gender identity", so that's rather contradictory) would serve only to invisibilize women's oppression, which unfortunately occurs on a sexual basis. if you disagree that women's oppression is rooted in how men have sought to control and police women's reproduction and sexuality, please read some radical or marxist feminist theory.

the radfem side argues that treating gender as an "identity" in the trans way naturalizes the traits ascribed to the sexes as innate qualities to the sexes. womanhood is femininity, such that any feminine man or man who prefers feminine forms of expression is really a woman. & manhood is masculinity, such that any masculine women or women who wear their hair short are really men. this idea of "gender identity" also tries to pretend women are only oppressed because we adhere to femininity, so it's our own fault for not simply "opting out" of femininity and womanhood as "trans men" do. and when "trans women" present as feminine, they are oppressed just as women are. neither are true, when masculine-presenting women still face female oppression (including "trans men") and femininity (worn by the "trans woman") is only demeaned because the female body it is assigned to is demeaned. "trans women" may experience oppression bc of their gender non-conformity as males but never female oppression nor anything of female experiences.

the radfem position is that you can dress however you want and express yourself however you want, but on the basis of your sex you are still either a man or a woman. man = male human, woman = female human, that's all these terms should mean. we should stop gendering the sexes, essentially. we think gender dysphoria (as in genuine distress over your natural sex and a disconnect with your physical body) is a condition resulting from the oppressive system of gender that restricts both women and men, and think people should receive treatment, not affirmation. there's no issue with gender non-conformity, and if anything radfems encourage gnc especially where femininity is concerned, only that it is harmful to insist your gender non-conformity as a man makes you a woman. men are not the default of the species and women are not non-men, we are not an identity for men to claim when they feel repressed by other men or the standards of masculinity.

intersex people are the only people who may be assigned the wrong sex at birth, and i realise this is probably a very complicated experience for them and so im not really interested in policing what intersex people consider themselves. but most intersex people can still be defined as either male or female in terms of their biology (and so male intersex people should not enter women's sports, for example). the language of "AFAB/AMAB" has been bastardized and taken from the intersex community and applied to people who are NOT in any way intersex. for the rest of us our sex is not wrongly assigned, it is correctly observed.

in an ideal world sex should not be important beyond healthcare, sports, and other instances where it is necessary to take into account the physical differences between men and women e.g. for the safety of passengers in vehicles, which is commonly tested using only larger male measurements. while we still live in a society where women are oppressed on the basis of sex, it is necessary to recognise sex in order to combat this exploitation and inequality, via safeguarding women and female children, providing safe single-sex spaces (something the UN describes as essential in ensuring women have a right to public life), opportunities for women to boost our representation and participation in society, policies aimed at assisting women in male-dominated careers and so on. this is essentially the same thing as recognising the reality of race and how non-white people face disadvantages and discrimination. just as it would not help Black people to invisibilize the social reality of race (note the SCOTUS has just struck down affirmative action on the basis of race) it would not help women to invisibilize sex, nor the sexual dynamics (the threat and reality of sexual assault, abuse, sexual exploitation) that exist between men and women.

[foxfairy06]

Look I was like you before. I thought that there were only two genders for a pretty long time. That gender euphoria wasn’t a thing, that you had to suffer to be trans, etc. But I spoke with my psychologist and she said to me that the SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS is that gender is more complex than male/female.

This was a hard pill to swallow but it’s real. I don’t hate you at all, after all that would mean that I hate myself from 1 month ago. I wasn’t transmed back then because I was a bad person, I just genuinely believed that I knew the truth and that everyone else didn’t.

And I’m not even super “radical” now. Stuff like alterhuman, otherkin etc. I still have some doubt towards.

If you’ve been in the transmed ideology for very long I can totally see how hard it is to even fathom that transmed doesn’t reflect how gender actually works. But I sincerely believe you can make that step.

Even if you don’t change your beliefs I still wish you a good day.

The entirety of your comment is inapplicable because you fail to realize that I'm nonbinary. I am non-binary and do **not** believe that there are only two genders.

1. Transmedicalist ideology does not mean that you believe that one must suffer to be trans or that euphoria doesn't exist. We as a community have a majority which agrees that any sort of incongruence is dysphoria, and that euphoria is just a positive expression of dysphoria.

2. There are a significant number of sources that suggest that transmedicalists are right about a lot of things. Such as Dysphoric trans women having very similar grey matter structures to cis women. The people who make avid claims about nonbinary not being real have likely not read the documents that hold a basis for our beliefs. In fact: the neurological gender perspective (which is THE transmed perspective), has several studies to boot that strongly suggest the sexual spectrum of brain sexual dimorphism. Even one study in particular marking the brain waves of people who call themselves "bigender" and experience different brain activity in specific halves of the brain when dysphoric or euphoric about specific parts of their bodies.

3. Transmedicalism isn't inherrently against nonbinary people there are many nonbinary centered transmedicalist groups. Most of us don't genuinely agree that there are only two genders. There are some bad actors and in general, we don't claim them as representatives of our core ideology. The only thing that transmedicalists believe, defining them as transmedicalists is "Dysphoria and transness are one in the same, and there is some kind of biological cause for gender dysphoria, which proves objectively that transness is not a choice, for no argument to make against that. This would be good for Nonbinary people such as myself who feel disadvantaged by the systems that tucutes support. Even then, the systems that they caused, regardless of whether they support them or not.

I believe you're confused about what transmedicalism actually is because you're talking to a transmedicalist who is nonbinary, seeking treatment for their dysphoria, believes that euphoria is an effect of gender dysphoria, and believes that gender is a spectrum far more complicated than simply "M/F". None of my ideas are antithetical to the core values of transmedicalism nor are they contradictory towards the main community. Transmedicalism at it's simplest terms is "trans men and cis women are different on a very fundamental biological level" and so versa for trans women and cis men. Therefore transness is not a choice, and cannot be taken on. One is simply born that way."

[daysincetheindefinatehiatus]

Gender Nonconformity in The Prince and The Dressmaker

 Because American society is so dependent on predictable relationships between people of different sexes, otherwise known as a person’s biology, American  society does not know how to interact with gender non-conforming (GNC) individuals. This underlying mystery has allowed some far-right activist groups to argue that GNC people at large are perverts, pedophiles and rapists, rather than people attempting to feel comfortable in their own bodies. The author and illustrator of The Prince and the Dressmaker, Jen Wang seeks to demystify the experiences of transgender, and gender nonconforming people in a way that goes beyond the gender binary. Wang uses a vibrant, cartoon-like and expressive art style, to convey a story analogous to the all too familiar Cinderella story American audiences seem to adore. This allows Want to create a book that is appealing to wide age ranges, and creates a familiar basis to explore otherwise daunting subjects. Wang is then able to use other character’s confusion as a stand-in for the readers, thus explaining concepts that are difficult in a way that does not come off as preachy to readers. Once a baseline of knowledge is established, Wang creates empathy for Prince Sebastian, and by extension other GNC people by centering the rest of the narrative on some common problems, and their effects on people without falling into the trap of focusing only on the misery of being GNC. 

Throughout the book, Wang employs the use of bright colors, and a simplistic art style to make the book seem more approachable to all audiences. Many of the most impactful scenes in

the book are those where there isn't any dialogue. Near the beginning of the book, Frances, the dressmaker, is tasked with making a new dress for a guest attending Prince Sebastian’s royal ball. Despite the fact that the guest herself does not talk at all in this scene, it is clear that she is only at the tailor's shop because her mother is making her go. Otherwise, she has absolutely no interest in going to the ball. Her arms are crossed, she refuses to look at the readers, and when she does, she has a deep scowl on her face. Likewise, before Frances even speaks, it is clear that she is unhappy at her job. Her hair is unkempt, her eyes have bags, and she is hunched over uncomfortably, focusing on her work. Later, when the girl uninterestedly opens the box with the dress in it, Wang conveys in only one panel that Frances had managed to make a dress the girl liked. Suddenly the girl is no longer scowling, her eyes are wider, and her eyebrows are raised curiously. In only a few pages, with very few words, Wang has already outlined some key facts about the main protagonist: Frances is overworked, but also good at what she does. This makes the dialogue that is had all the more impactful. It also increases the likelihood that a potential reader flips through the book and is able to understand large swaths of the story before they actually sit down to read it. 

When Prince Sebastian hires Frances to make dresses for him, he is afraid to reveal to her that he is biologically a male. When Frances does inevitably find out, she does not care all that much. Ultimately, her dream job is making clothes for the wealthy. Who that person is, and what they want her to make doesn’t really factor into the equation for her. This does not, however, mean that she understands the prince. Much like the reader, this is new territory for her, so Sebastain later goes on to explain, “Some days I look at myself in the mirror and think ‘that’s me Prince Sebastian! I wear boy clothes, and look like my father!’ Other days, it doesn't feel right at all. Those days I feel like I’m actually… a princess.”  (Wang 44.) While she doesn’t outright

state it in the book, in interviews Wang has said that she wrote Sebastian to be genderfluid. He isn’t a transgender woman, which is at least somewhat familiar to the audience, but rather, he switches between being masculine, and feminine on a day to day basis. Although this description is an overly simplistic definition of what it means to be genderfluid, it does serve as a good starting point for those who are just being introduced to genders that exist outside of, or in between the well understood male and female binary. This point then gets reinforced as Sebastain goes out of his way to present in more masculine ways sometimes, and in more feminine ways others. It’s not that Prince Sebastain is unhappy as a boy, he just does not want to continue to suppress the side of himself that is actually a girl. He is capable of being perfectly happy, and confident as a boy, the same way he is capable of being anxious as a girl. 

Unlike many other stories trying to promote the acceptance of GNC individuals, Wang does not fall into the trap of making Sebastain’s life miserable to make readers feel bad for him. Sebastian has anxiety related to his gender identity, as do his real world counterparts,  but his relationship to gender is more complicated than that.  In chapter 2 of the book, Sebastian’s feminine alter ego Lady Crystallia is born when she enters, and wins a beauty contest. This is the first scene in which readers get to see Sebastain exude confidence. Before this moment, Sebastian is always worried about being found out for who she is, even in the moments just before she walks on stage. By giving these comparisons Wang asserts that while Sebastian’s gender identity is a component of his anxiety, it is also one of his main sources of confidence. It’s not a part of him that he can suppress happily. Wang effectively asserts that there is happiness to be found in being a GNC. it is not that they are sad that GNC people deserve kindness, it’s that they are human, that makes them deserving of kindness. Because this nuance is made explicit within the story Sebastain accurately reflects his real world counterparts.

As Prince Sebastian, and Frances’ relationship morphs from a simple working relationship into a friendship, the problems Sebastain faces because of his gender nonconformity become more apparent. Sebastian faces pressure from his parents to find a wife, and take the throne. He can't seem to do this because he feels a deep shame associated with his gender identity. As Sebastian runs into more walls related to his gender, he acts in ways that are increasingly self-destructive. Research by the University of Manchester found that an increase in shame, often as the result of transphobia, has correlated to higher rates of alcoholism, drug abuse and even suicide, as well as other destructive behaviors. Likewise, as Sebastian becomes more desperate to hide Lady Crystalia, he ruins relationships that he cares deeply about. After a heated fight based on tension from Sebastian’s need to hide, Frances quits working as his dressmaker. At the same time. Sebastian’s parents become insistent that he marry, so much so that his father actually has a heart attack because of it. Once again Wang is able to highlight the loneliness that comes along with hiding a GNC identity

Consumed by loneliness, Sebastian agrees to marry Princess Juliana. Shortly thereafter, he sneaks out as Lady Crystaliam for what he believes is the final time. There, she drinks until she passes out  and is assaulted by Princess Juliana’s brother. Although this scene is kept vague to stay within a family friendly rating,  this is a scarily common occurrence for transgender individuals. According to the US Trasngender Survey, 1 in 5 transgender people will be sexually assaulted within their lifetime. After her assault, Crystallia is then outed to her parents, and the entire kingdom by Juliana’s brother. At first, the parents are shocked, and unaccepting of their son. They are afraid of the pain that he will have to go through because of his identity. It is not until his father meets Frances, who has returned to make sure Sebastian is OK, that he realizes that Sabastian has support in his life. Frances loves Sebastian, both as a prince, and as a Princess.

Sebastian’s father needed to see this unconditional love to accept his kid. While Sebastian had been on a drastically downward spiral before coming out to his parents, he begins to flourish once he experiences acceptance. He is more comfortable as a man, and as a woman overall, and is pursuing goals along with Francis that are exciting for the both of them. Once again Wang is closely mirroring research showing that transgender individuals are more likely to succeed in life when they are met with acceptance rather than being shunned by those who they love. 

Although I would have liked for Sebastain to have been given more agency in who he reveals Lady Crystalia too, I find this story to be an overall good introduction to the world of gender nonconformity for those who are unfamiliar with it. Before I realized fully that I was GNC, I spent a long time feeling disgusted by gender non conforming individuals despite the fact that I was otherwise entrenched in the queer community. My Grandma experienced the same phenomena. Here was a woman who protected  queer people from the police pre stonewall, stood up for those suffering from AIDS in the 80s, and who was able to accept her granddaughter as a lesbian without question, completely disgusted by that same granddaughter when she dressed as a man or used he/him pronouns. In both of our cases, this book was able to serve as a gentle guiding hand into the world of gender nonconformity, and I am confident in this graphic novel’s ability to do the same for others as well.

[feminist-pussycat]

Why does lupus affect more women than men?

“Lupus is a complex autoimmune disease that primarily affects people assigned female gender at birth, but it can occur in all people. Research suggests the higher prevalence in people assigned female gender at birth is due to the effect of estrogen on the immune system.All people with lupus experience similar lupus-related symptoms, but symptoms may be more severe in men.

“Lupus can affect all people, but it is significantly more common in people assigned female gender at birth. In places, we refer to “women” as compared to “men” in this post, because the research and data we quote use these binary terms.”

Problema Numero Uno: The term “assigned female gender at birth” is SO incorrect. You are not assigned anything, you are observed. You are not assigned a gender, you are assigned a sex.

Problema Numero Dos: Women have to be “assigned female gender at birth”  but men can be men.

Problema Numero Tres: I have a strong feeling this “estrogen” effect is nonsense. They just say this because they think any problem that is more prevalent in women must be due to their mysterious women hormones.

Problema Numero Cuatro: What a cute little disclaimer. Gotta stave off the perpetually offended at seeing the word “woman” instead of blah blah assigned babymaker at birth! It’s not our fault folx, it’s just that all the research is bigoted and uses outdated terms!!!

Oh god, it continues to be shitty.

“Many autoimmune diseases tend to affect people assigned female gender at birth more. Why? One theory suggests this is due to chromosomal differences between people of different sex.”

You JUST said you were going to say women! Cowards.

“Research has found that in lupus, the immune system may be abnormally activated by estrogen.“

What so-called research is this? It links to this study that finds that males have more severe lupus, and are more likely to get worse nephritis and progress to renal failure.

They actually say the quiet part out loud: “The increased rate of SLE in females implicates hormones as essential in disease manifestations”.

They think any problem that is more prevalent in women must be due to their mysterious women hormones. The study they linked to has its own full set of problems, so I won’t get into that here.

“Some research suggests there may be a link between oral contraceptives (“the pill”) and post-menopausal hormone replacement therapy and an increased risk of lupus. However, other research has not. Also, studies have not shown an increased risk of lupus flares from oral contraceptives or hormone replacement therapy... clearly, more research is needed to explain how hormones like estrogen affect a person’s risk for autoimmune disease.”

So it seems like you don’t actually know all that well that the lady hormones have anything to do with it.

“it is commonly believed that men cannot develop lupus. This may lead to them receiving their diagnosis much later and potentially when their disease is more severe. In fact, lupus has been linked to more severe organ damage in men and faster disease progression.“

I can’t actually find anything supporting the assumption that men think they can’t get lupus and so that’s why they get diagnosed later than women. Maybe they should think critically and wonder if the conclusion that “men get it worse than women” contradicts their “it comes from female hormones” assertion. You know what I can find though?

“However, the diagnosis of lupus can be delayed in women - that is, it takes less time for men to be diagnosed with lupus once they present with symptoms... late onset lupus affects a higher percentage of men.

Biological sex differences in immune function, especially those induced by sex hormones, are less likely explanations of sex differences. Recent studies suggest chromosomal basis and environmental exposure differences for the sex differences in the incidence of lupus.”

Anyway I hate the medical field’s treatment of women.

[qweerhet]

there's something deeply annoying to me about the "misogyny isn't just diet oppression" crowd (tbc: a statement i agree with, there is no such thing as "diet oppression" and anyone positing any particular form of oppression as "lesser" or "not important" is wrong and also annoying) supporting their arguments with statements about material effects of gender essentialism and the patriarchy and attributing them to misogyny.

like... idk it's just bad argumentation to be like. misogyny is a real form of oppression. to prove it, let's talk about how abortion is policed. that's not misogyny, that's something that affects men and every single other gender equally to women, it stems from patriarchal ideas that are very difficult to pick apart but basically boil down to:

capitalist white supremacist patriarchy relies on control over white reproduction to maintain itself

it also uses reproduction to punitively harm poor people, particularly people of color, for existing

conservative dogma views sex outside of reproduction as something to be punished, and pregnancy/children as objectified methods of punishment

the key factor in oppressive policing of abortion and access thereof isn't gender, it's biology. it affects people who are capable of becoming pregnant completely regardless of their gender, and its implementations in the real, material world are not affected by gender. men who need abortions have absolutely no institutional access to abortions or privilege within the reproductive realm by virtue of their gender, and "not being a woman" has absolutely no effect on a class of people's abortion access so long as they are capable of becoming pregnant.

if i get into the weeds of this discussion with people who are really defensive over abortion access being an issue of misogyny, they usually tend to default to "rule of majority": if the majority of people who need abortions are women, then it's misogyny, regardless of if other people get lumped into that category or not.

that's, to me, missing the point: misogyny is a word about societal attitudes and dogmas about women, which oppress and disadvantage women. the patriarchy is the phrase for the oppressive structures that harm classes of people on the basis of biological essentialism and rigid gender roles, which feeds misogyny, transphobia, misandry (speaking particularly to "misandry" as a form of white supremacy, ableism, and transphobia targeted towards men in a targeted gendered way, not whatever the fuck MRAs mean when they say it), exorsexism, and all other forms of gendered oppression.

like... it's not feminist to erase an entire marginalized group from the issue that affects them in a targeted way because there's more of another marginalized group that it also targets! it is not feminist to insist on calling gendered issues that do not specifically target women on the basis of their gender "misogyny." people other than women who have uteruses are not outliers, they are normal, common, and intended targets of restricting abortion access. when you decide that trans and intersex people are acceptable collateral damage in prioritizing cisnormative views of bodies, you have already lost your attempts at feminism. relying on this fallacy to prove to people that misogyny is real is only going to lose you trans, intersex, and otherwise gender-non-normative people who should be a part of your movement and listening to what you have to say, because you are contradicting their lived experiences and saying that's okay because they're a minority.

(especially when there are actual misogynistic standards and ideas currently prevalent that you could be using to prove your point, which absolutely affect women regardless of birth assignment and conformity to the sex binary!)

[quizzically]

i'm so over gender like actually. I am not third wave of being over gender i'm like 88th wave gender neutralhead for my own self. My physical presentation is a little more complicated and while obviously tying into my identity is a whole nother can of worms. and on a basis of pure, like, in my head secretgender what i actually feel inside, i literally could not care about it less and thinking about my gender identity brings me no joy or gratification at all, infact it feels like a roadblock in my head that i hate when people make me reckon with. it's not like i'm repressing something or have a problem cause it's not like i'm trying or wanting to figure it out anymore. i've figured out my gender a thousand times for myself but now it's come to the stage that i have to project it externally

I Just Dont Care

there's nothing that will make you hate the gender binary more than being maverique-adjacent and just wanting zero part of it, not just not wanting to choose but not having to have to choose in the first place. like leslie feinberg said "ill never be a boy or girl as long as thats a question that has to be asked". nothing will make you hate it more than just not wanting to be GENDERED. EVER. STOP HAVING IT BE RELEVANT, KILL IT. i dont want gender markers on profiles or licenses I dont even like being called trans most days it's just like a clinical thing that i pull up in discussions it's like my blood type.

i like being a butch on a pure like my-role-position-in-society level it's like having a job. i like being butch to women and men. i like people thinking im a boy because i was born a girl and its like, i want to just be defiant in any way i can, i like defying expectations. and also i love "boy clothes", more comfy and practical and less revealing on the whole than presenting in "girl clothes", i know thats old headed talk but just to get a message across. I like being chivalrous and acting masculine and proud and standing up for myself but even then not all the time, im kinda a pansy. i know that will never unmake me a butch but you know what i mean. that's literally as far as it goes.

i'm just a person. i'm a human. that is so cliche. but like. humans are incredibly smart animals while we are animals our emotional intelligence is like through the roof 300 times over. We could afford, to not do this. bleh.

gender is so totally important to so many people though. this is not like a global righteous statement for the state of the world its just my ideal. Idk maybe in an ideal world where we never invented the gender binary it wouldn't be such a priority to lots of people to be understood as one thing or another...at all. maybe gender dysphoria is a lot more of a biological thing idk im totally not qualified. U ever see a trans person get their driver license or id changed. crazy stuff it warms your heart it's so nice. bt again a lot of the reason they might want to be one thing or another is because of this...ridiculous, colossal, thousand million year empire or stereotypes, and standards, and ideas and rules that we've made up, for these two little boxes. that we either want to stay in or leave.

[hillnerd]

Why do you think J K Rowling is transphobic? What did she actually done to be called like that? Do you call her this on the basis of your evidence or just because other people also does it?

This is a much more thorough breakdown of it than I am willing to go into here: https://www.glamour.com/story/a-complete-breakdown-of-the-jk-rowling-transgender-comments-controversy https://one-colorado.org/new/how-the-nyt-and-jk-rowling-influence-anti-trans-policies/

Conflating gender and sex is inaccurate and transphobic. (source)

Claiming that trans women put cis women at risk of harm is inaccurate and transphobic. Trans women, specifically trans women of color experience gender-based violence at much higher rates than cis women. (source)

Assuming that all people have body parts that fall into a biological binary is inaccurate and transphobic. (source)

Her essay had some of the biggest issues: "[Jkr does] not want to make natal girls and women less safe. When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside. That is the simple truth."

That whole 'men in women's bathroom' fear is a huge problem. She stated herself as not FULLY terfy- she was sort of ok with 'certain trans people' (quotes from me)- but she is a radical feminist who prefers to make sure natal women are safe first and is part of the fearmongering against trans people that keeps so many from being able to safely use a bathroom or changing room without horrid scrutiny coming their way.

Since then, though, she has done money-raising for many actively anti trans individuals.

So while she's not the most virulent anti-trans person around by a long-shot, and some of her stances are understandable (the concern that many gender non-conforming young women think trans is the only option for them without much other things being explored (non binary, butch lesbian etc) because sometimes that is a bit true for some) .

BUT the way she has gone about it, supports openly anti-trans people, and keeps doubling down has fed the anti-trans fire. She did this right when trans people are in massive danger thanks to the influx of bills and anti-trans legislation, anti-trans talk and anti-trans attacks.

So, she isn't like a total republican who wants the destruction of trans people- as far as terfy dialogues go she's rather mild and more in the microaggression side of things most of the time. She's living in that sort of boomer/gen x version of willfully ignorant about trans issues, but choses to speak on it with authority and spreads misinformation-- and refuses to listen to anyone. She reminds me of my gran who thinks she isn't racist- then will go into very racist sterotypes.

No one is perfect, but she has nothing but time and money at her disposal to listen to the experts on it, and has chosen to double-down on her most ignorant of talking points and spread them- when she has more resources and a more wide reaching platform than most- and it's actively hurting trans people.

Hopefully she'll change her stance, support some trans charities, and stop spreading misinformation about the 'dangers of men pretending to be trans' and her other more harmful perspectives, and stops supporting women who are promoting anti-trans agendas left and right.

Until then, I can't give her money, knowing that money could go to sources and causes I can't support.

[ehlessandraspsyche]

Blog Post 2: sex, gender, and trauma-dumping

Sex and Gender Stereotypes

The lessons this past week focused on the concept of sex and gender, as well as the concepts of brain and personality. It was important to distinguish sex and gender as these two topics are often confused with one another. Sex is the genetic and biological characteristics of a person, while gender is the socially constructed behaviors and roles that are associated with a person. Sex has an influence on gender as this is the basis of gender constructs. The fundamental physical difference between men and women is directly correlated to how gender constructs are created. For example, men are physiologically stronger than women. This ties into the social stereotype that men should do physical labor while women should do less physically demanding work. Gender stereotypes can be harmful to both sexes. Men are expected to be stoic which in turn causes men to repress their emotions. This lack of emotional stability makes men more volatile and less likely to seek help. This can be seen in the statistics concerning suicide as men are more likely to successfully commit suicide than women. For women, the gender stereotype of them being more emotional works against them. Their perceived emotionality prevents them from getting jobs that require a level head. 

Gender Identity and Presentation and my sexual orientation (??)

Coming from the “woke” generation, I try to use the correct terminology as much as possible. We learned in this lesson the difference between assigned sex at birth, gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation. My first encounter with these terms was when I was scrolling through Tumblr searching for my favorite characters. I encountered a headcanon about their sexuality and I recall being confused by gender identity and sexual orientation. I thought the terms were interchangeable and I’ll admit I often forget the differences between the terms. Reading about a topic is very different from actually discussing it, so now I can recall the difference between the terms. Gender identity is the perception of being male, female, or neither. As a person, I am cisgender and I identify with my assigned sex at birth. One of my closest high school friends identifies as non-binary and they use she/they pronouns. My gender presentation is very feminine. I enjoy wearing skirts and dresses and whenever I wear other outfits my only requirement is that 1) it looks good on me and 2) it’s not masculine. Sometimes, I would wear androgynous clothing whenever I feel less girly on that day. My sexual orientation is… still up for discussion. I don’t really want to place a label on myself because I still haven’t come to terms with it yet. But if I were to place a label, I would be bisexual with a preference for men.

I'm psychologically androgynous (again, ???)

An interesting term that was brought up during the discussion was psychological androgyny- which is where a person displays both male and female gender role characteristics. It resonated with me as I feel that it is how I would describe my personality. As the eldest child and the only daughter, there were certain expectations for me that shaped my personality. As the eldest daughter, I was expected to care for my younger brothers. I was gentle, nurturing and emotional. I was basically an on-call therapist who was ready to hear whatever problem my brothers were having and solve it. As the eldest child, I was expected to be disciplined and set a good example for my baby brothers. I was stoic in the sense that I never showed my weaknesses to them. How could I, when every action that I do influences their decisions for their lives? Since I decided to study in Manila, my brothers also decided to study in Manila as well. I couldn’t openly show signs of distress in fear that they might fall apart once they see their ate crying. I had to be strong. Which is why I identified with the term psychologically androgynous as what my outer gender expression is not reflective of my psychological gender expression. 

Word Count: 665 words

References:

Britannica, T. Editors of Encyclopaedia (2023, March 22). androgyny. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/androgyny

Britannica, T. Editors of Encyclopaedia (2023, March 23). gender identity. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/gender-identity

Date Written: March 25, 2023

[amagicalmoonlight]

This will absolutely most likely be worded messy and flawed, but I wanted to mention something that surprised me.

It’s wild to me how some people think that calling something a “social construct” means it has absolutely no basis in anything physical.

You tell them gender is a social construct and they may understand and accept that, if you accept sex and gender are different, gender is just the assigned roles and expectations of behavior of people usually based on their sex, it’s not physical.

but tell them sex is a social construct too and they’ll have an infinitely harder time accepting that, because “sex is real, it’s physical and biological”

What we know as biological sex is a number of different characteristics of sexual dimorphism that all got individually categorized into a binary by people, it is not a singular thing but a group of things designated to belong to something singular and thus there’s a meriad of ways that binary is incredibly imperfect. For example all the different ways a person can be considered intersex.

It’s actually the same, or pretty similar in this train of logic, to how race is a social construct too, we all know that different physical attributes are usually found in specific people of specific geography and ancestry, but the way we label and categorize them is the social construct. Think of how despite the diversity of attributes, Asian folk are considered one race, but folk of Latin America with similar levels of diversity don’t get labeled as a single race.

Money isn’t a social construct because it isn’t real in a physical sense, we all know physical dollars bills and coins exist, it’s a social construct because we as a society categorized the value of different objects and how to trade them.

It’s the categorizing and labeling of attributes by people and society at large that makes something a social construct, not it’s level of physicality or lack there of.

[emeticheremetic]

radfems are so contradictory, to be honest. they say things like "your personality is not determined by your sex" and "your genitals/chromosomes/gametes says anything about the kind of person you are! shocking!" and meanwhile theyre talking out of the other side of their mouths about how shit like female and male socialization, which, okay, you can make the argument that gendered socialization is not technically internally caused by the genitalia you have, but based on the way gendered socialization is described as this inescapable set of ideas that most people are so brainwashed into that they can't help but be the thing they were made into, and that is so contingent on their genitals at birth (or how they were made to look through medical violence) and starts as soon as their born, essentially permanently making a person be the gender they were assigned based on their genitalia to the point where people, even when acting entirely as another gender, are so obviously marked with this behavior that they cannot be trusted within the same space as people who were born as that gender. its essentially the same fucking thing dressed up in slightly different language with technical caveats to disguise what it is. so no, i dont think you actually believe that genitals, gametes, chromosomes or what have you have no effect on the person you will be, as is evidenced quite obviously by your beliefs. its biology-as-destiny part two: the same shit as before but with an extra step.

if you actually did believe that genitals have no bearing on the person you are, then you would have no issue understanding that someone born with a penis could be a woman, too. woman is not a biological reality. neither is being "female." its instead a set of a physical characteristics typically associated together, physical characteristics which some trans women possess, along with about a thousand pounds of sociocultural baggage. everything that makes gender oppressive starts with sex, because sex is the basis for everything that comes after is. it is extremely naïve to argue that sex is a neutral scientific fact.

clinging to this binary will inevitably lead to arguments that support sexism. women are weaker, women need to be protected because they are especially physically vulnerable in a way that men aren't, women's brains dont work the same way that men's do, women's pain tolerance is lower than men's is, women cant play chess or eat hot peppers as good as men can-- these are all arguments which invoke paternalism and invite abuse. much of the violence that happens to women, either through the control that is exerted over them or the physical violence that they are targeted with, is based on this idea that women are uniquely physically vulnerable to men. it is not especially harder for a man to kill another man-- the homicide statistics certainly bear that out-- but some men target and prey on women instead, and that is because of the perception that women are inherently more vulnerable and easy to control than men are. inherently. as in, because of their sex. if we didn't have the concept of sex, or at least did not understand it is being a definite predicator of our physical and mental attributes to the point that society would fall apart if some people who were born with different physical attributes than you were to consider themself to be the gender that you also are, this would not be nearly so well accepted as a "fact"

the point is, even if you shift the idea to socially imposed mental attributes, the argument is exactly the same and the results are exactly the same. we are not different enough to justify this division. sex is a concept that should be abolished, because without sex we could all come to live in a world without gender being imposed on us, but instead offered to us at such a time as we should choose to identify with it. only then would our personalities truly not be dependent on our genitals. gender could theoretically be done in a way that is not oppressive and hierarchical and is even completely optional, but sex cannot, because sex IS the root of oppression (even in trans women, because they are oppressed on the basis of their physical sex being labeled as male while being a woman) and so abolishing sex as a concept is far more of a necessity to end oppression than is abolishing gender itself (although of course, gender is not without its flaws, but the oppressive aspects would certainly be less exacerbated if it weren't a system imposed upon everyone instead of something you could be if you wanted to.)