7 ms·

One thing I find quite odd is how the study of gender emerged out of an approach that demanded a critical understanding of assumptions and the things society in

One thing I find quite odd is how the study of gender emerged out of an approach that demanded a critical understanding of assumptions and the things society insist upon (that there are only 2 genders, that gender is essentially related to biological sex rather than something that is manifest in social behaviour, ect.) and yet that view has twisted into a sort of all or nothing view that is extremely antagonistic to critical inquiry. The tendency for a number of trans activists and talking points to revert back to a kind of gender essentialism; the logical inconsistencies in the idea that one identifies a private gender identity, rather than a personal desire to transition or live as another gender; the insistence that a trans person has special insight into the concept of gender --- raise up any of these points and you bear the risk of being labelled a "transphobe" even though you are entirely committed to the protection of a trans persons rights and dignity. A small, extremely vocal minority insists that anyone that voices the slightest hesitation in accommodating trans people into gender/sex segregated social functions must be a transphobe or be complicit in the violence against trans people. It makes the entire conversation exhausting.

tetranomiga 5y ago
I dunno if I'd agree that it's a small vocal minority, zero-tolerance to anybody questioning the current dogma is seen everywhere where trans acceptance is a focus. Ten years ago I was told, by trans people, that there are physical differences between trans and cis brains. Say that today, and you get kicked out of LGBT spaces for being a transmedicalist or truscum. I have no idea whether it's true or not because you can't even find research on the subject because of how absurdly politicized the topic is.
- zozbot234 5y ago
  "Truscum" being the word for someone who thinks that changing one's gender and sexual characteristics might not be the greatest idea ever unless you actually have, like, gender dysphoria. Never mind the many, many people who are now pursuing "detransition" after going one step too far. I mean, what could possibly go wrong?
  - anoncake 5y ago
    "many, many people" -- do you have numbers as to how many people detransition, not due to being pressured but because they aren't trans after all, and only after making irreversible changes?
    - yownie 5y ago
      Seems like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detransition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detransition might be a point to start. YMMV with how much weight a controversial topic like that on WP should carry.
    - busterarm 5y ago
      The idea that you can even detransition is fairly recent. Before then you just had to live with it...and the suicide rate historically has actually been 20 times higher post-op. You might want to look up what Danielle Bunten Berry, rest in peace, had to say on the matter. The important quote is on her wikipedia page.
  - dang 5y ago
    Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar. We're trying for a different sort of internet here, to the extent possible. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - a_conservative 5y ago
      Its interesting that you didn't actually tell the poster what they did wrong.
      - zozbot234 5y ago
        I'm also genuinely puzzled by dang's remark. I had tried to limit the unpleasantness in my comment as far as possible, while providing clarifying info and staying accurate to (i) what the trans activism movement itself seems to be stating internally, as well as (ii) the easily foreseeable consequences of these attitudes, if stated only obliquely for the sake of general politeness. If even that counts as "furthering a flamewar", this has some remarkably unpleasant implications about the overall debate re: gender issues.
- JohnBooty 5y ago
  I do not know anything about the subject of the linked article, nor her views. Did not venture past the pay/registration wall. I have no opinion about her. zero-tolerance to anybody questioning the current dogma is seen everywhere Generally, of course dogma should be questioned. However, academic freedom does not mean that universities must provide a platform to literally anybody that wants one. Their resources are finite and choices need to be made. Surely, we can agree that some discussions by their very nature are harmful or at least deeply insulting. Imagine discussions such as "should women be allowed to vote?" or "are $ETHNICITY people worthwhile of being treated like other human beings?" or "was Hitler right?" or some other such topic. I would certainly not say such speech should be banned, but it is equally clear to me that no institution should be obligated to provide a platform for such ideas. It's worth noting that "teach the controversy" is the disingenuous rallying cry of creationists seeking to wedge anti-evolution religious dogma into US public school systems. Those people know that merely giving creationism a figurative seat at the table serves to legitimize it to some extent. They also hope to wear down their opposition (in this case, already-overworked educators) by consuming massive amounts of their time and energy. Well, such religious teachings should be denied a seat at the table, at least in publicly-funded secular schools.
  - a1369209993 5y ago
    > Their resources are finite and choices need to be made. By your own description[0][1], choices had already been made, and resources had already been committed. 0: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27609417 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27609417 1: > Jo Phoenix, a professor of criminology at Britain's Open University, was due to give a talk at Essex University
    - JohnBooty 5y ago
      Yes. Decisions are made all the time. Sometimes they are reconsidered and sometimes even reversed. That is not inherently a bad thing, particularly when new information comes to light subsequent to the initial decision. What are you getting at? I can guess, but these things work better if we don't make assumptions or guesses about what others are saying.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
randcraw 5y ago
Given that reproduction in mammals is inescapably binary, and a really big fraction of social interaction in humans is shaped by courtship, both overt and covert, it's hardly surprising that our historical perspective on gender roles has been predominantly binary too. I think another reason "things are different now" is that more of us think abstractly today than in years past. Many of the perspectives and possibilities we entertain today would have been alien to more of us 50 or 100 years ago, when the world was more conventional, more black and white. Finally, with the multitudes of voices that no longer remain hidden behind mainstream media outlets, we're more aware of nontraditional, complex, and nuanced POVs today. That helps us realize that many psychological variations exist "between the lines", not as pathology but as a matter of natural variation.

tetranomiga 5y ago

I dunno if I'd agree that it's a small vocal minority, zero-tolerance to anybody questioning the current dogma is seen everywhere where trans acceptance is a focus. Ten years ago I was told, by trans people, that there are physical differences between trans and cis brains. Say that today, and you get kicked out of LGBT spaces for being a transmedicalist or truscum. I have no idea whether it's true or not because you can't even find research on the subject because of how absurdly politicized the topic is.

zozbot234 5y ago
"Truscum" being the word for someone who thinks that changing one's gender and sexual characteristics might not be the greatest idea ever unless you actually have, like, gender dysphoria. Never mind the many, many people who are now pursuing "detransition" after going one step too far. I mean, what could possibly go wrong?
- anoncake 5y ago
  "many, many people" -- do you have numbers as to how many people detransition, not due to being pressured but because they aren't trans after all, and only after making irreversible changes?
  - yownie 5y ago
    Seems like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detransition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detransition might be a point to start. YMMV with how much weight a controversial topic like that on WP should carry.
  - busterarm 5y ago
    The idea that you can even detransition is fairly recent. Before then you just had to live with it...and the suicide rate historically has actually been 20 times higher post-op. You might want to look up what Danielle Bunten Berry, rest in peace, had to say on the matter. The important quote is on her wikipedia page.
- dang 5y ago
  Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar. We're trying for a different sort of internet here, to the extent possible. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - a_conservative 5y ago
    Its interesting that you didn't actually tell the poster what they did wrong.
    - zozbot234 5y ago
      I'm also genuinely puzzled by dang's remark. I had tried to limit the unpleasantness in my comment as far as possible, while providing clarifying info and staying accurate to (i) what the trans activism movement itself seems to be stating internally, as well as (ii) the easily foreseeable consequences of these attitudes, if stated only obliquely for the sake of general politeness. If even that counts as "furthering a flamewar", this has some remarkably unpleasant implications about the overall debate re: gender issues.
JohnBooty 5y ago
I do not know anything about the subject of the linked article, nor her views. Did not venture past the pay/registration wall. I have no opinion about her. zero-tolerance to anybody questioning the current dogma is seen everywhere Generally, of course dogma should be questioned. However, academic freedom does not mean that universities must provide a platform to literally anybody that wants one. Their resources are finite and choices need to be made. Surely, we can agree that some discussions by their very nature are harmful or at least deeply insulting. Imagine discussions such as "should women be allowed to vote?" or "are $ETHNICITY people worthwhile of being treated like other human beings?" or "was Hitler right?" or some other such topic. I would certainly not say such speech should be banned, but it is equally clear to me that no institution should be obligated to provide a platform for such ideas. It's worth noting that "teach the controversy" is the disingenuous rallying cry of creationists seeking to wedge anti-evolution religious dogma into US public school systems. Those people know that merely giving creationism a figurative seat at the table serves to legitimize it to some extent. They also hope to wear down their opposition (in this case, already-overworked educators) by consuming massive amounts of their time and energy. Well, such religious teachings should be denied a seat at the table, at least in publicly-funded secular schools.
- a1369209993 5y ago
  > Their resources are finite and choices need to be made. By your own description[0][1], choices had already been made, and resources had already been committed. 0: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27609417 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27609417 1: > Jo Phoenix, a professor of criminology at Britain's Open University, was due to give a talk at Essex University
  - JohnBooty 5y ago
    Yes. Decisions are made all the time. Sometimes they are reconsidered and sometimes even reversed. That is not inherently a bad thing, particularly when new information comes to light subsequent to the initial decision. What are you getting at? I can guess, but these things work better if we don't make assumptions or guesses about what others are saying.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

randcraw 5y ago

Given that reproduction in mammals is inescapably binary, and a really big fraction of social interaction in humans is shaped by courtship, both overt and covert, it's hardly surprising that our historical perspective on gender roles has been predominantly binary too. I think another reason "things are different now" is that more of us think abstractly today than in years past. Many of the perspectives and possibilities we entertain today would have been alien to more of us 50 or 100 years ago, when the world was more conventional, more black and white. Finally, with the multitudes of voices that no longer remain hidden behind mainstream media outlets, we're more aware of nontraditional, complex, and nuanced POVs today. That helps us realize that many psychological variations exist "between the lines", not as pathology but as a matter of natural variation.