I also believe that perhaps your definition of dehumanization is a lot more radical than mine's
This will be a big post. get readyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy....
First I want to adress this. Dehumanization is not 0 or 1, but a spectrum
(like gender lol). When I'm telling you that you are dehumanizing someone, it's rather that you are between the first mark and the second. Not at the end of the spectrum.
It's not as bad as Israelian dehumanizing Palestinians, but we must be careful to avoid it anyway because it can still hurt people. When people here for exemple use a mental disorder to adress my rethoric, I feel dehumanized.
(and it was done even before I explained my situation, and it still happening sometimes)
I understand that you have good intention, that's why I'm not reacting with you as I'm reacting with Zenos for ex. I think I can actually talk with you without being automatically dismissed. Which is a big quality for me.
I do think you are correct in the sense that trans identity and gender dysphoria are conceptually different, and I even understand how that can be a product of one's environment.
What I don't understand is the need to remove sex when gender identity relies upon the assignment of sex to a degree. From what I understand femininity and masculinity both rely on sex despite being gender traits. Sex determines your reproductive capabilities, and it isn't something you can change while gender on the other hand, is a social construct and can be fluid.
In a perfect environment where transgenderism and gender identity are fully accepted, there would still be cases of those seeking to change their sex even without judgement. Being in such an environment doesn't detract from the condition fundamentally if the condition still exists despite of the environment.
There is a lot here to unpack. I'll go one step at a time, because I'm not sure to understand what you exactly meant.
> Are you talking about removing the sexual organ? If yes, this might be important:
Removal of the sexual organ:
Not all trans people feel the need to remove or replace their sexual organs. Non binary people (
who are technically trans) often do not feel this need. But even Trans people in the "pure" meaning of the word, do not always feel this need. It depends a lot on their relationship with their body and their environement. For some, a big change is needed to affirm who they are, for other, not so much.
> But maybe you are talking about trans people wanting to remove "
the notion of sex"? If that's what you means. Read this:
Let's come back to the basics:
Sex and gender are two slightly different thing, but still close:
- Gender is a complete social observation based on a social construction
- Sex on the other hand is a social construction based on a genetic observation
(as you can see here, I do not use the complete sex=/=gender anymore, I believe now that it's a little bit more complex than that)
Sexual characteristcs are the biological reality of who we are. It's a bunch of things (organs, breast, chromosoms, physical characteristics etc.) those are forming what we call "the sex" BUT to distinguish categories, someone had to make a choice first. And certain researcher are arguing that this choice and this binarity (male female) was influenced by
patriarchy to begin with as many things with science.
Patriarchy is a domination system that society slowly collectively constructed in ancient time (
long before capitalism) to dominate a part of the population and exploit it > Women and lesser men. This means that for women to exist, men had to be completely distinguished from women too. Overtime, this distinction took many faces but what is important to understand is that today, patriarchy and its brother
heteronormativity and
cisnormativity are influencing society to prevent it from questionning the binarity of gender that it imposed to begin with. These three system created a world where gender roles and gender attribute (
long hair, penis, breast, shape of the body, attitude, role in society, socialisation etc.) were assignated to people with a category man and woman and anyone who derives from that is pathologized.
In reality, intersex people, trans people, or any non binary people were invizibilized when are just as normal as we cis people are. There is absolutely nothing wrong with them, it's just a particularity of nature that happens less often. Those people are seens as "anomalies" when they are a result of the magic of the diversity of nature and its wonders.
Anyway.
People don't really want to remove the notion of sex. It will be kinda hard to completely rethink science without it. What they want on the other hand, is for us to rethink the assignation we give between the concept "men" and "women" and ALL the spectrum that gender can demonstrate.
For now, trans people, want to be recognized in their legitimate existence without being pathologized (
like you did). This means accepting that the reality of gender goes beyond what we know about gender or sex, that it is something complex, mostly personal and link to many social and self experiences.
And at the end ...
Masculinity or feminity would not rely on the sexual attribute anymore, but a spectrum of social constructs that would not be restricted to a simple binarity. And eventually, at the beginning of a completely patriarchy-free society, the notion of gender might even start to disappear all together as.... there is absolutely no reasonnable use for gender other than imposing on people social construct based on a biased and dominating observations of sexual characteristic.
Why would we need to call someone a woman or a man in a world where being a woman can mean so much. If we remove the dominations linked to the binarity of gender, gender will naturally disappear.
At least that's what my materialistic brain thinks. There might be biological lefthovers here and there, but basically, it will be much more complex and
much more interesting.
Did I answered your quesitonning ?
(I'm not sure to understand what you meant so I'm asking)
When I say that I believe in gender roles, I'm not saying that I'm in favor of upholding patriarchy. Infact, I think patriarchy by definition is pretty sexist. Personally, I grew up in a traditional family with a mother and a father where my father worked while my mother looked after the kids. My mother was free to work if she wanted to, this was never something that was enforced in my household. I simply believe that it's a valid way of forming and raising a family should someone want that for their own. Concerning things like military affairs, I believe women should be able to freely choose if they want to join or not, but I also believe that combat should be largely left to men simply because women are more essential for keeping humanity alive. I also believe that if a man lives in a traditional household, he should be the primary protector of his family by virtue of the genetic differences between men and women. Patriarchy can die in a fire. I see no problem with women being in leadership positions.
I see. Yeah. I partly missinterpreted your words about gender role. This makes much more sense.
Yes, I agree too. It's totally valid to seek a life where gender role are applied.
Now.. while your first paragraph is valid. I hope you understand that your second part
(what I put in italic) is complete patriarcal rethoric. You have a very contradicting vision here. On one hand you want the end of patriarchy and recognize that women should be able to do what they want and be leaders, on the other you apply the worst patriarcal rehotic about the genetic difference between men and women to defend the place of the man as a protector in a traditionnal household (
and so socially in a position of domination in the family). While it's ok for people to seek this life if they are conservatist, I don't care about em... you wanting and even defending that as a leftist is highly problematic.
Just like you can't say "
I respect Trans" and "
I believe transidentity is a mental disorder" because it's a contradiction, you can't say "patriarchy can die in fire" while saying defending a patriarcal vision of men and women gender role or even identities.
At least not if you are a leftist.
Do you understand why this is a contradiction here?
unless of course their gender dysphoria is about the disconnection with their physical appearance, which is why its important enough that i added it to your post.
Gender disphoria is something that has yet to be really completely understood. So there is still room for something to be understood on the biological level at the very beginning.
(or it could be a social construction that we don't understand yet). But that's only for the basis of the problem.
The real problem comes from the size that said gender disphoria can take. And this size is triggered by the environemental pressure and material condition of existence. The disconnection with the physical is a symptom of how society reflects the binarity of gender back at the person. As such, it's not a personal problem first, but a problem in link with how the world is "telling" to said person that their body is not conformed to the binarity of gender.
So when people change, it's not 100% just for themselves, but also because it's sooth the relationship between the environement and their feeling. As such... a trans person that is identifying as woman or man... is trapped between the pressure of the environement that pushes said person to conform to the binarity of gender and who they really are
AND their own internal pressure created by gender disphoria that is constantly nourrished by the relationship said person has for her environement.
This is why, being trans and transitionning comes often with depression, because there is no good solution, either the person does not change and the pressure will be too great internally, or the person change and the pressure will be bad externally. It's up to the person to make such choice.
But as a society, we should prevent this suffering by expending our knowledge and our actions regarding gender identities.
1) my knowledge about transidentity is fine
2) even if it wasnt that doesnt mean i cant voice my opinion =D
1. It's not.
2. Your rethoric can do actual harm. That's what I'm killing myself to make you understand.
Words have consequences.
there we have the problem with definitions again, logiko isnt too fond of those. thats the reason he has a negative view of me regarding transidentity, because i stick to using men and women as biological terms (adult human male and female respectively) whereas he uses them in the context of gender identity.
Definition in dictionnaries are not made to extend the knowledge, but to restrict it and vulgarize it. Using a definition to contradict what I'm saying when I'm explaining a subject that is nuanced...
Is like you telling me that the big bang is an explosion when in reality it's the expansion of the universe.
