I’ve recently realized I’ve held some conflicting
ideas/assumptions about gender/sex, arising from the fact that how I conceive
of my own gender is different from how I conceptualize gender in (attempted)
support of trans and non-binary people.
Maybe someone can help me figure out where I’m going wrong.
I’m not sure if it’s a logical inconsistency or a definition problem or lack of
information or something else.
------------------
Gender is not sex; it is not about anatomical features you’re
born with. Likewise, it’s not about the anatomical features a particular gender “should” have; losing
part of your body doesn’t change your gender, nor does having different anatomy from what your chromosomes are typically associated with.
Gender dysphoria is feeling like you’re in the wrong body
for your gender (Or is is just the anxiety and stress that can come with that feeling, but not the feeling itself?). Some compare it to your brain’s map of your body not matching
how your body physically is formed. But being transgender is about more than
just your brain not matching your physical features, isn't it? Being transgender (and
just “gender” in general) is not just about anatomy, correct? What is that
other part then? Because…
Gender is also not about personality and interests; it’s not
about aligning to stereotypical gendered behaviors and preferences.
If gender, as traditionally defined, is actually a social
construct that is learned and internalized through how we’re socialized, then
gender is not an inherent thing on an individual level; it is a set of traits
that society expects people to conform to, based on perceived anatomical
differences. But this would suggest that being transgender means rejecting
those categories entirely, and many (most?) transgender people are not
non-binary; they still feel male or female (or should I say “man or woman”?). (This
doesn’t deny the reality of gender dysphoria, but it does seem to confuse the
terminology of gender dysphoria). And
suggesting non-binary means entirely rejecting gender seems very incorrect too.
So, then in order to feel one gender or another, gender is
not (entirely) a social construct but has inherent aspects. These “inherent
aspects” may even be trends that traditional gender roles were built on and
restricted people to. But what are “inherent aspects” if not parts of the brain
(anatomy)/brain processes/hormones and how they inform personality/behavior/interests?
Things I thought don’t define gender?
So if it’s not about anatomy and it’s not about personality
and it’s not simply something society has invented and imposed, then what does it mean to be male or female? What
else is there to gender if it’s not
any of those things? What am I missing?
Perhaps "gender" as a concept is like "species" as a concept - no one definition fully explains it. But with species, there are no moral issues with using one definition over another if that best conveys what you're focusing on. But with gender, there are moral implications, and more than that, it seems like every definition is marginalizing or oppressive or erasing someone's identity in some way. Even rejecting the concept results in transphobia/sexism/erasure! So how do we talk about gender when every use of it, even non-use, is harmful? What am I not understanding?
Perhaps "gender" as a concept is like "species" as a concept - no one definition fully explains it. But with species, there are no moral issues with using one definition over another if that best conveys what you're focusing on. But with gender, there are moral implications, and more than that, it seems like every definition is marginalizing or oppressive or erasing someone's identity in some way. Even rejecting the concept results in transphobia/sexism/erasure! So how do we talk about gender when every use of it, even non-use, is harmful? What am I not understanding?
