LGBTAI+ #59: Will You Take This Woman To Be Your Galpal?

[Murk]

Agreed.

Which is why the notion of someone being born transgender is so confusing to me.

I'd also like to add that the original feminism being referenced (and which started the gender/sex differentiation) is - at its bare essentials - incompatible with the concept of being transgender.
The hardcore feminists of the end of the previous century believed that the only differences between men and women at birth were physical ("sex"), and that everything else ("gender") was put on to people from the outside.
Basically meaning that gender was purely an external concept.
The notion of a "gender identity" would be very strange to them - because identity implies that it comes from you. Saying "I identify as [male]" would only confuse them, because to them gender was about how others treated you.

Being born with a gender identity would baffle them even more, because the whole point of their definition of gender was that it was not something you were born with (but something that others forced you in to). Being born with a gender would go against the definition of gender they used.

Of course this is the theory of it, and I'm sure even then this might have been the least-nuanced version of it.
And things have changed in the past fifty years. And that's fine.

[BisectedBrioche]

Gender as a term describing people was popularized by second wave feminists in the 1970s. It was adopted to disitinguish between biological differences between males (called sex), and differences in behavior, roles, etc. (called gender). These feminists then argued that "Gender is a social construct" - that is to say, the behaviors, expectations, and so forth of men and women (gender) are based on society, not any deep biological differences.

Agreed.

Which is why the notion of someone being born transgender is so confusing to me.

I'd also like to add that the original feminism being referenced (and which started the gender/sex differentiation) is - at its bare essentials - incompatible with the concept of being transgender.
The hardcore feminists of the end of the previous century believed that the only differences between men and women at birth were physical ("sex"), and that everything else ("gender") was put on to people from the outside.
Basically meaning that gender was purely an external concept.
The notion of a "gender identity" would be very strange to them - because identity implies that it comes from you. Saying "I identify as [male]" would only confuse them, because to them gender was about how others treated you.

Being born with a gender identity would baffle them even more, because the whole point of their definition of gender was that it was not something you were born with (but something that others forced you in to). Being born with a gender would go against the definition of gender they used.

Of course this is the theory of it, and I'm sure even then this might have been the least-nuanced version of it.
And things have changed in the past fifty years. And that's fine.

It would be more accurate to say a subset of said feminists (second wave, or radical feminists*) excluded trans people; known as the Gender Critical movement, or as of the 2010's "TERFs" (Trans Exclusive Radical Feminists**).

The term gender was actually coined in the 50's to mean "the non-tangible sex traits". This basically boiled down to things like "personality" and "whatever human consciousness is", and would be what we now specifically call someone's "Gender Identity" and (to a lesser degree) their sexuality. The radfem movement broadened it to include sociopolitical factors like roles in society.

It should be noted that a lot of anti-trans movements actually began based not on different interpretations complex theories of what gender is, and how womanhood should be defined, but on a conspiracy theory which: a) Defined trans people purely by medical transition and b) lumped medical transitions in with scary new technology like atomic power and cloning. This lead to an idea (as outlined in the key trans exclusive text "Transsexual Empire") that trans woman would somehow be used to replace cis women (don't ask how this even works; it hinges on the idea that cis men are more interested in trans women than cis women).

* So called because unlike the Liberal Feminist movement of the suffragettes (retroactively defined as first wave feminism), they believed that society had to be massively altered to address sexism. As opposed to a simple "give women the same rights as men" solution.

** Trans inclusive radfems still exist today, but it's a much less popular school of feminism than it once was, so a large majority of feminists who do have stuck with it out of disdain for third wave/intersectional feminism, and so are often transphobes. Although the majority of old school radfems are trans as inclusive as the whole movement.

[Rydiro]

EDIT: QUOTE

Money doesn't have any intrinsic value...

Thanks for the clarification.
I disagree with most of what you said. So I doubt your definition of social constructs is a useful one for me.
Anyway, I don't want to interrupt the thread with definitions any further.

[Talakeal]

This is starting to make sense. I have always been someone of a radical feminist in spite of, or perhaps because of, being born a man, and I am starting to see that feminist theory and “transgender theory” are fundamentally incompatible in some ways.

I am starting to understand why there are so many vocal TERFS out there, even if I wholeheartedly disagree with their bigotry and discriminatory stances.

I have wanted to be a woman basically my entire adult life, and have thought about transitioning, but I have been told by several people that even if I transitioned, I wouldn’t be transgender because I don’t feel that I already am a woman, and because I didn't feel that way as a child, which really throws me for a loop.

[BisectedBrioche]

This is starting to make sense. I have always been someone of a radical feminist in spite of, or perhaps because of, being born a man, and I am starting to see that feminist theory and “transgender theory” are fundamentally incompatible in some ways.

I am starting to understand why there are so many vocal TERFS out there, even if I wholeheartedly disagree with their bigotry and discriminatory stances.

I have wanted to be a woman basically my entire adult life, and have thought about transitioning, but I have been told by several people that even if I transitioned, I wouldn’t be transgender because I don’t feel that I already am a woman, and because I didn't feel that way as a child, which really throws me for a loop.

Could you explain why? The majority of feminists are trans inclusive, and accept trans women as women (or, y'know are trans men, women and enbies themselves).

The "I always knew" narrative is an old one, and not really that accurate. Largely perpetuated by doctors whose samples excluded any trans people who didn't meet their criteria (meaning trans people either went along with it, or couldn't medically transition.

Much like sexuality, it can take a lifetime to work out your gender identity. Or you could be like me, and only realise a bunch of things made sense in retrospect.

Also, cis men don't typically think about being women. I'll just clarify that for you.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

I have been told by several people that even if I transitioned, I wouldn’t be transgender because...I didn't feel that way as a child, which really throws me for a loop.

The "I always knew" narrative is an old one, and not really that accurate.[...]

Much like sexuality, it can take a lifetime to work out your gender identity. Or you could be like me, and only realise a bunch of things made sense in retrospect.

Yep. In the gay community there's a whole spectrum of guys from "I knew when I was 4 that I wanted to marry my best guy friend and I never had to 'come out' because it was obvious to everyone" to "I didn't have the slightest idea I might be gay until my mid-40s and coming out to my wife and kids was painful," because when one figures out one's sexuality is highly dependent on a lot of different circumstances from amount of information one has on LGBT issues to one's degree of self-loathing and self-repression and more.

While gay men who didn't realize their sexuality until later in life do tend to get a lot of flak from the rest of the community, it's never (or at least rarely is) exclusionary "You're not a real gay because you weren't singing along to Lady Gaga in kindergarten!" rhetoric, but more along the lines of a teasing "Oh c'mon, how did you not figure it out? The signs were all there!" Anyone who tries to tell someone else their own sexuality (or gender identity) is ignored, and rightly so, because the best authority on whom you're attracted to and what gender best describes you is you.

So don't listen to the gatekeepers. Feeling like you are or wanting to be a woman for years is way up there on the "How do I know I'm trans?" checklist, and if that's how you feel you should pursue that and ignore the people who are trying to force a certain label on you or deprive you of a certain label.

[Talakeal]

Could you explain why? The majority of feminists are trans inclusive, and accept trans women as women (or, y'know are trans men, women and enbies themselves).

The "I always knew" narrative is an old one, and not really that accurate. Largely perpetuated by doctors whose samples excluded any trans people who didn't meet their criteria (meaning trans people either went along with it, or couldn't medically transition.

Much like sexuality, it can take a lifetime to work out your gender identity. Or you could be like me, and only realise a bunch of things made sense in retrospect.

Also, cis men don't typically think about being women. I'll just clarify that for you.

Of course most feminists are accepting of trans people. But there are some, very vocal ones, who aren’t, and I think it may be in part because they are coming from different assumptions about what gender actually means.


I don’t think of myself as cis, but I am not sure what I do think of myself as.

[Rydiro]

I don’t think of myself as cis, but I am not sure what I do think of myself as.

Do you feel like you need to have some descriptor for yourself?

[Tvtyrant]

Of course most feminists are accepting of trans people. But there are some, very vocal ones, who aren’t, and I think it may be in part because they are coming from different assumptions about what gender actually means.


I don’t think of myself as cis, but I am not sure what I do think of myself as.

A large part of that is that for many second wave feminists and anti-trans feminists women's gender is seen as a subordinate one, essentially a cultural prison. Third wave feminism and trans people threaten the idea that it is innately worse to be a woman, because otherwise why would men want to be women?

So then it becomes an assumption that it is as a way to invade women's safespaces, because men are oppressors.

Sources: Ex was trans exclusionary and we had a lot of fights about it, leading me to research it a bit. I'm no expert.

[Anymage]

Of course most feminists are accepting of trans people. But there are some, very vocal ones, who aren’t, and I think it may be in part because they are coming from different assumptions about what gender actually means.

If you look at predictions and other testable statements, feminists have a horrible track record of getting things right. So if you have a hard time squaring an observed reality with feminist statements, it should be clear which one should be jettisoned.

I don’t think of myself as cis, but I am not sure what I do think of myself as.

There are a frankly dizzying number of words for different points in genderspace out there, with more being created on a regular basis. If you really want to put in the time looking through gender based discussion areas, you might find ones that better fit you. "Nonbinary" is the current popular one for people who don't feel like either gender is a proper fit for them.

The main point for you, though, is that you do not have to commit to anything just yet. You want to explore your presentation more? I fully support you in doing so, and I'd be surprised if anyone here disagreed. You might ultimately find that you're happier seeing yourself as/being seen as a woman, in which case you are a trans woman. You might ultimately be content as a man who embraces many feminine modes of thought and expression. You may wind up feeling like creating your own a-la-carte form of gender. A therapist might help you make sense out of your thoughts when you're deeper into the thick of things. But for right now, there's absolutely no downside to experimenting and seeing what bits do or do not work for you.

[Chen]

So when someone identifies as male as or female what exactly does that mean? Ostensibly we’re not talking about physical sex, but gender identity. But if gender identity isn’t the same as the societal concept of gender as defined by the feminists mentioned upthread, what is it then? How do you describe maleness (or femaleness) if it is not linked to sex or societal perceptions of gender (and gender roles)?

[BisectedBrioche]

So when someone identifies as male as or female what exactly does that mean? Ostensibly we’re not talking about physical sex, but gender identity. But if gender identity isn’t the same as the societal concept of gender as defined by the feminists mentioned upthread, what is it then? How do you describe maleness (or femaleness) if it is not linked to sex or societal perceptions of gender (and gender roles)?

That's a subject you could write a thesis on and earn a PhD for.

The simplest way to describe it would be that it's like sexuality. Even if you don't know why or how, you do know, and even if science can't explain the how or why (because we don't know anywhere near enough about how the mind works), it can observe this is a consistent experience that everyone has. Cogito ergo sum.

[Chen]

That's a subject you could write a thesis on and earn a PhD for.

The simplest way to describe it would be that it's like sexuality. Even if you don't know why or how, you do know, and even if science can't explain the how or why (because we don't know anywhere near enough about how the mind works), it can observe this is a consistent experience that everyone has. Cogito ergo sum.

I guess it’s more how do you define male and female gender. Male and female sex are defined, biologically. As a cisgender person I identify my gender as male but basically only by default since my sex is male. If I disregard societal gender roles or gender perceptions I have nothing to tell me my gender is male except for the default assumption that my gender matches my sex. I suppose taken from my own perspective I could be agender in that I have no perception of a gender at all.

[Lycunadari]

For me, gender is mostly a feeling, that does correlate with how I want other people to perceive me, but does not correlate with gender roles, and frequently contradicts them. Like, I'm genderfluid, and I know when I'm a guy, or bigender, or agender, or definitely-not-male-or-female-but-I-don't-have-a-word-for-this-gender, just like I know when I'm happy or tired or hungry. I also happen to frequently be a guy or nonbinary person who prefers to wear skirts (and sometimes a woman who doesn't particularly care for skirts!) and I'd like people to see me as male/nonbinary even when I wear a dress. That's actually my main source of dysphoria- that my internal sense of gender and how I like to express it doesn't match how society interprets my presentation. So I frequently have to decide what is more important for me at any given time- that I can wear the clothes that feel right, or wear the clothes that make it less likely for people to misgender me. Sadly there is no way to present as clearly nonbinary- the best I can hope for is confusing people- so often I just give up on trying to get people to gender me correctly. I just try to be as out as possible so at least the people who know me don't misgender me. (And I wear the queerest clothes I can find (I love rainbow socks ) so even if people don't read me as nonbinary specifically, at least no one thinks I'm cishet )

That's to say- even for me, gender doesn't always make sense. But that's okay, I don't need to understand it to know it's real and important to many people. So I just believe people to know themselves best, and accept and support them as best as I can.


Edit: Just a note- sex is also a spectrum, just like gender, and it's not as clearly defined as many think. There's hormones, chromosomes, anatomy and all of them have more than just two clear cut male/female options (there's like 10 different chromosomal variations alone!), and people can have different combinations of all of them- intersex people exist, and aren't as uncommon as many think.

Edit2: I realise most people probably don't have an internal sense of gender as strong as mine. As far as I see it, there are roughly 4 groups of people:

Cis people:
1) People who do have a (strong) internal sense of gender that does align with their assigned gender: cis people who actively identify as their AGAB
2) People who don't have a (strong) internal sense of gender and are fine with their assigned gender and/or just don't particularly care: the cis-by-default people. Probably most cis people?

Trans people:
3) People who do have a (strong) internal sense of gender that does not align with their assigned gender: (most?) trans people, including nonbinary people
4) People who don't have a (strong) internal sense of gender, and place importance on that: agender people (or some other nonbinary identities, like noitrois, gendervoid etc)

There are of course also plenty of people who don't fit neatly in these 4 groups, like trans people who don't have a strong internal sense of gender, but a lot of gender dysphoria (like trans guys, who don't feel particularly manly, but feel strongly non-female), nonbinary people who don't see themselves as trans for whatever reason/ people who are neither cis nor trans etc. But I think it works as a rough framework to understand why in discussions like this there are frequently misunderstandings between people from group 2 and people from groups 1 and 3 (and to some extent also 4).

[Anymage]

I guess it’s more how do you define male and female gender. Male and female sex are defined, biologically. As a cisgender person I identify my gender as male but basically only by default since my sex is male. If I disregard societal gender roles or gender perceptions I have nothing to tell me my gender is male except for the default assumption that my gender matches my sex. I suppose taken from my own perspective I could be agender in that I have no perception of a gender at all.

You might very well feel agender. You might also just be so comfortable with your birth sex (that's okay, the vast majority of people are) that you just don't notice it. There's really no way for any of us to tell, and if you're really curious your best move is to try exploring genderspace and seeing what works. Like I said to Tal a bit back, it isn't like trying locks you into anything.

The only observable element is that you have a small but significant number of people across time and cultures, and often facing opposing social pressures, who still feel that their birth sex is wrong to the point that they want to be seen otherwise. We don't really have a solid model for anything deeper than that.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

I guess it’s more how do you define male and female gender. Male and female sex are defined, biologically. As a cisgender person I identify my gender as male but basically only by default since my sex is male. If I disregard societal gender roles or gender perceptions I have nothing to tell me my gender is male except for the default assumption that my gender matches my sex. I suppose taken from my own perspective I could be agender in that I have no perception of a gender at all.

Definitions and perceptions of gender are tricky, because one's internal perception of one's own gender can be influenced by how society around one talks about it and approaches it and so forth.

For instance, in South America there's a big "macho" or "machismo" culture. Men there are expected to be Manly Men and brag about their accomplishments and defend their honor and love soccer (or fútbol, rather) and so forth. A man in that culture who is naturally tall and outgoing and a soccer fan and so on will probably identify more strongly as a "man" there because there's a distinct and obvious "Man" role that he fits into, while a man in that culture who is short and soft-spoken and more artsy than sporty and so on will probably be more likely to experience a crisis of masculinity because he doesn't feel "manly" and gets a lot of grief from his friends and family for not being manly enough and so on.

Now, let's say those men both move to a more gender-egalitarian culture like the Scandinavian countries, where there's not nearly as much pressure for men to be "manly" and women to be "womanly" and crossing gender lines isn't particularly praised or punished. The tall guy who's into sports might feel less manly than in South America because he doesn't have an obvious manliness meter against which to measure himself anymore and the other guys don't much care about his soccer trophies, while the short guy who's into the arts might feel more manly because he doesn't feel like his masculinity is under attack anymore. Further, someone born and raised in those countries might not end up thinking about their manliness at all because it's not a huge issue and thus have no strong feelings either way.

Also, there are conflicting views regarding the rigidity of gender roles. In general, in the West female gender roles are more relaxed than male gender roles (girls can wear T-shirts and jeans without comment while boys get mocked for wearing skirts, mothers out in public with their kids are viewed as normal parents while fathers out in public with their kids are often viewed as merely "babysitting" them, and so on), so some men who don't exactly fit the masculine stereotype can feel like they don't fit into the male gender role and view that poor fit as a problem with their own masculinity, while other men who don't fit the stereotype can feel like there are or should be more ways to be "manly" and view that poor fit as a problem with an overly-restrictive male gender role itself.

So where one draws the line between male and nonbinary identity can vary from person to person, as can the degree to which one actively thinks about where they fall on that spectrum, as Lycunadari and Anymage have noted, and it's totally fine to just go with male or female by default if that's what you feel fits best.

[Anymage]

Question for people.

We know that Rich stepped in it a few times with trans tropes, and rightly doesn't trust himself to place transness anywhere near a punchline or major plot point. On the other hand, not wanting to include trans characters because you're worried about doing them wrong does mean a lack of representation if enough people go the better safe than sorry route.

Assuming that nobody is going to quit or overturn their entire writing staff or anything like that, I'm wondering what people here think would be the best way to thread that needle of having representation while minimizing the risk of it going badly.

[DeTess]

Assuming that nobody is going to quit or overturn their entire writing staff or anything like that, I'm wondering what people here think would be the best way to thread that needle of having representation while minimizing the risk of it going badly.

The same way you represent any other group of people: by talking to them. Its really not rocket science.

First you need to figure out what a group is really like, which you can only do by talking to its members. Then afterwards you bring your interpretation back to them for review and feedback. Then you refine and correct until you've got something that both you and the group you're representing are happy with.

[Lissou]

I'd say when you represent any group of people you're not a part of, the best way to go is to do your research, speak to people from that group and ask about it, even have one as a beta reader if possible so they can point out things that don't work.
Then expect to make some mistakes anyways, because it happens. If you do, apologise, learn from the mistake and do better next time.

I understand why Rich doesn't want to include trans characters, because he's done it so wrong before he doesn't trust himself. I hope that doesn't apply to whatever he creates after OOTS though. I think even allies make mistakes and he's made it clear he's an ally.
However, I'm not trans myself so my opinion on this matter isn't particularly relevant.

As someone who writes, I have wondered before "should I really include this (group) charater? I may make a lot of mistakes and upset people. Should I let others deal with representation, people who know what they're doing?"
But I've looked into it, and while bad representation can definitely do some damage, historically it has paved the way towards good representation too, and I think if you work hard to learn and do your characters justice, and treat them as fully-fledged characters and not just the group they happen to be a part of, you should err towards the side of more inclusion. I think getting it a bit wrong is better than erasure.

Obviously my own conclusions, and different people will reach different conclusion. I will say though that if you won't bother learning anything about who or what you're writing, it's probably best not to write it, but if you do your research and get it wrong, then do better next time.

[BisectedBrioche]

IMO it's best to look at the case of indie developer Swery65.

He made a game called Deadly Premonition, which featured a trans character whose portrayal was well intentioned, but touched upon a lot of problematic tropes.

Several years later, he made a game called The Missing: J.J Macfield and the Island of Memories. This also featured a sympathetic trans character (a lot of more prominently, in fact), but much better written. Good enough, in fact, that he gave a GDC talk on it.

Finally, as a cautionary tale, he then created Deadly Premonition 2. This features another trans character (not the same as the original), who was intended as a sympathetic villain. Unfortunately he once again fell into multiple problematic tropes (and doubled down when he was criticised).

The difference was that for Macfield, he worked and consulted with trans people, whereas for the two DP games, he was ignoring any input in favour of what he already knew. In the case of DP2, this was better, but nowhere near enough.

[Rydiro]

Finally, as a cautionary tale, he then created Deadly Premonition 2. This features another trans character (not the same as the original), who was intended as a sympathetic villain.

What do you think about playing minority characters as villains straight, ie not overly sympathetic?

[LaZodiac]

What do you think about playing minority characters as villains straight, ie not overly sympathetic?

Them being the villain is not the issue at hand. It's the details of the trans person; ie getting dead named a lot, among other things. No one is angry about LGBTA characters being villains unless the villainy they employ is the "kuhuhu, I'm an evil gay boy who is going to do a sex crime at you" or is some other stereotypical bigoted nonsense.

[137ben]

What do you think about playing minority characters as villains straight, ie not overly sympathetic?

My favorite example of a villainous queer character I have read is in Sister Claire. The main antagonist, Mother Abraham, is poly and bi or pan. In the prequels, we get some indication that Abby wasn't always so horrible, but by the time of the main comic she is irredeemably evil with little or no sympathetic qualities.

Part of the reason it works so well in Sister Claire, and doesn't work as well in other fiction, is the number and diversity of non-villainous queer characters. In the Claireverse, straight people do not exist at all. Everyone is what we'd call queer. So when the villain is also queer, it isn't a big deal.

By contrast, in "big-publisher" fiction, the current situation is that the vast majority of stories from major publishers have no queer representation at all, and then once in a blue moon we'll get a story with one queer character. If that one character is a villain, it can come across as the authors saying all queer people are villains. Sister Claire avoids giving the impression that all queer people are one thing by having lots of distinct queer characters.

Also, if the only queer character in a story is the villain, there is a risk that the author could imply the character is villainous because they are queer.

[BladeofObliviom]

Yeah, kind of hits the nail on the head here. Deep down, you probably already understand the rules: Don't fall into gross stereotypes relevant for the villainy (this is true for all villains, queer or not; there's nothing wrong with having, for example, a villain of Chinese ethnicity, but if you're using all the "yellow peril" tropes that quickly gets pretty bad) and overall representation matters (picking up the ethnicity comparison again, your villain's ethnicity doesn't matter even if they're utterly depraved, but if every character of that ethnicity is similarly depraved in your work or if the villain is the only representative, it changes the tone somewhat. This one's more complex, of course; to some degree exceptions can be made for extremely small casts, and shoehorning in a "good one" can be done very badly.)

[BisectedBrioche]

What do you think about playing minority characters as villains straight, ie not overly sympathetic?

Not a problem as long as:

1. It doesn't fall in with a trend of only portraying said minority as villains.
2. It doesn't tie their villainy to their minority status (aside from something like "society was a **** to me, so I'm destroying it").

One of the best works with a trans character I've seen is Bit, which very much portrays the trans main character (who's trans) as an antihero (who's willing to become a vampire serial killer).

[Lissou]

Definitely echoing what others have say. If your villain is the only example of said minority, that's bad. If there are multiple people from that minority but they're all villain, that's bad. I tend to err on the side of not having minorities as villains very much, because they're already so rarely represented, but it will probably happen at some point, and I think having introduced a variety of characters who are all diverse but not defined by their diversity will help when it does.

[Wizard_Lizard]

Hi cool humans!
Uh. Has been a while for me on Giantitp, but I'm back for now at least. Currently got exciting news! I've got.. plans to talk to my parents about getting puberty blockers at some point next year! Hopefully that goes well!

[BisectedBrioche]

Hi cool humans!
Uh. Has been a while for me on Giantitp, but I'm back for now at least. Currently got exciting news! I've got.. plans to talk to my parents about getting puberty blockers at some point next year! Hopefully that goes well!

Congrats! I hope 2021's your year!

[Wizard_Lizard]

Congrats! I hope 2021's your year!

Yeah! Hope so too!

[Shadowscale]

How've all you happy people been? I wanted to update that my wife and I moved to Minnesota last year and are doing great.