LGBTAIitp Part 60: Still Going Strong

[JennTora]

Does anyone else feel somewhat dehumanized and / or infantalized by both sides of the political spectrum insisting that transpeople aren't capable of making their own decisions?

all the time... 😤

[BisectedBrioche]

Does anyone else feel somewhat dehumanized and / or infantalized by both sides of the political spectrum insisting that transpeople aren't capable of making their own decisions?[

all the time... 😤

My thoughts exactly, ultimately

I may have brought this up before, but this weekend discourse around the death of Nex Benedict really brought it to the head, and I saw so many arguments where the pro trans side was insisting that you have no choice in your gender as it is an inborn trait, and the anti trans side insisting that nobody is actually trans, they are merely "brainwashed by pedophiles".

I felt like nobody was actually refuting the fact that both of these points are ridiculous and, imo, fly in the face of what we know about both human psychology and human dignity.

The "born this way" narrative is a simplification, but I'm not sure I understand how it compares to a complete denial of trans folk's existence, much less the conspiracy theory you mentioned in quotes?

[Talakeal]

The "born this way" narrative is a simplification, but I'm not sure I understand how it compares to a complete denial of trans folk's existence, much less the conspiracy theory you mentioned in quotes?

Not existence, agency.

Both sides seem to be saying transpeople don’t have any choice / say in their own identity, the former saying we are slaves to our genetics, the latter slaves to social pressures.

[TaiLiu]

Does anyone else feel somewhat dehumanized and / or infantalized by both sides of the political spectrum insisting that transpeople aren't capable of making their own decisions?

all the time... 😤

My thoughts exactly, ultimately

Could you three be more specific? I don’t feel that way at all. :O

I may have brought this up before, but this weekend discourse around the death of Nex Benedict really brought it to the head, and I saw so many arguments where the pro trans side was insisting that you have no choice in your gender as it is an inborn trait, and the anti trans side insisting that nobody is actually trans, they are merely "brainwashed by pedophiles".

I felt like nobody was actually refuting the fact that both of these points are ridiculous and, imo, fly in the face of what we know about both human psychology and human dignity.

The "born this way" narrative is a simplification, but I'm not sure I understand how it compares to a complete denial of trans folk's existence, much less the conspiracy theory you mentioned in quotes?

Not existence, agency.

Both sides seem to be saying transpeople don’t have any choice / say in their own identity, the former saying we are slaves to our genetics, the latter slaves to social pressures.

What are you referring to when you mention psychology? Psychological science, rightly or wrongly, generally agrees that gender dysphoria is inborn. So it hardly flies in the face of what we know about psychology at all.

I also don’t think trans people who feel that they’re born this way feel that they’re enslaved to genetics for the same reason cis people don’t. Or for the same reason they don’t feel enslaved for having a certain eye color or hair texture. It’s just natural human variation.

[Talakeal]

What are you referring to when you mention psychology? Psychological science, rightly or wrongly, generally agrees that gender dysphoria is inborn. So it hardly flies in the face of what we know about psychology at all.

I also don’t think trans people who feel that they’re born this way feel that they’re enslaved to genetics for the same reason cis people don’t. Or for the same reason they don’t feel enslaved for having a certain eye color or hair texture. It’s just natural human variation.

Sources please? Most everything I can find on the subject says that there is probably an inborn component (not source) of gender identity, but we don't know what it is.

The fact that only 28% of identical twins share a trans identity pretty strongly speaks against this, although I suppose it is possible that being trans could be a non-genetic developmental disorder that occurs at some point between between conception and birth.

Of course, arguing that without good solid proof denies the agency of people who are gender fluid, or who detransition, or who identify as cis despite having the "trans-gene", and is IMO no better than the bigots who dismiss trans people as mentally ill cis people.


And of course, even if it is purely genetic, you can still deliberately change. For example, left handedness is genetic, but millions of people still learn to be right handed. Heck, when it comes to computer use, I am one of them.

Or for the same reason they don’t feel enslaved for having a certain eye color or hair texture.

I sure do.

Although it isn't how I would put it, if someone described my dysphoria as being enslaved by my phenotypes, I wouldn't disagree with them.

Of course, if I decide to dye my hair or get rhinoplasty, nobody is going to tell me that my physical characteristics are immutable like they will my sex.

[TaiLiu]

Sources please? Most everything I can find on the subject says that there is probably an inborn component (not source) of gender identity, but we don't know what it is.

I think you've misread me. I mentioned gender dysphoria, not gender identity. Considering that there are culturally-specific gender identities, someone who argues that identity is biology is gonna have a pretty hard time doing so.

Some sources:

• "Genetic Link Between Gender Dysphoria and Sex Hormone Signaling" is probably the most rigorous study on the connection between gender dysphoria and genetics.
• Whipping Girl makes an argument for the biology of gender identity via neuroscientific studies. I've personally never found the neuroscience arguments very convincing.
• "Biological Studies of Transgender Identity: A Critical Review" is a review of biological studies of trans identity, which may be a good read. But I don't have access to it.

The fact that only 28% of identical twins share a trans identity pretty strongly speaks against this, although I suppose it is possible that being trans could be a non-genetic developmental disorder that occurs at some point between between conception and birth.

I wasn't aware of the 28% statistic. But that's a pretty big percentage! That's consistent with the idea that there's something genetic going on. That's also consistent with the idea that there's something environmental going on. But I haven't made a gender identity is all genetic argument, so that doesn't bother me much.

Sorry, I'm not sure what your development disorder example is meant to explain.

Of course, arguing that without good solid proof denies the agency of people who are gender fluid, or who detransition, or who identify as cis despite having the "trans-gene", and is IMO no better than the bigots who dismiss trans people as mentally ill cis people.

I'm not sure who you're arguing with, but I don't think it's me. I'm not following this line of reasoning at all.

And of course, even if it is purely genetic, you can still deliberately change. For example, left handedness is genetic, but millions of people still learn to be right handed. Heck, when it comes to computer use, I am one of them.

Yes, of course. Again, I feel like you're arguing against someone else. It feels like there's some larger argument that I dunno about, but which you're treating me like the representative of.

I sure do.

Although it isn't how I would put it, if someone described my dysphoria as being enslaved by my phenotypes, I wouldn't disagree with them.

Of course, if I decide to dye my hair or get rhinoplasty, nobody is going to tell me that my physical characteristics are immutable like they will my sex.

Yeah, that's pretty unusual, I think. Or maybe it's usual and lots of people feel enslaved by genetics and I just dunno about it.

Do you mean genotype? I'm not sure what your phenotype has to do with gender dysphoria. EDIT: Oh, are you referring to your body? HRT can help with that.

Sure. I'm not sure what this has to do with slavery, though.

[BisectedBrioche]

If one wishes to get technical, gender is very specifically the non-biological component of sex (this is what it was coined to mean, before later being expanded to cultural and social aspects).

It can be an inherent part of a person, like their personality or sense of self, without needing to go all Metal Gear Solid on it.

[Talakeal]

I think you've misread me. I mentioned gender dysphoria, not gender identity. Considering that there are culturally-specific gender identities, someone who argues that identity is biology is gonna have a pretty hard time doing so.

Some sources:

• "Genetic Link Between Gender Dysphoria and Sex Hormone Signaling" is probably the most rigorous study on the connection between gender dysphoria and genetics.
• Whipping Girl makes an argument for the biology of gender identity via neuroscientific studies. I've personally never found the neuroscience arguments very convincing.
• "Biological Studies of Transgender Identity: A Critical Review" is a review of biological studies of trans identity, which may be a good read. But I don't have access to it.

I wasn't aware of the 28% statistic. But that's a pretty big percentage! That's consistent with the idea that there's something genetic going on. That's also consistent with the idea that there's something environmental going on. But I haven't made a gender identity is all genetic argument, so that doesn't bother me much.

I'm not sure who you're arguing with, but I don't think it's me. I'm not following this line of reasoning at all.


Yes, of course. Again, I feel like you're arguing against someone else. It feels like there's some larger argument that I dunno about, but which you're treating me like the representative of.

Thanks for the sources, I will give them a read!

I feel like we had this same discussion a couple years ago, so I will try not to rehash old arguments.

My point is that, to my understanding, human behavior and preferences are a combination of biological factors, environmental factors, and conscious decisions. To claim that LGBTQAI+ identities are locked in at birth is, to me, reducing the whole, incredibly complex, issue down solely to biological factors. I do not believe this is accurate, and the insistence on a solely biological cause is, imo, dehumanizing as it turns queer people from people choosing to live their lives as they like into victims of "disease". And the whole "brainwashed by groomers" nonsense likewise does the same, just from the other side, reducing it entirely to social pressures.

Sorry, I'm not sure what your development disorder example is meant to explain.

Just trying to come up with a theory as to how one could be born with a gender identity without it being based on genetics or environmental factors in the womb.

Do you mean genotype? I'm not sure what your phenotype has to do with gender dysphoria. EDIT: Oh, are you referring to your body? HRT can help with that.

Sure. I'm not sure what this has to do with slavery, though.

I am dissatisfied with many aspects of my body. Surgery and hormones can obviously alleviate some of the issues, but not all of them. As I said up thread, I look like a cross between Sean Bean and Jack Black, there aren't enough hormones in the world to wash that away. I wouldn't call it being a slave to my genetics, but I also wouldn't disagree with that notion if someone else said it about me.

[TaiLiu]

If one wishes to get technical, gender is very specifically the non-biological component of sex (this is what it was coined to mean, before later being expanded to cultural and social aspects).

It can be an inherent part of a person, like their personality or sense of self, without needing to go all Metal Gear Solid on it.

Do you have a source on the etymology of gender? I thought it was coined to refer solely to social aspects. :O

I don’t understand the game reference. But it absolutely can be an inherent part of a person for sure.

Thanks for the sources, I will give them a read!

I feel like we had this same discussion a couple years ago, so I will try not to rehash old arguments.

My point is that, to my understanding, human behavior and preferences are a combination of biological factors, environmental factors, and conscious decisions. To claim that LGBTQAI+ identities are locked in at birth is, to me, reducing the whole, incredibly complex, issue down solely to biological factors. I do not believe this is accurate, and the insistence on a solely biological cause is, imo, dehumanizing as it turns queer people from people choosing to live their lives as they like into victims of "disease". And the whole "brainwashed by groomers" nonsense likewise does the same, just from the other side, reducing it entirely to social pressures.

Just trying to come up with a theory as to how one could be born with a gender identity without it being based on genetics or environmental factors in the womb.

I am dissatisfied with many aspects of my body. Surgery and hormones can obviously alleviate some of the issues, but not all of them. As I said up thread, I look like a cross between Sean Bean and Jack Black, there aren't enough hormones in the world to wash that away. I wouldn't call it being a slave to my genetics, but I also wouldn't disagree with that notion if someone else said it about me.

I just think that’s an uncharitable read of what trans and other queer people mean when they say we’re born this way. I don’t think it’s analogous to the transphobe’s fantasy fear of being brainwashed into being gay or trans at all.

I didn’t choose my eye color, but it is no disease. I didn’t choose to be trans, and it isn’t a disease either. These are all forms of natural human variation, their specifics and significance mediated by society and culture like everything else.

Of course, being trans, I have choices. Should I be on hormones? Change my name? Undergo gender-affirming surgeries? The trans person who believes we’re born this way supports my decisions about what to do with my body. The transphobe interprets every trans-affirming thing I do to be the sign of a brainwashed victim—or, more likely, that of a brainwashing aggressor.

That’s why I think your analogy is so alien to me. If I’m misunderstanding your stance, please let me know.

[Talakeal]

I just think that’s an uncharitable read of what trans and other queer people mean when they say we’re born this way. I don’t think it’s analogous to the transphobe’s fantasy fear of being brainwashed into being gay or trans at all.

I didn’t choose my eye color, but it is no disease. I didn’t choose to be trans, and it isn’t a disease either. These are all forms of natural human variation, their specifics and significance mediated by society and culture like everything else.

Of course, being trans, I have choices. Should I be on hormones? Change my name? Undergo gender-affirming surgeries? The trans person who believes we’re born this way supports my decisions about what to do with my body. The transphobe interprets every trans-affirming thing I do to be the sign of a brainwashed victim—or, more likely, that of a brainwashing aggressor.

That’s why I think your analogy is so alien to me. If I’m misunderstanding your stance, please let me know.

Ok. So let's take a hypothetical. Say tomorrow, we find a simple genetic cause for being trans.

Someone who does not have this gene decides to undergo gender reassignment surgery because they are dissatisfied with their sex. Are they really trans? Should their transition be allowed? Are they accepted by the community?

Likewise, let's flip it. Someone who dies have this gene shows no dissatisfaction with their sex or gender, and does not wish to transition socially or medically. Are they really cis? Are they just in denial?

[TaiLiu]

Ok. So let's take a hypothetical. Say tomorrow, we find a simple genetic cause for being trans.

Someone who does not have this gene decides to undergo gender reassignment surgery because they are dissatisfied with their sex. Are they really trans? Should their transition be allowed? Are they accepted by the community?

Likewise, let's flip it. Someone who dies have this gene shows no dissatisfaction with their sex or gender, and does not wish to transition socially or medically. Are they really cis? Are they just in denial?

All right. I should say that even those who believe in a purely genetic etiology of transness wouldn’t believe this hypothetical, but I’ll go along with it.

Anyone who considers themselves trans is really trans. Of course they should be allowed. And of course they’d be accepted by the community. In general, trans people are big on bodily autonomy. We’re used to cis people policing our bodies and what we’re allowed and not allowed to do with them.

Anyone who considers themselves cis is really cis. They aren’t in denial. Again, what they do with their body is up to them.

More generally: If doctors insisted on some genetic test before allowing us to transition, I think most of the trans community would be against it. Wouldn’t you agree?

[Talakeal]

Anyone who considers themselves trans is really trans. Of course they should be allowed. And of course they’d be accepted by the community. In general, trans people are big on bodily autonomy. We’re used to cis people policing our bodies and what we’re allowed and not allowed to do with them.

Anyone who considers themselves cis is really cis. They aren’t in denial. Again, what they do with their body is up to them.

More generally: If doctors insisted on some genetic test before allowing us to transition, I think most of the trans community would be against it. Wouldn’t you agree?

I do agree. I completely agree.

But to me, the idea that people are either born trans or born cis and that people have the right to declare themselves to be cis or trans (and to medically and / or socially transition or detransition at some point during their adult life) regardless of their biology are directly contradictory.

[TaiLiu]

I do agree. I completely agree.

But to me, the idea that people are either born trans or born cis and that people have the right to declare themselves to be cis or trans (and to medically and / or socially transition or detransition at some point during their adult life) regardless of their biology are directly contradictory.

I’m not sure that’s true. Whatever their cause, the feelings of dissociation or dysphoria or gender envy many of us experience aren’t a choice. I think this is what most trans people mean if we talk about being born this way.

Trans people are gonna simplify things for cis society, so we might say “I was born trans,” even though the actual explanation is more complex. We might not even know exactly why we experience the feelings that we do, and that’s okay. Cis people don’t need to have a rigorous theory of gender identity to justify themselves & neither do we.

But we can choose to understand ourselves as trans. We can choose our pronouns & names. We can choose whether or not to do HRT or gender-affirming surgeries. What we do with our feelings is up to us.*

* Or it should be up to us, anyway. In actuality we need to deal with (overwhelmingly cis) gatekeepers who have the power to decide that we don’t need, for example, that life-preserving surgery we say we do.

[Anymage]

If a trans gene were found, by definition it would correlate very well with trans status. If we lived in a better world where transphobes and people pandering to transphobes didn't have as much sway, it would be an additional diagnostic tool instead of a gate to be kept.

I wonder where Tal is seeing these discussions. If it's twitter or tiktok or whatnot, algorithms and social media culture encourage people to take ever more extreme positions just to signal strength of allegiance to their tribe. And since feelings about trans status are strongly linked to political tribalism, you're going to see dumb extremist takes on both sides. That's less to do with left vs. right as political ideologies, and more about realizing that social media and terminally online people should not be seen as indicative of anything larger.

[TaiLiu]

If a trans gene were found, by definition it would correlate very well with trans status. If we lived in a better world where transphobes and people pandering to transphobes didn't have as much sway, it would be an additional diagnostic tool instead of a gate to be kept.

I wonder where Tal is seeing these discussions. If it's twitter or tiktok or whatnot, algorithms and social media culture encourage people to take ever more extreme positions just to signal strength of allegiance to their tribe. And since feelings about trans status are strongly linked to political tribalism, you're going to see dumb extremist takes on both sides. That's less to do with left vs. right as political ideologies, and more about realizing that social media and terminally online people should not be seen as indicative of anything larger.

That's a good point, too. I didn't consider that.

I dunno if extreme positions or being terminally online are the problem here. It seems like Talakeal is seeing or engaging in conversations where a transphobe is saying something like: "Nex Benedict was a victim of a nefarious transgender ideology," which is a bog-standard form of transphobia and sadly not extremism. And then maybe someone responds with: "People are trans cuz they're born that way, not cuz of being brainwashed. Nex Benedict was a victim of transphobia."

But I guess I haven't seen the conversations Talakeal refers to. It's just hard to imagine an extremist born-this-way narrative.

[Rydiro]

To the people arguing that their gender is based on choice:

Wouldn't that invite the response: "Just choose differently, instead of medical transitioning." ?

Like with homosexuality. A long time people tried to argue that it isn't a choice and conversions to straight do not work.

I'm just trying to understand your point. If people want to treat trans as a disease, they will do so regardless.

[The_Snark]

To the people arguing that their gender is based on choice:

Wouldn't that invite the response: "Just choose differently, instead of medical transitioning." ?

I think that's one of the reasons why the "born this way" narrative is pushed so strongly, yes. It's helpful for establishing legitimacy in the eyes of people who are ignorant or undecided about trans issues. However, it does not actually fit every trans person's experience. Some will look at that narrative and go "yes, that's me, thank goodness someone gets it." Some will look at it and go "well, that's not exactly how I would put it, but close enough I guess." And some people look at it and go "no, wrong, that doesn't feel like what I've felt at all." The prevalence of that narrative can be pretty alienating if you fall into the last group (and maybe the middle too, to a lesser extent).

And while I understand why the argument exists, I think the more one leans on "you can't blame trans people for being trans, because it's not a choice" as a defense, the more you get an uncomfortable implication of "and if it were a choice, blaming them would be fine". Is that fair? Depends on the person, probably. I am sure many people don't intend that implication at all. But people being people, there's almost certainly some who would reverse position. And... well, I think trans folks as a group are sensitive to the possibility that someone who used to love and support them might suddenly turn around and reject them, you know? For a lot of them it wouldn't be the first time!

[Talakeal]

I’m not sure that’s true. Whatever their cause, the feelings of dissociation or dysphoria or gender envy many of us experience aren’t a choice. I think this is what most trans people mean if we talk about being born this way.

Trans people are gonna simplify things for cis society, so we might say “I was born trans,” even though the actual explanation is more complex. We might not even know exactly why we experience the feelings that we do, and that’s okay. Cis people don’t need to have a rigorous theory of gender identity to justify themselves & neither do we.

But we can choose to understand ourselves as trans. We can choose our pronouns & names. We can choose whether or not to do HRT or gender-affirming surgeries. What we do with our feelings is up to us.*

* Or it should be up to us, anyway. In actuality we need to deal with (overwhelmingly cis) gatekeepers who have the power to decide that we don’t need, for example, that life-preserving surgery we say we do.

I have had enough run ins with transmedicalists and gender mystics who tell me that I am not "really trans" that I can't imagine if they did find a trans gene it wouldn't be used for gatekeeping.

I wonder where Tal is seeing these discussions. If it's twitter or tiktok or whatnot, algorithms and social media culture encourage people to take ever more extreme positions just to signal strength of allegiance to their tribe. And since feelings about trans status are strongly linked to political tribalism, you're going to see dumb extremist takes on both sides. That's less to do with left vs. right as political ideologies, and more about realizing that social media and terminally online people should not be seen as indicative of anything larger.

This particular discussion was, iirc, in the comments of a Yahoo news article.

But I do see plenty of it on twitter, instagram, and facebook, and my irl friends, family, and coworkers seems to take such "extreme positions" very seriously.

To the people arguing that their gender is based on choice:

Wouldn't that invite the response: "Just choose differently, instead of medical transitioning." ?

Like with homosexuality. A long time people tried to argue that it isn't a choice and conversions to straight do not work.

I'm just trying to understand your point. If people want to treat trans as a disease, they will do so regardless.

Well, first, one could argue that if you need to lie to make your point, you didn't have a very good point to begin with.

But on a broader scale, imo, every time a queer person falls back on the "born this way" narrative, I feel like they are dehumizing themselves and discounting their own agency and dignity, and ultimately conceding the point that their lifestyle is somehow wrong and needs justification. Ultimately, I feel like a far stronger argument is "I am a free adult, and this is my own body. Whom I choose to sleep with, and what gender I choose to present as, are my own business, not yours, regardless of my reasons for doing so."

[Anymage]

This particular discussion was, iirc, in the comments of a Yahoo news article.

But I do see plenty of it on twitter, instagram, and facebook, and my irl friends, family, and coworkers seems to take such "extreme positions" very seriously.

You know what they say about reading the comments.

I don't doubt that people you meet in the real world will have these views. Most of the people posting their views on various sites are in fact real people who happen to believe what they're saying. Those people will continue having their views in the outside world, and other people reading can get a skewed sense of what the outside world is like from having been fed a narrative through social media algorithms. That doesn't mean you aren't getting a skewed perception of what the average person thinks.

Well, first, one could argue that if you need to lie to make your point, you didn't have a very good point to begin with.

But on a broader scale, imo, every time a queer person falls back on the "born this way" narrative, I feel like they are dehumizing themselves and discounting their own agency and dignity, and ultimately conceding the point that their lifestyle is somehow wrong and needs justification. Ultimately, I feel like a far stronger argument is "I am a free adult, and this is my own body. Whom I choose to sleep with, and what gender I choose to present as, are my own business, not yours, regardless of my reasons for doing so."

Sometimes simplified narratives in the public sphere require simplified counternarratives. I'm old enough to remember when silly campiness was put forward as an image of gay men, which worked very well when the prior narratives painted them as predatory. Get the general public on your side first, focus on the complexities and finer details later. I'm not going to begrudge trans people debating in a public space for being more concerned about winning over bystanders than strict accuracy. Especially when the other side is happy to ignore accuracy when it proves inconvenient.

[SerTabris]

Personally, I don't feel like it's necessarily an inborn or biological-only thing, but I don't feel like it's a decision I made, either. For me, being a trans woman is something that was always true about myself, which I had to figure out and identify the terms for in order to find other people like me and to get things I needed because of it. Which was a lot like figuring out I was autistic, I think.

[Rydiro]

[...] their lifestyle is somehow wrong and needs justification. Ultimately, I feel like a far stronger argument is "I am a free adult, and this is my own body. Whom I choose to sleep with, and what gender I choose to present as, are my own business, not yours, regardless of my reasons for doing so."

Not saying there is something wrong. If you want the acceptance of broader society, you need justification though. Generally you want other people to work along with you so you need to convince them.
Additionaly you generally want proper legal processes, medical insurance and a dozen things more that require others to accept you more or less.

[Talakeal]

Ok then. I don’t agree with it, but I guess I can understand it. Although I am afraid of how hard it could backfire on the day when someone invents a form of conversion therapy that actually works.

[TaiLiu]

And while I understand why the argument exists, I think the more one leans on "you can't blame trans people for being trans, because it's not a choice" as a defense, the more you get an uncomfortable implication of "and if it were a choice, blaming them would be fine". Is that fair? Depends on the person, probably. I am sure many people don't intend that implication at all. But people being people, there's almost certainly some who would reverse position. And... well, I think trans folks as a group are sensitive to the possibility that someone who used to love and support them might suddenly turn around and reject them, you know? For a lot of them it wouldn't be the first time!

But on a broader scale, imo, every time a queer person falls back on the "born this way" narrative, I feel like they are dehumizing themselves and discounting their own agency and dignity, and ultimately conceding the point that their lifestyle is somehow wrong and needs justification.

I'm not sure these interpretations are fair. I don't think most people who believe in the born this way narrative also believe that choosing to be trans is something blameworthy. I don't think the implication is there at all.

I have had enough run ins with transmedicalists and gender mystics who tell me that I am not "really trans" that I can't imagine if they did find a trans gene it wouldn't be used for gatekeeping.

I dunno what a gender mystic is, but for sure transmedicalists are a problem. They're a minority in our community, but they're frustratingly common in the cisgender world. They certain don't need a trans gene to gatekeep. They're the medical professionals who decide if we qualify for hormones or gender-affirming surgeries. We don't need to worry about a possible future when it's already happening in the present.

I'm not sure what this hypothetical trans gene has to do with our conversation, though. We were talking about choice and agency that trans people exercise when we live our lives.

Ultimately, I feel like a far stronger argument is "I am a free adult, and this is my own body. Whom I choose to sleep with, and what gender I choose to present as, are my own business, not yours, regardless of my reasons for doing so."

Yes, I'm fond of this argument as well. Most trans people are. It's not inconsistent with the born this way narrative, either. It does have a couple of weaknesses:

1. It doesn't account for trans children, who should be allowed to transition, too.
2. We live in a society where bodily autonomy is not prioritized. Those who don't believe in prioritizing bodily autonomy won't be convinced by this argument.

Well, first, one could argue that if you need to lie to make your point, you didn't have a very good point to begin with.

As mentioned earlier by myself and others, it's not a lie at all. Your interpretation of born this way might just be different than how trans people are using it.

Ok then. I don’t agree with it, but I guess I can understand it. Although I am afraid of how hard it could backfire on the day when someone invents a form of conversion therapy that actually works.

I'm not sure I understand this concern. If you believe we have agency over our gender identities, then wouldn't conversion therapy just be the therapist convincing the otherwise trans individual to live a cisgender life?

In fact, this form of conversion therapy already exists and already works. One study reports that:

Of those who had detransitioned, 82.5% reported at least one external driving factor. Frequently endorsed external factors included pressure from family and societal stigma.

Nonetheless, people who support trans people don't advocate for conversion therapy. The trans community, broadly speaking, certainly doesn't. No backfire.

But I do see plenty of it on twitter, instagram, and facebook, and my irl friends, family, and coworkers seems to take such "extreme positions" very seriously.

I don't doubt that people you meet in the real world will have these views. Most of the people posting their views on various sites are in fact real people who happen to believe what they're saying. Those people will continue having their views in the outside world, and other people reading can get a skewed sense of what the outside world is like from having been fed a narrative through social media algorithms. That doesn't mean you aren't getting a skewed perception of what the average person thinks.

I dunno. I think I'm with Talakeal here. The idea that being trans is this disgusting fate that people are coerced into is not extreme or skewed. It's a standard transphobic story. The details change but the core stays the same. Lawmakers try to pass laws with this transphobic assumption in mind. I've personally had to deal with this assumption in my life.

Sometimes simplified narratives in the public sphere require simplified counternarratives. I'm old enough to remember when silly campiness was put forward as an image of gay men, which worked very well when the prior narratives painted them as predatory. Get the general public on your side first, focus on the complexities and finer details later. I'm not going to begrudge trans people debating in a public space for being more concerned about winning over bystanders than strict accuracy. Especially when the other side is happy to ignore accuracy when it proves inconvenient.

I wasn't aware of the predator-to-camp transition. That's interesting. :O

Personally, I don't feel like it's necessarily an inborn or biological-only thing, but I don't feel like it's a decision I made, either. For me, being a trans woman is something that was always true about myself, which I had to figure out and identify the terms for in order to find other people like me and to get things I needed because of it. Which was a lot like figuring out I was autistic, I think.

I feel somewhat similarly. I made a lot of decisions about my transition and the life I'm trying to live. But it doesn't feel like I made the decision to be trans. It feels like something I discovered.

[Talakeal]

...I dunno what a gender mystic is...

Those who believe that people have gendered souls or auras or energy fields which decide their gender.

As an example, there was a protest when the Wheel of Time show came out because reincarnation exists in the universe of wheel of time, and always follows gender lines, which means that, by implication, there are no transgender people in the setting, because in their minds it is an established fact that real life transgenderism is always the result of a male soul in a female body or vice versa.

[TaiLiu]

Those who believe that people have gendered souls or auras or energy fields which decide their gender.

As an example, there was a protest when the Wheel of Time show came out because reincarnation exists in the universe of wheel of time, and always follows gender lines, which means that, by implication, there are no transgender people in the setting, because in their minds it is an established fact that real life transgenderism is always the result of a male soul in a female body or vice versa.

That's wild. Glad I've never met a gender mystic.

[The_Snark]

I'm not sure these interpretations are fair. I don't think most people who believe in the born this way narrative also believe that choosing to be trans is something blameworthy. I don't think the implication is there at all.

I agree with you that most people don't believe that. But just because the implication isn't intended doesn't mean it's nonexistent, you know? The nature of communication is such that what we mean isn't exactly the same as what we say, which isn't exactly the same as what other people hear.

To be clear, I don't necessarily mean to argue that the born-this-way narrative is bad: simplifications have their uses, and there are trans people out there who feel it matches their personal experience. I just think that it's worth being aware of the flaws and side effects, and one of those side effects is some trans people will feel alienated rather than supported - Talakeal is not the only one I've heard talk about this.

[TaiLiu]

I agree with you that most people don't believe that. But just because the implication isn't intended doesn't mean it's nonexistent, you know? The nature of communication is such that what we mean isn't exactly the same as what we say, which isn't exactly the same as what other people hear.

Yes, you're right. My argument isn't that people don't intend the implication. It's that such an implication doesn't exist. I understand that you're saying people believe something like this:

1. If being trans isn't a choice, then it's okay to be trans.
2. Therefore, if being trans is a choice, then it's not okay to be trans.

But the conclusion—the implication—doesn't follow from the premise.

Lemme know if I've misunderstood you. Maybe you mean a different argument. :O

To be clear, I don't necessarily mean to argue that the born-this-way narrative is bad: simplifications have their uses, and there are trans people out there who feel it matches their personal experience. I just think that it's worth being aware of the flaws and side effects, and one of those side effects is some trans people will feel alienated rather than supported - Talakeal is not the only one I've heard talk about this.

For sure. There's a variety of trans origin stories in the community. The born this way story isn't prioritized at all. If Talakeal wants support, she's got it.

Outside of the community? Like, the overwhelmingly cis commenters of Yahoo? Yeah, they're gonna have a more simplified understanding of gender. But I don't think the Yahoo comments section is where people go for support.

[The_Snark]

Yes, you're right. My argument isn't that people don't intend the implication. It's that such an implication doesn't exist. I understand that you're saying people believe something like this:

1. If being trans isn't a choice, then it's okay to be trans.
2. Therefore, if being trans is a choice, then it's not okay to be trans.

But the conclusion—the implication—doesn't follow from the premise.

Lemme know if I've misunderstood you. Maybe you mean a different argument. :O

Ah, I see. That's a fair argument. I don't think point #2 follows from point #1 as a matter of formal logic, that's why I said implication rather than corollary. But... mm. It may just be that we have a difference in opinion about what's implied here, but I'll try an explanation by analogy:

If I said "I believe in Bigfoot, because my great-uncle saw him once", and then we later find out that my great-uncle made the whole story up, you would probably expect that to make me reconsider. The foundation of my belief turned out to be wrong, after all. Now, it's reasonably likely you'd be wrong to expect that. Maybe I'll find another reason to believe in Bigfoot, because I'm emotionally invested; maybe I believed it before my great-uncle ever mentioned it, and that was just the most convenient explanation to give whenever someone asked me about it. People get attached to their beliefs and they're not always good at explaining their reasons. Nonetheless, the fact that I couched it as "I believe X, because Y" makes my belief in X seem conditional upon Y.

Similarly, if somebody says "I believe it's fine to be trans, because you were born that way", then I don't think it's wholly unwarranted for a listener who feels like that second half of the statement is false (at least in their case) to wonder if the speaker would reconsider, if they knew. It's uncharitable, maybe. It's probably inaccurate in a lot of cases; much like in the Bigfoot analogy, I think the born-this-way narrative is probably a convenient bit of explanation more often than a foundational belief. But it's not coming out of nowhere.

[TaiLiu]

Ah, I see. That's a fair argument. I don't think point #2 follows from point #1 as a matter of formal logic, that's why I said implication rather than corollary. But... mm. It may just be that we have a difference in opinion about what's implied here, but I'll try an explanation by analogy:

If I said "I believe in Bigfoot, because my great-uncle saw him once", and then we later find out that my great-uncle made the whole story up, you would probably expect that to make me reconsider. The foundation of my belief turned out to be wrong, after all. Now, it's reasonably likely you'd be wrong to expect that. Maybe I'll find another reason to believe in Bigfoot, because I'm emotionally invested; maybe I believed it before my great-uncle ever mentioned it, and that was just the most convenient explanation to give whenever someone asked me about it. People get attached to their beliefs and they're not always good at explaining their reasons. Nonetheless, the fact that I couched it as "I believe X, because Y" makes my belief in X seem conditional upon Y.

Similarly, if somebody says "I believe it's fine to be trans, because you were born that way", then I don't think it's wholly unwarranted for a listener who feels like that second half of the statement is false (at least in their case) to wonder if the speaker would reconsider, if they knew. It's uncharitable, maybe. It's probably inaccurate in a lot of cases; much like in the Bigfoot analogy, I think the born-this-way narrative is probably a convenient bit of explanation more often than a foundational belief. But it's not coming out of nowhere.

I think I understand. You're saying that

• It's not wrong to be trans if you didn't choose it and
• It'd be wrong to be trans if you could choose it

are beliefs that are often correlated. Like, someone who believes one is likely to believe the other. Is that right?

If someone says "There's nothing wrong with being trans. It's not like you chose to be," I think you're right. I would totally make assumptions about this person. But there are similar sentences that wouldn't provoke that reaction from me. Maybe we were thinking of different sentences.

[TaiLiu]

Has anyone else read A Short History of Trans Misogyny? It has its flaws but it's otherwise well-written and tries to offer an explanation for an extraordinary form of violence. Would recommend.