Gender Change VS Gender Deconstruction

[Fran11]

I think these two are ultimately incompatible and GC is only a step towards GD. 

Masculine and femenine are existencial principles which find expression both in body and mind. A particular body generally expresses only one of this principles (there are edge cases), but a particular mind always has a very variable proportion of both.

In the past, for survival reasons, women were rised by societies to be mentally as femenine as possible and men to be as masculine as possible.

This of course was done unconciously, such that in the past there wasn't even a conceptual difference beetween "gender" and "sex" like we have today.

As technology developed and survival conditions changed, it became no longer necessary for men to be hyper-masculine and women to be hyper-femenine and people are now generally much more balanced regarding these energies, which is a lot healthier than repressing one pole of the spectrum of course.

Stereotypes about each biological sex still remain, but it became clear that these are not biological facts but social constructs. That's what allowed us to develop the notion of "genders" as a distinct concept than "biological sex".

Society is advancing towards the deconstruction of these stereotypes called "genders", and GC is only an intermediate step which will ultimately be transcended.

If a biologically born male happens to have a mind that leans more towards the femenine than the masculine, and he says "I'm a woman in a man's body", he's actually reinforcing these stereotypes. He wouldn't consider himself a woman if it wasn't for his cultural programming.

Consider a parallel with the abolition of slavery. GC is the equivalent of having a black person having to legally change his race to "white" in order to be free, because society won't accept him as being black and free. Would you defend this in the XXI century? It would still be an improvement from the previous situation, but we wouldn't glorify it as an ultimate ahievement.

Please understand I write this thinking about the next level, not to trash on the achievements we already got

Edited August 29, 2020 by Fran11

[Opo]

@Fran11 Sometimes it's easier to change gender than to deconstruct it. Even if you deconstruct it you still need to live in a society so it's important that we deconstruct it collectively not just individually. But yea I think we'll completely deconstruct it in the future.

Edit: now I've been thinking and I think there is some truth to the stereotypes so is it possible to completly deconstruct gender? 

54 minutes ago, Fran11 said:

Stereotypes about each biological sex still remain, but it became clear that these are not biological facts but social constructs. That's what allowed us to develop the notion of "genders" as a distinct concept than "biological sex".

Edited August 29, 2020 by Opo

[Fran11]

Just now, Opo said:

@Fran11 Sometimes it's easier to change gender than to deconstruct it. Even if you deconstruct it you still need to live in a society so it's important that we deconstruct it collectively not just individually. But yea I think we'll completely deconstruct it in the future.

I agree, it's a necessary intermediate step.

[Forestluv]

57 minutes ago, Fran11 said:

If a biologically born male happens to have a mind that leans more towards the femenine than the masculine, and he says "I'm a woman in a man's body", he's actually reinforcing these stereotypes. He wouldn't consider himself a woman if it wasn't for his cultural programming.

This is exactly opposite of cultural programming. Nearly 100% of cultural programming is toward cis-gender. Identifying as transgender or ninbinary goes against the prevalent cultural programming. Currently, no culture programs children to be trans or nonbinary. 

My niece was born biologically female. She was not culturally conditioned to identify as a boy and behave as a boy. She was culturally conditioned that she is a girl. As a young teenager, she is realizing that she does not relate to the cultural conditioning and expectations placed upon her as girl-ness. She relates more to the cultural construct called “boy-ness”. When she came out and no longer expressed herself as a girl, there was extreme cultural backlash - because she (now he) is acting against  the cultural norms, programming and expectations. The backlash became so severe that his parents pulled him from public school to homeschool him and he is seeing a psychologist - not so much for the gender confusion - he needs a psychologist more to deal with the cultural marginalization and stigmatization he is subjected to. 

57 minutes ago, Fran11 said:

Consider a parallel with the abolition of slavery. GC is the equivalent of having a black person having to legally change his race to "white" in order to be free, because society won't accept him as being black and free.

Again, this is exactly backwards. The problem cultural conditioning, expectations and enforcement against one’s identity. As well as the marginalization, stigmatization and abuse that goes with that.

To understand this dynamic, image society forced you to act against your identity. If you identify as a male, imagine society said that due to the length ratio of your finger : thumb, that you are actually a woman. You are now expected to behave like a woman. You must dress like a woman, speak like a woman, call yourself a woman, use the women’s restroom, wear make-up, have sex with men etc. If you are not acting woman enough, you will be subjected to ridicule and abuse. You will lose your job and be harassed. If you try to express that you don’t identify as a woman, you will be told to be quiet and stop playing a victim. That would likely be a miserable life for you because it goes against your true nature of how to relate within a culture.

Another option is to dissolve all gender constructs such that there is no gender. This is happening, to an extent, with many forms of nonbinary arising. I think there are now 14 distinct nonbinary categories. That will loosen up the traditionally strict binary gender constructs of male or female. Yet having gender distinctions has practical value in society and is part of the human experience. I suppose one day they can all be transcended such that there is complete fluidity and no gender concept his identified with tightly, yet that would be a long way off, imo. 

[Fran11]

15 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

This is exactly opposite of cultural programming. Nearly 100% of cultural programming is toward cis-gender. Identifying as transgender or ninbinary goes against the prevalent cultural programming. Currently, no culture programs children to be trans or nonbinary. 

I get what you mean but we are talking about diferent things. 

My poimt is that you can only identify as trasgender if society has ALREADY programmed you with gender roles. 

15 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

My niece was born biologically female. She was not culturally conditioned to identify as a boy and behave as a boy.

See, "Behave as a boy", you assume there's "boy behaviour" and "girl behaviour". There's not such thing. Without such stereotypes no-one wouldn't say that and you wouldn't even need to change gender.

You need to think this deeper.

Edited August 29, 2020 by Fran11

[Gidiot]

@Forestluv I think gender constructs are relevant up till stage blue especially for society to organize, but once you become more aware of the fluidity of gender at late orange/green I think you can leave them behind. There’s also many people who are NB trans and stage blue and red so I guess it’s only relevant from a societal standpoint, it really has no bearing on the individual from what I see, you can be questioning your gender that society gave you without being green of course, I think that happens is that the hormones and biology that motivates men and women naturally translates into societal ideation and eventually we have these rigid binary of male female. It works to a certain extent but we are seeing the limits of that binary now and it marginalizes certain groups and invalidates the experience of others. There’s no denying Most people buy into the idea of gender, so it works to a certain extent, and it’s justified now by stage orange “science and biology” but from what I see people start to question gender norms at orange and really start to embrace a different perspective at green and above.

im glad that gender is being challenged, it is a truly a joke to some people but I think one day we could live in societies where no one even needs to identify with anything, or they could identify with anything. That seems like the highest ideal to me, it’s all about hearing the experience of another human being and respecting their experience as their truth. Obviously not everything could be taken seriously but who knows maybe in the future societies just won’t judge.

Edited August 29, 2020 by Gidiot

[Fran11]

3 minutes ago, Gidiot said:

im glad that gender is being challenged, it is a truly a joke to some people but I think one day we could live in societies where no one even needs to identify with anything, or they could identify with anything. That seems like the highest ideal to me, it’s all about hearing the experience of another human being and respecting their experience as their truth.

You get it  

[Forestluv]

@Gidiot That sounds like a great ideal to me. I would be curious what it would be like to live in such a world without gender constructs. To me, that isn’t the reality of what’s actually occurring. It seems there are gender construct norms and negative consequences for moving outside those norms. To me, that’s unfortunate - yet something we need to work with. At this time, I don’t think most people are able to fully transcend gender constructs and take a detached meta view.

My preference is not to eliminate all gender constructs. I would prefer to eliminate all attachments and identifications to them. I think gender constructs and experiencing them is fascinating and amazing. I would actually like to see more genders arise. I see it like experiencing foods. If society only had two flavors of food - salty or sugary food - and everyone had to choose one, it would be boring. Yet rather eliminate tastes, I would want to expand and transcend. I would like to see more tastes we can experience - all sorts of new tastes and textures to be explored and enjoyed. I’ve traveled around the world and experienced so many forms of food, it’s amazing and a great part of life. Similarly, I think it would be amazing to explore and create gender. It’s the attachment and identification, marginalization, stigmatization etc. I’d like to see dropped. To me, losing genders altogether would make the world more bland - just like if we lost all tastes and all food was bland soggy corn flakes. ? 

13 minutes ago, Gidiot said:

im glad that gender is being challenged, it is a truly a joke to some people but I think one day we could live in societies where no one even needs to identify with anything, or they could identify with anything. That seems like the highest ideal to me, it’s all about hearing the experience of another human being and respecting their experience as their truth. Obviously not everything could be taken seriously but who knows maybe in the future societies just won’t judge.

I like to make a distinction between the attachment/identification to the ISness and the ISness itself. You say you like to hear about people’s experiences, yet we need some form of language to communicate that experience. There is a difference between eliminating the attachment/identification to an experience and eliminating the experience itself. I’d love to see 100 forms of gender experience we can all freely experience and communicate. Just like I’d love to see 100 flavors of ice cream we can all freely experience and communicate. It’s the attachement/identification to ice cream flavors, not the ice cream flavors themselves that cause conflict. 

[Fran11]

12 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

Yet rather eliminate tastes, I would want to expand and transcend. 

It's not like that. You tastes stay exactly the same/you change them at will, without having the limitation of other people labeling you and you having to change irrelevant labels in order to match your tastes.

Just imagine a trans person doing what the fuck she/he wants without having to legally change genders in order to match society's stereotypes. It wouldn't be called trans anyomore because such notion depends on the prior existance of genders.

I know it's not possible right now, that's why I clarifyed I was thinking some time ahead. 

Edited August 29, 2020 by Fran11

[Gidiot]

@Forestluv makes sense. Seems like a mor bright an vivid world. I guess by saying gender being challenged I meant the traditional constructs, I find nothing wrong with the healthy versions of being a masculine male or a feminine feminine , but want them to be seen as equally valid as trans nb and the like, I think people subconsciously know that that like you said the world is better with more diversity and variety and we can solve problems in better ways by entertaining different perspectives, also there doesn’t need to be a pragmatic aspect either, it’s just beautiful to look at some people who have transitioned and have gone through a metamorphosis. There is a certain artistic brilliance to it. As well as being a macho man like mr. T or a feminine female like Marilyn Monroe, and everything In between. I don’t want to marginalize anyone Even the people who are cis and even traditional idea of gender norms so I’m sorry my comment came off as that.   
 

but I will say it’s useful to put the focus off of traditional constructs for now and focus on the emerging issues of the marginalized until we can integrate them, we’be  already integrated the healthy and unhealthy aspects of traditional gender constructs

Edited August 29, 2020 by Gidiot

[Gidiot]

Bit of an off topic point regarding tastes: I do think at a certain point people do transcend the attachment to tastes, definitely see that as the problem, we are too Attached to the traditional worldview and it’s gender constructs because of how society was built nearly everywhere on these constructs,

 

some Buddhist monks say there is only one taste to all food and that your mind fills in the differences but with enough practice all food will taste the same, I kind of want to achieve that in society, where all tastes can be tasted by some and some who don’t need to taste anything. If that makes sense.

[Forestluv]

28 minutes ago, Fran11 said:

It's not like that. You tastes stay exactly the same/you change them at will, without having the limitation of other people labeling you and you having to change irrelevant labels in order to match your tastes.

Really??!! Can you change your taste preferences for a shit sandwich at will? Can you choose to be sexually attracted to a hamster right now?

The labels themselves aren’t the problem. It’s the attachment, identification, judgements, stigmatizations, impositions etc. of those labels. We could walk through the forest and have a discussion about birds, rivers, trees and flowers - and how we feel and experience it all. Those are all labels we use to communicate with each other, to connect to each other, to explore and expand. The labels themselves are not problematic - they are simply symbols. Imagine we were hiking in a forest and you said that every label is bad and there should be no labels. That would massively limit how much we can explore and communicate. 

I’m not talking about cultural pressures imposed upon someone. I’m talking about the freedom to explore and express within cultural constructs. There is a lot of beauty and within some cultural constructs. Things like art and sports are cultural constructs and part of the human experience is exploring, participation and experiencing within those constructs - as well as creating new constructs. The problem occurs with marginalization, stigmatization, expectations, judgements, impositions, abuses etc. 

28 minutes ago, Fran11 said:

Just imagine a trans person doing what the fuck she/he wants without having to legally change genders in order to match society's stereotypes. It wouldn't be called trans anyomore because such notion depends on the prior existance of genders.

You are projecting upon the trans person. Notice how you say “what the fuck she/he wants with having to legally change genders in order to match society’s stereotypes”. That is a great point from one perspective, yet misses other perspectives. 

What do you mean by “change gender”?. I am a biological male, what would “changing genders” mean to you? If I express my love of butterflies, is that “changing genders”. If I express my empathy for another and cry for those that are suffering, is that “changing gender”? If I wear a dress to work? If I go on testosterone inhibitors? If I get facial reconstruction? If I get top of bottom surgery? Exactly what is “changing genders” for you?

Of course someone may feel pressure to conform to societal standards of gender. If a male resonates with what society calls female, the person may feel pressure to conform and look more like a female. Yet you are not considering the possibility that some people naturally want to express themselves that way. Some transgender women want to wear make-up and dresses. They naturally like to be engaged in what society calls “womanly”. 

If you truly want to allow transgender person to do whatever the fuck he/she wants, that includes anything that he/she wants - including engaging in what you consider “society’s stereotypes”. If my transgender male niece wants to do boyish sports because he naturally wants to, that is different than feeling pressure to do boyish sports so he can feel like he is being perceived more as male. There is a distinction there. 

[Forestluv]

29 minutes ago, Gidiot said:

@Forestluv makes sense. Seems like a mor bright an vivid world. I guess by saying gender being challenged I meant the traditional constructs, I find nothing wrong with the healthy versions of being a masculine male or a feminine feminine , but want them to be seen as equally valid as trans nb and the like, I think people subconsciously know that that like you said the world is better with more diversity and variety and we can solve problems in better ways by entertaining different perspectives, also there doesn’t need to be a pragmatic aspect either, it’s just beautiful to look at some people who have transitioned and have gone through a metamorphosis. There is a certain artistic brilliance to it. As well as being a macho man like mr. T or a feminine female like Marilyn Monroe, and everything In between.

It reminds me of walking through nature and appreciating all the different forms of beauty. A cougar on the prowl has beauty. A delicate flower gently fluttering in the breeze has beauty. 

[Fran11]

@Forestluv Ok you seem to be actively trying to misunderstand me, did the post trigger you that much? 

I think I was clear enough, maybe you need to cool down and read again with an open mind. 

Edited August 29, 2020 by Fran11

[Forestluv]

Just now, Fran11 said:

@Forestluv Ok you seem to be actively trying to misunderstand me, did the post trigger you that much? 

I think I was clear enough, maybe you need to read again with an open mind. 

I’m not disagreeing with you. I am offering a different perspective. It’s like you are saying the elephant is the tail. I’m saying, “yes, the elephant is the tail. And look here, the elephant is also the ears”. How cool it is too look at both tail and ears to get a bigger picture view of the elephant! 

I’m not triggered by elephant tails. There is partial truth in elephant tails and they have value. Yet an elephant tail is an incomplete elephant. 

[Fran11]

@Forestluv You are projecting onto me things I neither said nor meant.

Tell me where did I say or imply that someone who willingly wants to do things that society considers "appropiate" cannot? 

I respect you and don't wanna seem rude, but it seems you just got triggered and aren't even trying to understand. 

Edited August 29, 2020 by Fran11

[Forestluv]

23 minutes ago, Fran11 said:

@Forestluv You are projecting onto me things I neither said nor meant.

Tell me where did I say or imply that someone who willingly wants to do things that society considers "appropiate" cannot? 

Don't wanna seem rude but it seems you aren't even trying to understand. 

In my view, you didn’t set a clear distinction. Without acknowledgement and establishing a clear distinction - and only focusing on one aspect, the implication is an extrapolation of that aspect. To me, it seems like you were using contracted theory and examples as if they were representative of a larger truth. I was merely pointing out other dynamics in a larger picture.

Also notice how the mind can respond in various ways - it can get curious (expansion) or get defensive (contraction). As well, it can either go into cooperation or conflict. For example, we could say that there are situations in which a person naturally wants to engage in cultural constructs outside the “norm” as well as situations in which there are cultural pressures to engage in behaviors that feel unnatural to the person. We can then say, let’s focus on these subset of dynamics - with an understanding of the existence other dynamics. We could then integrate various components together. 

It is possible that someone understands your point, yet sees the point within a bigger picture. If someone says that Paris is within France, we can see that point. If we say that Paris is also within Europe, it doesn’t mean we do not understand that Paris is also in France and it doesn’t mean that we disagree that Paris is in France.

I think you make good points that have value. Yet I also think those points are limited within the bigger picture. You are free to disagree with me. Perhaps I misunderstand you. Perhaps I am missing something. Perhaps I am wrong. Or perhaps I have an insight with value. That is up for you to decide. My impression is that you don’t think I have anything of value to offer, which is fine. In that case, there is no use for me here and I wish you the best. 

[Fran11]

5 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

In my view, you didn’t set a clear distinction. Without acknowledgement and establishing a clear distinction - and only focusing on one aspect, the implication is an extrapolation of that aspect. 

People who comform to social stereotypes are not the ones who get hurt by them.

That's like saying someone who is making an argument agasint racism should clarify that he's also against the (non-existing) marginalization of white people.

Or that someone making an argument agains wage inequality beetween man and women should clarify that he doesn't propose that men earn less than women. 

[Forestluv]

14 minutes ago, Fran11 said:

People who comform to social stereotypes are not the ones who get hurt by them.

That's like saying someone who is making an argument agasint racism should clarify that he's also against the (non-existing) marginalization of white people.

That is not the point I’m trying to make. Perhaps I’m not able to explain the point well enough. I’m not trying to invalidate a point, rather I’m trying to take a meta view and look at multiple points.

I think your points have some truth and value - yet there are other angles to look. That’s just my impression. Perhaps I misunderstand and I’m missing something. At any rate, I’m more into exploring points than arguing over points. Thanks for offering your view and I wish you the best. 

[Fran11]

On 29/8/2020 at 10:18 AM, Fran11 said:

If a biologically born male happens to have a mind that leans more towards the femenine than the masculine, and he says "I'm a woman in a man's body", he's actually reinforcing these stereotypes. He wouldn't consider himself a woman if it wasn't for his cultural programming.

I thought that point was clear but it may need expansion:

He only percieves this false "mis-match" beetween his body and his mind because of social stereotypes. 

If society didn't have such stereotypes, this person would be able to have any type of personality and behavious (even name and bodily modifications if wished) without other members of society and himself percieving a "mis-match". As society progresses changing genders will ultimately be irrelevant because without such sterotypes it would just be chaning an irrelevant empty label.