Oct 8, 2022·edited Oct 12, 2022Liked by The 21st Century Salonnière
"Gender dysphoria is completely sincere on the part of the sufferers, but it’s not something that occurs in every time and place — so it’s also a cultural creation." This is nothing short of brilliant. It's clear, succinct, and revolutionary, all at the same time. I aspire to be able to make sentences like this.
It's revolutionary because the hidden assumption that underlies most discussion of the malady is that it's somehow *biological* in its origin, rather than cultural. As your argument makes clear, the problem is the imposition of gender stereotypes, not an individual's predispositions or temperament.
I cannot say enough regarding how cogent and thoughtful your original article is. I really appreciate the cultural and historical perspective you offer, which makes your framing so compelling. When dealing with such a phenomenon, one would expect it to be universal, no? If not, then it can't be innate or grounded in reality. It seems so obvious now, but that's just testament to how effective your explication is. I wish your article and ideas received more widespread attention. I have yet to see anyone else making the same arguments, at least not as cohesively as you have
Oct 10, 2022·edited Oct 10, 2022Liked by The 21st Century Salonnière
A truly distinctive feature of today's concept of transgender identities is that no other society has insisted that gender nonconforming men are *really* women. This is a historically and cross-culturally novel claim. The other thing that's truly novel: medical intervention. But I've seen much more commentary on the latter than on the former.
TRAs are right to highlight that gender nonconformity exists pretty much in all historical eras and cross-culturally. They're wrong to label it trans. This pair of your posts highlights their error with satisfying clarity.
The historical contingency of identity categories has been demonstrated by scholars including - perhaps most prominently - Michel Foucault. Much of the current discourse on trans identities is not actually rooted in Foucault by way of Butler. The average TRA will insist that identity is innate and fixed. (A minority of them will trumpet fluidity - but that's not a politically useful argument, is it, when you want insurance and/or government to cover medical interventions.) Foucault and Butler both portray identity as contingent and shaped by discourse. They're pretty darn close to blank-slatists.
If you follow Foucault's logic on identity, you can't help but notice that the "trans child" is an invention of the past 15-20 years that only began to break into the consciousness of the average American 5-10 years ago. (This isn't my original point. Heather Brunskell-Evans has written about this.) But the "trans child" has become integral to lobbying for everything trans activists desires. It creates sympathy for the poor adult deprived of early transition and spawns a discourse of protecting endangered trans children. On the other side, GC people advocate for an entirely different sort of child protection, but the TRAs got there first in the U.S. and outflanked left-leaning GCs. Of course the right wing is all about protecting children, too (some cynically, some sincerely). American hyper-partisanship combined with near-complete capture of the mainstream media ensures that these two competing visions of child protection never come into dialogue - to the detriment of the kids in both red and blue states.
The more I read what you write about this issue, the more it makes sense as opposed to what seems to be the current day popular 'narrative'. Will read the longer article when I have more time. Meantime, props. Didn't have much interest in this particular subject until I read the first piece of yours I saw about it some time ago. But the more I've read, the more interesting I've found it. Especially what you wrote here. Just haven't seen this perspective anywhere - and I do mean *anywhere* - else.
Oct 9, 2022·edited Oct 9, 2022Liked by The 21st Century Salonnière
In theory we can uncreate the status of "being trans," but certain realities would make it very difficult to do so. One of them is the capture of professional associations, industry groups, governments and educational institutions, among other key elements of our society, by trans ideology.
When this happens to medical and mental-health associations, the effect is especially pernicious because they set the standards of treatment and care that other sectors rely upon. For example, in a medical malpractice case against a doctor for negligence in practicing affirmative care, the physician's counsel might cite the World Professional Association for Transgender Health standards of care in her client's defense.
Quite often the organizations' general membership are only vaguely aware of their groups' stance on trans issues because policies and programs are determined by smaller and more powerful subgroups within the leadership structure. When members do dissent, they face the daunting prospect of confronting eminent individuals in their field who might be able to harm their careers.
Secondly, business has discovered the trans market and is starting to cater to it in many ways. From so-called "transgender health programs" within leading hospitals to the scholastic publishing companies that produce the workbooks that kids in elementary school unscientific and age-inappropriate misconceptions about gender to the malign influencers who entice confused teens with artificial images of trans glamor, American capitalism is creating a multifaceted industry that won't surrender its revenues willingly.
These are not my original ideas but rather a compilation of knowledge I have gained by listening to the podcast "Gender, A Wider Lens." Knowledge is power, and the only way to uncreate the social condition of "being trans" is to have a thorough understanding of the obstacles to achieving that goal.
Great piece, but I am confused by one one aspect of your argument. It doesn't seem to me that before the trans phenomenon exploded that our culture was particularly uncomfortable or hostile to gender non-conforming behaviour. Since the 1960s we've seen acceptance of cross-gender behaviour and expression grow, so why such an extreme reaction now? Some have suggested there is a socio-political agenda involved, that is, the "queering" of society. How do the two fit together, or can you explain this differently?
Both of your posts on this topic have been great, thank you! I completely agree that we desperately need a cultural shift in our thinking. Shifting our thinking to compassion that aligns with reality rather than misguided ideology will lead to better policies in many areas.
Oct 11, 2022·edited Oct 11, 2022Liked by The 21st Century Salonnière
This is a very thoughtfully written and well reasoned essay. I agree with you. And, what's interesting is the degree to which 'nonconforming' behavior occurs in a variety of animals (as you allude to in the beginning).... In the end, everything is biology.
That said, I would like to clarify one point... As Lee Patterson correctly commented, the malady is not "biological in its origin" in the sense that it is caused by the interaction between a particular biological system (a unique person) within the context of a particular, non approving environment. (That's the cultural part.) But, the physical and psychological pain is biological, indeed. It's the equivalent of having a rock dropped on your foot. All the discomfort is of biological origin. The cause — the rock — is equivalent to society's norms and strictures. Without the rock, your foot would feel fine (or at least better). Consequently, it seems, a reasonable approach would be to help those truly dysphoric individuals feel more comfortable about themselves, as they are, within the particular culture in which they live. Simultaneously, we should all be working hard to change the norms that cause the pain, in the first place. Again, thank you for the essay, Frederick
"Gender dysphoria is completely sincere on the part of the sufferers, but it’s not something that occurs in every time and place — so it’s also a cultural creation." This is nothing short of brilliant. It's clear, succinct, and revolutionary, all at the same time. I aspire to be able to make sentences like this.
It's revolutionary because the hidden assumption that underlies most discussion of the malady is that it's somehow *biological* in its origin, rather than cultural. As your argument makes clear, the problem is the imposition of gender stereotypes, not an individual's predispositions or temperament.
Fantastic article. Thank you.
I cannot say enough regarding how cogent and thoughtful your original article is. I really appreciate the cultural and historical perspective you offer, which makes your framing so compelling. When dealing with such a phenomenon, one would expect it to be universal, no? If not, then it can't be innate or grounded in reality. It seems so obvious now, but that's just testament to how effective your explication is. I wish your article and ideas received more widespread attention. I have yet to see anyone else making the same arguments, at least not as cohesively as you have
A truly distinctive feature of today's concept of transgender identities is that no other society has insisted that gender nonconforming men are *really* women. This is a historically and cross-culturally novel claim. The other thing that's truly novel: medical intervention. But I've seen much more commentary on the latter than on the former.
TRAs are right to highlight that gender nonconformity exists pretty much in all historical eras and cross-culturally. They're wrong to label it trans. This pair of your posts highlights their error with satisfying clarity.
The historical contingency of identity categories has been demonstrated by scholars including - perhaps most prominently - Michel Foucault. Much of the current discourse on trans identities is not actually rooted in Foucault by way of Butler. The average TRA will insist that identity is innate and fixed. (A minority of them will trumpet fluidity - but that's not a politically useful argument, is it, when you want insurance and/or government to cover medical interventions.) Foucault and Butler both portray identity as contingent and shaped by discourse. They're pretty darn close to blank-slatists.
If you follow Foucault's logic on identity, you can't help but notice that the "trans child" is an invention of the past 15-20 years that only began to break into the consciousness of the average American 5-10 years ago. (This isn't my original point. Heather Brunskell-Evans has written about this.) But the "trans child" has become integral to lobbying for everything trans activists desires. It creates sympathy for the poor adult deprived of early transition and spawns a discourse of protecting endangered trans children. On the other side, GC people advocate for an entirely different sort of child protection, but the TRAs got there first in the U.S. and outflanked left-leaning GCs. Of course the right wing is all about protecting children, too (some cynically, some sincerely). American hyper-partisanship combined with near-complete capture of the mainstream media ensures that these two competing visions of child protection never come into dialogue - to the detriment of the kids in both red and blue states.
The more I read what you write about this issue, the more it makes sense as opposed to what seems to be the current day popular 'narrative'. Will read the longer article when I have more time. Meantime, props. Didn't have much interest in this particular subject until I read the first piece of yours I saw about it some time ago. But the more I've read, the more interesting I've found it. Especially what you wrote here. Just haven't seen this perspective anywhere - and I do mean *anywhere* - else.
In theory we can uncreate the status of "being trans," but certain realities would make it very difficult to do so. One of them is the capture of professional associations, industry groups, governments and educational institutions, among other key elements of our society, by trans ideology.
When this happens to medical and mental-health associations, the effect is especially pernicious because they set the standards of treatment and care that other sectors rely upon. For example, in a medical malpractice case against a doctor for negligence in practicing affirmative care, the physician's counsel might cite the World Professional Association for Transgender Health standards of care in her client's defense.
Quite often the organizations' general membership are only vaguely aware of their groups' stance on trans issues because policies and programs are determined by smaller and more powerful subgroups within the leadership structure. When members do dissent, they face the daunting prospect of confronting eminent individuals in their field who might be able to harm their careers.
Secondly, business has discovered the trans market and is starting to cater to it in many ways. From so-called "transgender health programs" within leading hospitals to the scholastic publishing companies that produce the workbooks that kids in elementary school unscientific and age-inappropriate misconceptions about gender to the malign influencers who entice confused teens with artificial images of trans glamor, American capitalism is creating a multifaceted industry that won't surrender its revenues willingly.
These are not my original ideas but rather a compilation of knowledge I have gained by listening to the podcast "Gender, A Wider Lens." Knowledge is power, and the only way to uncreate the social condition of "being trans" is to have a thorough understanding of the obstacles to achieving that goal.
Great piece, but I am confused by one one aspect of your argument. It doesn't seem to me that before the trans phenomenon exploded that our culture was particularly uncomfortable or hostile to gender non-conforming behaviour. Since the 1960s we've seen acceptance of cross-gender behaviour and expression grow, so why such an extreme reaction now? Some have suggested there is a socio-political agenda involved, that is, the "queering" of society. How do the two fit together, or can you explain this differently?
Both of your posts on this topic have been great, thank you! I completely agree that we desperately need a cultural shift in our thinking. Shifting our thinking to compassion that aligns with reality rather than misguided ideology will lead to better policies in many areas.
Both this and your original piece are awesome, thank you!
I have read countless essays on this topic, and this is the first one I've ever seen that articulates my own sense of this issue. Thank you.
This is a very thoughtfully written and well reasoned essay. I agree with you. And, what's interesting is the degree to which 'nonconforming' behavior occurs in a variety of animals (as you allude to in the beginning).... In the end, everything is biology.
https://everythingisbiology.substack.com/p/evolution-and-bisexual-monkeys
That said, I would like to clarify one point... As Lee Patterson correctly commented, the malady is not "biological in its origin" in the sense that it is caused by the interaction between a particular biological system (a unique person) within the context of a particular, non approving environment. (That's the cultural part.) But, the physical and psychological pain is biological, indeed. It's the equivalent of having a rock dropped on your foot. All the discomfort is of biological origin. The cause — the rock — is equivalent to society's norms and strictures. Without the rock, your foot would feel fine (or at least better). Consequently, it seems, a reasonable approach would be to help those truly dysphoric individuals feel more comfortable about themselves, as they are, within the particular culture in which they live. Simultaneously, we should all be working hard to change the norms that cause the pain, in the first place. Again, thank you for the essay, Frederick
Your original post was extraordinary. Thank you!
ps, Interesting to note the many updates over the past two years to the Faʻafafine Wikipedia page.