Question about gender

[constant escape]

I think vimothy is asking something along the lines of how the existence of trans people changes the conversation among cis people, who would have otherwise tended to operate as if there wasn't an alternative. There undoubtedly is an impact on such a conversation, but as the image @subvert47 posted suggests, the impact probably isn't nearly as robust as it could be.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

so there's no challenge to the conventional or common understanding of gender? the existence of trans men and women is completely incorporated into what ppl think of as male and female gender roles?

no, that isn't what @subvert47 meant (correct me if I'm wrong boss)

you're focused too narrowly on trans men and women. anyone of any gender identity can challenge conventional gender roles.

going the other way, trans people can seek to embody very conventional gender roles. i.e. I have known trans women who embrace ultra femininity.

gender identity ≠ gender roles

what trans people do automatically challenge, just by existing, is the notion that your genitals/reproductive organs determine your gender identity

not that it's their responsibility to actively pursue their challenge - though plenty do - just the de facto reality

 

[vimothy]

so in that sense, there is a challenge to the conventional understanding of gender - interpreted as the kind of performed aspect of sex. which seems obvious, idk.

a further question might then be what it means for a trans woman to "embrace ultra femininity", given that femininity is just this kind of residual aspect left over after we assign social constructs

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

a further question might then be what it means for a trans woman to "embrace ultra femininity", given that femininity is just this kind of residual aspect left over after we assign social constructs

well that's what I mean by gender identity ≠ gender roles

that's what is meant by trans people operate in relation to the same constructs as the rest of us

some non-cisgender de facto challenge those constructs more actively than others

trans people are really just one element of what you coudl call people outside of cisgender normativity, which also includes non-binary, genderqueer, etc folk as well as (potentially) femme cisgendered men, butch cisgendered women, etc

trans people are actually the element potentially closest to conventional gender constructs

i.e. if you're a trans man you can embrace conventional masculinity - not all do by any means, but you can and some people do

if you're a non-binary or genderfluid person you de facto challenge male/female constructs

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

I'd also, as I usually do, point out that "conventional understanding" of gender is quite a narrow view

globally there have been and are numerous cultures that have an understanding of gender outside male/female binary

Europe was historically one of the more strictly cis and heteronormative, as well as sexually repressive in general, parts of the planet

something that was passed down in many colonial situations, ofc

 

[vimothy]

ok, but you are appealing to a norm, right?

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

ok, but you are appealing to a norm, right?

yeah of course

norms differ by culture but there are always norms

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

I still don't know what your actual question is

 

[vimothy]

my original question was what the existence of trans means for this norm

 

[vimothy]

for various reasons it maybe seems hard to answer that

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

that those norms are dumb and limiting and not reflective of reality

that's always been true, it's just that cis folk have - in a significant chunk of the world - awoken to it

what you're really asking isn't what does the existence of trans people mean

what you're asking is what it means that challenges to conventional gender roles have penetrated into mainstream consciousness

 

[vimothy]

but it seems to me that you can also ask, if the existence trans ppl undercuts conventional gender roles or whatever, what it means if, for example, they identify with them

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

if the existence trans ppl undercuts conventional gender roles or whatever

but it doesn't necessarily

I can't think of a clearer way to say that gender identity and gender roles aren't the same thing

what challenges gender roles is challenging gender roles

a cis man and a trans man are equally able to reject or embrace conventional masculinity as they see fit

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

it doesn't mean anything if a trans person embraces a conventional image of their gender any more or less than a cis person doing the same thing

what does it "mean" when a cisgendered person identifies with conventional gender archetypes

 

[vimothy]

this just seems bizarre to me. suppose you are a "cis male" for whom the existence of a trans male is basically impossible or a non-issue, which is te modal positiion of everyone more or less, then te question is simply what is normal. well, what is normal?

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

which is te modal positiion of everyone more or less

that's certainly not true

 

[vimothy]

no?

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

dude why else do I (or someone) always have to mention all the different ways gender has been viewed, and lived in the course of human existence

normal is a construct. there is no such actual thing as normal.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

and who cares what this hypothetical dude thinks

trans people don't exist in order to help cisgendered people, or anyone, to reflect on gender norms

it's like asking what it "means" for heterosexuality that gay people exist

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

(btw from the amount of misspellings I'm guessing you're reasonably hammered rn?)