this post was submitted on 19 Dec 2025
12 points (100.0% liked)

philosophy

20226 readers
1 users here now

Other philosophy communities have only interpreted the world in various ways. The point, however, is to change it. [ x ]

"I thunk it so I dunk it." - Descartes


Short Attention Span Reading Group: summary, list of previous discussions, schedule

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Preamble: mostly talking about socially learned gender dysphoria in this post, separate from the medical body dysphoria people sometimes have from birth. I want to define three types of dysphoria to hopefully give you a clue as to where I am coming from:

Types of dysphoria: social dysphoria (misrecognition),

aesthetic dysphoria (norm conformity),

somatic dysphoria (body-schema mismatch)

Do you ever have a sneaking suspicion that the term “gender affirming” care is sneaking a little Telos into the conversation? To affirm one’s gender inherently implies the target gender is some objective thing that one can change into, but this seems contradictory to the idea that gender is simply a social construct, not a representation of reality.

What is the utility of the ‘trans’ prefix in a social context today? Clearly there is very real utility when it comes to medical treatment, and legal protections, but it also seems contradictory to the belief that trans women… are women. We don’t say someone who is nationalized is a “Nationalizing Citizen”, we don’t consider christian converts to be “Converting” Christians… They're just christians.

The trans prefix, used in a social setting, only semantically exists to distinguish Trans Women from Cis Women, which actually reinforces the concept of a hierarchical gender binary.

This doesn’t even apply to exclusively trans ideology. Someone getting gender affirming care because they want larger/smaller breasts is increasing their womanly-ness in a hierarchical fashion. They could probably quantify how more “womanly” they feel, but obviously that cannot be objective. This may be a form of body dysphoria, but to say it is gender dysphoria seems like you’re giving a lot of weight to the word gender. There is nothing inherently found in the definition of a “woman” that dictates the form of their breasts. To categorize a woman as “with breasts” is to make all women without breasts inherently less womanly… nonsense.

This ties pretty handily into Sartre’s Le Regard. What we are actually trying to achieve in our “gender” affirming care, is not to get ourselves to some Ideal state of a Woman… it is shaping our bodies to be what Society’s gaze deems to be a woman. Only through killing this gaze will we ever actually be liberated from these social definitions of Gender. Now we can either kill the gaze by stabbing all of our eyes out, or we can get rid of the gender framework as a concept. Will the gender framework wither away while capitalism is still there to reinforce it? Not sure on that. Stay tuned…

Talking with some trans comrades with medical body dysphoria, they’ve explained to me that “sex reassignment surgery” is actually a better definition of what they need to feel better than any form of gender dysphoria. They actually feel as though they are missing their third leg. This to me suggests that a great amount of dysphoria felt today is due to Le Regard… which I guess is just a nerd ass way of saying “social construct” The root cause of this pain being the gender framework that society continues to uphold, even as it relentlessly twists its own form to stay relevant.

Every time I try to discuss this in less radical spaces people seem to be really opposed to Gender Abolition as a concept… so bless Hexbear.

top 2 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Drewfro66@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

What is the utility of the ‘trans’ prefix in a social context today? Clearly there is very real utility when it comes to medical treatment, and legal protections, but it also seems contradictory to the belief that trans women… are women. We don’t say someone who is nationalized is a “Nationalizing Citizen”, we don’t consider christian converts to be “Converting” Christians… They're just christians.

I don't necessarily want to comment on the trans bit, but in both of these situations (Converts and Citizen Immigrants) I think you're understating how often these distinctions are made. And I think both of your examples are great analogues to dive into to help better understand trans identity.

There are certainly situations where it is important to distinguish between an "American" as in an "American Citizen", and as in "Someone born in America and socialized as an American". And the same could be said for Religious converts - I have many Muslim friends, both born and converts. And obviously there is a difference between the son of Afghani immigrants, and a white guy from Marienburg who recites the Shahada, especially in their social experience of Islam and their upbringing.

But it's also true that, when an immigrant becomes a citizen, we celebrate their naturalization, and we call them an American. And when a person converts, a big deal is made of it and they are embraced by their new community.

I think exact verbiage can sometimes come under extreme scrutiny when it comes to trans issues because very small differences in how we approach trans identity can be the difference between someone with the "correct" opinions and a Truscum. But that nationality and religion are less charged but analogous topics that analogies can be drawn from. I think we treat religious converts, and especially naturalized citizens, similarly to how we treat trans people - where most will enthusiastically and sometimes militantly support their new identity, a bigoted minority will deny it, but even most of those who claim to accept their identity consider them somewhat "apart"; that sure, you are an American, but you are still an Immigrant. I think it's almost striking how similar the citizen immigrant experience is to the trans experience, of having to assimilate and "prove yourself" even when progressives state that assimilation isn't necessary and that there's nothing to prove.

[–] itsPina@hexbear.net 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I think a bigger issue I have, and failed to articulate at all lol, is that transition implies becoming meaning one has yet to "become" a woman... theyre in the process of doing so. Again.. a telos! But a telos we never even acknowledge as complete. Sure some passing people may have the luxury of not being assumed as trans, but if they were outed that prefix would appear again even when it seems like they're not Transitioning they've Transitioned... I don't have to specify that bread is Baked Bread, though its certainly useful to distinguish Baking Bread. Its implied it became Bread at some point down the line, a priori.

Oh also... yes we may "other" a convert or an immigrant, but that distinction ONLY arises if you are trying to somehow deem them different from you... If you somehow see it as a negative.

When I see a tran woman I literally do NOT need to know she is trans... it has no effect on how I treat them as a person. It makes sense in a legal setting, or face to face with your doctor, but socially distinguishing people as trans ONLY exists to categorize them as different from what they are.