Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2015 3:45:41 GMT 8
In all the hoop-la about Rachel Dolezal (much of it transphobic, and which affair I don’t intend to comment on anyway as it means nothing to me), some things have occurred to me.
E.g.: one explanation of transgenderism, generally intended for a cisgender audience, that we often hear runs along the lines of “Your sex is what you’re born with between your legs, your gender is how you perceive yourself.”
Now I would take issue with this. For a good bit of my life I didn’t perceive myself as female or transgender or anything along those lines. I spent a lot of time in my youth cross-dressing without wondering why I was doing it—apart from the fact that I enjoyed it tremendously. I didn’t know and I didn’t wonder why I enjoyed it. It didn’t lead me to raise any questions about my gender.
Of course I’m of the older generation. I grew up in times when solid information about transgenderism was hard to come by. And it would have done me little good anyway if I could have got it. Given the environment I grew up in, knowing that I was transgender wouldn’t have helped me much because I certainly couldn’t have afforded to let anybody know about it. Which is one of the major reasons I didn’t think about such issues. Much better to suppress it, much better not to think about something that would only land you in big trouble.
Yet I was undoubtedly transgender. You don’t have to perceive yourself as trans to be trans. You don’t have to perceive yourself as female to be female. A cisman isn’t male because he perceives himself to be male. He perceives himself to be male because he is male. A ciswoman isn’t female because she perceives herself to be female. She perceives herself to be female because she is female. Similarly, you’re not trans because of how you perceive yourself.
If you’re trans, you’re trans. Maybe a lot of transpeople are like me: you’re not exactly sure how to perceive yourself, because you still haven’t pinned down exactly what you are. Some days I clearly perceive myself as a female soul, some days I’m not sure what I am. I don’t feel like either male or female. Apart from the fact that I abhor the thought now of presenting as male, it’s hard at times to pin down exactly what I am or how I perceive myself.
But this is a detail. I’m trans—not because I perceive myself to be trans but because I am trans. And if I’m not completely sure whether I’m binary female or maybe non-binary in some sense, it doesn’t change the fact that I’m not cisgender. I am what I am—and my self-perception isn’t going to change what I am. As time goes on, I may be able to refine my self-perception: I may be able to discover more exactly what I am and thus discover how to live more in accordance with my nature and hence more happily.
But being trans isn’t a question of how you perceive yourself. Caitlyn Jenner isn’t a woman because she perceives herself to be a woman. The way I’d put it (though perhaps she herself wouldn’t) is that she’s a female soul. Always has been, always will be. She’s as much a female soul as any ciswoman and for the same reason that a ciswoman is a female soul—not because she perceives herself to be such, but because she is such.
Any comments? Does anyone agree or disagree with any of this?
E.g.: one explanation of transgenderism, generally intended for a cisgender audience, that we often hear runs along the lines of “Your sex is what you’re born with between your legs, your gender is how you perceive yourself.”
Now I would take issue with this. For a good bit of my life I didn’t perceive myself as female or transgender or anything along those lines. I spent a lot of time in my youth cross-dressing without wondering why I was doing it—apart from the fact that I enjoyed it tremendously. I didn’t know and I didn’t wonder why I enjoyed it. It didn’t lead me to raise any questions about my gender.
Of course I’m of the older generation. I grew up in times when solid information about transgenderism was hard to come by. And it would have done me little good anyway if I could have got it. Given the environment I grew up in, knowing that I was transgender wouldn’t have helped me much because I certainly couldn’t have afforded to let anybody know about it. Which is one of the major reasons I didn’t think about such issues. Much better to suppress it, much better not to think about something that would only land you in big trouble.
Yet I was undoubtedly transgender. You don’t have to perceive yourself as trans to be trans. You don’t have to perceive yourself as female to be female. A cisman isn’t male because he perceives himself to be male. He perceives himself to be male because he is male. A ciswoman isn’t female because she perceives herself to be female. She perceives herself to be female because she is female. Similarly, you’re not trans because of how you perceive yourself.
If you’re trans, you’re trans. Maybe a lot of transpeople are like me: you’re not exactly sure how to perceive yourself, because you still haven’t pinned down exactly what you are. Some days I clearly perceive myself as a female soul, some days I’m not sure what I am. I don’t feel like either male or female. Apart from the fact that I abhor the thought now of presenting as male, it’s hard at times to pin down exactly what I am or how I perceive myself.
But this is a detail. I’m trans—not because I perceive myself to be trans but because I am trans. And if I’m not completely sure whether I’m binary female or maybe non-binary in some sense, it doesn’t change the fact that I’m not cisgender. I am what I am—and my self-perception isn’t going to change what I am. As time goes on, I may be able to refine my self-perception: I may be able to discover more exactly what I am and thus discover how to live more in accordance with my nature and hence more happily.
But being trans isn’t a question of how you perceive yourself. Caitlyn Jenner isn’t a woman because she perceives herself to be a woman. The way I’d put it (though perhaps she herself wouldn’t) is that she’s a female soul. Always has been, always will be. She’s as much a female soul as any ciswoman and for the same reason that a ciswoman is a female soul—not because she perceives herself to be such, but because she is such.
Any comments? Does anyone agree or disagree with any of this?
