(This is a text trying to draw back attention to something which has totally dropped into oblivion during all the modern discourse about “gender”, but which once had and still
has its legitimation in the spectrum of sex.
It should be also taken as a reminder why slight non-conforming mustn’t be taken as an indicator to being “trans” and having to undergo the way of changing one’s physical appearance in order to get happy again and become able to manage one’s life.)
Addition to this one here:
https://matrixmann.dreamwidth.org/262809.htmlSince the adoption of John Money’s definition of “gender”, and by that the misconception of mental sex being something that one gets nurtured into, the science about human sex has very much shifted from recognizing different degrees and motivations for sex non-conforming to focusing on transsexuals - people who can’t live with their nature-given physics because their mental sex is psychically wired opposed to that.
This you can even legitimately call “transgender ideology” or “transgender industry” - because, whenever an individual shows behavior and thinking patterns non-conforming with the established figures for “what a man is like” and “what a woman is like” in its respective culture, it doesn’t show accepting of that in the context frame of the person’s original physical and mental sex; it very quickly gets to telling people “you’re “trans””, even if the person in question never even heard of that word before or never considered itself to be “trans”.
In other words: That’s the more formal and more differentiated wording for the modern phenomenon when people appear to “get pressured” into adopting a trans identity and when they undergo reassignment, they find they don’t get happier with their lives.
What happened there exactly is that: Someone who isn’t actually “trans” got pressured (by whatever entities) to feel so because those entities wouldn’t accept him/her in in his/her sex identity, they’d negate it to that individual out of a similarly narrow-minded view about sex which they hold as a reproach against conservatives.
Like “there can’t be a non-alpha-male or even sissy version of a man; if he is, then he’s actually a female” or “there can’t be a butch version of a woman; if she is one, then she’s actually a man”.
Doesn’t that structure of the world sound a little familiar?
Right,
many people with a non-average character may know such things as insults from the school yard.
That’s actually also how primitive this way of thinking is.
“Trans” people rather took these “insults”, if they got to hear it back then, as a compliment, and get insane from a modern society that tolerates and even accepts everything, without ever drawing a line where femininity and masculinity begin, always denying them the recognition “okay, here is where one of the two ends, I get it that you’re positioned on the other side of the spectrum”.
But people who
instinctively aren’t “trans” or who are still insecure about themselves, about their own personality, for those this way of talking becomes
toxic - because they get influenced, talked into and perhaps even pushed into thinking patterns and patterns to feel which they actually originally don’t have. This sends them on an odyssey which is
damned to lead them to no additional happiness.
The core point that could help here is remembering that old term called “transvestism”, which hadn’t been coined just for nothing.
“Transvestism” means all people who like to dress and behave like the opposite sex (fully or in parts), but without wanting to modify their body via drastic measures such as surgeries or hormones or feeling instinctively dysphoric about it.
This also includes all people who adopt “parts” in general from the “world” of the opposite sex - like specific pieces of clothes, specific items that one sex tends to use more often than the other, fields of personal interest - and integrate them into their lives without that causing them to feel unwell in their born sex (physically and mentally).
A specific term that was once introduced here in the scientific field was “cross-dressing”, but that just covers only a small field of the entirety. (Especially the forms of cross-dressing that only apply to females, for the most part, don’t get regarded this way anymore these days due to differing cultures having accepted the view of a woman dressed in something else than a dress or skirt - without negating her sex because of that.)
( Read more... )
