Which gender are you?

[Joao]

Okay, first off, there should be nothing inherently derogatory about labeling something a mental illness. Mental illness should carry no shame or stigma. Our whole culture is so off base in regards to this, it deserves a book level response.

Other than that, the statement only needs qualification, and the rest of us to willingly partake in an honest discussion. The qualification would be "mainstream", meaning the ideology that dominates media exposure and lay discussion. We should be able to discuss, agree or disagree whether there is enough legitimate science behind the concept of gendered brains, as well as the political implications of such phenomena, and similarities with historical efforts to "other" and thus eradicate various populations.

In this context, all I can issue is my"Galileo's Middle Finger". opinion, which is, the science is surely lacking. There are a plethora of asserted causes of transgenderism, and scientific inquiry is being hampered by politics, so it's difficult to find way forward. See Alice Dreger,

It may be a mental illness, it may be an outgrowth of hyper-aggressive neo-liberal capitalist binary gender-specific marketing strategies (and backlash to second wave feminism), it may be a product of environmental estrogen mimicking substances affecting in vitro development. The point is, WE DON'T KNOW. Meanwhile, children are being hormonally medicated, and possibly sterilized, which should raise the hackles on anyone who has half a brain or half a conscience.

Thoughtful. Thank you. You've raised many educational points in this thread.

The apparent concern with finding the cause is bizarre to me, as if contemporary science could even presume to explain our hearts and minds away. Science is surely a worthy pursuit, but are you also concerned about inquiry into plain old homosexuality being hampered by politics? It's kind of a presumptive and annoying question, don't you think? You left out that the trannie epidemic may also be caused by demons, cultural Marxism, or [insert other terrible thing here]. Sure, we just don't know the reason--admittedly, it could indeed be "mental illness," to use that deadly-loaded term from a field that has licked power's boot since its inception, but then again perhaps it's divine intervention or a grand evolutionary scheme. As you say, we just don't know.

The objection is to pathologizing freaks before the discussion even begins. Difference framed as illness. Celebrate the exceptions, rather. Thank G*d for 'em. How boring is this planet without them? Who are we to judge? That's what has me so surprised by some of the content in this thread. Celebrated freaks are still fair game for scientific scrutiny, of course, but perhaps with a touch less urgency.

Of course the social aspects and concerns are worth exploring. Of course the relationship with feminism is worth interrogating. Of course the hormone industry sees a revenue stream and of course dosing kids is suspect (sounds like satanic panic, admittedly). We may even find people who were seduced into transgenderism, or who came to regret their choices, or who are misguided about themselves. Such topics can make for informative discussion.

[tapitsbo]

Yes, calling something a mental illness could cause problems beyond shame or insults. Regardless of whether mental health is the go-to rubric for understanding gender.

[Heaven Swan]

https://gendertrender.wordpress.com/2015/11/15/tangerine-london-film-premiere-hit-by-lesbian-nation-protest/#comments

‘Tangerine’ London film premiere hit by Lesbian Nation protest

November 15, 2015




Filmgoers attending this weekend’s London premiere of ‘Tangerine’, Sean S. Baker‘s independent film shot on modified iPhone, were greeted by stickers and flyers distributed by a group of women calling themselves “Lesbian Nation”. The group protested the film’s depiction of extreme misogyny and the normalization of male violence and brutality against women. ‘Tangerine’ features an extended sequence of a man repeatedly slapping, battering, dragging and lifting a kidnapped woman, violence which goes on for several scenes and is played for laughs: because the male perpetrator is a “transwoman”.

Women are referred to as “fish” by the male protagonists throughout the film, also played for laughs in what the filmmakers describe as a “transgender revenge comedy”.

An excerpt from the (not terribly feminist) RogerEbert.com review: “[C]ertain aspects of the story are—as Internet thinkpieces are found of saying—problematic, particularly the violence that [male actor] Sin-Dee inflicts on Dinah, grabbing and dragging and lifting and even slapping her repeatedly, over the course of several scenes. “Tangerine” treats this action as outrageously funny; it seems to expect us to write it off as, “Well, this is just what would happen in that world,” a valid enough observation, but one that only takes us so far. True, the violence is balanced by subsequent scenes of Sin-Dee and Dinah and eventually Alexandra reaching a kind of understanding, and even displaying tenderness toward each other. But the later scenes don’t cancel out the sour taste left by the earlier ones. This is a case where the problem isn’t what’s being shown, but the film’s evident attitude toward what it’s showing us, at the moment that it’s showing it.”

The ‘Tangerine’ film is the latest example of a growing popular trend wherein liberal males get a pass on overtly expressing their violent hatred of women under cover of supporting the transgender movement, which is itself based entirely on sexism and misogyny and the celebration of female subjugation.



“The Misogynist Comedy of the Year!” “A Treat Not to Be Missed if You Like Violence Against Women!” mocks the Lesbian Nation protest flyers and posters, which were designed to mimic the film’s promotional materials. You can view their message in its entirety below (click to enlarge):

[Elvis]

It may be a mental illness, it may be an outgrowth of hyper-aggressive neo-liberal capitalist binary gender-specific marketing strategies (and backlash to second wave feminism), it may be a product of environmental estrogen mimicking substances affecting in vitro development.

If anything, I don't think it's the latter two (if I correctly understand the last one). To preface, in a lucky circumstance I've been able to spend the last year studying ancient Greek culture, specifically including sexuality, gender roles, prostitution, family, etc. In other words, I read a book about it. Seriously, though, I needed to cover these aspects well enough to at least get an inkling of Greek thought, from what I've learned, I think it's safe to say that transgender longings and expressions extend way back in history.

The Greeks had an interesting attitude about homosexual behavoir: it was socially acceptable—in the upper class certainly; much less is known about other classes—as long as you were manly about it. Femininity in a man was scorned as a sign of dissolution and weakness—engendering [interesting word huh] dissolution and weakness of the State!—and a "soft" man's femmy demeanor might even be used to impugn his character in a lawsuit.

While man-on-man action between hetero men was common and even traditional (at least in the upper classes), the idea of someone actually being gay, that is, being genuinely attracted to men and not women, didn't seem to occur to them. A man who liked to spend all his time in women's quarters (where women were sequestered from the world; the men even did the grocery shopping), wearing their robes, jewelry and perfumes, was an affront to all that was Greek, they were hopeless failures whose usefulness and manliness had been drained away by excessive proximity to women. Yes, my wise friends, it was women themselves who turned men into limp-wristed lumps!

All part of our mmm ooh-ahh shiny Greek heritage.

---

PW wrote,

Look at the poll and tell me whose interests are being being represented here.

[guruilla]

Okay, first off, there should be nothing inherently derogatory about labeling something a mental illness. Mental illness should carry no shame or stigma. Our whole culture is so off base in regards to this, it deserves a book level response.

The problem IMO is with the term “mental illness.” I think it is inherently derogatory, not because there’s any shame in being damaged, but because it misrepresents the reality of what causes self-destructive behaviors, subtle and extreme. First off, what’s invariably being addressed when people talk about mental illness pertains to the psyche, not the mind. And how is a mind supposed to get ill anyway?—illness is a term that was coined to address physical symptoms, so to superimpose a biological map onto a psychological one and assume that there’s going to be an exact fit is, frankly, kind of insane. The way the body gets ill and why, and the way to treat physical illness, may have very little in common with psychological imbalances.

If someone at this thread called me mentally ill because of something I said which they didn’t understand or agree with, I would be pretty upset. If someone suggested that my psyche was out of balance due to trauma, I would probably just say, No shit, Sherlock! To one degree or another we are all out of psychic balance due to traumas in our past. And since psychological trauma has a direct effect on one’s experience of one’s body and one's sexuality, then to suggest that transgenderism relates to psychological trauma—at least some of the time— oughtn’t to be terribly controversial, much less equated with prejudiced discrimination. Especially as we could say the same about homosexual and heterosexual behavioral patterns too (speaking as someone sired by an alcoholic who self-medicated daily with sex)! It’s all a matter of degrees.

But since no one wants to talk about trauma or psyche, it now seems to be a toss-up between slapping a label of “mentally ill” and proscribing the latest pharma-cure, or creating new ideological/lifestyle choices to be celebrated and championed. In either case, big bucks are being made, and accountability and understanding is being avoided.

It may be a mental illness, it may be an outgrowth of hyper-aggressive neo-liberal capitalist binary gender-specific marketing strategies (and backlash to second wave feminism), it may be a product of environmental estrogen mimicking substances affecting in vitro development. The point is, WE DON'T KNOW. Meanwhile, children are being hormonally medicated, and possibly sterilized, which should raise the hackles on anyone who has half a brain or half a conscience.

So there is something I want to say about this, and I don't know whether it belongs here or in the Jack Donovan thread. The real issue that cuts across all the filaments Guruilla has just listed above is compassion. Maybe it's because I'm becoming more Buddhist in my old age, but the reason we can't talk to each other, here to some extent, and in society to a much greater extent, is that we resist really listening to the other person and imagining what it's like to walk in their shoes. It's tempting to go down some reality tunnel and ignore everything outside (I definitely do this from time to time, we all do it), but this inability to listen is what creates all the monstrosities documented in this thread and elsewhere.

Nothing to add to these, just wanted to highlight them and amplify the signal of happily cogent responses.

Ironically, we are pretty much in agreement on the trans issue. I have deep reservations about it, especially as a cultural force, even as I have empathy for the individuals who genuinely believe themselves to have gender identities that are at odds with their bodies. I think they're probably misguided, but it is ultimately none of my business unless they happen to be making demands upon me and my own personal space. And if they are people with whom I otherwise have common interests, I'm not going to let my personal opinion about their gender dysphoria impact my interactions with them in other areas of life.

This pretty much expresses my own feelings at an up-and-up personal level.

I also wanted to address the comment by Project Willow (hi!) about everyone hating women. Since it’s such an obviously contestable, not to say incendiary, remark, I’m sure she didn’t mean to imply that men, women, and children everywhere, without exception, consciously hate women. But if it were rephrased just a bit, into something like, “Everyone has deep, often unconscious fear of and rage against women, then I would have to agree. But especially men. The question is, why? And the answer is pretty straightforward (I think): we all had a mother!

(What follows is a bit gonzo in terms of psychology, so pls. forgive the over-simplifications).

Every child (not counting those born in test tubes) begins as an outgrowth of the mother’s body, literally one with it and her. Birth, which can range from mildly (and unavoidably) traumatic to cripplingly, even fatally, so, is physical separation but not psychic. In a healthy development process, they say, the child remains psychically enmeshed with the mother for around two years, after which time the child needs to psychically dis-enmesh from the mother and begin to experience itself as a separate individual. Traditionally, the father’s role is to facilitate this process. I am having, as usual, a difficult time putting this into words, so I’ll quote a previous attempt:

A child first becomes aware of itself via the mother’s gaze. The child is like a mirror receptacle of the feminine presence. Rudimentary self-awareness begins with being the passive object of the mother’s love (in a healthy bonding, that is; more often the object of her desire, emotional neediness, and rage). This is supposed to develop into autonomy—an acting self—which requires moving away from the mother’s gaze, away from being a merely passive receptacle, towards being an independent agent, an outgoing, creative self. . . . For this to happen, there needs to be an intervention, a “divine” or fatherly presence. Why? Probably because it is in neither mother nor child’s emotional interest for the child to separate from the mother’s psyche. And unlike the emergence from the womb, there is no physical determinant as to when the right moment to separate arrives.

A male child who remains psychically bonded to the mother never develops a self independent of her influence.

http://www.emptymirrorbooks.com/beat/va ... -sons.html

To be psychically bonded to the mother, for a male at least, is to be forever on the verge of annihilation—being swallowed up by the (m)Other. Since the original object of desire is the mother, annihilation anxiety becomes especially real whenever the male’s sexual desire is activated (we’ve all seen Psycho, and Dressed to Kill). Men become violent towards women as a way of asserting and reinforcing, not just their feeling of power and control, but of their own separateness and identity.

So what about men who want to turn into women, what’s that about? Is it a way to possess the mother-object by turning oneself into it? And/or an unconscious but quite literal enactment of being possessed by the mother?

Shamans used to dress as women, and though I don’t know, my guess is that it had to do with usurping the feminine (procreative) power while, and by, rejecting femaleness as a separate/outside/biological trait. I think PW is essentially correct in that we live in a world that depends on a profound rejection of femaleness and the corresponding distortion of everything that is masculine—since neither can exist without the other. Where I’d disagree is in assigning any sort of blame, or even accountability, to men over women, or any particular loss of freedom or power to women, over men. As sexes, we are both equally damaged by this imbalance, and both equally responsible for it. That's equality!

I’m off the map now, so this is probably not altogether coherent; but since PW’s cry to remember the female seems every bit as central to this thread as the question of what it means for gender (and even sex) to be erased, and/or for men to start demanding to be seen and treated as women—and to be turned into women, not by magic but by science—it seemed worthwhile to try and look at how, and how deeply, these two things are interconnected.

Another valuable resource on this is Lloyd de Mause, who has written a lot about the Killing Mother, eg:.

New Guinea mothers are so violent while using their children sexually that the children regularly blame themselves as they are hurt by them:
Mother twist penis, tight, tight…Hurt, hurt, inside. Cry, she not listen… Mother not like my penis, wants to cut it off… [Wounds himself with a sharp stick.] …Now it hurts here, outside, not in penis. Look, blood. Feels good… Good to be a girl, no penis.

Because of the constant brutal abuse, all schizoid tribal personalities are so insecurely attached they are extremely uncertain about their genders, and most of their adult lives replay the early gender anxieties produced by their parental incest/rejection experiences.

http://psychohistory.com/books/the-orig ... in-tribes/

[American Dream]

I don't think of gender as a binary, but rather as a broad spectrum of possible self-expression.

Slowly but surely, I am stepping out of the normative standards I was indoctrinated with from birth.

That said, reading this thread reminded me of an old questionnaire that queer radicals have long used to challenge some of those standards:

The Heterosexual Questionnaire


1. What do you think caused your heterosexuality?

2. When and where did you decide you were a heterosexual?

3. Is it possible this is just a phase and you will out grow it?

More at: http://queersunited.blogspot.com/2008/0 ... naire.html

[Nordic]

Interesting post guruilla, but did you mean that you believe that all "mental illness" is the result of trauma? Because as far as I can tell (having some first hand experience with someone mentally ill) that it's not. It seems certain that trauma exacerbates it, and perhaps can even be a trigger for it to manifest, but I think one has to distinguish between mental illness caused by trauma (such as PTSD) and that which is programmed into the biochemistry and genetics of the person, such as most (?) schizophrenia and bipolar (which appears to me to possibly be a type of seizure disorder at its most severe and a homeostasis problem at its most mild).

[guruilla]

A couple more De Mause morsels, while US-ers are giving their thanks.

(Don't hate the messenger!)

PROVOKING AND FIGHTING BIPOLAR HOLY WARS

Since Christians were bipolar, they were either manic (violent warriors) or depressive (masochistic clerics, martyrs), but in either case they risked “dying for God” their whole lives: “For Your sake we have been killed all of the day.” Martyrs would sometimes castrate themselves “to demonstrate their potency and devotion to God.” In fact, clerics were said to have “become female” when they gave up fighting, because “the male must become female in order to escape the moral dangers of his masculine state.” In fact, Christianity can be seen as a way for males to become more like females—thus priests didn’t get married and wore female dresses—because young boys experienced their mothers as preferring her more passive daughters to her “rough, impudent” sons.
...

The aim of all the apocalyptic Christian wars was what the Bible said would happen to those who survived the Apocalypse in Heaven (Revelation 7:17): “God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes”—satisfying the wish that all Christian children retained from their mothers. Finally, like the Killer Mothers with whom they were fused, knights wore gaudy clothes and ribbons and long hair as if they were women, and often actually went into battle as their mothers and other women watched them from a nearby hill and shamed them if they abandoned the fight. Onlookers reported that “knights are repeatedly spurred on in battle by looking at their ladies.”231 The worst thing Christian mothers could accuse one of is looking out for yourself. What they really want is for you to “join your friends dead whose corpses lie before you…Is not this a great martyrdom?” Because martyrdom is the aim of all Holy Wars: “Dying for God.”

http://psychohistory.com/books/the-orig ... holy-wars/

From Chapter 9 of Lloyd deMause’s The Origins of War in Child Abuse:

After half a century of primary source research into the history of childrearing, I and over a hundred other childhood historians have been unable to find a single mother who did not badly beat and torture their children prior to modern times.

I have long offered a prize to anyone who could find actual evidence of just one mother prior to the 18th century who would not today be thrown into jail for badly abusing their children.

http://disinfo.com/2011/02/bipolar-chri ... holy-wars/

[KUAN]

.
I'm a lesbian in a man's body.

what I mean by that is that I have quite a strong feminine side but am not in the least bit attracted to men

[guruilla]

Interesting post guruilla, but did you mean that you believe that all "mental illness" is the result of trauma? Because as far as I can tell (having some first hand experience with someone mentally ill) that it's not. It seems certain that trauma exacerbates it, and perhaps can even be a trigger for it to manifest, but I think one has to distinguish between mental illness caused by trauma (such as PTSD) and that which is programmed into the biochemistry and genetics of the person, such as most (?) schizophrenia and bipolar (which appears to me to possibly be a type of seizure disorder at its most severe and a homeostasis problem at its most mild).

Those last two posts overlapped.

Yes I do mean that, albeit tentatively, as blanket statements are always risky. Let's just say that, with a cause potentially this big, longstanding, and far-reaching, it's worth considering that it could account for a LOT more than we suspect.

Also keeping in mind recent discovery/theories like this (which tie into more ancient beliefs about inter-generational trauma):

Sperm can pass trauma symptoms through generations, study finds
A study in mice shows that trauma might be inherited through altered gene expression in sperm

[slomo]

I don't think of gender as a binary, but rather as a broad spectrum of possible self-expression.

Slowly but surely, I am stepping out of the normative standards I was indoctrinated with from birth.

That said, reading this thread reminded me of an old questionnaire that queer radicals have long used to challenge some of those standards:

The Heterosexual Questionnaire


1. What do you think caused your heterosexuality?

2. When and where did you decide you were a heterosexual?

3. Is it possible this is just a phase and you will out grow it?

More at: http://queersunited.blogspot.com/2008/0 ... naire.html

The 80s called, they want their gay propaganda back.

Seriously, this is shallow adolescent shit reminiscent of the political consciousness I had in my 20s. Yawn.

[semper occultus]

The Greeks had an interesting attitude about homosexual behavoir: it was socially acceptable—in the upper class certainly; much less is known about other classes—as long as you were manly about it.

......you can get out of military service in Turkey as a homosexual but that is defined as being the "passive partner" ....being ..er...active is presumably just a bit of horse-play...boys-will-be-boys after all.....

''They asked me if I had any photographs.'' Gokhan says, ''And I did.''
He had gone prepared with explicit photographs of himself having sex with another man, having heard that it would be impossible to get out of military service without them.
''The face must be visible,'' says Gokhan. ''And the photos must show you as the passive partner.''

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17474967

[mentalgongfu2]

Shallow adolescent shit indeed... Yet I feel somehow it touches vaguely on a meaningful point somewhere. Somewhere... though not sure that point has anything to do with gender and transgender.
Not going through the whole exercise, but I'll play for a minute.

Q) What caused your heterosexuality?
A) No idea

Q) When and where did you decide you were heterosexual?
A) Either my first fantasies about Nikki in fifth grade, my first wet dream about Nikki from 5th grade, or that time in the basement staring at Rogue and Storm from the X-Men comics.

Q) Is it possible this just a phase and you will outgrow it?
A) No. Definitely No.

[mentalgongfu2]

The rest of the questions in that old survey are not worthy of my response; they may have been valuable at one time, or may still be valuable to others, but it is a rather rudimentary effort to make the point that homosexuality is not a choice but is in fact ingrained just as heterosexuality is, ( i.e. biological.....?)While that fits with what I've heard from every gay person I've ever met, I fail to see how it makes any argument against a binary perspective on gender. All it does is illustrate a binary perspective on sexual preference. "I was born this way" is all it says.
I don't see what it elucidates in regard to the questions raised in this thread about the nature of gender or sex nor how it illustrates any kind of broad spectrum. Not necessarily saying there isn't a spectrum, but that piece doesn't argue for it. Furthermore, if I allow there is a spectrum of gender, I can only do so theoretically, not experientially. My own view of my gender and sexuality has been and remains clear cut. I can't deny other perspectives, but perhaps that has something to do with the disconnect. If there is a spectrum, those who see themselves clearly on one pole or another may have trouble glimpsing this grey transgender middle ground if it does exist in some objective reality, and not only as a presumed disorder tied to the psyche or some aspect of fetal development as others here have hypothesized.

[mentalgongfu2]

All of which is to say, others may feel the same certainty I've expressed about my own nature in regard to their identity as transgender, but doesn't the very fact that the physiology of male or female is in conflict with the mental perception of identifying with an opposing gender illustrate some level of confusion, whatever the cause? Or is this just a reactionary perspective from people who aren't equipped to empathize with an idea that defies the binary that seems so natural to them?