Just so you know, I'm very open to the possibility of your proposed structure of the feeling, but I don't think I can take any views/sensations of disaccord with one's sexual characteristics as causally independent or conceptually non-implicated of social constructions without seeing a good account of why this would be. You seem to acknowledge the co-mediation/reciprocal dependence of felt disaccord with one's sexual characteristics with gendered social constructions, and I do too, and precisely because of that co-mediation/reciprocal dependence I'm skeptical that aetiologies of such felt disaccord exist without that co-mediation. I tried to express that by articulating the difficulties in even studying such a thing.

Though I do think it is useful to have a word which brackets the aetiology, like bearing.

I’m not sure we have any disagreement. You say I won’t “bracket the aetiology” but unless you mean something very different by that than I do, that’s not true. I am explicitly bracketing aetiology and speaking only of phenomenological things. That us to say, I’m only proposing a term for feelings that do not concern social factors, but I’m not saying anything at all about the causes of those feelings.

That us to say, I’m only proposing a term for feelings that do not concern social factors, but I’m not saying anything at all about the causes of those feelings. — Pfhorrest

Fair enough! Maybe anyway.

Sensations associated with bearing = sensations associated with felt disaccord with one's sex characteristics which are not socially influenced OR sensations associated with felt disaccord with one's sex characteristics which are socially influenced.

And for the purposes of this thread, you don't care whether there are no sensations associated with felt disaccord with one's sex characteristics which are not socially influenced? (IE, you don't care whether all sensations of felt disaccord with one's sex characteristics are socially influenced)

Only regarding the bins have I had misread. (I actually found the bin thing online last night) and the point was clarified.

With humans I am just saying what you are saying. It is impossible to transition to the opposite sex if you lack necessary attributes. It is not dependent on clothing or any labeling or something similar extra shit.

Sensations associated with bearing = sensations associated with felt disaccord with one's sex characteristics which are not socially influenced OR sensations associated with felt disaccord with one's sex characteristics which are socially influenced. — fdrake

I think that's close to logically equivalent to what I'm saying, but that seems a weird way to put it.

The "close to" part is that bearing isn't just about disaccord, but also about accord; or equivalently, since accord is often invisible, not just about having the feelings, but also about not having the feelings. People who feel nothing in particular at all about their physical sex still have a bearing, it's just a different bearing than those who do feel something or another about that. Just like people who are indifferent to who they have sex with still have a sexual orientation.

The "weird way to put it" part is that you phrase it as the disjunction of two things regarding social influence, when social influence is kind of an irrelevant afterthought. Conversely, "not necessarily concerning social matters" is an important part of the definition of bearing, the part that distinguishes it from gender identity.

So I would rephrase that as: Bearing = felt (dis)accord with one's sex characteristics, which are not necessarily concerning social matters (whether or not they are socially influenced).

And for the purposes of this thread, you don't care whether there are no sensations associated with felt disaccord with one's sex characteristics which are not socially influenced? (IE, all sensations of felt disaccord with one's sex characteristics are socially influenced) — fdrake

Pretty much. I'm not saying anything about whether or not that is the case, but it has no bearing (pun intended) on defining the concept of bearing, which is all I'm doing here.

The "close to" part is that bearing isn't just about disaccord, but also about accord; or equivalently, since accord is often invisible, not just about having the feelings, but also about not having the feelings. People who feel nothing in particular at all about their physical sex still have a bearing, it's just a different bearing than those who do feel something or another about that. Just like people who are indifferent to who they have sex with still have a sexual orientation. — Pfhorrest

I'd do the same thing with accord, socially mediated feelings of accord with one's sex characteristics etc... But point taken. You really don't care here about whether the sensations of dis/accord are socially mediated (in their causal structure) or not.

Pretty much. I'm not saying anything about whether or not that is the case, but it has no bearing (pun intended) on defining the concept of bearing, which is all I'm doing here. — Pfhorrest

:up:

I'm curious though, do you care in general whether the sensations of dis/accord are always socially mediated?

I am just saying what you are saying. It is impossible to transition to the opposite sex if you lack necessary attributes. — Swan

Alas you are not saying at all what I am saying. You are, from my POV, the bureaucrat, laying down the law about what does and does not count as a green bin, or a woman, or whatever. I am saying that a bucket with "green bin" written on it will function just fine as long as the bureaucrats butt out, and a well disposed dog or a teddy bear can take on at least some responsibilities of a man.

laying down the law about what does and does not count as a green bin, or a woman, or whatever. — unenlightened

Nah. Biology is biology, medical sciences agree. It's independent of my personal feels and "man/woman".

Biology is biology, — Swan

No it isn't. :groan:

Biology is mere biology. Society picks certain biological features and gives them significance, and completely ignores others. Fashion declares that heroin chic is the epitome of femininity - then next year, something else. The rules are bureaucratic and unstable, and nothing to do with biology.

I'm curious though, do you care in general whether the sensations of dis/accord are always socially mediated? — fdrake

It’s an interesting scientific question, but not of much philosophical interest, and I’m a little suspicious of putting too much emphasis on it for sociopolitical reasons. I’d say it’s similar to the question of what makes someone gay. Maybe there’s a gay gene, maybe fetal hormones are responsible, maybe it’s something about upbringing, maybe it’s as much a choice as what kind of food or music you like. That’s a valid scientific question, but not really of philosophical interest, and when someone seems to care exceptionally much about it, it makes me wonder why; gay/trans people are what they are regardless of why they are, and it shouldn’t make any sociopolitical difference... unless you think there’s something wrong with being like that and looking to prevent it.

It’s an interesting scientific question, but not of much philosophical interest, and I’m a little suspicious of putting too much emphasis on it for sociopolitical reasons. I’d say it’s similar to the question of what makes someone gay — Pfhorrest

I think it's a pretty interesting philosophical issue though. There's certainly a subtext of 'so they're not really women/men! Aha!' from related discussions sometimes, so I share the hesitation.

But I would also hesitate to frame it as a purely scientific question, as gender essentialism and (strict?) constructionism do bear on it. IE: there are some social factors related to gender which are determined solely by bodily sex characteristics for the former and there are no social factors related to gender which are determined solely by bodily sex characteristics for the later (and they are determined solely by social structures).

I think if you make that kind of thing a purely scientific question, you cede rhetorical ground to those who collapse gender and sex on (very shaky) scientific grounds, and those who do so are both very wrong and often politically motivated when they do it.

This is probably more about... cultural effects of the framing of an issue... than the OP or essentialism/constructionism.

I guess I've been operating from a viewpoint that sees gender essentialism as obviously if not definitionally false (if it's something biological then it's not gender, it's sex; if it's social then it's not sex, it's gender), so I hadn't really considered that. From that viewpoint, it's entirely a scientific, not philosophical, question as to how much sex (biology), bearing (psychology), and gender (sociology) affect each other and in what ways.

I guess I've been operating from a viewpoint that sees gender essentialism as obviously if not definitionally false (if it's something biological then it's not gender, it's sex; if it's social then it's not sex, it's gender) — Pfhorrest

Yeah I figured. I think it's obviously false. Though social-body interactions do obviously happen (passing/not passing and avoiding/having resultant feelings of disaccord is as much a constraint on vocal chord movements as it is on speaking style). I imagine we agree that while norms and sensations make bodies act in different ways, they both are sources of influence. And that sex characteristics and gender are so messily coupled in norms and perceptions it's difficult to tear relevant behaviour (like childhood non-conformity in our discussion ) apart aetiologically.

I see it like... since it's so difficult to tear them apart, essentialism must be false, but since it's so difficult to tear them apart, it's very easy to see things in essentialist terms.

So you can make sensible definitions like you did in the OP, there's still lots of difficult work to do in giving exegesis of basic points/teaching, and I hope that bearing helps you clear up some TERF misapprehensions.

Thanks!

In a trans context, the sensations have to be social mediated because they have to be indexed to certain concepts and lingistic practices. Dysphoria about one's body doesn't itself entail a sex or gender identification. We have to understand or learn our bodies relate in these specific ways of identity.

Without this social aspect, one would just have an sensation and sense about their body. Dysphoria would manifest not as an idenfication as male or female, but just need for different body parts.

That is exactly what this thread is about. I'm proposing a new term or concept, "bearing", to distinguish the feelings about body stuff, in isolation, from any kind of social identification.

I've been trying not to talk about myself any more because Swan is an asshole and I don't want to expose myself personally to that, but I feel like I am the best example I have of the way that those two things can come apart, and my own experience is the prime motivating factor I had to start thinking about this to begin with.

With regards to my physical body, I was born male, and haven't done anything explicitly to change that, though apparently somehow or another I seem to have rather feminine breasts. to the point that multiple people have commented on them, including someone once asking if they were real (all of them friendly, not taunting or anything). I never really thought I looked particularly femme for most of my life, though I wanted to, so those comments always made me feel good.

As for how I feel about that body, I don't have bad feelings about the maleness of it. I wouldn't call myself dysphoric. I feel positively good about some traditionally male, unfeminine things, like my height and strength. But I get good feelings at the thought of being more feminine, just physically, not talking about anything social yet. When I shave my face or body hair I feel better about my body. When I wear clothes that accentuate feminine curves (e.g. some shirts hide my breasts, some enhance them) I feel better about t my body. If I use one of those machine learning face-changing apps to see myself as a woman, I like what I see. If we lived in an immersive virtual reality embodied in lifelike avatars that we could customize to our liking, I would full time wear the body of myself-if-I-hadn't-had-a-Y-chromosome, but at my current height and strength, and with a penis for a clitoris. It's just cost and risk and quality and other pragmatic factors, combined with the lack of any particularly pressing unhappiness with my current body, that keep me from trying to approximate that in real life more than I do.

As for social identification, presentation, and role: I couldn't give a damn about pronouns. Most people gender me male and it doesn't bother me at all, it's normal and I don't think anything of it. Depending on how I'm presenting, people occasionally gender me female, and I feel a little like I've been complimented. I work from home and while there (so most of my time) I wear dresses or skirts. When I go outside I'm usually doing some kind of physical activity like hiking so I wear pants (men's, because pockets are useful), but often with women's shirts, but not always. I have long wavy hair all the time. I'm really busy and stressed so I'm lazy about shaving, just once or twice a week, but if I had the time I'd be clean-shaven all the time (and I wish I could just be hairless always without shaving).

So if someone asks me what my gender is... I don't have a straightforward answer with the terminology that we use now. To my ear as a native English speaker "man" and "woman" mean, descriptively, to most people, male and female, so I'm a "man" in that, yeah, I'm male, if that's what you're asking. But if you're asking how I want to be treated... I don't think men and women should be treated differently, so it doesn't matter, just be nice to me. Are you asking what pronouns you should use? I don't care, whatever feels natural to you, it doesn't mean anything to me and language ideally wouldn't compel us to gender people anyway. Are you asking what sex I'd like to be? Mostly female, but it's complicated (see above), and you're probably not really interested in that anyway. But that's the only aspect of "gender" that matters at all to me personally, so it'd be nice to have a way of talking about it, without implying anything about what pronouns you should use for me or anything else like that.

Dysphoria about one's body doesn't itself entail a sex or gender identification. We have to understand or learn our bodies relate in these specific ways of identity.

Without this social aspect, one would just have an sensation and sense about their body. Dysphoria would manifest not as an idenfication as male or female, but just need for different body parts. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Well it does, unfortunately. This is an almost universal psychological disease in the West. There is hardly a male or a female that does not spend inordinate time working out, not to be healthy, but to develop a six-pack, or otherwise "body-sculpt", or then there are the chemical bodybuilders, the cosmetic surgery industry, make up, the flattering clothes designed to make one look - thinner, curvier, taller, broad-shoulderier. The pressure to conform to some fantasy (gendered) body-ideal is about irresistible and if you want to appear in media, or work in a public space it is completely irresistible.

And the misery all this futile effort entails... and the lives of those who cannot or will not conform, are poor, nasty, brutish and short. And above all ugly - the unforgivable sin.

Can you even conceive it, that people bathe in bleach and shampoo with caustic soda in their effort to conform?

essentialism/constructionism. — fdrake

Seems to me that the lost tempers and tribal signalling are mainly about this.

@Swan (and I, and possibly @Bitter Crank, @Terrapin Station and @Artemis) incredulous that gender-non-conformists, of all people, would be essentialist about sex, to the extent even of being able to wish to have a different sexual essence. (As though anyone even had one.)

OP and the mods keen to defend gender-non-conformists whatever their thesis, especially since attacks, and civilised objections too, so often suggest essentialism. Like, a notion that cultural norms have a biological origin. (Which, when I put it like that...)

But the suggestion is often mistaken, i.e. misread, not there.

Exactly. "Sexual essence/essentialist about sex" is a good way to put it. It's weird to me that the whole thing seems to be based on kowtowing to "sexual essentialism," since sexual essentialism is a mythical cultural construct. Folks should be combating the cultural construct, not bowing to it while claiming to be trying to buck it.

Yes, exactly that. It is not rocket science to see the contradictions. The same craziness is happening in this thread: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/6670/study-nearly-four-fifths-of-gender-minority-students-have-mental-health-issues/p6

And gender non-conformists are a part of the highly sensitive infantilized and protected groups, no matter how many contradictions and reaffirmations their are, but claim to "not be doing". This is how the system gets rich. They will defend anything they put out, no matter what it is, so long as they have lots of feelings. Also, everyone else that does not agree with this insanity is a "Right Wing" or some kind of sadistic asshole trying to remove away rights and hurt people for fun. Lol. It's just hyperbolic, untrue, and ridiculous, but since they are already a infantilized and protected group, just feelings are enough to shutdown even civilized objections and grant them immunity from taking offense with the freedom to insult without consequence.

https://youtu.be/JLEj7AKJkuM

You lot who hate tribal signalling and infighting sure do have the same talking points.

since sexual essentialism is a mythical cultural construct. Folks should be combating the cultural construct, not bowing to it while claiming to be trying to buck it. — Terrapin Station

Since money/ownership is a mythical cultural construct. Folks should be combating the cultural construct, not bowing to it while claiming to be trying to buck it.

Somehow, I suspect my version will not garner such enthusiastic support.

IME trans people only accidentally sound like they are employing gender essentialism because of the conflation of gender with what I have dubbed “bearing”. The whole point of the OP is to create the language and conceptual framework necessary for trans people to discuss the phenomenological experience that makes them trans without having to use language that suggests they are claiming a social construct (gender) is somehow essential to their being.

Don't let people think you actually oppose gender-non-conformism, though? As though you think conventional genders are natural?

Since money/ownership is a mythical cultural construct. Folks should be combating the cultural construct, not bowing to it while claiming to be trying to buck it.

Somehow, I suspect my version will not garner such enthusiastic support. — unenlightened

Obviously at least half of economic and political theories try to understand money as a social construction, not a natural or theological one. So your comparison is welcome after all.

So your comparison is welcome after all. — bongo fury

But it's a joke, do you not see, to expect a socialist in a capitalist society to refuse to bow to the rituals of money and property ? One gets a job and pays one's taxes, and campaigns.

Political, religious, economic, philosophical, musical, sexual and gender subversives... I expect them to subvert, because I see them subvert.

You'll be telling me next you expect progressives to progress, and conservatives to conserve.

:roll:

Since money/ownership is a mythical cultural construct. Folks should be combating the cultural construct, not bowing to it while claiming to be trying to buck it.

Somehow, I suspect my version will not garner such enthusiastic support. — unenlightened

Well, first we've got to figure out what we're even referring to by folks claiming to be trying to buck some concept of money.