Like, so genders are social construct and different from biological “sex”, but identifying as a different “gender” requires surgery to change your “sex”? Is “gender” just personality? I’m so confused
Edit: also, the idea trans-affirming surgery and hormones is also absolutely horrifying to me for some reason; just, ouch
Gender expressions not associated with genitalia have existed since the beginning of history. One concrete example is the Sumerian gala priests which had a penis but were not associated with males, and were considered either “genderless” or feminine. West African societies had up to 5 different gender expressions, and the same can be said for some Native peoples of North America.
Gender expression is a social-historical construct and what is perceived as being associated with one gender changes over time. In some epochs, women were expected to be talkative, in others, to be silent and subservient, the same for men in different epochs. Gender may have biological predispositions, but it’s largely determined by historical conditions.
For some time, gender was socially associated with genitalia, an assumption which overlooked manifestations of transgender behavior in every period, such as transvestites, and instead were severely repressed them throughout Western history to conform to behavior expected of the gender assigned to them at birth. Heliogabalus, a Roman emperor was a transvestite, regularly used makeup and wigs and preferred to be called a lady. There wasn’t a term for trans people in the Roman empire, but it doesn’t mean there weren’t already trans people at that time.
Trans people existed throughout history, and it’s a social phenomenon which only had prominence in Western countries in the modern era after the struggles of LGBT people to be recognized, beginning in the late 60’s
Not sure if this belongs here, but since a lot of people tend to say trans people are some kind of ‘disproval’ or breaking up of predominant gender-expression/-norms. But isn’t trans then much more a reaffirmation of whatever dominant historical gender-expression/-definition?
If they were really a reaffirmation of traditional gender expression, then why would they be so attacked by the most conservative and reactionary sectors of bourgeois society?
Trans people will exist irrespective of what we argue here. It’s not a reaffirmation, but it’s certainly a reflection of the historical gender expression. Trans people are in fact a subversion of the dominant historical gender-expression by making it more apparent that gender is not a biological thing. What is perceived as feminine is much of a fiction as being trans, because what makes a child have interest for pink colors, a baby doll, a kitchen set and make up at childhood is much more related to bourgeois ideology and production than an inherent biological predisposition. The dominant bourgeois historical understanding of gender was that women were those who were born with a uterus, and man with a penis. But neither biology is that simple, much less social life. Trans people through their mere existence frees gender from its arbitrary (pseudo)biological prison.
This doesn’t prevent gender from being reproduced historically through the family institution. Because of the traditional family, people born with an uterus are raised as women precisely because of their genitalia. This is how womanhood reproduces itself. They will be given baby dolls to take care of, they will be given a kitchen set to role-play with, they will be closer to their mothers doing housework with them. This is the traditional gender norms, which still survives in the family. The struggles of trans people have pushed society to re-evaluate traditional gender norms and what is expected of people based on their gender. This newer generation will be more and more open to share housework, to share work raising children, because that will be no longer something expected solely of a particular gender of people.
Wow, thanks! But also: what’s the deal with “gender-affirming” surgeries? Is it some mechanism for people to feel more physically like their “gender-personalities”? Would gender exist under socialism? Should minors be able to get gender-affirming therapy?
Those surgeries are done to make people feel like their bodies match who they are. For the record, not all trans people want surgery and not all surgery involves genitals.
Considering gender has always existed, I can’t imagine that it would go away under socialism. I’m not sure what that would even mean.
And yes, minors should be able to get therapy. They should be able to get surgeries, even. Keep in mind that most things that trans minors want are already available to cis minors, such as breast reductions and implants.
It is also important to consider the fact that delaying treatment may lead to irreversible changes, so ideally, it would happen as early as possible for best results, although it is effective at any age.
Yeah and there’s also the fact that many of the drugs used for hormone therapy are readily available to cis teens. Like how puberty blockers are given to kids that got puberty early, but aren’t nearly as accessible to kids that want them because they’re trans.