How to get out of an uncomfortable egg culture situation with this one simple trick.

Real talk: Calling people eggs is a violation of the egg prime directive, and is considered invalidating as you are trying to say that a person is not the gender they identify as, that their identity is invalid. Don’t call people eggs, like ever, it’s extremely uncool.

  • dandelion
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    14 hours ago

    part 2 of my comment:

    The Finnster situation is a little bit thornier too, because the fact that he identifies as genderfluid, means that the egg people saying they were right and “he was a girl all along” is extremely disingenuous because, the whole thing about genderfluidity is that it means gender shifts and changes over time. That means someone who is genderfluid might very well have a different gender identity when they started than they do now.

    I tend to think of genderfluid as more a way someone is describing their experience of their gender rather than a genuine gender identity. We don’t really have any scientific evidence that gender identity can change or be fluid, and in fact we have plenty of scientific evidence to the contrary, that unconscious sex / gender identity is fixed and biological. This is part of why conversion therapy doesn’t work, you can’t make a trans person cis or a cis person trans - it just doesn’t work. It also means a trans person isn’t choosing to be trans, it is part of their nature and won’t come and go.

    That said, in the interest of respecting someone’s experience, I try to reconcile the evidence against people’s self-conceptions, and it’s not really surprising to me that a person who insisted they were 100% a cis man first would use a label like genderfluid.

    My own experiences could be labeled as genderfluid, I certainly have days where I think of myself more or less as a man or a woman, etc. - but careful observation has made it clear to me that my gendered self conception which seems so fluid is truly separate from my gender identity or unconscious sex, that there is something that will always be there deep down that causes me to be bothered by body hair no matter how I think of myself. I can’t actually observe or know my gender identity, I have to infer it. I don’t think most people are so introspective or careful about their self-understanding, so it does not surprise me when people create new labels and concepts to try to capture something about their experience and it doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. I tend to think this is OK, and that it’s healthy and good to try to describe your experiences. The problem I see is only when people get extremely rigid about these labels being taken as inerrant objective reality, which I think naturally happens as our subversive gender experiences smash up against the wall of cis-normativity. Again defensiveness seems to lead to rigidity and black and white thinking.

    Either way, you don’t have to characterize the egg crowd as thinking “Finnster was a girl all along”, you can simply say the egg crowd will say “Finnster was not a cis man all along” - that is true regardless of where Finnster lands ultimately.

    Though I’ve found egg spaces to be not very understanding of, or even intolerant towards genderfluidity saying that “gender is set in stone” or “it’s in your brain/genes when you’re born”. It really does go to show the importance of just respecting how people identify right now and not worrying about whether they were wrong or are wrong. At the end of the day, it’s their life, their gender. Their destiny is in their hands.

    Not to side with “intolerance,” but I do want to at least present some of the empirical evidence we have about gender actually being biological and “set in stone” (not that this means our self-understanding of gender is set in stone, or that the way we might identify can’t change). I still agree with respecting the way people identify in the moment and being respectful even when their self-conception seems dubious or contradicts evidence.

    • Joshua Safer’s “Evidence supporting the biologic nature of gender identity” (DOI)
    • Joshua Safer’s “Etiology of Gender Identity” (DOI)
    • the collective research of Daphna Joel and Dick Swaab for the current scientific theories of “brain-sex” (which likely plays a role in gender identity and gender dysphoria):
      • Joel & Swaab, 2019, “The Complex Relationships between Sex and the Brain”, (DOI)
      • Joel, 2015, “Sex beyond the genetalia: The human brain mosaic”, (DOI)
      • Swaab, 2008, “A sex difference in the hypothalamic uncinate nucleus: relationship to gender identity”, (DOI)
      • Swaab, 2000, “Male-to-female transsexuals have female neuron numbers in a limbic nucleus”, (DOI)
      • Swaab, 1995, “A sex difference in the human brain and its relation to transsexuality”, (DOI)

    Reading Swaab’s work in particular was eye-opening, since trans women whose brains were autopsied were found to have structures in their brain that were like cis women and not like cis men, even without ever undergoing hormone therapy. While the picture that emerges with later research did not point to something as simple as “male” and “female” brains, it is particularly grounding to me to have empirical evidence like this that lends credibility to our experiences. It really is more accurate to say trans women have a “female brain” than to say trans women have a “mental illness” as though the gender identity were due to delusions or psychosis.

    If reading scientific literature is challenging, the famous neuroendocrinologist, Robert Sapolsky, has some talks that summarize the situation:

    This science isn’t some kind of inerrant rigid belief system either, by the way - but that’s not to say it doesn’t provide solid evidence that has consequences in legal and political contexts. Ultimately I think it is important for policy makers, scientists, medical doctors, etc. to engage in inference to best explanation and lean on the body of evidence we have to do that. I think it is important to recognize that the evidence we have about gender identity (by which I mean the generally immutable unconscious sex that we are born with, likely due to the way our brains develop) is that it cannot be changed, that conversion therapy does not work, and that trans people cannot be made cis and vice versa. These are essentially “facts”.

    None of these facts require that we invalidate others’ self-identity even when they contradict those facts, we can still hold the principle that we should respect others’ self-identity for pragmatic reasons even when there are reasons to doubt a person’s self-understanding or the way they have theorized or come to think about their gender. It is a matter of politeness and respect.

    • First Majestic Comet
      shield
      OPM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      19 minutes ago

      I tend to think of genderfluid as more a way someone is describing their experience of their gender rather than a genuine gender identity. We don’t really have any scientific evidence that gender identity can change or be fluid, and in fact we have plenty of scientific evidence to the contrary, that unconscious sex / gender identity is fixed and biological. This is part of why conversion therapy doesn’t work, you can’t make a trans person cis or a cis person trans - it just doesn’t work. It also means a trans person isn’t choosing to be trans, it is part of their nature and won’t come and go.

      I take issue with this line of reasoning because there are indeed genderfluid people who experience strong dysphoria that shifts and changes over time. Genderfluidity isn’t a presentation or choice it is very real for people. Also it comes off as bad faith to use the idea of brain sex to debunk it because conversion therapy doesn’t work. It’s a very VERY bad comparison because conversion therapy is other people trying to change a person by force. Genderfluidity is a person changing by themselves.

      When I talk about denial of Genderfluidity in the trans community this is what I’m talking about.

      Furthermore I do take a lot of issues when it comes to ideas about “brain gender” or “brain sex” because there are many situations where it falls apart when trying to describe gender, genderfluidity is a prime example there. How does that work then? One could argue that like you did that it’s simply a presentation or performative. However that doesn’t address the fact that there are genderfluid people who have gone through conversion therapy, and they haven’t stopped being genderfluid either. So the conversion therapy comparison isn’t a valid argument for brain genders and gender identity rigidity.

      Other problems are that the brain sex theory doesn’t account for Nonbinary identities, like you said one could argue they are performative. Though once again that falls apart when they too experience strong gender dysphoria and also, once again can’t be converted by persuasive or coercive means.

      What I think is the biggest problem when it comes to these studies, is that they seem to imply that having gender identity is related to gender dysphoria. These studies are the basis of transmedicalism. Many ignore the fact that there are trans people who lack gender dysphoria, they also do not acknowledge the conditions that are problematic for their theories like nonbinary or genderfluid people because they ultimately do not have an answer for those, even though many of them have gender dysphoria as strong as binary trans people do.

      I think it is important to recognize that the evidence we have about gender identity (by which I mean the generally immutable unconscious sex that we are born with, likely due to the way our brains develop) is that it cannot be changed, that conversion therapy does not work, and that trans people cannot be made cis and vice versa. These are essentially “facts”.

      Conversion therapy is wrong, it’s very easy to prove why it is wrong without promoting lies about how gender identity works that invalidate or misrepresent the experiences of nonbinary and genderfluid people, who very much do share the same experiences in terms of dysphoria and euphoria as any binary trans people. Saying that gender is locked in that is doing exactly that. Maybe instead of overthinking to the extreme and finding a reason based on biological existentialism for why conversion therapy is bad and wrong we should just point out the fact that one cannot change who someone is through coercion and abuse. It’s that simple. There is never a place for that kind of “treatment” not in gender or sexuality, not outside of it. I can’t believe that people would even consider that okay if there was even the possibility that a person could choose. If they could, it would be just as wrong or evil to try and force them.

      This science isn’t some kind of inerrant rigid belief system either, by the way - but that’s not to say it doesn’t provide solid evidence that has consequences in legal and political contexts.

      You are absolutely right about this. These studies do have consequences in legal and political situations, and they also have frightening implications for those who are genderfluid, nonbinary, or non-dysphoric.

      None of these facts require that we invalidate others’ self-identity even when they contradict those facts, we can still hold the principle that we should respect others’ self-identity for pragmatic reasons even when there are reasons to doubt a person’s self-understanding or the way they have theorized or come to think about their gender. It is a matter of politeness and respect.

      Agreed. It is paramount that we respect the identities of people whether or not they fit these rigid definitions. However like the ones I highlighted, we should also take the time to scrutinize these conclusions because there are plenty of situations that are wildly incompatible. Like a genderfluid person who may feel strong dysphoria towards her penis, yet after a shift he may feel perfectly comfortable with it, or even possibly miss it when it is gone. Such situations don’t just “not fit” they challenge the merit of it altogether. These situations really need to be taken seriously, not brushed aside for acceptance, but actually looked at to re-evaluate the conclusions that were drawn otherwise.