Transgender Thread.

[Moglet]

I reckon almost everyone has, but don't know that they have.

At somewhere just above 0.5% of people (in the USA and UK) identifying as trans, you'd only have to meet 200 people on average to meet someone who does.

That was bad wording on my part; meeting someone who is trans is fairly likely but knowing someone who is openly trans (and therefore discussing this with them and gaining a better understanding of it) I imagine is somewhat rarer. I've updated my post.

I think many people would be surprised how many trans people they've met without knowing.

 

[Danoff]

Does anyone know what to make of this?

Regarding relative prevalence of specific identities, two main trends are described widely in the literature. First, transgender females (females assigned ‘male’ at birth) are usually identified at higher rates than transgender males (males assigned ‘female’ at birth). In some studies, the proportion of transgender women to men is as high as 2:1 (6,10). However, these ratios should not be taken as a definitive indication of actual population sizes, given the limitations in methodology used to record them. Many studies survey subjects enrolled in plastic surgery, endocrinology, or primary care clinics, and as such only reflect populations that are well-integrated into existing healthcare systems and accessing care. Furthermore, some estimates derived from global data, and definitions of transgender and non-binary identities vary substantially across cultures (10).

Why would there be twice as many males transitioning to female than females transitioning to male? I can think of a ton of reasons, even reasons which would fit within the qualifications of the quoted section, like among the group which has access to healthcare and among certain cultures.

This result does appear to imply a level of social influence.

 

[Daz555]

The idea that a public "safe space" can exist or that restricting certain people from entering certain bathrooms will actually protect anyone sounds a bit naive if I'm being quite honest.

Males being barred from just about anywhere makes that place safer so I can see why many females want spaces where males are not permitted.

 

[Daz555]

I reckon almost everyone has, but don't know that they have.

At somewhere just above 0.5% of people (in the USA and UK) identifying as trans, you'd only have to meet 200 people on average to meet someone who does.

True. We have to factor in how communities mix though - there is often some form of separation in the places where people visit, when they visit, who they go with, even where they live etc. This sort of dynamic can make contact with the 0.5% (in this example) either far more common or far less common than averages might imply.

 

[Danoff]

Demi Lovato is non-binary.

What's wrong with being confident?

The context of that message was tied into Demi's gender identity. The message used to be "what's wrong with being a confident dominant woman"? I can't help but think that the message is now something like "well if you're confident, maybe you're not a woman".

Why do I think the message was tied into Demi's gender identity? Because if the message is "what's wrong with being a confident dominant man"? the song basically is nonsensical. It addresses a social stigma that basically does not exist. If the message is "what's wrong with being a confident dominant non-binary person"? First of all, Demi was a woman when that song hit big. So we'd have to think Demi played a long game on this one. Second, the song is all about dominance, and is fairly sexual. I know you can (and probably should) interpret the song beyond that sexual implication, but it has to work on that level to make sense (if you doubt this, check the lyrics). Is there a problem with non-binary people being dominant sexually? I'm not aware of that stigma. So this message is fairly difficult to retcon into the original song.

I think in the end we're left with the prospect that the original message of that song is undermined. That being a confident, dominant "woman", especially sexually, maybe has something wrong with it. This is my old soap box in this thread, that this ends up reinforcing negative stereotypes about women. I'm not saying this is the wrong move for Demi, I'm saying that I think we lost a good message in the process.

 

[TexRex]

Moral panic certainly sways in Tennessee, where Republican Governor Bill Lee signed into law, Monday, a bill passed by the Republican majority legislature that mandates private businesses with public access that permit individuals to use bathroom facilities (also locker rooms) if they don't possess physiology that corresponds to gender-based signage post additional signage that indicates as much.

The signage requirements is also...like...super specific. Postings must be minimum eight inches in height and six inches wide, must bear the word "NOTICE" in large, yellow block letters over a red background, and must bear the statement "THIS FACILITY MAINTAINS A POLICY OF ALLOWING THE USE OF RESTROOMS BY EITHER BIOLOGICAL SEX, REGARDLESS OF THE DESIGNATION ON THE RESTROOM."

One person commented that "it feels like it was designed specifically for the experience of seeing it in a mournful Smithsonian exhibit." The commentator added, "We want a look that evokes both the moral panic of the present and the legacy of institutionalized prejudice many people falsely think resides only in the past. Here's our budget--is Friday doable?"

This bears repeating:

PUBLIC FACILITIES ARE NOT SAFE SPACES!!!

Signage, its dimensions and contents notwithstanding, does not prevent anyone inclined to do harm from entering and doing harm. Beyond that, safety is not guaranteed in the absence of individuals possessing physiology that conforms to gender-based signage. Penises are not inherently harmful.

 

[UKMikey]

What's saddest is that in a year in which armed insurrectionists stormed your Capitol building with the intent to violently overthrow the government, THIS is the cause that Republicans feel is more worthy of their time and energy. It's pathetic.

 

[Danoff]

Moral panic certainly sways in Tennessee, where Republican Governor Bill Lee signed into law, Monday, a bill passed by the Republican majority legislature that mandates private businesses with public access that permit individuals to use bathroom facilities (also locker rooms) if they don't possess physiology that corresponds to gender-based signage post additional signage that indicates as much.

The signage requirements is also...like...super specific. Postings must be minimum eight inches in height and six inches wide, must bear the word "NOTICE" in large, yellow block letters over a red background, and must bear the statement "THIS FACILITY MAINTAINS A POLICY OF ALLOWING THE USE OF RESTROOMS BY EITHER BIOLOGICAL SEX, REGARDLESS OF THE DESIGNATION ON THE RESTROOM."

One person commented that "it feels like it was designed specifically for the experience of seeing it in a mournful Smithsonian exhibit." The commentator added, "We want a look that evokes both the moral panic of the present and the legacy of institutionalized prejudice many people falsely think resides only in the past. Here's our budget--is Friday doable?"

This bears repeating:

PUBLIC FACILITIES ARE NOT SAFE SPACES!!!

Signage, its dimensions and contents notwithstanding, does not prevent anyone inclined to do harm from entering and doing harm. Beyond that, safety is not guaranteed in the absence of individuals possessing physiology that conforms to gender-based signage. Penises are not inherently harmful.

Is the soviet coloring intentional?

 

[TexRex]

What's saddest is that in a year in which armed insurrectionists stormed your Capitol building with the intent to violently overthrow the government, THIS is the cause that Republicans feel is more worthy of their time and energy. It's pathetic.

In their defense (it feels super weird using that word when remarks are offered with considerable scorn), this particular moral panic has been a point of contention for them for years, though that they're really pushing it now highlights the GOP moving farther right and tipping more aggressively into authoritarianism.

To the point regarding priorities, it sure has a magician's-assistant-with-big-tits-stuffed-into-a-tight-sequin-dress feel of deflection to it. But then they're also straining to downplay the insurrection, including offering the exceedingly smooth-brained argument that it wasn't an insurrection because it wasn't successful.

Still, the mandate likely isn't even constitutional. It sure feels like it runs afoul of the First Amendment, specifically being compelled speech, and a conservative majority SCOTUS held in NIFLA v. Becerra that such disclosure requirements must remedy a harm that is "potentially real not purely hypothetical." That said, I'm not sure I'm confident of its odds should a contest reach the Supreme Court given Justices Alito and Thomas in particular exhibiting not mere conservatism, but the sort of toxic conservatism that drives this kind of legislation.

And yeah, it's really ****ing pathetic.

Is the soviet coloring intentional?

This is particularly funny after having just read a relevant piece by Tom Nichols for The Atlantic.

 

[Dan]

This is particularly funny after having just read a relevant piece by Tom Nichols for The Atlantic.

Do you happen to have a link? I’m interested.

 

[Moglet]

First of all, Demi was a woman when that song hit big.

Has Demi specifically said that this was the case? Usually with gender identity it is the case that the person has always been non-binary or male/female and coming out about it just makes it public

 

[Daniel]

Has Demi specifically said that this was the case? Usually with gender identity it is the case that the person has always been non-binary or male/female and coming out about it just makes it public

In addition to that, it can sometimes take a while for someone to figure out their gender identity. Lovato may have still identified as a woman back but has since come to realise that they prefer to sit outside of the binary.

 

[Famine]

As this has popped up again, I need some assistance wrapping my brain around something. I can't rationalise what I know of trans identity and the following.

This is Elliot Page:

As we can see, Elliot Page is a man (we can see this because only women's nipples are ever censored). While not relevant to his gender, but relevant in passing to what's later in this post, Elliot Page is also, as far as I know, a straight man - and he and his wife Emma Portner, who is a gay woman, have now divorced. Entirely not relevant to any of this is the fact that Elliot Page looks like Justin Bieber.

While I'm sure plenty of people will disagree with that, Elliot Page is a man. The nipples prove it.


Elliott Page has, prior to coming out as trans late last year, played several significant roles. There's Juno, the pregnant teenager in Juno (and that does cause a bit of a pronoun soup, but it's just semantics at that point), Kitty Pryde in X-Men, Alaska Nebraska in The Simpsons... okay, two significant roles. However, the role of confusion here is Vanya Hargreeves in Umbrella Academy, which he played before coming out as trans and before "top" surgery, under his old identity.

Vanya's portrayal to date is that of a bi woman - Vanya first had a straight relationship with Leonard in S1, before entering a gay relationship with the married Sissy in what turned out to be an alternate timeline of the 1960s in S2, until she headed back into a now-alternate version of 2019. Time travel is weird.

The upcoming season 3 of Umbrella Academy casts Elliott Page as Vanya Hargreeves, and this is where we enter a notional grey area.


Firstly we have a (probably straight) man playing the role of a bi woman, and as a bi woman not as a (straight) man. I think it's pretty easy to see that if a new production were to cast a (straight) man as a bi woman, there would surely be outrage over... I don't know, "manwashing"? We routinely see it with white actors cast in oriental roles*, and while I'm not aware of a situation of a man playing a woman's role ever coming up outside of pantomime, it's likely that there would be a similar outcry.

I'm having a hard time seeing why this is okay unless we're sort-of accepting that Page's manhood is different, or less real, than a cis-male - which I'm pretty sure is extremely not okay.

Secondly, I was under the impression that transitioning is as much about leaving your old life behind (save for your family) and starting your life anew as it was about changing the whole physical aspect of it. That is, after all, why "deadnaming" (the practice of referring to trans people by their birth names rather than by their chosen names) is considered so offensive; even where the original name was not necessarily gender-specific, it's considered part of your old, dead identity, not your new, living one.

That being the case, why is Elliot Page okay with taking this role for which he is famous under his dead name and dead identity in the first place?


Of course, we're yet to see anything from S3, so it might be that part of Five's trip through time which has brought the group into the wrong 2019 and into the Sparrow Academy - with a living Six (now Two) and a sentient floating cube - might have also resulted in Vanya/Seven transitioning to male; it is a comic book series after all, and nothing is impossible, though we did see Vanya, still female, at the end of S2.

If Vanya remains a female - and bi - character, I can't rationalise why it's okay for Elliot Page to play her. I totally get why the rest of the cast and crew want to continue working with him and support him as his family, but I can't piece together how it's okay to do so without making something else that's not okay also okay.


*My favourite one of which was in the Hellboy reboot, where the outrage of having white Ed Skrein playing the Japanese Ben Daimio resulted in him stepping down and being replaced with the Korean Daniel Dae Kim, which apparently isn't racially insensitive at all.

 

[TexRex]

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

As this has popped up again, I need some assistance wrapping my brain around something. I can't rationalise what I know of trans identity and the following.

This is Elliot Page:

As we can see, Elliot Page is a man (we can see this because only women's nipples are ever censored). While not relevant to his gender, but relevant in passing to what's later in this post, Elliot Page is also, as far as I know, a straight man - and he and his wife Emma Portner, who is a gay woman, have now divorced. Entirely not relevant to any of this is the fact that Elliot Page looks like Justin Bieber.

While I'm sure plenty of people will disagree with that, Elliot Page is a man. The nipples prove it.


Elliott Page has, prior to coming out as trans late last year, played several significant roles. There's Juno, the pregnant teenager in Juno (and that does cause a bit of a pronoun soup, but it's just semantics at that point), Kitty Pryde in X-Men, Alaska Nebraska in The Simpsons... okay, two significant roles. However, the role of confusion here is Vanya Hargreeves in Umbrella Academy, which he played before coming out as trans and before "top" surgery, under his old identity.

Vanya's portrayal to date is that of a bi woman - Vanya first had a straight relationship with Leonard in S1, before entering a gay relationship with the married Sissy in what turned out to be an alternate timeline of the 1960s in S2, until she headed back into a now-alternate version of 2019. Time travel is weird.

The upcoming season 3 of Umbrella Academy casts Elliott Page as Vanya Hargreeves, and this is where we enter a notional grey area.


Firstly we have a (probably straight) man playing the role of a bi woman, and as a bi woman not as a (straight) man. I think it's pretty easy to see that if a new production were to cast a (straight) man as a bi woman, there would surely be outrage over... I don't know, "manwashing"? We routinely see it with white actors cast in oriental roles*, and while I'm not aware of a situation of a man playing a woman's role ever coming up outside of pantomime, it's likely that there would be a similar outcry.

I'm having a hard time seeing why this is okay unless we're sort-of accepting that Page's manhood is different, or less real, than a cis-male - which I'm pretty sure is extremely not okay.

Secondly, I was under the impression that transitioning is as much about leaving your old life behind (save for your family) and starting your life anew as it was about changing the whole physical aspect of it. That is, after all, why "deadnaming" (the practice of referring to trans people by their birth names rather than by their chosen names) is considered so offensive; even where the original name was not necessarily gender-specific, it's considered part of your old, dead identity, not your new, living one.

That being the case, why is Elliot Page okay with taking this role for which he is famous under his dead name and dead identity in the first place?


Of course, we're yet to see anything from S3, so it might be that part of Five's trip through time which has brought the group into the wrong 2019 and into the Sparrow Academy - with a living Six (now Two) and a sentient floating cube - might have also resulted in Vanya/Seven transitioning to male; it is a comic book series after all, and nothing is impossible, though we did see Vanya, still female, at the end of S2.

If Vanya remains a female - and bi - character, I can't rationalise why it's okay for Elliot Page to play her. I totally get why the rest of the cast and crew want to continue working with him and support him as his family, but I can't piece together how it's okay to do so without making something else that's not okay also okay.


*My favourite one of which was in the Hellboy reboot, where the outrage of having white Ed Skrein playing the Japanese Ben Daimio resulted in him stepping down and being replaced with the Korean Daniel Dae Kim, which apparently isn't racially insensitive at all.

I doubt there would be much resistance to a male playing a female (see Tyler Perry) - particularly if both the actor and character are white. Differences in sexual orientation seem kosher too. It seems race/ethnicity is a far stronger identity factor than gender...particularly for people who aren't white. I think Elliot could play the old Vanya without too much pushback, if he wanted to. That being said, I'm confident that they will transition Vanya into...something else...as a result of the, you know, whatever device. But Vanya will no longer be female and probably not called Vanya.

Abstractly, transitioning from some marginalized group to a non-marginalized group does bring with it some pretty hefty questions. Does that characteristic/self image of being marginalized get left behind? Can it? Or was that person always actually belonging to the non-marginalized group, in self image, even if practically speaking they were marginalized? That seems somewhat possible...but the opposite seems totally ludicrous to society.

This thread has a lot of logical contortions.

 

[Moglet]

Firstly we have a (probably straight) man playing the role of a bi woman, and as a bi woman not as a (straight) man. I think it's pretty easy to see that if a new production were to cast a (straight) man as a bi woman, there would surely be outrage over... I don't know, "manwashing"? We routinely see it with white actors cast in oriental roles*, and while I'm not aware of a situation of a man playing a woman's role ever coming up outside of pantomime, it's likely that there would be a similar outcry.

I'm having a hard time seeing why this is okay unless we're sort-of accepting that Page's manhood is different, or less real, than a cis-male - which I'm pretty sure is extremely not okay.

Has Elliot confirmed that he identifies as male and not non-binary or genderqueer? He uses he/they pronouns which is fairly common amongst non-binary folk (I use them myself) and I can't find any solid references to his actual identity beyond "I'm trans".

That aside I think because he's playing an established character and everyone knows him in that role, and it was cast before he came out as trans, there is less of a chance of public outcry over it. They may also, as you mentioned in your post, write it into the script eventually (although not for season 3 according to the latest reports)

while I'm not aware of a situation of a man playing a woman's role ever coming up outside of pantomime, it's likely that there would be a similar outcry.

There have been a few but in searching for them I actually found a fair few high profile cases where a cis man has played a trans woman (or vice versa) and yes, there was an outcry over almost each case: https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/07/17/hollywood-actors-who-played-transgender-people/

Secondly, I was under the impression that transitioning is as much about leaving your old life behind (save for your family) and starting your life anew as it was about changing the whole physical aspect of it. That is, after all, why "deadnaming" (the practice of referring to trans people by their birth names rather than by their chosen names) is considered so offensive; even where the original name was not necessarily gender-specific, it's considered part of your old, dead identity, not your new, living one.

That being the case, why is Elliot Page okay with taking this role for which he is famous under his dead name and dead identity in the first place?

Some trans people are fine with their dead name being used and don't shy away from talking about their past and their assigned gender at birth. The majority don't as it can be very damaging to mental health, which is why you shouldn't dead name people, but if a person is OK with it then I don't see an issue with it personally. Heck, I've seen trans people who use their dead identity for jokes at their own expense before.

 

[Sage Ages]

stuff

I think you're overthinking it.

 

[Famine]

But Vanya will no longer be female and probably not called Vanya.

To be fair, Vanya isn't called Vanya. The delightful Sir Reginald only called her Number Seven.

I think you're overthinking it.

Which I think beats the all-too-common alternative.

 

[TexRex]

It was bugging me that he looked like someone in particular and I just couldn't for the life of me figure out whom, and then it hit me.

He's a few tattoos that look suspiciously like transfers that a nine-year-old might think are cool away from Pete Davidson.

 

[Moglet]

tattoos that look suspiciously like transfers that a nine-year-old might think are cool

This is hilariously accurate

 

[Scaff]

He's a few tattoos that look suspiciously like transfers that a nine-year-old might think are cool away from Pete Davidson.

Off topic, but it's a personal bugbear of mine.

Why does the Venn diagram of 'Celebrity' and ' Good Ink' have such a hideously small overlap!

 

[Danoff]

Has Demi specifically said that this was the case? Usually with gender identity it is the case that the person has always been non-binary or male/female and coming out about it just makes it public

In addition to that, it can sometimes take a while for someone to figure out their gender identity. Lovato may have still identified as a woman back but has since come to realise that they prefer to sit outside of the binary.

Both of these miss the point I was making. The message of the song was tied into the public perception of gender, which was curated by Demi. Again, I refer you to the song lyrics. Try to make sense of them with a gender other than woman. The entire song is about pushing back on assumed roles, assumed roles which do not apply to men and which similarly (as far as I know) do not apply to non-binary people.

If we're ret-conning the song, we're ret-conning the social narrative right out of it, chopping away an entire layer or two of meaning, and rendering it... uninspired. But then we can also apply the new context of the public perception of Demi's gender, curated by Demi, and actually make it a hurtful message.

 

[Moglet]

Both of these miss the point I was making. The message of the song was tied into the public perception of gender, which was curated by Demi. Again, I refer you to the song lyrics. Try to make sense of them with a gender other than woman. The entire song is about pushing back on assumed roles, assumed roles which do not apply to men and which similarly (as far as I know) do not apply to non-binary people.

If we're ret-conning the song, we're ret-conning the social narrative right out of it, chopping away an entire layer or two of meaning, and rendering it... uninspired. But then we can also apply the new context of the public perception of Demi's gender, curated by Demi, and actually make it a hurtful message.

I mean....there's not much you can do with something that has been recorded and is already published. I'd say a persons mental health is much more important than whether a song they recorded (when they may not have understood their identity) is still relevant to society or relevant to it's original meaning. As for whether they find it hurtful that's something we don't know unless they decide to talk about it.

 

[Danoff]

I mean....there's not much you can do with something that has been recorded and is already published. I'd say a persons mental health is much more important than whether a song they recorded (when they may not have understood their identity) is still relevant to society or relevant to it's original meaning. As for whether they find it hurtful that's something we don't know unless they decide to talk about it.

I find it a hurtful message.

I agree that if it's important for Demi's mental health, then it may be the right choice to make. I'm not saying that this is the wrong move for the individual, I don't know Demi's circumstances. I guess I would say that I wish it weren't necessary. Whatever Demi feels, at any given time, it almost certainly fits within the huge spectrum of what it is to be a man or woman. This is somewhat by definition for someone who says they are non-binary. I do not believe that the spectrum of what it is to be a man or what it is to be a woman is so narrow that either cannot accommodate Demi regardless of how Demi is feeling on a given day. If Demi feels masculine at a particular time, it can fit within what it is to be a woman.

Socially, I wish Demi had been more willing to push against the stereotype of "woman" rather than what happened. The message of "Confident"... that it's ok to be a woman and dominant, is basically trashed. This is the hurtful message. Maybe it's better for Demi this way, but not the rest of us.

 

[Moglet]

Whatever Demi feels, at any given time, it almost certainly fits within the huge spectrum of what it is to be a man or woman. This is somewhat by definition for someone who says they are non-binary.

Non-binary just means "denoting or relating to a gender that is not defined in terms of traditional binary oppositions such as male and female". It can refer to someone being genderfluid (like myself) but it can also refer to someone being agender because they never feel comfortable with the idea of having a gender at all. Their experience will almost certainly fit in with what society deems as masculine or feminine, sure, but internally they want to reject all ideas of male or female in order to be able to live without serious harm to their mental health.

I do not believe that the spectrum of what it is to be a man or what it is to be a woman is so narrow that either cannot accommodate Demi regardless of how Demi is feeling on a given day. If Demi feels masculine at a particular time, it can fit within what it is to be a woman.

What if Demi feels neither masculine or feminine? This always interests me because I used to think that nobody could be "no gender" until I realised that my own experiences allowed me to "feel" and know that I sometimes wasn't comfortable with being male. From what I'm told that same feeling just applies to both male and female for people who are agender.

Socially, I wish Demi had been more willing to push against the stereotype of "woman" rather than what happened. The message of "Confident"... that it's ok to be a woman and dominant, is basically trashed. This is the hurtful message. Maybe it's better for Demi this way, but not the rest of us.

I'm not sure why the responsibility of pleasing "the rest of us" falls on any individual though. Demi is just doing what is best for their mental health to allow them to live their lives without a constant everyday battle against themselves. For all we know they may still feel that way about pushing back on traditional female gender roles alongside wanting to be non-binary, those aren't exclusive things.

 

[TexRex]

genderfluid

Sounds sticky.

 

[Moglet]

Sounds sticky.

You know that rainbow coloured stuff that appears on roads when it rains that you thought was oil? Nah, genderfluid.

 

[Danoff]

Non-binary just means "denoting or relating to a gender that is not defined in terms of traditional binary oppositions such as male and female". It can refer to someone being genderfluid (like myself) but it can also refer to someone being agender because they never feel comfortable with the idea of having a gender at all. Their experience will almost certainly fit in with what society deems as masculine or feminine, sure, but internally they want to reject all ideas of male or female in order to be able to live without serious harm to their mental health.

What if Demi feels neither masculine or feminine? This always interests me because I used to think that nobody could be "no gender" until I realised that my own experiences allowed me to "feel" and know that I sometimes wasn't comfortable with being male. From what I'm told that same feeling just applies to both male and female for people who are agender.

As I said several times, it may be the right choice for Demi. I wish it weren't. I don't really understand why someone would be uncomfortable with having a gender. I do understand why someone might feel feminine, masculine, or androgynous. But gender? You can be masculine and female, or feminine and male, or androgynous and either. What I do understand is being uncomfortable with sexism and stereotyping. And I think when someone says they're uncomfortable having a gender, that what really underlies that is being uncomfortable with sexism and stereotyping, not gender itself.

Refusing a gender is not actually solving the problem of sexism or stereotyping. Although maybe it helps the individual, I have not been in that circumstance. And if the individual needs to take those steps for their mental health, that's what they need to do. The rest of us are left with sexism and stereotyping.

If the only people that remain "man" and "woman" are stereotypical examples of male and female, our perception of what is encompassed by "man" and what is encompassed by "woman" shrinks.

I'm not sure why the responsibility of pleasing "the rest of us" falls on any individual though.

It doesn't. I can still lament the effect.

Demi is just doing what is best for their mental health to allow them to live their lives without a constant everyday battle against themselves.

Can you elaborate on the "battle against themselves"? What does this mean? Trying to conform to stereotypes and sexism? Why is that necessary?

For all we know they may still feel that way about pushing back on traditional female gender roles alongside wanting to be non-binary, those aren't exclusive things.

Being non-binary makes it almost impossible to push back on gender roles, because that category (since it's not defaulted to) requires adopting gender stereotypes. I'm male (because of my physiology). People would generally assume I'm male based on stereotypes. If you asked me why I don't identify as female, or why I'm not non-binary, I don't know that I could cite any reason that wasn't a stereotype or gender role (other than physiology). If I were to change my gender, I'd have to cite stereotypes.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Does anyone know what to make of this?



Why would there be twice as many males transitioning to female than females transitioning to male? I can think of a ton of reasons, even reasons which would fit within the qualifications of the quoted section, like among the group which has access to healthcare and among certain cultures.

This result does appear to imply a level of social influence.

Old post but I had a thought.

I think social influence is key...at least in western culture, males are often given a lot longer leash...by their parents, by their peers, by society in general, than females are. The whole mantra of boys will be boys, excuses a lot of behavior. I wonder if that additional level of personal freedom results in some additional self confidence that could be a deciding factor here.

 

[Danoff]

Old post but I had a thought.

I think social influence is key...at least in western culture, males are often given a lot longer leash...by their parents, by their peers, by society in general, than females are. The whole mantra of boys will be boys, excuses a lot of behavior. I wonder if that additional level of personal freedom results in some additional self confidence that could be a deciding factor here.

Maybe. "Boys will be boys" is usually excusing toxic or overtly masculine behavior though. I'm not sure that someone who is wanting to become a transgender woman would have heard that excuse much. Nobody says "boys will be boys" when you don't want to play football. I was actually thinking more along the opposite lines, that the definition of masculine is more inherently compromised, more unhealthy, and more rigid - causing more of its members to be dissatisfied with it.