Do Trans People Exist?
It's a provocative title, but this is more of a work in progress stance for me.
I'm starting to think that trans people do not exist. What I mean by this is that I'm finding myself drawn towards an alternative theory that when someone identifies as trans, they've fallen prey to a gender conformity system that is too rigid. I'd like some feedback on this position.
I've posted before about how inscrutable concepts like "gender identity" are to me. To start however, here are some mental models I do understand:
There are two sexes, each with divergent ramifications beyond just what gametes you have (e.g. upper body strength, hip width, etc.).
Society/culture has over time codified certain traits which either tend to correlate with, or are expected to correlate with to code along a gender spectrum. For instance, physical aggression is coded as "masculine" because generally males either engage in or are expected to engage in it much more frequently than females. Or, nurture is coded as "feminine" because generally females either engage in or are expected to engage in child-rearing much more frequently than males. Some things are ambiguous, and obviously things shift over time and across cultures. Sometimes these changes appear arbitrary, sometimes they're "rational" given the circumstances. But generally, you get a fairly strong consensus on what is masculine and what is feminine within a given culture.
In modern liberal cosmopolitan societies, our adherence to expectations is significantly loosened. We're much more ok with weirdos running around doing their own thing compared to more traditionally rigid societies (I think this is largely a good thing from the standpoint of individual autonomy and liberty). Sometimes, people of a certain sex have a strong preference towards expression or activities that are coded as contrary to their expected gender role. Sometimes it's relatively mild and uncontroversial, like a female wanting to be a police officer, or a male wanting to be a nurse. Sometimes it's much more dramatic, like someone extremely distressed by the fact that they have a male sexual organ. (side note: I see a near-identical parallel with Body Integrity Dysphoria, individuals who are distressed at not being amputees). Generally, the trend for society is to be more accepting of what otherwise would have been previously disdained as "aberrant" behavior for changing lanes.
In general, individual gender expression tends to strongly (but not perfectly) correlate with someone's sex. It's likely a combination of innate preferences (having a greater capacity to build muscles will naturally lead to a greater interest in weightlifting for example) and some of it is culturally programmed/imposed.
As far as I can tell I don't think there is any significant disagreement with anything I said above (outside of certain fringe groups).
Now to reiterate the parts that I don't understand.
Supposedly, gender identity and gender expression are completely separate concepts. This gets asserted multiple times but I genuinely have no idea what it means. I can understand "gender expression" as a manifestation of your appearance, affect, presentation, etc and where along the masculine/feminine spectrum it falls on. Ostensibly, "gender identity" is defined as "personal sense of one's own gender" but this doesn't explain anything. How does it "feel" to have a specific gender identity? Every explanation I've come across tends to morph into a rewording of "gender expression", often with very regressive stereotyping. For instance, to highlight just one example, Andrea Long Chu (a transwoman) wrote a book called 'Females' in which she defines female identity as "any psychic operation in which the self is sacrificed to make room for the desires of another." This strikes me as an inherently misogynistic position and I wasn't the only one to point this out. Other attempts I've come across largely fall under some variant of "I was assigned male at birth, but I always preferred wearing dresses" or something similarly essentialistic.
If it's true that everyone has an "innate sense" of what their gender identity is, then I would warrant that someone has been successful in explaining what feeling like a particular gender is. The only explanations I find usually boil down to "I have a deep and innate preference for expressing myself and being perceived in a particular way" with for example "feeling like a man" typically meaning "wanting to express myself in a masculine way or play a masculine role". Which, again, does no good at distinguishing identity from expression. The other thing I've come across is an infinite recursion. Why do you say you're a woman? I am a woman because I feel like a woman. What is a woman? A woman is someone who feels like a woman? And so forth.
With all that out of the way, this is the mental model I use when interacting with trans people. I take their distress as legitimate and real, because I have no reason to believe otherwise. But why they're in distress is another question.
The Trans Rights Activists (TRA), as best as I can tell, generally talk about trans identity as a mismatch between your sexed body (I don't have a better word for this) and your "innate" gender identity. In a widely-cited study, researchers found that individuals experiencing gender dysphoria tend to have brain structure similar to what you'd see in individuals of the opposite sex. So is trans identity a neurological disorder? That position would get you in trouble among TRAs. The idea that trans identity is necessarily tied to diagnosed dysphoria is dismissed as "transmedicalism" or "truscum". But then, if trans identity doesn't show up in brain scans, where and what is it exactly? Further, if "gender identity" is unmoored both from sex and gender expression, where does it "exist"? I had this question a few months back, trying to determine exactly what the difference between a transman and a masculine female is. If there is in fact no difference, then what purpose does the concept serve?
Why even bother with this question? As Katie Herzog has pointed out, there is a drastic increase in the number of people (especially females) identifying either as non-binary or trans. This on its own should not necessarily be a cause for concern, but it's very important to find out why. One theory is that as trans acceptance grows, then individuals who would otherwise just put up with severe distress now have the support zeitgeist to come out. I think this is a good thing. But we don't have compelling evidence that this is explaining the entire phenomenon.
Consider then, my "alternate theory". I'm starting to believe that anyone who identifies as trans is most likely a victim of adopting a strict gender binary framework, but in the "opposite" direction. One of the biggest reasons to adopt this alternative theory is that we know that gender paradigms exist and they can indeed be extremely stifling. "Individual grappling with uncomfortable societal expectations" is basically every coming-of-age story out there, and there is no shortage of examples of individuals trying to break into a role and facing repercussions for disrupting the norm.
The other compelling piece of evidence is TRAs themselves. One of the best ways to find out what a stereotypical woman is is to ask a transwoman why she "feels" like a woman. There is a high likelihood that long hair, high-pitched voice, make-up, dresses, breasts, etc. will be features that make the list. In other words, a stereotype. Therefore, trans identity appears to rely extensively on accepting the gender binary as a given. I.e. "I like boy stuff, therefore I'm not really a girl, therefore I'm really a boy, therefore I should like other boy stuff I don't already." If anyone can describe "gender identity" without relying on societal gender stereotypes, I've never seen it and would be appreciative if you can point me in that direction.
So going back to the rise of the genderqueer identity, it's certainly possible that this is primarily driven by increased acceptance of trans individuals. Again, if this is true, this is a good thing. But I outlined why I don't believe that's plausible compared to the alternate theory that trans individuals are still mired in a stifling gender conformity framework. The problem we're currently facing is that there is no socially acceptable method of distinguishing between these two scenarios. In fact, even entertaining the latter is deemed as heretical.
Even though I am writing explicitly what many dismiss as a strawman (I am denying that trans individuals exist), the vociferous reaction doesn't really make sense. Because if my alternate theory is accepted, then males who prefer wearing dresses can continue to do so, females who feel distress at having breasts can cut them off, and anyone with preferred pronouns can make that request. Nothing fundamentally would change; our march towards greater individual autonomy and acceptance is not likely to be abated.
What will change is that everyone will experience far less distress anytime they find themselves in a gender non-conforming role. The female who has affinity for "male" sports does not need to have an existential crisis to do what they want to do. People can carry on as they wish, and continue to fuck up the gender expectation game (which, again, I think is an unequivocal good). I also can't help but think that without 'trans' as a framework identity, expression is far more likely to be "genuine". It's impossible for anyone to legitimately claim "my expression is unaffected by societal expectations", I think we're all subject to some influence to some extent. But this influence is especially prominent when the entire basis of someone's identity is defined as "opposite of my birth sex" (trans, after all, is a Latin term used in biology). Because qualitatively, is there a difference between a transman who sees driving a big truck as part of their gender identity, and a cis male that thinks the same way for the same reason? I can't think of one.
P.S. This is an aspect that I think the non-binary and agender folks have a point. Sort of. Like I said above, I've never heard a definition of gender identity that isn't a rewording of preferred gender expression, so I'm inclined to think that gender identity doesn't exist either. Therefore, it's unremarkable for someone to lack an innate sense of gender and by that definition the overwhelming majority of the population would likely fit the definition. On this point, I'm of the same mindset as Aella. While I'm technically a cis male who presents masculine, I'm apparently agender because I lack this undefined "innate sense" of my supposed gender. If everyone fits the definition of a term, the term starts to become useless.
[Follow-up: Riposte Team Gender Critical]
Hi! Trans person here, here are my thoughts.
When I talk to people inside trans communities the argument against transmedicalism is typically big tent logic. "We want to avoid having overly prescriptive definitions of what it means to be trans because that discourages exploration and leads to a lot of "am I *really* trans" which is counterproductive because goodharting, among other things.
That said, I can't think of anyone I know personally who simultaneously identifies as trans and is not at least taking cross sex hormones, surgery is somewhat less common but I'm an outlier among my trans friends in considering surgery to be completely off the table.
I think the critique here applies much better to non-binary people.
I think when trans people talk about what it is to be a woman there's a miscommunication, because for people early in transition their focus is often on passing. Passing is a goal because it makes you less vulnerable and means you'll be gendered correctly more consistently, misgendering tends to trigger neuroses because it reminds you of the ways you fail to pass, typically with a focus on secondary sex characteristics.
Ime it's pretty common for trans women far along in their transition to be much less overtly feminine because they no longer have anything to prove, to themselves or others.
This notion that trans people commonly focus on gender stereotypes as a defining aspect of their identity is, ime, just totally wrong. I personally consider myself a tomboy, one of my MtF friends considers themselves to be butch.
And, frankly trans people tend to focus much more on *trans* stereotypes than binary gender stereotypes i.e "I'm definitely a transwoman because I was so focused on an algebraic topology textbook I forgot to eat until 7pm"
If there is a better article that sums up my particular thoughts and feelings about this subject, I've yet to find one. I am 100% right there with you.