Yes. Language is so powerful. We must scrutinise every word, every phrase. Even the term of 'gender ideology' is potentially misleading. To what extent is gender ideology even about gender at all? Would it be more accurate to call it a rejection of gender altogether? A 'non-gender ideology' perhaps?
Yes. Language is so powerful. We must scrutinise every word, every phrase. Even the term of 'gender ideology' is potentially misleading. To what extent is gender ideology even about gender at all? Would it be more accurate to call it a rejection of gender altogether? A 'non-gender ideology' perhaps?
100 years ago we might expect the first thing female 'trans kids' were encouraged to do would be study hard, get a good job, learn to put your own hardships and vanity to one side and prioritise providing protection and resources for women and children (and the community as a whole). Because THAT was the male gender role. The rugged clothing, short hair and plain demeanour was more of a NATURAL CONSEQUENCE of the male gender role, rather than the thing itself.
To what extent are the current prescriptions for 'trans kids' (male or female) about gender at all, if these powerful gender roles (gendered behaviour) are not part of those prescriptions?
And how can one be said to 'identify with a particular gender' if one does not feel innately compelled to inhabit those gender roles (gendered behaviour) in some form or other? (and there are many and varied ways to express male/ female gendered behaviour beyond traditional pair bonding and parenting roles).
The 'transexuals' of the past (and throughout history) generally did seek to conform to gender roles (as much as was practically/ medically possible). Many were traditionalists at heart (a source of anguish given their circumstances).
However, the modern 'transgender' phenomenon does not seem to even recognise the concept of innate gendered behaviour at all. 'Gender' has now become a Pink Floyd T-shirt worn by someone who has never actually heard a Pink Floyd song, and probably wouldn't like it if they did.
But the same can be said of wider (post feminist) society. To what extent has mainstream society itself become 'transgender' (which is to say 'post-gender' or 'de-gendered') by default? And if so, what factors might be causing it? (I have some theories on my blog FWIW).
Are 'trans kids' (in the modern context) just the tip of the spear? The bleeding edge of social progress? Or rather, technological progress (cybernetic/ transhumanist progress)? And if so, do we want to keep participating (and buying into) that kind of progress?
Yes. Language is so powerful. We must scrutinise every word, every phrase. Even the term of 'gender ideology' is potentially misleading. To what extent is gender ideology even about gender at all? Would it be more accurate to call it a rejection of gender altogether? A 'non-gender ideology' perhaps?
100 years ago we might expect the first thing female 'trans kids' were encouraged to do would be study hard, get a good job, learn to put your own hardships and vanity to one side and prioritise providing protection and resources for women and children (and the community as a whole). Because THAT was the male gender role. The rugged clothing, short hair and plain demeanour was more of a NATURAL CONSEQUENCE of the male gender role, rather than the thing itself.
To what extent are the current prescriptions for 'trans kids' (male or female) about gender at all, if these powerful gender roles (gendered behaviour) are not part of those prescriptions?
And how can one be said to 'identify with a particular gender' if one does not feel innately compelled to inhabit those gender roles (gendered behaviour) in some form or other? (and there are many and varied ways to express male/ female gendered behaviour beyond traditional pair bonding and parenting roles).
The 'transexuals' of the past (and throughout history) generally did seek to conform to gender roles (as much as was practically/ medically possible). Many were traditionalists at heart (a source of anguish given their circumstances).
However, the modern 'transgender' phenomenon does not seem to even recognise the concept of innate gendered behaviour at all. 'Gender' has now become a Pink Floyd T-shirt worn by someone who has never actually heard a Pink Floyd song, and probably wouldn't like it if they did.
But the same can be said of wider (post feminist) society. To what extent has mainstream society itself become 'transgender' (which is to say 'post-gender' or 'de-gendered') by default? And if so, what factors might be causing it? (I have some theories on my blog FWIW).
Are 'trans kids' (in the modern context) just the tip of the spear? The bleeding edge of social progress? Or rather, technological progress (cybernetic/ transhumanist progress)? And if so, do we want to keep participating (and buying into) that kind of progress?