I’ve read that autistic people (who tend to have poor introspective abilities) are about 10 times more likely to be trans. The whole topic is related to crisis of identity, and young people naturally engage in self-discovery in ways which are easily disturbed by peer pressure. With post-modernism dissolving the traditional labels with which people of the past could identify themselves, I think it’s natural that identity has become more fluid. I also think it’s quite common for people to rebel in a way which isn’t true rebellion, but rather just the appearance of such (we’re social creatures, so if we don’t fit into mainstream communities, we tend to find niches. But this is still a kind of conformity. True non-conformity is much more rare).
I have to disagree with your idea that trans people are hurt by conforming. There has been a great increase in transsexualism as a result of transsexualism becoming socially acceptable. There seems to be a bit of a bandwagon effect, similar to the self-diagnosis of neurodivergency caused by TikTok.
The biggest reason for taking the theory of autogynephilia seriously is that it’s sexual in nature. Your explanation would explain transsexualism, but not the things which with it correlates. Transsexual people fixate more on sexual aspects of life, as do homosexuals and furries. Non-standard sexual orientations are more involved in fetishism. There’s more correlations which will seem even stranger if your model doesn’t include deep psychological mechanisms. For instance, all three group mentioned previously seem more likely than average people to prefer strong or unnatural colors. There are even times where I can guess somebodies sexual tendencies on the art styles which they draw or are drawn to. Similar to this, so I’m not the only one who has picked up on these correlations. I also believe that it’s these correlations which gives certain labels their negative connotations. People don’t care what genitals you prefer, what gender you feel like, or what your skin color or hair color is, but if they’ve met other people who shared these traits with you, then you will be judged according to the behaviour of those who share said traits with you).
I have to disagree with your idea that trans people are hurt by conforming. There has been a great increase in transsexualism as a result of transsexualism becoming socially acceptable.
Both can be true: it can be and feel dangerous to transition, and a budding culture of acceptance can encourage/allow people to transition.
They may benefit from a community that is pro-trans. Such community probably exists because the broader society doesn’t recognise their identity as legitimate.
Of course, as you recognise, society outside affirming subcultures does seem to contain currents of acceptance. I don’t think this is the same as trans-positive subculture growing to enclose the parent culture, both the liberal and conservative narratives to that effect seem confused.
This response is broader than your reply, I’m not strawmanning you or implying that you believe in every position that I’m arguing against here, I’m just making my position clear while reminding myself of what I might have meant by the sentence I wrote 8 months ago.
I agree that both can be true, but even for somebody who isn’t trans, having a social space which accepts you will do wonders for your mental health. If I could transition and have a space which accepted me afterwards, that would probably be a good experience even if I wasn’t trans in the first place. But it feels as if the good feelings which stem from being validated are used as proof that what’s being legitimized is modeled correct? That seems like a dangerous assumption to make. Also, the comment I replied to makes transsexuals out to be harmed by conformity, and yet all discussions about it are exclusively herd behaviour in my eyes. If you ask questions about transsexualism online, and somebody perceives this as you having another position (rather than merely being curiousity), you’re immediately attacked and accused of being a bad person—that’s the pressure of conformity, not its opposite.
Their mental well-being will benefit from a community which is pro-trans. But an overweight person will also feel better if they’re not treated as lesser because of it, and somebody who has facial surgery will feel good if everybody compliments them on how pretty they are afterwards. If we’re going by feelings, I will benefit from all validation of my actions—including the actions I’m taking which are hurting me. I’m also skeptical of the tolerance of a community which is specifically “pro-trans”. I want to be in a community which is open-minded, rather than close-minded, and a community which is only accepting of something so specific, and hostile to those who have other opinions, is not open-minded. An actually open-minded community will accept you for being trans, but also for being a furry, conservative, anarchist, or anything else.
In the first place, I think the context in question contains misunderstandings. If a doctor tells an overweight person to lose weight, that may make the overweight person feel attacked, but it’s still an act of good will, even as it’s causing displeasure. Validation is not always the moral action. The opposite may be moral (for instance, a family gathering at an alcoholics house to stage an intervention and get them to quit). I think it’s very dangerous for society to get the idea that making other people feel bad is inherently immoral. This error is prevalent in academic psychology, online moderation and most of politics, and it seems like a regression to pre-reasoning.
In short: conformity towards the opposite position is still conformity, all humans feel better when they’re validated, being validated is not evidence of the correctness of thing being validated, feeling better is not necessarily good for you, and making others feel bad does not necessarily harm them or intent to do so
If you ask questions about transsexualism online, and somebody perceives this as you having another position (rather than merely being curiousity), you’re immediately attacked and accused of being a bad person—that’s the pressure of conformity, not its opposite.
It is frustrating (assuming our good faith) when one’s interlocutor is unable to engage properly. I’ve experienced both sides of this sort of exchange. If one isn’t secure in their identity, any inquiry into their identity can feel like an attack.
I think it makes more sense to look for people whose self seems settled than to look for a way to talk to insecure people. Their expectations of self-integrity might not even be at “Gendlin’s litany”-level yet. They might only have reached “I can feel ok about myself if I stick with my guys and stop talking to mean people”. It’s not feasible to hold someone to a higher standard of integrity than they do themselves.
All of that to say: I agree! We should hold ourselves to these standards, and help others do the same.
I’ve sort of left out one point of yours, regarding possible harm. I don’t know how to approach that, because I’m not sure with whom responsibility lies, and object-level my knowledge of risks and biology is lacking.
I’ve read that autistic people (who tend to have poor introspective abilities) are about 10 times more likely to be trans. The whole topic is related to crisis of identity, and young people naturally engage in self-discovery in ways which are easily disturbed by peer pressure. With post-modernism dissolving the traditional labels with which people of the past could identify themselves, I think it’s natural that identity has become more fluid. I also think it’s quite common for people to rebel in a way which isn’t true rebellion, but rather just the appearance of such (we’re social creatures, so if we don’t fit into mainstream communities, we tend to find niches. But this is still a kind of conformity. True non-conformity is much more rare).
I have to disagree with your idea that trans people are hurt by conforming. There has been a great increase in transsexualism as a result of transsexualism becoming socially acceptable. There seems to be a bit of a bandwagon effect, similar to the self-diagnosis of neurodivergency caused by TikTok.
The biggest reason for taking the theory of autogynephilia seriously is that it’s sexual in nature. Your explanation would explain transsexualism, but not the things which with it correlates. Transsexual people fixate more on sexual aspects of life, as do homosexuals and furries. Non-standard sexual orientations are more involved in fetishism. There’s more correlations which will seem even stranger if your model doesn’t include deep psychological mechanisms. For instance, all three group mentioned previously seem more likely than average people to prefer strong or unnatural colors. There are even times where I can guess somebodies sexual tendencies on the art styles which they draw or are drawn to. Similar to this, so I’m not the only one who has picked up on these correlations. I also believe that it’s these correlations which gives certain labels their negative connotations. People don’t care what genitals you prefer, what gender you feel like, or what your skin color or hair color is, but if they’ve met other people who shared these traits with you, then you will be judged according to the behaviour of those who share said traits with you).
Both can be true: it can be and feel dangerous to transition, and a budding culture of acceptance can encourage/allow people to transition.
They may benefit from a community that is pro-trans. Such community probably exists because the broader society doesn’t recognise their identity as legitimate.
Of course, as you recognise, society outside affirming subcultures does seem to contain currents of acceptance. I don’t think this is the same as trans-positive subculture growing to enclose the parent culture, both the liberal and conservative narratives to that effect seem confused.
This response is broader than your reply, I’m not strawmanning you or implying that you believe in every position that I’m arguing against here, I’m just making my position clear while reminding myself of what I might have meant by the sentence I wrote 8 months ago.
I agree that both can be true, but even for somebody who isn’t trans, having a social space which accepts you will do wonders for your mental health. If I could transition and have a space which accepted me afterwards, that would probably be a good experience even if I wasn’t trans in the first place. But it feels as if the good feelings which stem from being validated are used as proof that what’s being legitimized is modeled correct? That seems like a dangerous assumption to make. Also, the comment I replied to makes transsexuals out to be harmed by conformity, and yet all discussions about it are exclusively herd behaviour in my eyes. If you ask questions about transsexualism online, and somebody perceives this as you having another position (rather than merely being curiousity), you’re immediately attacked and accused of being a bad person—that’s the pressure of conformity, not its opposite.
Their mental well-being will benefit from a community which is pro-trans. But an overweight person will also feel better if they’re not treated as lesser because of it, and somebody who has facial surgery will feel good if everybody compliments them on how pretty they are afterwards. If we’re going by feelings, I will benefit from all validation of my actions—including the actions I’m taking which are hurting me. I’m also skeptical of the tolerance of a community which is specifically “pro-trans”. I want to be in a community which is open-minded, rather than close-minded, and a community which is only accepting of something so specific, and hostile to those who have other opinions, is not open-minded. An actually open-minded community will accept you for being trans, but also for being a furry, conservative, anarchist, or anything else.
In the first place, I think the context in question contains misunderstandings. If a doctor tells an overweight person to lose weight, that may make the overweight person feel attacked, but it’s still an act of good will, even as it’s causing displeasure. Validation is not always the moral action. The opposite may be moral (for instance, a family gathering at an alcoholics house to stage an intervention and get them to quit). I think it’s very dangerous for society to get the idea that making other people feel bad is inherently immoral. This error is prevalent in academic psychology, online moderation and most of politics, and it seems like a regression to pre-reasoning.
In short: conformity towards the opposite position is still conformity, all humans feel better when they’re validated, being validated is not evidence of the correctness of thing being validated, feeling better is not necessarily good for you, and making others feel bad does not necessarily harm them or intent to do so
Yes, I think I get you now. This resonated:
It is frustrating (assuming our good faith) when one’s interlocutor is unable to engage properly. I’ve experienced both sides of this sort of exchange. If one isn’t secure in their identity, any inquiry into their identity can feel like an attack.
I think it makes more sense to look for people whose self seems settled than to look for a way to talk to insecure people. Their expectations of self-integrity might not even be at “Gendlin’s litany”-level yet. They might only have reached “I can feel ok about myself if I stick with my guys and stop talking to mean people”. It’s not feasible to hold someone to a higher standard of integrity than they do themselves.
All of that to say: I agree! We should hold ourselves to these standards, and help others do the same.
I’ve sort of left out one point of yours, regarding possible harm. I don’t know how to approach that, because I’m not sure with whom responsibility lies, and object-level my knowledge of risks and biology is lacking.