Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwawaysea | Hacker News Reader

I’m not sure the Japanese concept here is the same thing as what we call trans today. This article seems to portray a more societally enforced “role” for this third gender rather than treating it as an “expression” or “identity”. But I do wonder why Western (progressive / left / whatever) views are insistent on additional genders being hierarchically related to traditional genders (like transwomen being a subset of women) whereas older societies like some Asian ones have a catch-all third gender approach that placed them alongside the two typical genders. To me the latter makes more sense, because there are clear and significant differences between trans and non trans people, so having a new category feels consistent and natural.

View on HN

> But I do wonder why Western (progressive / left / whatever) views are insistent on additional genders being hierarchically related to traditional genders (like transwomen being a subset of women)

Er, they aren’t.

First of all, “transwoman” (or, as many will inform you is correct “trans woman”) isn’t an additional gender. The gender is “woman”. “trans” is not a gender identity, it is a statement about the relation of the gender identity to the socially ascribed gender (often called “sex”) assigned at birth.

Second of all, the actual “additional” genders, i.e., those outside of the binary, are, well, outside of the binary, not “heirarchically related” or even mapped to that binary.

If transwoman = woman, wouldn't it logically follow that woman = transwoman?

> If transwoman = woman, wouldn't it logically follow that woman = transwoman?

A trans woman's gender identity (and ascribed gender in a system which ascribes gender based on identity when known) is just woman (or, rather, female; “woman” mixes in another orthogonal category to gender, age.) A trans woman’s relationship of gender identity to gender ascribed at birth is trans. “trans woman” is not a separate gender from “woman” (or “cis woman”), in much the same way that “woman” is not a separate gender from “girl” or “Black woman” is not a separate gender from “Asian woman”.

Saying that Black women are not a separate, subordinate gender from women is not saying “woman = Black woman”.

This line of thinking requires us to pretend there is no connection between sex and gender. But that raises bigger issues.

For one, if gender has no relation to sex then what is it? Is tomboy a gender? Hipster? Geek? If not, why not?

Also, if we are going to assert that there is no relation to sex, then why are the acronyms FtM and MtF used in the trans community? Male & female are biological sexes, not genders. So how does one transition between biological sexes?

Not trying to be combative, just not clear on how these issues are handled in the community. I'm an outsider so I know that I may just not have the information. Looking for clarity.

> This line of thinking requires us to pretend there is no connection between sex and gender.

No, it doesn't.

In fact, the view of gender identity as innate is perfectly consistent with viewing it as one of many sex traits (whose distribution with regard to other sex traits is itself consistent with the bimodal-but-not-binary distribution of other sex traits.)

> why are the acronyms FtM and MtF used in the trans community?

mostly, AFAICT, they aren't; it's been years since I've seen them used except by people outside of the community and/or in marketing to the trans fetishist audience.

I don't see trans people describing themselves as MtF, I see those who that label used by others would apply to describing themselves as “woman”, “trans woman”, or “(trans) woman who is AMAB (assigned male at birth)”.

> Male & female are biological sexes, not genders.

No, they are the names of both biological sexes [0] and the genders stereotypically ascribed based on sex traits. It is inconvenient that the names are identical, but they serve as both, because of historical sex essentialism in assignment of ascribed social roles. MtF and FtM refer to (imposed ascribed gender) to (gender identity and aspirational ascribed gender).

[0] arguably, though arguably the mapping of multidimensional sex traits to binary “sexes” is itself really just another system of ascribed gender.

>It is in inconvenient that the names are identical

I always assumed that was intentional. Also, are you sure male/female can be genders? If so, how is science supposed to refer to biological sex? You don't see this issue in animal classifications so I'm stumped.

I'm still not sure what gender actually is then. What makes something a gender? Is there a reason geek, or goth or whatever can't be a gender?

> I always assumed that was intentional.

Well, yes, and I explained why. That doesn't make it less unfortunate.

> Also, are you sure male/female can be genders?

Yes.

> If so, how is science supposed to refer to biological sex?

With... exactly the language it does, for now. It is inconvenient for discussions where both sex and gender are involved that major categories of each have similar names, but most discussion of biological sex aren't impacted by that, and “sex” vs. “ascribed gender” vs. “gender identity” can be specified where necessary to disambiguate. It's hardly the only overloaded set of descriptors in the English language.

Over time the language on one side or the other might evolve (I though femme and masc might evolve as gender terms, but they have instead become terms of presentation distinct from gender, which is another useful distinction.)

> What makes something a gender?

What makes it an ascribed gender is if society attributes it to be people and sees it as exclusive of other ascribed genders. What makes it a gender identity is if people view it as the aspect of their own identity in the same space as socially ascribed genders.

> Is there a reason geek, or goth or whatever can't be a gender?

There's no reason they can't be, but they usually aren't, either as ascribed genders or gender identities.

>There's no reason they can't be

So if we're saying there is no reason goth or geek or whatever can't be considered gender, then we're just saying that gender is akin to personality type.

> So if we're saying there is no reason goth or geek or whatever can't be considered gender

That's not what I said. There's a very good reasons why, as they usually exist, those cannot be considered genders, and I provided that reason.

There's no obvious logical (though there may be a practical) reason they couldn't not have the feature which makes them not genders, in which they could be genders, it's just that that doesn't actually happen. (Whether that's because of social inertia around gender categorizations or whether despite the label being a social construct there is some inherent human function of self-and-other gender categorizations which, even when one escapes socially imposed rigid binary stereotypes they still don't fit is...beyond the scope of what I am willing to stake a claim on.)

Based on this definition, gender is anything anybody wants it to be. To test this, I wonder if anybody can list out all of the genders. How many are there and what differentiates them?

If all dogs are animals, it wouldn't follow that all animals are dogs

Except in this analogy it would be calling dogs human, not animals. Transwoman is not a subset of woman, it is a different thing entirely. Not meant in a pejorative way, just definitionally. That is unless we are just equating gender to personality type, since using this approach makes gender essentially undefinable. It means goth or geek or whatever can be called genders.

I can understand the point, but I do not agree. While that definition is possible, I think that it is unnecessary. "Woman" is the gender (she/her/etc, and commonly associated with many social traits, too), and "transwoman" means (as far as I understand it) a woman who is assigned as male at birth (whether or not she is male now, or even if that question has a clear answer, which in some cases it doesn't). (Another possibility, that some writers had used in the past, is using the pronouns as nouns. That might not work in all languages, though.)

If being biologically male/female is what is relevant instead of gender (grammatically male/female) then you can say that, but that isn't really that simple anyways (and the sex is not quite as well-defined as many people say it is anyways) and so it is better to specify specifically what is needed. I once saw the mention of a medical form that instead of male/female it says "persons with [some organ or condition, I forget which one]". It isn't due to political correctness; there is an actual good reason, which is that presumably this is the specific aspect which is important for this medical procedure.

However, "mother" and "father" are different. You could use these words in the biological meaning or in the adoptive meaning (even if they are your biological parents). (Maybe there should be other words, e.g. maybe "mom" and "dad" for the "adoptive" meanings instead.) If adoptive, then it would seem to be related to gender (and is unclear if the gender does not apply, then what?). If biological, then it is different, and has to do with function instead of with grammar/social. If you are pregnant with your child then you will be that child's mother, regardless of your sex and/or gender in your past, present, and future. Consider hypothetically, that somehow somehow can be changed and have both reproductive functions, that you might be one child's mother and another child's father at the same time!

I do not understand how is "goth", "geek", etc as a gender, since gender is a grammatical construct. What will be the pronouns, prefixes/suffixes (for languages that use them), titles, etc (if any)? (Maybe there is one, but if so, I do not know what it is.) Doctors may use "Dr." in front of their name, but not pronouns for them, so even though there is that I wouldn't call that a gender, either.

I had once mentioned the possibility of someone's gender being different in different languages; I don't know whether or not any people choose to do that, though.

>I do not understand how is "goth", "geek", etc as a gender, since gender is a grammatical construct.

I guess the question is...why not?

Nobody seems to be able to clearly define what a gender actually is. What are the definitional requirements/restrictions for something to be considered a gender? How many genders are there, and where I can I find a list of them so that I may better understand what is and isn't a gender?

The gender binary is arguably one of the strongest and most deeply-rooted concepts of western societies. Because of it I suspect it's a lot easier to accept that some people belong to the category that they weren't assigned at birth rather than accepting that gender has no business with being a binary system and is completely independent from sex.

I see it as baby steps, hopefully we'll get there someday.

What is a coherent (non-recursive) definition of gender that is completely independent from sex?

To me it seems like you're just left with 'subculture' at that point, but I think that's missing something very core to gender, namely sexuality.

I think of gender as a subjective feeling of identity. It correlates with sex most of the time: most men feel like they are men, and most women feel like they are women. That feeling is a cis identity. But for some people their subjective feeling of identity is just as obviously trans as for most people their cis identity is obvious. If you are cis, then you know what gender identity feels like. For trans people, it's just a different identity from their assigned gender at birth.

That's a meaningless tautology — a recursive definition.

> If you are cis, then you know what gender identity feels like.

I think that, near universally, we do not. I don't feel my gender; there is no frame of reference against which I could possibly correlate my subjective and entirely internal mental experience against some normative model of what it "feels" like to either be male or female, much less your tautological definition of "man" or "woman".

This is a weird way of talking about feeling. Do you correlate your sensations of happiness or impatience or satisfaction against normative models using objective indicia, or do you just, you know, feel them? When someone tells you that they are feeling one of these things, do you tell them that there is no objective way of understanding the words that they are saying, or do you refer to your own experience where you reached for similar words to understand them?

If you live in a society, you are surrounded by archetypes and roles and norms of gender - or of the performance of gender - which might be a helpful way to think about this post. Things like what clothing and grooming is appropriate are easy examples - and depending on where you are in the world, those standards may be radically different - in some cultures men are expected to adorn themselves to be attractive to partners, in some it’s women. But it’s also what emotions it’s appropriate to display, what kind of authority is afforded to a person, what physical strength and which ailments are reasonable, what kinds of body hair is attractive. We have words that describe a favourable performance of those gender roles (womanly, manly) and unfavourable words (effeminate, mannish). They are enforced, or at least patrolled, in all kinds of ways. Easy example is the kind of differential permissiveness around alcoholism. Why is that? If we have a social or a moral standard, why is it gendered?

You have without a doubt experienced this in your life - and if you’re lucky it’s been internal and not at the hands of the local bully. If you’ve ever checked or modified your demeanour or your outfit or your tone because you are aware that it is too girly or too butch or too macho or too slutty, then that is the sensation of being trained back towards the model.

> Do you correlate your sensations of happiness or impatience or satisfaction against normative models using objective indicia

Of course we do. It’s how we establish shared meaning about what it means to feel any of those things.

The rest of your post describes gender roles; as in, social standards and stereotypes of behaviors attached to sex.

We don’t use the words “woman” and “man” to denote roles or a social subculture, and we’ve never segregated bathrooms, or established segregated sports programs, on the basis of gender roles.

How I feel internally, even if you could correlate it to some objective definition of “feeling female” — which you cannot — does not change that I am a man; an adult human male.

But that's a definition that hinges on sex, so it's not at all independent. If you were to remove the correlation to sex, 'subjective feeling of identity' is essentially just subculture, so hipster, goth and skater would also be 'genders'.

Sorry I thought you were genuinely curious, and not just baiting for a debate. I'm not interested.

It's not that complicated a concept. Even kids can understand it quite well and there's plenty of information available when you decide that you want to actually learn instead of trying to debate your way into confirming your own opinions.

If you have a cogent argument, make it; someone genuinely curious is still going to need more than "because I say so" to work with.

> It's not that complicated a concept. Even kids can understand it quite well

Children will also readily believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny if their parents tell them that they exist. That's not an argument.

Like I said, I'm not here to argue or debate. Genuinely curious people can find ample information on Wikipedia.

If one applies any intellectual rigor to the question at all, the ample information to which you refer makes it clear why you refuse to define "gender", "man", or "woman"; you cannot.

Your assertions are prima facie undecidable, and it's not merely that you're unwilling to defend them — you cannot defend them.

It's not "baiting for a debate", your explanation of gender, while reasonable on its own, is simply not what I asked for. I specifically wondered about a concept of gender completely independent of sex, because I'm not sure how that'd work. At the very least I imagine it has to be something radically different from the usual mainstream conceptions of gender.

But seeing as you had to trot out the generic, condescending 'go educate yourself', I'll just assume you simply don't know.

There are of course also people whose identity is non-binary, whose experience may be more difficult for cis people to understand, but are a better example of a gender identity that is not easily relatable to sex characteristics.

I found learning about fa’afafine was helpful to show where gender identities from my (Anglo) background did not adequately describe a material situation that is uncontroversial in its own cuktire.

What you're describing just sounds like any other subculture. Can you define what a gender is not? As in, why are "goth" or "emo" not a gender, by your definition of gender?

At least as far as I know, non-binary identities are still anchored to the male-female dimension (which correlates to sex), but in a, well, non-binary way (i.e. a mix or complete rejection). From quickly looking them up the fa’afafine seem to line up with that.

What makes the “subjective feeling of identity” different from just having a different personality? Or what makes it different from a subculture like the ones of the past - punk, goth, emo, and so on. I think of gender as being strongly related to sex (like a trait of belonging to a certain sex), although I recognize there is an ongoing debate around how to define this word (gender). And I view personality as more personal, variable, and subjective. Is it that personality implies individuality whereas the subjective feeling of identity for trans people comes with group belonging?

Sex is a biological concept, and not even a binary one, as intersex people exist, gender is a social concept.

Sex is mostly based on a mix of genome and primary sexual characteristics. Gender is based on how one presents themselves in society and in turn gets treated by it, as our societies are very gendered.

They're concepts in two very different domains, why would you assume them to be interdependent? They only tend to be statistically correlated in the same way that gender and sexuality tend to be: most people are heterosexual but the two are independent as being a man doesn't mean one is attracted to women. Same goes for gender, being born with female sex doesn't mean one's gender is female.

Honestly I've some trouble understanding how some people find this to be such a hard concept, it's exactly the same thing as gender/sexuality and this is even without getting into that neither sex nor gender are binary, as shown biologically by intersex people and socially by the very article we're discussing.

Sex is very much a 'binary' concept; it's fundamentally tied to a property of reproduction strategies; the size of the gametes. To quote [0]:

> The type of gametes produced by an organism defines its sex. Commonly in plants and animals, male organisms produce smaller gametes (spermatozoa, sperm) while female organisms produce larger gametes (ova, often called egg cells).

Convention is; if you produce small gametes, you're male, if you produce big gametes, you're female. Sexual reproduction happens pretty much exclusively in two sexes. Biologically speaking, individuals that don't produce gametes, don't have a sex.

To quote from [1]:

> There are almost invariably only two gamete types, all analyses showing that intermediate gamete sizes are eliminated due to selection.

Gender can be considered a cultural construct based upon the interpretation of sexually defined roles and strategies. But sex itself is binary. So "Intersex people" - your words, not mine - do exist but as an defective expression of the reproductive function, see above. I'm not aware of any medical condition in humans that results in functional hermaphrodity as seen in some plant species, that is; individuals that produce functional small and large gametes. Although there is a condition called 'True Hermaphrodity' whereas an individual develops both ovarian and testicular tissue, this does not result in functional gametes.

> Sex is mostly based on a mix of genome

There are many sex-determination mechanisms, not all of them involve different genomes. Some are based on temperature, for example. Again; see [0].

> Honestly I've some trouble understanding how some people find this to be such a hard concept,

I do wonder that myself and I guess it's because for some people this is a placeholder for some kind of ideological discussion, separate from the actual discussion about sex. The impreciseness of colloquial language probably also plays a part. But to summarize;

Gender: cultural construct based on interpretation of reproductive roles and strategies, pretty much unbounded in its expression and shape and form

Sex: "binary" reproductive trait that comes in two expressions; male (small gametes) and female (large gametes), although there are some species where both male and female is expressed in single individuals. Sex doesn't necessarily depend on the chromosomes but in many species can also be decided by external factors.

Hope that helps!

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamete

> Biologically speaking, individuals that don't produce gametes, don't have a sex.

So you agree that it's not a binary trait: masculine, feminine and none is ternary. If people can come in those three flavours then we're beyond a binary.

That said I'm fine with that definition but it does imply that we're excluding people who can't have children due to reproductive system defects as not having a sex despite having a gender, which further puts the two concepts apart from each other.

Thank you for the thorough answer!

> So you agree that it's not a binary trait:

Ha, here's the question: Is the lack of a trait one of its expressions? Is 'none' a reproductive strategy or is it the absence of one? I guess ones view on the "binary" nature of sex very much depends on that.

> [..] we're excluding people who can't have children due to reproductive system defects as not having a sex despite having a gender, which further puts the two concepts apart from each other.

I think that is a very interesting question and debate. I broadly agree that this would be the implication, although I can see why many people would be uncomfortable with that. I think it would be good for the discussion of topics like the one in the original post if people had a clearer understanding that sex and gender - albeit related - are distinct concepts.

Calling asexual reproductive capability a sex is like calling atheism a religious belief.

You could compare to Samoa’s “fa'afafine”. Gender non-conformance exists in most cultures. The western analysis of gender non-conformance results in what we call “trans”, but other cultures have had, and continue to have, different approaches.

No. Being gender non-conforming and being trans are two massively different things. I am gender non-comforming in. I am not trans at all. Whenever I read about trans, I can't relate to it and their feelings, issues etc are puzzle to me. I can relate to what other gender non-conforming people say perfectly fine.

Also, seems to me that being gender non conforming is much much less issue then being trans. To the point it is not much issue while being trans seems to sux.

I agree 100% they are not the same thing and I’m explicitly trying to call out that what we call trans is a western lens on GNC and other lenses are available across the world.

I was reacting to "The western analysis of gender non-conformance results in what we call “trans”".

My point was, it does not. "Western" people nor Western analysis confuses me with trans.

I would guess, for one we have a learned tendency to classify things and rank them. Libraries’ DDC comes to mind, where we tried to force an clean order on basically the whole universe.

Second would be that christian societies have a very clear cut Adam/Eve dichotomy that I think was enforced way more than other places. Having genders hanging out of the dichotomy becomes more difficult than in laxer societies.

I don’t think there’d be significant objection to the notion of transgender folks being recognized as transgender if it weren’t for the fact that trans people experience significant amounts of discrimination explicitly associated with that distinction, in the context of a society that perceives a gender binary.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com