• windowlicker [she/her]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      if you mean the concept of transness as a disease, it’s just from the pathologization of deviance from cisnormativity, one that’s perpetuated by the medical system. if we know gender to be a social construct (there is no biological basis for gender, and a very shaky biological basis for sex), and is enforced for the benefit of capitalism (it is in the interest of the bourgeoisie to enforce rigid gender roles and by extension the traditional nuclear family unit, it’s productive to generate more workers. the men go out and work, the women stay home with the family, and under the view of reactionary biological determinism, you aren’t allowed to change what you were assigned. i recommend the first few chapters of “sexuality and socialism” if you’re curious about this), then there’s nothing really inherently wrong with deviating from it and identifying as something outside the gender binary or identifying as something different than what you were assigned. but obviously the capitalist system, and by extension the medical system, enforces this social construct by pathologizing that deviance. but don’t let that convince you that transness is a disease or affliction. the truth is that it isn’t, its just a simple condition of being that comes about because the complexity of human expression does not always fit neatly into the constructed rigid binary. it’s just a descriptor for how we interface with the social structure of gender, not something we did wrong or is wrong with us. at least, this is my view on it.

      • Trainguyrom@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        if you would be willing to expand on this part as I’m very curious to know more about how sex is of shaky biological basis, since I would’ve assumed that’s largely pretty straight forwards in humans aside from unusual cases

        there is no biological basis for gender, and a very shaky biological basis for sex

        • Orannis62 [ze/hir]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Using medical procedures to get your body where you want it is cool and good. Like, I take hormones and I desperately want bottom surgery, that’s not the issue.

          The issue is that a lot of cis people view transness as predominantly a medical “issue” and have set up gatekeeping around that, which causes a lot of trans people to internalize that way of thinking. As in, you are not Normal and we’re going to graciously allow you medical procedures to allow you to get as close to Normal as possible (and in many cases and especially before 2011, not even that in the vast majority of cases). Gender Dysphoria is in the DSM, it’s categorized as a mental disorder- the fact that transition is currently accepted as the most effective “treatment” doesn’t change the fundamental issues of that framing.

          The old gatekeeping makes this abundantly clear. Like, a trans woman could lose her hormones back then if she ever wore pants to a doctor’s appointment or if the doctor found out she wasn’t straight or if she didn’t want to do what we now call going stealth. Because the goal was taking somebody “deviant” and making them as not deviant as possible. And this is also where we get hierarchies like AGP and HSTS- which is to say, hierarchies of good assimilationist trans people who can be tentatively allowed to transition in a single prescribed way and bad deviant trans people who are probably faking their transness and must be denied the ability to transition- which were and are formalized and treated seriously by psychologists (albeit less now than they used to be).

          Does this make sense/answer your question?