Hmm- While I agree that it is proper to characterize the arguments properly,
the arguments I've seen from TRA's are inconsistent (to put it nicely). I'm not sure 'psychological factors' is more accurate or respectful than feelings - that sounds like you are interpreting the latter word to be pejorative (whereas I did not intend it that way - see the rest of the post).
The arguments on
both sides are inconsistent. Especially when you are considering multiple posters. ST and LJ's posts, for example, are not always in agreement at certain levels of detail, and they do not always use the same terminology. Similarly, The Prestige and Meadmaker's positions are not identical, and I'm not sure they always use the same terminology.
The term "feelings," in my opinion, carries less weight than the term "psychology." It gives the impression of unimportance or reduced significance. Kind of like saying that a bully
hurt your feelings. as opposed to
subjected you to psychological trauma.
This is especially true on a thread where the further diminutive "feels" (as in: "it's all about your 'feels'") has been thrown around.
By woman, I mean the objective definition (adult human female). I've posted an extended
definition of sex many times now. I will not budge on that (nor should anyone)
That's great. you do you. However, as long as you know what ST and LJ mean by "woman" and they know what you mean by "woman" a conversation on the
actual concept can be had. Diverting to a conversation over labels impedes the more important conversations about the concepts of what those labels represent.
Also, language and terminology change and evolve. Words fall into and out of use and change meanings over time. Just look at the arguments over the meaning of "well regulated militia." When I was an analyst in a lab, I used the terms "check standard" and "matrix spike." The terminology used now is Lab Fortified Blank" (LFB) and "Lab Fortified Matrix" (LFM). Arguing about which terminology is best is a legitimate discussion. But when you are trying to talk about the concepts behind the terminology, it is best to set that aside.
That being said, I think you're mistaken/being naïve on these points.
It's clear that there are males who ID with/conform to feminine stereotypes for different reasons/feelings/psych factors. I think some are simply IDing with the stereotypes* (or taking advantage of them, or sexually aroused by them).
You're talking AGP, right? That's a psychology concept.
And, yes, some might gravitate in order to feel "special." Again, that's psychology.
Stereotypes are both confining and useful. People perceive you based on presentation. That's why people wear suits in certain situations. That's why the concept of "professional attire" exists. Does a suit make a lawyer argue a case better? No. But he will be perceived in a way that makes him more effective.
So by "take advantage" of a stereotype, I guess you would mean something along the line of "use that stereotype to get others to perceive them the way they wish to be perceived." Sure. That's also the reason lawyers wear suits.
Stereotypes are tools that can be used to manipulate perception. I had a friend who spiked his hair and wore safety pins (punk) to get a desired reaction at times. But not on the golf course. He wanted a different reaction there. (He was on the golf team.)
We all take advantage of stereotypes even as we rail against them.
For a male who is a trans-woman, the only tool they have to get others to perceive them in a way that makes them comfortable is stereotypes. While I understand why it annoys feminists, no one has offered up an alternative.
There may very well be biological factors (I envision an epigenetic signature in certain CNS cells) that contribute to that feeling in classic gender dysphoria cases, but 1) it's clear that TW are not just those cases (and TRAs look down on those that think GD is required to be trans & 2) while they will bring up that interesting (preliminary) brain study**, it's very clear they don't want an assay for being trans - they only want self ID.
There's some disagreement as to the necessity of dysphoria. TRAs don't all agree on this.
Just as there is some disagreement s to what self-ID means. The underlying theme, though, is that one should not have to suffer for years spending thousands of dollars waiting for some doctor to give them permission to live their life in a manner that feels comfortable for them.
And I agree with this. If I have cancer and no diagnosis, I still have cancer. If I were trans and un-diagnosed, I'm still trans.
Where I depart from the TRAs on the forum is what exactly self-ID entitles you to. It may take more to, say, use a locker room or compete in a sports league. And being trans, there may, unfortunately, be limits on behavior when you
are given access to spaces.
From what I see, it does seem that some TRAs do believe that being a woman is a state of mind/psych factors/feelings.
Well...yes. That's perfectly clear from the definition that
they use.
And many of them are intentionally conflating gender and sex, as a number of us have noted (e.g. even some within the US govt are referring to Rachel Levine as the first female of her rank). Prominent TRAs have said that sex is an invention of the patriarchy, that sex is a spectrum, that you can change sex, etc. These same folks will deny that TW are male.
Well, yes. Some do. And sometimes someone slips up and swaps terms even if they agree that woman is gender and female is sex. It happens.
And sometimes people overreact and jump all over every instance of this too.
Humans.
The bottom line here is that there is not one coherent narrative/argument from them. The more I've seen, the more I think the current movement is based on gaslighting, lies, mental health issues, fetishes taken too far, misogyny and greed (for the aspects that include hormones, surgery).
That's because the movement is not monolithic. It's made up of humans with a variety of views.
You will note that the other side (your side, towards which I lean in many areas) is also inconsistent and does not have a single coherent position.
For the exact same reasons.
* I strongly suspect those TRAs making these arguments don't use the word 'stereotype' because they know it sounds bad, not because it's inaccurate.
** & note that the amount/degree of sexual dimorphism in the human brain in general is
still debated
Yes, there is debate. So what?
Psychology has been arguing nature vs nurture since its inception. This is not news.
