And it smashes right into several overlapping areas I've been thinking about for a very long time.
First - I'm guessing you've read TS Kuhn's "The Structures of Scientific Revolution"? It really blew me away as an undergrad to grapple with how messy science was, and how often for new theories to become mainstream, the previous t…
And it smashes right into several overlapping areas I've been thinking about for a very long time.
First - I'm guessing you've read TS Kuhn's "The Structures of Scientific Revolution"? It really blew me away as an undergrad to grapple with how messy science was, and how often for new theories to become mainstream, the previous theories' proponents had to literally die off.
So even people trained to empiricism still struggle with their own innate resistance to change in their chosen field. (And there are lots of arguably beneficial reasons why we as a species are reluctant to casually discard abstractions which seem to have been working "well enough". Abstractions are tools for survival, etc.)
There's also the lovely delusion we have largely embraced in pop culture, which is that our brain is a computer. When - sure - we can recognize new information and conceive of new models, but building that into a concrete, habitual, "lense" through which we perceive the world proceeds at the speed of chemistry and neural connection development rather than digital computer reconfiguration. So our professed knowledge operates in advance of our effective model, as the later is always playing catch-up.
Finally there is the fact that our of our models, all of our disciplines provide us with frameworks with which to model parts of the world, make predictions, etc. (Like a grid overlay in Renaissance perspective!). But each framework is limited. And virtually all of them, no matter how sharply it's boundaries are defined, overlap other frameworks (consider chemistry and physics, and how chemical reactions end up needing physics models at a certain scale for accuracy). But do we consciously study when it makes sense to switch frameworks? How to recognize when our ways of knowing break down as well as which "neighboring" frameworks is relevant, based on the particular signals of dysfunction?
When it comes to trans binaries and non binaries, I struggle myself. I would classify myself as a binary trans woman. And yet often I find it easier to communicate with people who call themselves non-binary. In my life, I've often found that perceived affinity was a clue that would lead me to greater understanding if I pursued it. But not always!
It could simply be that I share other qualities with NB people that have nothing to do with gender. I am both neurodivergent as well as transgender and at times I struggle to understand the entire idea that gender is a "binnable" quality. It seems to me much more that we all have varying traits and preferences, influenced by culture (I am aware of Julia Serrano's separation of presentation, inner identity, etc), which define both who we understand ourselves to be, but also how we perceive gender in others.
With that in mind, gender becomes something that can only be recognized in oneself. And conversations about how one individual perceives another individual's gender are really just dialogues between 2 separate conceptions of gender.
In many ways I dislike the term non-binary because it seems purely reactive. "Not-woman, not-man", when there must be as many ideas of gendered self as there are non-binary people, and they all deserve their own recognition.
This is not to say there is no place for study of thr transfeminine and transmasculine. Our culture is heavily biased towards the binary, and the interaction of all trans/GNC with that bias has enormous effects of our lives and our envisioning of ourselves.
If I would argue anything in this regard, it's that we might profitably study how trans presentation within and in violation of the cultural binary affects us, our health, our relationships, etc. How the success or failure of these attempts affects us. Why we attempt a presentation. Is it to be our true selves or to navigate a culture that we perceive as hostile?
My point is to ask questions like
"What is the experience of trans people presenting as feminine in a context where being feminine is accepted?"
"What about when it is not?"
"What if they succeed or fail?"
"What if they present in alignment with their inner self? What if not? What if it's mixed?"
"What if a trans person presents in a fashion which cannot be interpreted as fitting into any culturally defined gender role?"
Rather than "what is the experience of transfeminine people?"
I love it!
And it smashes right into several overlapping areas I've been thinking about for a very long time.
First - I'm guessing you've read TS Kuhn's "The Structures of Scientific Revolution"? It really blew me away as an undergrad to grapple with how messy science was, and how often for new theories to become mainstream, the previous theories' proponents had to literally die off.
So even people trained to empiricism still struggle with their own innate resistance to change in their chosen field. (And there are lots of arguably beneficial reasons why we as a species are reluctant to casually discard abstractions which seem to have been working "well enough". Abstractions are tools for survival, etc.)
There's also the lovely delusion we have largely embraced in pop culture, which is that our brain is a computer. When - sure - we can recognize new information and conceive of new models, but building that into a concrete, habitual, "lense" through which we perceive the world proceeds at the speed of chemistry and neural connection development rather than digital computer reconfiguration. So our professed knowledge operates in advance of our effective model, as the later is always playing catch-up.
Finally there is the fact that our of our models, all of our disciplines provide us with frameworks with which to model parts of the world, make predictions, etc. (Like a grid overlay in Renaissance perspective!). But each framework is limited. And virtually all of them, no matter how sharply it's boundaries are defined, overlap other frameworks (consider chemistry and physics, and how chemical reactions end up needing physics models at a certain scale for accuracy). But do we consciously study when it makes sense to switch frameworks? How to recognize when our ways of knowing break down as well as which "neighboring" frameworks is relevant, based on the particular signals of dysfunction?
When it comes to trans binaries and non binaries, I struggle myself. I would classify myself as a binary trans woman. And yet often I find it easier to communicate with people who call themselves non-binary. In my life, I've often found that perceived affinity was a clue that would lead me to greater understanding if I pursued it. But not always!
It could simply be that I share other qualities with NB people that have nothing to do with gender. I am both neurodivergent as well as transgender and at times I struggle to understand the entire idea that gender is a "binnable" quality. It seems to me much more that we all have varying traits and preferences, influenced by culture (I am aware of Julia Serrano's separation of presentation, inner identity, etc), which define both who we understand ourselves to be, but also how we perceive gender in others.
With that in mind, gender becomes something that can only be recognized in oneself. And conversations about how one individual perceives another individual's gender are really just dialogues between 2 separate conceptions of gender.
In many ways I dislike the term non-binary because it seems purely reactive. "Not-woman, not-man", when there must be as many ideas of gendered self as there are non-binary people, and they all deserve their own recognition.
This is not to say there is no place for study of thr transfeminine and transmasculine. Our culture is heavily biased towards the binary, and the interaction of all trans/GNC with that bias has enormous effects of our lives and our envisioning of ourselves.
If I would argue anything in this regard, it's that we might profitably study how trans presentation within and in violation of the cultural binary affects us, our health, our relationships, etc. How the success or failure of these attempts affects us. Why we attempt a presentation. Is it to be our true selves or to navigate a culture that we perceive as hostile?
My point is to ask questions like
"What is the experience of trans people presenting as feminine in a context where being feminine is accepted?"
"What about when it is not?"
"What if they succeed or fail?"
"What if they present in alignment with their inner self? What if not? What if it's mixed?"
"What if a trans person presents in a fashion which cannot be interpreted as fitting into any culturally defined gender role?"
Rather than "what is the experience of transfeminine people?"
Damn, it's been a long time since someone mentioned Kuhn to me. An oldie, but in many ways, still a pretty good perspective.