{"id":9090,"date":"2023-10-26T08:03:40","date_gmt":"2023-10-26T06:03:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/gender-theory.org\/2023\/10\/26\/agtrt-bdf14-if-a-trans-inclusive-notion-of-gender-does-not-exist-in-theory-why-do-we-want-it-in-practice\/"},"modified":"2024-05-06T01:23:00","modified_gmt":"2024-05-05T23:23:00","slug":"agtrt-bdf14-if-a-trans-inclusive-notion-of-gender-does-not-exist-in-theory-why-do-we-want-it-in-practice","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/gender-theory.org\/en\/2023\/10\/26\/agtrt-bdf14-if-a-trans-inclusive-notion-of-gender-does-not-exist-in-theory-why-do-we-want-it-in-practice\/","title":{"rendered":"[AGTRT-BF14] If a trans-inclusive notion of gender does not exist in theory, why do we want it in practice?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Jan Bergstra & Laurens Buijs<\/strong>
Amsterdam Gender Theory Research Team<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Tomas Bogardus describes in his publication Why the trans inclusion problem cannot be solved<\/a><\/em> (2022) details why there can be no trans-inclusive notion of gender, at least not under the conditions prescribed by recent gender theory \u00e0 la Bettcher, Jenkins, Barnes, Dembroff and others.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These conditions are what we call co-essentialist: they are based on the idea that if a person says himself or herself that he or she is a man, woman or non-binary, then that is true regardless of biological sex. According to Bogardus, this is a vacuous because circular theory.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In AGTRT-1<\/a>, we argue that while Tomas Bogardus’ argument is plausible, it is not yet 100% conclusive. In AGTRT-13<\/a>, we put on the table that a co-essentialist view of transgendering (as propagated by GLAAD and Stonewall, for example) actually hinges on taking for granted what we call the gender orientation hypothesis <\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This hypothesis states that there is a gender orientation (with choice between male, female, and neutral), just as there is a sexual orientation (usually seen with choice between male and female as (gender of the) subjects of attraction and affection most desired by a person). We also state in AGTRT-13<\/a> that, to our knowledge, there is no scientific evidence to support the gender orientation hypothesis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In AGTRT-M1<\/a>, we describe counteressentialism (abbreviated to co-essentialism, possibly also read as complementary idealism) as the idea that gender is completely independent of biological factors. Essentialism is precisely the view that gender depends 100% on biological factors.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Co-essentialism as espoused by GLAAD and Stonewall is an even more far-reaching theory, namely that gender (we call it gender orientation) is a fact that a person perceives in himself through (gender) self-identification. A person’s gender pronouns (pronouns) are thus also not a choice or preference but “fact.” That there would be such a deeper factuality we understand as the gender orientation hypothesis: the existence of a gender orientation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Because of the hypothetical nature of this hypothesis, we believe it lacks a scientific basis. These arguments are consistent with the observations of Tomas Bogardus but also show where Bogardus may be missing a stitch. If the gender orientation hypothesis does turn out to be true (similar to the situation with sexual orientation) then Bogardus’ argument is still not compelling. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

At present, we believe that little argues in favor of the gender orientation hypothesis so we see it as a scientifically reasonable assumption to assume that this hypothesis fails. Then (in accordance with Bogardus) there is also no transinclusive notion of gender to be designed (via whatever feminist-tinged concept engineering).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This raises the question: how is it that trans activists believe they can dictate to the world a trans-inclusive notion of gender? We can only note that transactivists have little interest in seeking a conclusive theory of gender that can justify their positions. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

What complicates matters is that Tomas Bogardus’ position (in Bogardus 2022), we believe, can indeed be described as trans-friendly. Putting people away as transphobic also targets people who are indeed trans-friendly, but who adhere to a narrower definition of transgender. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

We see Stonewall’s slogan, “Transwomen are also women, get over it!” <\/em>as tenable and meaningful. But Stonewall fails to mention in that slogan that they have in mind a much broader definition of transgender than was common until recently.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Read more about how trans-friendly positions are dismissed as transphobic:<\/em>
Comment on Bracke & Paternotte (2018): the pot calling the kettle black<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In AGTRT-12<\/a>, we distinguish between bio-transgender and psycho-transgender. Many (including, as far as we can see, Tomas Bogardus) have no problem with bio-transgendering in principle, but do have a problem with psycho-transgendering. With such a view, one is indeed trans-friendly and therefore not transphobic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So what Stonewall is doing is negatively dismissing trans people as transphobic and that, as argued above, in the absence of decisive scientific evidence.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Jan Bergstra & Laurens BuijsAmsterdam Gender Theory Research Team Tomas Bogardus describes in his publication Why the trans inclusion problem cannot be solved (2022) details why there can be no trans-inclusive notion of gender, at least not under the conditions prescribed by recent gender theory \u00e0 la Bettcher, Jenkins, Barnes, Dembroff and others. These conditions […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":94225296,"featured_media":5077,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"activitypub_content_warning":"","activitypub_content_visibility":"","activitypub_max_image_attachments":4,"activitypub_interaction_policy_quote":"anyone","activitypub_status":"federate","footnotes":""},"categories":[770841050],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-9090","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-formal-gender-theory-en"],"rttpg_featured_image_url":{"full":["https:\/\/gender-theory.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/6cb06-img_6106-1.jpg",1280,720,false],"landscape":["https:\/\/gender-theory.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/6cb06-img_6106-1.jpg",1280,720,false],"portraits":["https:\/\/gender-theory.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/6cb06-img_6106-1.jpg",1280,720,false],"thumbnail":["https:\/\/gender-theory.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/6cb06-img_6106-1.jpg",150,84,false],"medium":["https:\/\/gender-theory.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/6cb06-img_6106-1.jpg",300,169,false],"large":["https:\/\/gender-theory.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/6cb06-img_6106-1.jpg",1024,576,false],"1536x1536":["https:\/\/gender-theory.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/6cb06-img_6106-1.jpg",1280,720,false],"2048x2048":["https:\/\/gender-theory.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/6cb06-img_6106-1.jpg",1280,720,false]},"rttpg_author":{"display_name":"Laurens Buijs","author_link":"https:\/\/gender-theory.org\/en\/author\/laurensjanbuijs\/"},"rttpg_comment":0,"rttpg_category":"Formal Gender Theory<\/a>","rttpg_excerpt":"Jan Bergstra & Laurens BuijsAmsterdam Gender Theory Research Team Tomas Bogardus describes in his publication Why the trans inclusion problem cannot be solved (2022) details why there can be no trans-inclusive notion of gender, at least not under the conditions prescribed by recent gender theory \u00e0 la Bettcher, Jenkins, Barnes, Dembroff and others. These conditions…","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/gender-theory.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9090","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/gender-theory.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/gender-theory.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gender-theory.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/94225296"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gender-theory.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9090"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/gender-theory.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9090\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":9487,"href":"https:\/\/gender-theory.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9090\/revisions\/9487"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gender-theory.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/5077"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/gender-theory.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9090"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gender-theory.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9090"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gender-theory.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9090"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}