What is it like to feel gender?

I think the approach generally taken is to avoid discrimination insofar as it doesn't discriminate on others.

And when that intersection does happen then the discussion changes from one of understanding one thing, to understanding at least two sides and the dynamics of the 'conflict' for want of a better word.

I'd say when groups feel anti-discrimination of one group is discriminating on other group/s, then some type of distinguishing is probably required to be extended to try to mitigate it and minimize it, if not ideally remove discriminating anyone.... even at the expense of inevitably having to have some duplication of characteristics - which inherently is likely going to be identified by those very contested differences. Which in these cases are likely going to be remnants of said confliction unfortunately. But I don't view that process as discriminatory, for the intent is to minimize discrimination and maximize equality, fairness, and accessibility in a situation. It's usually the best anyone can do when two sides claim their rights are conflicting.

Which yes, then it rightly begs the question are the claims valid (on both sides)! And that to be fair always needs to be considered in a framework of real or perceived impacts of all realistically possible solutions to and from both sides. Not an easy thing to do when conflicts generate emotions on both sides, and are supported by history or science. I think it's why most folk I know seem to think the easiest and fairest solution is creating new groups in those environments when people are being divided into groups (eg sport competitions etc), but no it's not going to appease everyone to address ideals which might favour one side or the other. When there are actual arguments against the claims of the other side they must be considered in the same spirit of fairness and equality even/especially if we disagree; since we all carry bias and presumptions and especially, albeit different types depending on whether an issue is foreign to us or not. Most people won't be willing or able to get into the detail that impacted people will.

So it's interesting to consider it from the social identity theory aspect, even if it's a parallel and totally simplified paradigm for it; when how one group wants to join another group it really needs to be given entry by the existing group, rather than forcing entry into an existing group. The later creates conflict which will continue until one side wins and the other loses or the conflict is ceased by avoiding the conflict entirely by some other means. So back to my intro, the theme I tend towards is, if not being able to avoid conflict, then to minimize it in a manner which endeavors to most fair and most equitable to the competing sides. Part of that might be both sides acknowledging they both might have to lose something to win something and negotiating that becomes the main effort to achieve a peaceful outcome.

 

I think that raises some interesting elements to the conversation, some that address the most recent direction the thread has gone and some that go back to the beginning of the thread. I'm going to set the conflicting rights, desires, and viewpoints aside to first address an interesting perspective that you bring up with social identity.

One perspective is an outside group asking for admission into a group, but I imagine (and anyone who is trans, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) most trans people would view it the opposite, as being rejected by the group they are a part of or being told by others in society that they are not a part of the group that they consider themselves to be a part of. I'm going to view this through a lens of less emotional topics. First, I imagine people being split up according to favorite color. Imagine your favorite color is blue so you go stand with the blue group and then people tell you "No, you're not a part of that group, you had a yellow blanket when you were a baby so you can't like blue. Go back to the yellow group." Now imagine you could only wear clothes of the color from your group, drive a car, live in a house decorated with, and have everything else in your life defined by that color. You may hate yellow, but you've now been told you don't get to be blue even though your favorite color is blue. You were born with a yellow blanket which was the most identifiable colored object when you were a baby, so it doesn't matter if you're blue, society won't accept that. (I'm leaning into the fact that genitals are only one of dozens of different sex characteristics, with the blanket analogy here). What's especially interesting about this lens is that it also begs the question: what about people who just don't have a favorite color, or are color blind? Does everyone have to have one clear favorite color or is it possible that some people might just have zero affinity for any one particular color?

Another interesting lens comes from my own life: hair color. When I was born I had brown hair. I always knew that my hair was brown. If you look at my profile picture you may notice that my hair is now black. The transition was so gradual that I never noticed. One day in second grade we were splitting up into groups by hair color and I ended up getting into an argument with people who told me my hair wasn't brown. They were right, of course, it wasn't. It was a bit of a shock, though, to realize that my hair color was different than I was born with, different than on my birth certificate (slight exaggeration, I don't think hair color is on birth certificates, though eye color might be and I have experienced a similar change there). Either way I no longer fit in with the brown hair group. I truly wasn't one of them even though that's the group I was born into. It would have been even more jarring if I then went over to the black haired group since that's the group I was now clearly in and they told me I wasn't welcome because I was originally a brown hair kid. Again, imagine basically every aspect of society was built around hair color: what sports teams I can be on, what bathroom I can use, what clothes I wear, but I'm not really welcome in any group, not the one that I was born into, nor the one that I now fit. Instead I have no bathroom where I'm welcome, no sports team that I can participate in, or stores where I can go shopping for clothes. I can't imagine being in that position, and I'm very glad I'm not, but I can have empathy for those who are.

Now setting all that aside, Master Adder brings this back to a really important conversation: there are two sides to this, and at least some of the concerns on each side are valid. For those who are trans they want to be free to be themselves and still enjoy all the same opportunities as everyone else in the world, free from discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. They want the government to stay out of their healthcare decisions and leave it to them and their doctor (and their parents if the are kids). They want to be able to participate in sports just like everyone else and strive to accomplish great things. They want to not be treated like pariahs in society or have to constantly face commentary about who them are being invalid and how them just trying to be themselves is a sign of mental illness (which notably the idea of it being a mental illness has been soundly rejected by the APA, WHO, and other leading authorities on the subject). They want to not face discrimination when looking for a job or trying to get an education.

On the other hand people are worried about fairness. There have been at least a few notable examples where a trans person (usually a trans woman) has had an unfair advantage, and perhaps even a couple situations which have created a dangerous environment in middle school and high school sports which leaves people understandable concerned. There is also a fear of sexual predators. While the data doesn't support the fear that trans people are somehow more likely to be sexual predators, it doesn't mean the fear itself doesn't exist. I would argue that it is largely people projecting, men thinking about what they'd be doing in a women's bathroom (as though anything private isn't happening inside a stall anyway). in part I think this fear is also just a fear of what is different. We are hardwired to fear the unknown and that which is different. That instinct protects us, it keeps us away from things we don't know are safe. There's also a lot of rhetoric and hype on the issue, causing people to rally to the aid of people who don't need it and are actually harmed by the aid provided (that aid being legislation that limits that person's freedom to make their own healthcare choices).

The sports issue is a complex one. It was generally held that after a few years of being on hormone therapy the effects of the higher testosterone would have worn off and the person would no longer be competing in the same fashion as the higher levels of testosterone. This may not account for the impact of a person continuing to very actively use those muscle groups through the transition, though, such as an athlete continuing to train. Even if they took a few years off of the sport, if they had been actively training during that time their muscles may not have atrophied enough to shift to the levels normal for a different level of testosterone. The human body is very efficient and doesn't leave extra muscles that aren't being used (so for those getting older, please stay active so your muscles don't atrophy), but if you are using them, and using them to the fullest, the body isn't going to break them down and reuse those resources elsewhere. For someone who has transitioned before puberty (including hormone therapy), their muscles would never have developed to that higher level in the first place, but for those who have been lifelong athletes and didn't transition until later in life, particularly if they transitioned during their peak around 20 which is not uncommon since 18 is when many are able to make their own choices, I can see there being some issue with the body fully adapting while actively continuing to train those muscles.

It's also important to recognize, as Master Adder pointed out, that this is conflicting needs and desires going against each other and that means there's no easy answers. Understanding the other side of the issue and not just writing them off. Having had a number of patients who are trans, and knowing others who are trans besides, I certainly am biased toward protecting trans people as I've seen the level of discrimination and the challenges they face every day of their lives. Still, I recognize that there are some genuine concerns, some of which are perceived issues and others that are valid problems that haven't been fully addressed. We're not going to be able to address those as a society until we have an honest conversation about them.

I think this subject is probably a little overcomplicated because society is currently in a state of rejecting a previous social order as it relates to gender roles. And that's a good thing. Saying "It's a different time" doesn't go far enough. For too long women have been oppressed and not simply forced into a gender role, but basically a glorified servant depending on their culture.

For men, realizing how wrong this always was it may feel somewhat embarrassing for lack of better terms, that this still needs to be addressed. But that's the thing. If a problem still exists then it's still going to have consequences even as those consequences fade over time. Rejecting societal norms is a process. But just because men (generalized) were wrong doesn't mean we can just switch. Sometimes accepting responsibility for something is best done by making sure you're not adding to the guilt and are instead trying to make things better by treating women as equals, not literally trying to become them.

That being said, I think (**MY OPINION**) is that a lot of the "I think I'm____" is BS. I apologize for any feelings rubbed the wrong way but we do need honest conversations in order to understand and deal with the issue. It's not that anyone is lying, but rather I think it is a consequence of this rejection of norms. On some level, problems and issues are internalized much like psychological trauma. Pieces of the traumatic memories stay and create a type of psychic infection. 

In this case, the male identity is really just a social construct that we all feed into. What does it mean to be a man? That's subjective. Being a man and being a testosterone-filled macho man isn't the same thing. Confusing being macho with being a man is therefore a mistake. There is a female equivalent to "macho" but just because only men are called macho doesn't mean macho is a standard of manhood. If you don't like that, you don't have to. 

But because identity itself is a construct, subject to our ideas, if our ideas about something become corrupted by an infection of negative ideas, then it makes it difficult to hold on to that mental image of that identity. So it's not purely accurate that people feel like they are _____ but rather that they are not ______. It is a judgment about the thing they don't want to be. But instead of saying "I don't want to be macho", assuming that is what society wants and expects, it's confused with "I don't want to be a man." 

And this is why I say it's BS. Because it's based on negative judgments and assumptions about what being a man or woman is about. And now that people are "allowed" to simply think they know what the other gender is about then switching isn't even something you have to go through a psychologist to do. It's becoming fashionable and therefore all of the "transitions" cannot be trusted. 

Let's say that historically men have had the role of protector and provider. Is there something wrong with that? No. But that doesn't mean women cannot do both. Men have a slight advantage physically but that can be easily negated by weapons and skill. So instead of saying "that's not me" I feel like we should be saying, "Women can do it too" and really uplifting women for what they can do which then frees these identities and roles from their gender assignments. The fact that women can do what men can do is not a new concept. It's been the case forever. By the same token if you're weak and you have no job prospects does it mean you're not a man because, in your current state, you can't provide or protect? If that were the case then what about boys? 

So the problem isn't men or women. It's trying to tie other ideas to what it means to be a man or woman. Gender isn't something you feel. It's what you are. I think what we need to fundamentally realize is that men are related to a masculine designation that is simply physical. And there is a spectrum of masculinity that all males fall into. On the other side, there are women which is a feminine designation that is partially being rethought because it comes from men and often even the rejection of which is also... coming from men.

Not only are women dealing with the oppression of being cast into gender roles, but they're also being told by males who reject masculinity that they are women because they feel like women; thus claiming to know what being a woman is. And there is no way they can even communicate that without mansplaining because they are literally men. 

I agree with most of what you said ZealotX, I think. Buuut I think gender can be felt.... because to me its most logical manifestation when stripping societal influences is being one of 'energy circuits'; that is the patterns of tension which define shape and movement, and thus play a significant role in 'feeling' (among others factors).

In this regard it links directly to morphological differences of male and female sexual differentiation. Things like the orientation and shape of the pelvis influences a wide range of physicality; be it sitting, standing, walking and moving... when compared to the orientation, size and shape of the male. This also goes to other parts of the skeleton like shoulders, but also height etc. Then there is the difference in function, shape and size of reproductive related organs and attributes associated with sexual differentiation. This alter the weight and balance as well which imparts differences on biomechanics of self. And then of course the impacts of there being a 10x difference in the level of testosterone, and over 3x in amount of estrogen, which incur a difference in the emotional baselines which our self emerges and operates.

If those differences are large enough between those majority groups, then it's going to denote real tangible difference rather than simple stereotyping.

Note this is all speaking in terms of statistical averaging within groups and not meant to misapplied to the level of analysis of individual (because so much variation is natural within groups attributed to either sexual pole). Certainly not for identity purposes, just the discussion of if, how and why gender might be felt, and by extension why it might exist historically and moving forward.

Why I view all that relevant is because it represents the different types of internal influences when comparing those group stats, but more importantly because it seems to relate to how those old fashioned stereotype norms of gender developed and maintained certain characteristics over human history outside of the external influences such as patriarchy, religion, culture etc.

That does not mean I consider gender a synonym for sex, not at all, as I do think that lots of other factors can play equal or greater roles than what I've outlined here... but to me these physical differences from traditional associations could explain why often it appears people switching genders tend to align and adopt gender practises and behaviours associated in many ways with traditional gender poles. I presume this is to feel more like and target gender and/or sex, but it stands to reason to consider that it could also be to better fit into society based on the way they already feel - though that of course begs the question what are the characteristics of the feeling that is being attributed to gender. I imagine people either choose to become, or believe they always have been, the target gender and in the later it would logically be because it is how they feel I suppose be it internally or fitting in socially? I'm just trying to boil it down to if and why might or might not concepts of gender even continue exist if it's just a social construct.

 

I find it interesting to observe who the arguments in this conversation seem to play into a much bigger conversation about minorities, be it gender minorities, ethnic minorities, or any other group that is only a very small subset of a population whose experiences are completely foreign to the vast majority of the population. Trans people make up roughly 2% of the population. For the other 98% of us, we really can't even comprehend the experience of that 2%. We can be quick to assume that our own experience and observations are the universal human experience and question the validity of the experience of others when they don't match our own, but that doesn't mean that the experiences of others are B.S. just because we ourselves can't comprehend it or because it doesn't match with our own experience in our lives. Probably one of the greatest challenges in life is to try to understand those whose experiences are dramatically different from ours, so much so that we can't even comprehend it.

Having known many trans people, I can honestly say that one or two of them seem to be running away from something or identify as the opposite gender primarily because their personality and interests fall in line with the opposite gender than they were assigned at birth. Most that I know, however, the idea that they were ever the other gender seems somehow out of place. It seems as though they really are one gender with only one or two notable differences and those notable differences are the characteristics under which the legal gender was assigned at birth. There are the exceptions to the rule as there is in any topic, but as a rule, trans people are not trying to avoid some stereotype of the gender they were assigned at birth or are basing their identity on some cultural idea of what a person of a specific gender is supposed to be. Also, contrary to what is probably popular belief, there are clinical guidelines for when gender affirming care is warranted. If medical intervention is involved (such as hormone therapy), it's not a matter of someone waking up and deciding one day that they are the other gender. In some cases those guidelines do call for psychological evaluation to ensure that it isn't a manifestation of some mental health issue, but generally that wouldn't be necessary unless there are specific red flags. There are none the less specific criteria that a health care provider would generally follow. While bodily autonomy and a person's right to govern their own body are one of the most critical principles of bioethics, doing no harm and ensuring that the benefit outweighs the risk before performing a medical intervention of any kind is also a huge part of bioethics, so the criteria for gender affirming care includes an evaluation that essentially has to determine that it would be harmful to the person to not receive that medical intervention.

Gender involves a LOT of different characteristics, and many people are born with both male and female characteristics, to the point where in some cases assigning a gender at birth becomes a judgement call or even a flip of the coin (and in these most extreme cases usually involves surgery shortly after a child is born to bring all reproductive organs in line with the gender assigned). Internal and external reproductive organs are a couple of them these characteristics. Hormones are another set of these characteristics which often but not always coincide with reproductive organs (particularly because those reproductive organs themselves produce many of those hormones). Most of us don't have to worry about it because we're born with all or most of our sex characteristics matching our external genitalia (the sex characteristic off which our current society judges gender). For all of us in that boat, it's hard difficult to understand or empathize with the 2% who are born with a mix of male and female sex characteristics.

It's also worth noting that the many physical differences between male and female bodies such as muscle mass, height, weight, skeletal differences, balance, etc. are almost exclusively products of different testosterone levels, not differences in reproductive organs. While women on average have lower testosterone than men on average, the range of highest and lowest levels of testosterone are pretty much the same in both populations. (More women are at the lower end of the range, and more men are at the higher end of the range, but the range is basically the same for both groups.) Those who transition before puberty (including hormone therapy) will have the muscle mass, height, weight, etc. of the gender they transitioned to, not the the one they were assigned at birth based on their external genitalia. Those who transition after puberty admittedly do become a more complicated topic (such as the swimmer Lia Thomas).

Why are we talking about sex characteristics when the thread is about what it is to FEEL gender. 

Sex (biological or otherwise) = gender. 

If a 25 year old woman woke up in the body of a man, they'd still be the woman they were, just stuck in a body that is perceived by society differently. You'd start being called sir, expected to do manual labour tasks that previously you'd be glancedly overlooked for, and (as many trans men have noticed) suddenly be hit by the overwhelmingly crushing lonliness men experience because of our largely patriarchal society. You're also suddenly expected to dress certain ways, clothes are made to display what your gender role in society is, even if that isn't what you are. 

None of this has anything to do with puberty, muscle mass, or bone structure. 

What is it to feel gender? Well, its to feel what it is that brings you joy and comfort in how you're perceived in society. I LOVE being called cutie. If suddenly people started calling me handsome, or manly, I'd probably feel my skin start crawling. 

I think this may be where the different tangents this conversation has taken might all come back together.

There are a lot of different sex characteristics. Physical structure, reproductive organs, hormone levels, brain chemistry (the part the really gets to how it feels), etc. All of these come together to form gender identity. I agree that the brain chemistry component (which really impacts our emotions/personality/interests/how we interact with the world far more than any of those other characteristics) kind of got dropped off the conversation. I mostly was responding to topics being raised, so thank you for bringing this back around to the original topic.

It's interesting to note also that children start becoming aware of gender around age 2, and usually have a pretty solidified sense of gender by age 4. (This is why a lot of kids might explore traditionally "boy" things and traditionally "girl" things around those age ranges. They are essentially exploring gender, finding out what they like and what group they fit into the most. While many kids are probably aware of physical differences like reproductive organs, certainly not all are and even those who are don't really register those as important at that age so the gender identity is much more formed by personality and interests, the things children at that age are actually interacting with and relating to. (It's also important to note here that is said "usually" have a pretty solidified sense of gender. Some people have gender norms drilled into them very young and don't really do this exploring until later in life when it feels more safe to do so).

There has definitely been a surge of young people identifying as trans, particularly compared to previous generations. For a while there was a legitimate fear that it was a fad or that kids were deciding they were trans because it was the "in" thing, but the numbers have pretty much leveled out at around 1.5% of the population now across both Gen Z and Gen Alpha. The surge was largely attributed to children who had identified as a different gender than they were assigned at birth but were in previous generations told that wasn't allowed. They were what was on their birth certificate and that's the end of the conversation. (Many of these individuals across all generations are now also starting to come out as transgender, but much more slowly, sitting at around 0.5%). Now, because many parents are more supportive of kids being the gender they identify as, many of these young children who identify as a different gender than they were assigned at birth as they get older and find out that society does not perceive them as the same gender they perceive themselves then bring up the conversation about transitioning (usually not with that sophisticated language of course, usually it's more like "but I'm a boy, how do I get everyone else to see that?").

It is worth noting, however, that I am not in that 0.5-1.5%, so not having personal experience, I am speaking through experiences I've heard from others, but mostly through statistics and scientific research on the subject, not personal experience. I can't really speak to what it feels like to identify as a different gender than assigned. For me, there are moments when I don't feel as masculine as it seems I should, and I wouldn't mind being able to dress in a way that lets my personality show a little more (as men don't really accessorize beyond a tie which has largely fallen out of use for all but the most formal events). Otherwise, though, I'm a pretty stereotypical man. I do catch myself mansplaining on occasion. (I try to be aware of when I'm sharing details that I genuinely have some unique perspective or insight on, but I do on occasion catch my self explaining things that is completely obvious to everyone, oblivious to the fact that I'm basically talking down to people by doing so). I am somewhat clueless on a lot of the same things men tend to be clueless about. My friends and I were chatting the other night. The women in the group were asking what kind of shampoo I use. My answer: uh, something that says shampoo?. The other guy in the group said: soap? water? When asked what kind of conditioner I used, I just shook my head. The women at the table seemed semi-horrified that I wasn't using conditioner and kind of lectured me on the importance of it. I'm not as interested in sports and cars as some men and more interested in meditation and internal introspection than most men (I suspect that last part of that sentence is true of most men within the Temple), and I'm in a profession that is probably 90% women. Still, if I were to think about what gender I feel like it wouldn't take any thought at all to answer that I feel like a man. That's who I am. If I were to suddenly transition to a woman's body, I would feel out of place.

A lot of times I think we don't really acknowledge how a certain thing feels when it's the default. It's only when it stands out as unique that we really stop to think about that. I imagine gender is the same way. If we feel like the gender that we are assigned, if all of our sex characteristics (physical structure, reproductive organs, hormone levels, personality, etc.) all line up, then there isn't much to think about. I'm just a guy and that's kind of all there is to it. When those don't line up, when who we are and the body we inhabit are mismatched or when we lie somewhere in the middle of the spectrum instead of clearly at one end or the other, than we become much more aware of how that feels. The greater level of introspection to find out who we really are almost becomes required to figure out who we are because it isn't as obvious as it is for others.

I have to acknowledge, too, that if I were called "cute" I'd probably recoil pretty strongly. I remember when I ran a department next to the receiving area one of my female employees walked back to receiving area as they were getting in a bunch of multicolored duct tape. One of the receiving workers told her, "Do NOT say the c-word!" As a couple other guys looked confused, she exclaimed in the most girly voice she could muster "CUUUUUTE!" just to annoy him. That anecdote still amuses me. Hopefully it brings a little levity to this otherwise deep conversation without taking it off track.

I think often "bad people" create traumas that cause us to no longer be attracted to anyone who is remotely like "that person". Therefore if women have traumatically bad experiences with men it may be possible for them to be more attracted to other women by default because they are either consciously or subconsciously avoiding men out of fear. And we know from prison culture that sexuality is more fluid if you are cut off from the opposite sex. So if a person constructs such a mental prison out of fear, cutting themselves off from the opposite gender, then that leaves the same gender. Likewise, traumatic events with the same gender or with "bad people parents" could, in my opinion, lead a person to reject their own gender, especially if they were pressured to be a certain kind of man or woman. Parent's often make the mistake of trying to mold their children into little versions of themselves or their aspirations which doesn't always fit the child.

At the same time, many children are triggered into non-conformity in general and therefore seek out ways to not conform as a rebellion against societal norms.

Yes, gender characteristics are a coin flip. However, I do think what people are rejecting is the idea that physical characteristics = gender. And I think this comes from emotional feelings of rejection. They don't want to be their gender because of something that, perhaps even unique to them, that gender identity has come to represent. But this doesn't mean everyone should run from what they are. And I have even seen black people bleach their skin in order to appear to be white. I find this very sad because no matter what you feel about who you are or what physical trait you have... EVERYTHING that makes you... you... there is and cannot be anything wrong with it. I feel like by allowing everyone to be whatever gender they want, we're actually not even seeing how many people are simply hurting in their own self-identity to the point that they are willing to either dress differently or physically alter themselves just to feel like a different person. But if you truly love yourself... perhaps, many people who identify as trans would learn to accept who/what they are. And even in the case of trauma... Yes we now have the technology but that doesn't mean we should use it to change nature. Because we're behaving like there is no cost outside of money. But there is always a cost and that is why there is balance in the universe.

My question for trans people would be this? 
1. Why do you not want to be your birth-assigned gender?
2. Why do you want to be the other gender?
3. Did you suffer a traumatic event?

1) Because I'm not it. 

2) I'm not trying to be another gender. I'm trying to be MY gender. 

3) Yeah, being forced to undergo the wrong puberty. Why does gender orientation have to have anything to do with trauma? Don't try diagnosing us when you're not a gender specialist. 

I am actually disgusted a 'Jedi' would have such hateful attitude towards trans people. Go read the homepage here again. 

" I want to be careful here because the object isn't to offend anyone."

Proceeds to call trans people BS. Good job 'jedi'. 

I’m locking this thread temporarily for review. Complaints of rule violations have been made. I’ll unlock it after my review is complete

Thread is unlocked…..the offending post has been deleted…..please be respectful of eachother. I’m all for people stating their personal opinions, but not if that means attacking others. Be Jedi!

We may have different definitions of "hate" and I can make room for that; however, by any definition I'd use I don't personally have any hatred towards those wanting, for whatever reason, to be something other than what they were born as. I had no idea anyone would react so strongly to these questions and so they weren't designed to provoke hostility. I can only say that I'm sorry if anyone was unintentionally offended.

It's unfortunate that we're losing a perspective on this issue that may have offered some insight. However, let's not jump to conclusions and imagine we know each other's feelings. In fact, that's the very reason for asking questions rather than making personal assertions.

The point I was trying to get to is how can a person know they are not what they are? And by saying what they are... I'm not trying to negate how a person FEELS. However, how a person feels may be the opposite of what they are. At what point do we have to say that a boy who feels like a girl... *IS* a girl? And how do they know that they feel like girls if they really don't know how a girl feels? And is feeling like a girl, therefore, based on some means of trying to identify certain feelings with femininity? Or is feeling like a girl simply not feeling like a guy? And what does feeling like a guy feel like? That goes to the basic premise of this thread.

The only way you can really speak on what it feels like to be a guy is to first "be a guy". If you are a guy speaking from experience then it's because that's what you are. To say you don't want to be that is fine but the only way you can say you don't want to be that is to first know what it is you don't want to be. So whatever reason that is, must include some 'knowledge of' being that gender. This is not an attack and shouldn't be taken as such. Just like having been born as that is also not an attack. And let me restate, once more, that people are allowed to feel however they want. I actually never called BS on every single person who identifies differently from their birth. Rather, I'm calling BS on judging genders according to whatever negative biases and gender-based stereotypes which could potentially make a person want to reject that gender.

I cannot speak on being a girl but I have no reason not to believe that being a girl is great because girls are fantastic and wonderful. But it's also easy to get stuck on negative thinking and start associating something that is awesome and great with a bad experience or with experiences that were the result of conflict with bad people. The grass is always greener on the other side is a very deep saying because until you truly have that other experience you can't really know if it's better than your own. It just seems like it has to be better from the perspective of the side we're on. 

Note: This post was written last week, but as I was writing it, additional posts were made and the thread was eventually locked. That's to say that I might be responding to some points that were in now-removed posts. I did go back and try to edit it for clarity as much as possible.



If I'm understanding your assertions correctly, you are basically saying that in your view the only way for a person to be trans is as a result of mental health issues and that being trans is just a mental health problem. (If I'm misreading that, please do correct me on that). This is also the main reason I keep coming back to this argument and am trying to explain the biology of it. Perpetuating the belief that being trans gender is a mental illness helps perpetuate discrimination (both microaggressions and blatant acts of discrimination) that make functioning in our society such a challenge for trans gender individuals and create high levels of suicide, disability, homelessness, etc.. As I previously mentioned these issues disappear when trans gender people are supported and live in areas where anti bullying and anti-discrimination policies are in place showing that the disability and mental illness among trans gender individuals are the result of how others in society treat them, not some internal issue.

I think your coin flip analogy highlights the disconnect with what I'm trying to say: It is NOT a simple coin flip. It is at the very least a series of dozens of coin flips that all add up to land somewhere on a spectrum. There are many, many different characteristics that work together to form gender. The fact that people are rejecting the idea that physical characteristics = gender is because those two are not the same. Physical characteristics are one piece of gender, the piece that's easiest to identify from the outside and so becomes the piece of gender that is used to assign sex at birth, but this is not a person's gender. A gender is a compilation of many characteristics some physically measurable and many not. For a person whose physical characteristics do not match their other characteristics, should they reject everything that makes them who they are in order to conform to the physical characteristics they were born with? Is it more important to accept that one physical characteristic than to accept anything else that makes a person who they are?

What I'm gathering from you is that your perspective is trans gender people are running from who they are and not accepting who they really are. I feel pretty confident in saying that most if not all transgender people would tell you it's the opposite. They are learning to accept who they really are despite society trying to reduce them and their entire identity to a single characteristic which doesn't align with anything else about them. Trans gender people also aren't trying to gain some advantage that they perceive the other gender has. The challenges of being transgender in our society are so, so, so much worse than any sort of advantage one might gain by going to the other side of the fence as it were. Not the least of those is the challenge of having other people constantly tell them that their experience and understanding of who they are is BS because it doesn't match the perspective of someone else. Normally I would probably harp on harm that is caused by transgender people (or any minority group) when people continue to make dismissive, belittling, or hurtful comments about them because those microaggressions add up. I've tried to avoid going down that track here more than necessary because I also think it's important to have honest dialog where possible. Just shutting people down and saying "that's hateful, how dare you say that" can get in the way of growth and understanding, so I want to clarify I'm not saying don't speak freely in this conversation, but I do want to raise awareness of the harm microaggressions and negative comments can have, especially as they add up.

(It seems that there has been some conversation about this in the background and others have been less patient with those microaggressions in this conversation. For what it’s worth, Oxford Dictionary defines hate speech as “abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice on the basis of ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or similar grounds.” Words that express prejudice on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity do fall under that definition even if the words weren’t said with malice or hatred. Someone expressing prejudice with or without hatred in their heart is still creating an environment where people are being shown they are unwelcome because of who they are.)

In response to a comment you made (possibly in the now deleted post), I also think it's important to note that kids are a lot less rebellious today than they have been in some generations (surprisingly, that's actually been the subject of research). They still push boundaries especially when they are little, but when those boundaries push back, they generally accept them. When they absolutely refuse to let a boundary push back and are clearly not just testing those boundaries, there's a reason. Teenagers do their own thing, but it's less out of a rejection of their parents (like it was in the 70s) and more a complete apathy. If their ideas match their parents, great, if not, who cares they'll do their thing anyway. The age where most kids begin discussing becoming transgender is actually in the block between those two, when kids are generally cooperative. Many transgender kids are very well behaved and well-adjusted and are overall great kids. They just recognize that their own gender identity doesn't match the sex they were assigned at birth. It's not a rejection of something or running towards something or a reaction to a traumatic event. It's more commonly expressed as, "This is just who I am. I didn't choose it, it just is."

Thinking of gender as an absolute binary of a single physical characteristic when it's a far, far more complex topic can lead us to incorrect conclusions. I think that underlies a lot of the last several pages of this conversation. There's an incorrect assumption or understanding that gender is a remarkably simplistic dichotomy of a singular physical detail.

I will agree that a small minority of transgender people may indeed be reacting to trauma or trying to run away from or toward something. This is a small minority, though, and does not reflect the typical situation. As for your three questions, I think the third question can have some merit if there are red flags (and if I recall correctly that's actually reflected in the clinical guidelines in the case where there is reasonable concern that this might be a factor). Your first two questions really are the same question, or at least would have the same answer for the vast majority of transgender people. They also reflect an underlying assumption that they are either running away from or toward something. I found a list of questions suggested by a website on transgender resources that I think dig for the same kind of information you are looking for but ask it in a less confrontational/accusatory way:

• How long have you been feeling this way?
• What started you thinking about it? Did something happen?
• What made you tell me now? Did something change?
• Have you been talking to anyone else about these feelings?
• How did you learn about transgender people?
• Are you thinking of changing your name and/or the pronouns people use to refer to you?
• Where do you see yourself on the gender spectrum?
• What do you want to change now to express your preferred gender? What would you like to change in the future?

These questions help identify if there was a specific event contributing to a child deciding they are trans, if it's just a momentary fad/peer pressure/rebellion or a long held perspective, and what the person's idea of gender is as well as what they are specifically wanting.

I don't recall saying "mental illness". I think that idea exists and therefore I cannot fault anyone for thinking I might be coming from that same position. However, that is not the case. Reactions using that assumption can also be prejudicial because it presupposes a bias that must be confronted. 

So let me clarify further... I am a programmer by job and that desire has merged with my self-identity so I identify as a programmer. I also have the experiences of a programmer that reinforce that identity. However, that identity is forged by me as a product of my mind, rather than any outside universal dictate. I could say I "FEEL" like a programmer, but I can't claim to be that without actually having that experience. 

As a programmer, I don't think of everything concerning the mind as a mental health issue because that phrasing generally invokes ideas of "mental health" in a negative context. Why? Because we only focus on what's going on in the mind when we think something is wrong. But that negative association is a product of what? Of the mind. It's not reality therefore for its "BS". Again... not calling BS on "thinking" but rather the fallacy of NEGATIVE THINKING / judgement... as a default. It's not fair to mental health to ignore the spectrum of everything that is GOOD... in order automatically assume that if "mental" is mentioned we must be lauching some kind of insult or attack. That assumption is based on society and popular culture which makes it more difficult to have an honest discussion about it.

As a programmer, to me these are not negative things unless they are unfair or "misrepresent" the whole (which is the spectrum). As far as male and female, these are opposite polarities on a spectrum. We are all on that spectrum but we are the spectrum. It's an (viral) idea that it's binary. I grew up with tomboys and even married one. I also grew up around toxic masculinity and I was aware of the toxic nature even then. And I saw boys almost competing with each other because, in a sense, they were judging each other on a toxic scale where the least masculine would be the most respectful to women. What makes me balanced is not because I am consistently displaying the same "genderfied" mannerisms. It's because I embrace me simply doing my own thing which balances out to be ME, representing myself and the spectrum. I remember being self-conscious of how my hands were sitting on my waist playing basketball because where I came from if you had your hands one way it was feminine. That's "BS" but as an individual, I think most feel powerless to question the source. It's only when you stop thinking about it... stop being conscious of the supposed differences... stop checking yourself... stop thinking "am I this or that", that you are no longer running from yourself and simply accepting yourself for who and what you are. You. 

Everyone has a unique experience as a representative of the whole of human consciousness and human experience. We should not measure ourselves by someone else's experience or the experience we believe them to be having. Only by such measurement can you really say what you are and are not. But to guage where you are compared to another point on the spectrum, you have to imagine to know what that experience is like. When I question myself I'm attacking myself on behalf of a societal or community  standard that I have injested and absorbed like food. To me, again, this is not positive or negative. The food we injest is only as positive or negative as what our bodies need. So being exposed to viral programming and choosing from the programs/ideas to accept and incorporate into our mental Operating System, is not inherently negative and shouldn't automatically taken as an attack or discrimination. Rather, acceptance of ideas is how we all learn and grow mentally. And like a plant, if your mind gets nutrients it's going to use them and be influenced by them. 

In some cases, can it be a mental health "problem?" Sure. In any population, the larger the population the more you're going to see different cases within its membership. The more people there are the higher the probability that at least some of them are going to be ignorant, attractive, smart, funny, etc.. When I was young I met a guy in Canada who was diagnosed with schizophrenia because my aunt took care of a number of patients in their multi-family housing complex on behalf of the government. He told us this vivid elaborate story about his experience as a young prince in a love affair with another young prince. It was fascinating because of how real it was to him. This isn't meant to stigmatize him because of his diagnosis but rather to point out how powerful the human mind is. We can even load up different personalities that we're inspired by just like Neo. But when Neo does it, does it have a negative context? No. Because he's a programmer who is choosing it. It's therefore only potentially a mental health issue when that choice is hijacked like a computer being hijacked by a virus. 

In my head, there is a whole science to what I call "PSIONIX" which I personally define as "mental programming" where ideas are basically like computer code and variables and they can be viral and accepted as such. And in 2023 we don't look at everything "viral" to be a negative thing. A positive news story can "go viral". So how a person programs or reprograms themselves and how that programming is accepted, rejected or reinforced by society... the interplay/conflict between the individual and collective is fascinating to me.

(also... the questions were rather rhetorical to anyone actually answering which would be a bad idea because it would only invite public speculation about a specific person but I didn't make that abundantly clear)

While I disagree with the programmer analogy because that is something external, an identity gained through experience and external events as opposed to inherent qualities within a person, the operating system might make for an interesting analogy.

If you install Windows on an old Mac, is it really still a Mac? From the outside it certainly looks like a Mac and has the physical characteristics of a Mac, but if you treat it like a Mac and try to interact with it like it's a Mac, you're going to have problems because fundamentally despite physical appearances, it is not a Mac. It's a PC (I'm using PC as a stand in for a computer with Windows on it here for simplification). In the case of human biology, the operating system is installed during fetal development and can't be changed, so perhaps it is more accurate to say that one of the Macs coming out of the factory ended up with Windows on it instead of iOS. It might be labeled as a Mac by the factory and by all initial appearances seem to be a Mac, but once you boot it up and start interacting with it, it quickly becomes apparent that it is not actually a Mac. It's a PC. Now unfortunately there are some complications a PC occupying the body of a Mac. Drivers to operate some of the hardware might not be correct, and it might eventually be prudent actually change out some of the hardware so that the drivers match the operating system (yes, I'm oversimplifying how drivers work... the analogy can only be stretched so far). Either way, treating that computer like a Mac instead of a PC is an issue and recognizing that it is really a PC with some Mac hardware is going to make things run a whole lot smoother for both the PC and those interacting with the PC.

I don't really think of the programmer analogy as external because it's an internalized identity, but let's go your way and talk about Operating Systems. I'm good with that.

First... Can you Install Windows on a Mac.

Yes. Apple makes both hardware and software. If you install Windows on that hardware (and you can actually dual boot) it doesn't change the brand/origin of the hardware. Nor does it change the physical specs of the hardware. It's still a mac. 

But don't take it from me.

https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201468

"Install Windows 10 on your Mac with Boot Camp Assistant"

They explain how to do this because, in their eyes, mac is more than just software. And in this discussion, the question is whether gender is a function of hardware (physiology) or software (the mind). And again... just because I say "mind" doesn't mean "mental problem". Intelligence itself is mental and we're always all the time working on our own programming which is how we become who we want to be. That's not an OS that is set in stone. That's an OS that can get regular updates as well as one that can be hacked or be infected by viral ideas (good or bad).

Another issue you may have raised by accident but which is very noteworthy to me goes back to what I said was BS which is the JUDGMENT of what something is. In this case, those who know me know I hate Apple because of its branding. With that said... APPLE COMPUTERS ARE PERSONAL COMPUTERS-which you know is what PC stands for. 

It was their marketing that tried to sell their BRAND as more than a "PC", thereby trying to make PC's look bad in comparison. And then people started to buy into this narrative and this hype. And they started thinking Apple products were fundamentally better. And that was a false dichotomy... a bad judgment about what a PC even is! But it became a trend and with that, you have people following for various reasons, but some who simply seek it out as an alternative to "PC".

Sorry, let me take a breath. It's not you. It's Apple...

*sigh*

Okay. Apple wasn't innocently making this distinction. They were competing against PCs. In reality, an Apple/Mac was just a PC with a very LIMITED range of ability. Because it was limited by its SOFTWARE and what it would support. Likewise, physically we all have both testosterone AND estrogen. We simply act like we only have one or the other so we ACT like it's just a binary thing to be male or female. That's bogus (I'm going to try to avoid saying BS out of fear of being misrepresented). I can pretend I have not an ounce of feminity in my body but I have 2 nipples just like everyone else. And the point is that we aren't as different as we often like to pretend. And that bogus pretending is not targeted at ANY GROUP, much less LGBT. Why? Because everyone reacts to definitions society tries to create and brand. Popular ideas (like *cough* stolen elections *cough*) can be bogus ideas. LGBT people are not the ones creating the toxic masculinity archetypes that many people are reacting to. If there's anyone to blame it's all the macho bros that made fun of every little boy they caught crying and making everyone think boys aren't allowed to do that. That's what's bogus. The more we look for and try to label differences, the more we ignore parts of ourselves and feel like we have to choose or feel like we aren't still that Mac that came from the store.

cont'd...

Now if you install Windows... now its a Mac running Windows. Just like a Transwoman is a transwoman. Male body. But identifying as a woman. That doesn't change the body. Because the body can support OSX or Windows that means there are enough similarities that a man can choose to take on a more feminine identity with whatever THEY want to represent as feminine behavior and mannerisms. To the extent that it is possible with the same physical shell, they are able to choose and we as a society, being respectful of their choice, for whatever reasons they're choosing it, can relate to them by their chosen identity without pretending the body is no longer a PC. And many people are okay with that, physical attraction and everything. Now every version of Windows is not going to perform on every version of either mac or PC hardware. These are 2 separate things.

So likewise... one could have a Male body and a feminine SPIRIT. And you can kind of pull and tug at the S-word however you want because the definition is far more flexible while the body is more finite. But still... I want to reiterate that there is less difference between male and female than we often give ourselves credit. Part of that comes from devaluing women and therefore making fun of boys for displaying feminine traits or qualities. But especially if a boy grows up with a lot of girls, whether seeking approval or not, they're going to be interested in and more influenced by feminine qualities and maybe even traditional roles (which are also somewhat bogus). I had a stepson like this and his mom (a tomboy) wanted a strong male role model to make him into more of a "man". I told him not to let anyone influence him into not being his true self. As long as he was himself then it was okay. But a lot of parents find it hard to accept when their child doesn't fall in line with societal norms and that creates a lot of friction and pain in relationships. The more he played with dolls the more people made him believe there was something "wrong" with him. And that itself becomes a trauma.

And some people do "dual boot" as it relates to gender. There are men who dress like women... women who dress like men... and often it is simply what is the most comfortable to them. It's not like men always wore pants and women always wore dresses. And tomboys have always existed. Every girl doesn't need to be in love with getting their nails done. That seems like a huge hassle and a waste of time and money to me. But that's me. Me trying to impose what I think is a waste on someone else is silly. But that's what I mean by bogus judgments. We make judgments based on ourselves and try to apply them to other people. OF course, they're eventually going to fight back in whatever way that looks like.

 

Now... a different issue. A Mac rolls out of the factory with Windows installed. If it were only that simple to boot up a human and have a male or female logo splash screen to make it real clear which OS you had. What I'm saying is how do you KNOW you're running Windows vs OSX? This is not something where you can look at your physical features. If a Mac has never run OSX before and Windows has no understanding of what it is like to be OSX then how would Windows know it was Windows? Humans are the ones making up these names. Humans are the ones defining what each is like. A Mac knows what a Mac knows. Therefore, a Windows install isn't self-aware and doesn't know it is Windows. If it were self-aware, the knowledge of Windows vs OSX would not exist internally. It would have to be influenced by outside forces to see a difference. If Alexa knows anything about Bixby it's from the Web. Alexa wouldn't come out of the factory already knowing Bixby or how Bixby behaves or what it is capable of. All this information is internalized from external sources. These are sources that deserve to be questioned.

Quick, what's the difference between Windows and OSX? I can't tell you much because I rarely touch OSX. The only differences I can point out would be the differences I've personally experienced. And this is complicated by the fact that they both have literally all the same parts. The OS simply has different internal programs written to "operate" those parts. 

Fortunately, operating systems can be changed. If your OS isn't getting regular updates... that's a problem. Our ability to interact with both internal and external software is because of our OS. My "OS" has been updated to recognize LGBTQ without fear or animus so we can interact better. Apple was based on Apple, as a company, dictating what hardware they were going to use and what software could be "allowed" to run on their system even though it's still a PC. Hence, I don't like it. Because it's too controlling and limiting. Windows had to be updated to work with just about every piece of hardware out there because Windows doesn't control what's in your Personal Computer even though that makes it easier to have a more stable system. Dell does a similar thing to Apple but with preselected PC components tested over and over for stability with each other. Dells are still PCs. But for Mac to say "we're not a PC" is just branding and it's bogus. 

So is all this to say "we should treat everyone the same and forget about pronouns?" No. Because I respect them I respect how they want to be treated. I feel the same about race. With that being said, I also think we have to respect PCs with Windows from the factory. Therefore, I will continue to use terms like transwoman to differentiate between what one chooses and what their physiology presents as. And I think that's important without getting into questions about bathrooms, sports, and prisons. I believe we should be balanced and see body as body and OS as OS. Male is a reference to the body. Masculine is a reference to the OS. And since the body is already balanced between genders I think we need to stop judging genders based on the degree to which they are masculine or feminine.

Setting aside the monopolistic business practices of Apple, the analogy is that essentially there are two types of computers that each have their own distinct hardware and operating system that communicates with that hardware. I'm aware that apple computers are personal computers, which is why I added the qualifier that I was using the term PC as a stand in for a computer running Windows for simplicity sake. Analogies sometimes require some caveats to work as an analogy. (The analogy is also a little simplified as it does mostly indicate an absolute dichotomy instead of a spectrum, and it also assumes that the hardware is 100% one or the other which isn't true in human biology). In this analogy the operating system also can't be changed out. We can install different programs. Tolerance is a program that can be installed and continually updated. Computer programming or any other skill or career are programs that can be installed and updated. There are very few programs that can't be installed on both systems or at least don't have a version that can be installed on each system. The core operating system that these programs have to interact with, however, is set when the computer rolls out of the factory and doesn't change. While both human society and computers have come a long way toward cross compatibility (many Macs now have mice with 2 buttons, and many gender roles that used to be set as absolutes have been opened up), there are still distinctions between the two.

I don't work with Macs if I can help it (I did have one job where I had to work with Macbooks on occasion, but that was over a decade ago), so I don't know how they operate. If I suddenly didn't have a start menu, and the settings window was different, and it didn't come with the default suite of Microsoft programs, though, I'd pretty quickly realize that I'm not working with a Windows computer anymore, even if I didn't have the big logo splash on the startup screen. Sure, it's easier to tell with computers which OS you are working with. It's extraordinarily obvious. Humans have to rely on other observations, and yes a few of those are colored by cultural perceptions and gender stereotypes, but that are many beyond that which aren't.

I personally know of 6 transgender people, though 2 of them I only barely know (other students at my school who I've had one or two conversations with in passing, and couldn't even tell you their names, so I'm going to set them aside and talk about the other 4). It should be noted that this is of course just my personal anecdotal experience, but it's across a large enough sample that I think it provides an interesting insight into this conversation. One of those 4, I know very well and have known since before they transitioned. One I know very well but met after they transitioned (and didn't even realize they were trans until they ended up being my patient and it was part of their medical history). The other two I don't know super well, but one of them I knew before they transitioned and the other one I met following their transition. Of these three, I do have to acknowledge that one of them seems odd to me, while the other three it would be weird to think of them as the gender they assigned at birth, as they so completely embody the personality of what one would expect from the gender they transitioned to.

The one who stands out is a trans male but hasn't really transitioned and may never physically transition. This individual does indeed have a lot of emotional trauma from early childhood (including sexual assault) and has a lot of health issues related to the reproductive system, not to mention a large chest which carry their own issues (some men may appreciate a woman with a large chest but from a medical perspective they mostly translate to chronic back pain... also as an aside not all men are attracted to large chests, it's a stereotype, so for any women out there reading this conversation don't think you're any less attractive for that reason). This person is also bi (and in truth I think is more attracted to women than men). Honestly, the vibe this person gives off is that of a butch (a lesbian who takes on the masculine role in a lesbian relationship) more so than a trans male. For a girl, the person is pretty masculine, but as a guy it does seem weird. The person also enjoys anything purple, stuffed animals and anything cuddly or cute, and in many ways is the stereotypical image of a girl, just not a girly girl. This person hates pink, likes occasionally dressing in a traditionally mens clothing like a vest, and doesn't enjoy long hair (especially in the summer when it's hot and muggy), but otherwise to me gives off a very feminine vibe. They also picked a new name that still sounds very feminine to me. This is what I imagine you picture when you think of a trans person: someone with some interests, desires, or personality traits that are more common in or stereotypical of the other gender but who in many ways still reflects a lot of traits specific to the gender assigned at birth and who has a lot of things that they seem to be running from. In truth it wouldn't surprise me if this person never actually fully transitions and eventually decides that they are either gender fluid, non-gender, or something along those lines. I do respect this person's wish to go by male pronouns and have been as supportive as I can, but in the back of my head this is the one trans person I know who doesn't really seem trans to me.

The other three I know all very much embody the gender they transitioned to. The one I knew before they transitioned always seemed more masculine than feminine, and as soon as they told me they are now identifying as male my internal reaction was "oh, yeah, that makes sense". For that person it just fit. Looking back the idea that they were female seems almost out of place, and in hindsight always seemed out of place. The one I know well who transitioned before I met him, I would never have known he was trans if he hadn't told me. It doesn't come up much as the fact that he is trans isn't a big part of his life. He's pretty much just a regular guy. Honestly, I don't think I've ever even really talked to him about being trans outside of the medical setting when he was my patient for a couple months, and even then it wasn't a big topic. The other person you might be able to tell is trans. She is a trans woman, and has the imposing physical stature of someone who grew up male. Personality wise, though, she is female, and honestly until she actually told me she was trans I wasn't really sure if she was trans or just from a tall heritage. All of this is to say that yes, there are some trans people out there who may be running from something or may be responding to cultural stereotypes of what they think they should be based on what society is telling them, but that's a small minority of trans people.

There may not be a fancy logo that pops up when a new person is "booted up for the first time", but if a computer doesn't have a start menu, has those green yellow and red circles in the corner of each window, and errors out when you try to install programs designed to integrate with a Windows OS, you can pretty quickly add those up to realize that this is not a Windows computer. It works the same way for people. Sometimes it's harder because the idea that male and female is based entirely on physical traits that are visible from the outside is so ingrained into our culture that sometimes people try to ignore those obvious signs for a long time, and the fact that gender is a spectrum made of dozens of specific genetic traits, not a singular trait that exists in perfect dichotomy makes it more complicated as well. To expand the analogy a little farther, both the Windows and OSX installers are on the same disk (the X chromosome mostly, and a few other chromosomes... the Y chromosome just codes for genes that turn on or off genes on other chromosomes), and the disk is pretty heavily corrupted after being used billions of times so often you end up accidentally getting some pieces from each operating system, further complicating the topic.

As far as gender being based on physical characteristics and the "operating system" just being masculine or feminine traits that don't control gender, the opposite is probably more true. Children generally form a solidified gender identity around the age of 4. Most 4 year olds, at least in the US and much of Western culture, have no real concept of boys and girls having different genitals. To some extent their external genitalia do influence their gender identity indirectly because parents create an expectation (give them a gendered name, often a gender specific haircut, toys, and clothing, etc.) which can influence how a child seems themselves, so they are able to recognize that others identify them as a specific gender around the age of 2-3, which of course has some impact. Still, children typically explore gender identity on some level and eventually either associate with or disassociate with the gender that others perceive them as. At that age they are relatively unaware of physical differences among children (in part because there aren't many, external genitalia is really the only obvious one and it is kept safely stowed behind several layers of clothing when around others). We are seeing a lot of people transition at a later age now as it becomes more culturally acceptable to do so, but that is still lower than the statistically expected number and is more a result of people who always identified as the other gender but were afraid to identify as such in a culture that was very hostile to the idea. Among the youngest generation, the number of children transitioning is leveling out. Many are taking on activities and personality traits, or even just coming out as the opposite gender than they were assigned at birth around the age of 4-5, but it isn't until about age 11 where they are mostly asking to transition as that's when the disconnect between who they are and how others interact with them really starts to become apparent with puberty approaching. Often kids coming out around age 11 when asked how long they've felt like this will answer something on the lines of "always" or "since I was little" (setting aside that "little" to an 11 year old is itself a bit ironic), but that it wasn't really an issue that they felt that way until recently.

My point is this: most trans people aren't trans out of reaction to how they fit societal stereotypes, childhood trauma, or how other people treat them. Do they exist, sure, but most trans people don't fall into that category. Most trans people are trans because they embracing who they really are despite what cultural norms or expectations of others might be. In the case of a boy being taught he needs to be more manly, he's far more likely to bottle up any feminine feelings and grow up to be a stereotypical example of toxic masculinity believing that there is somehow something wrong with any man who isn't similarly toxic and over the top. The people more likely to transition are the ones who are encouraged to just be themselves and who have parents who accept them for whatever they might be, free of any judgement or expectation. It's people who are free to be themselves who are transitioning, and ones responding to childhood trauma or stereotypes who often avoid transitioning and grow up to embody those toxic ideas they had forced on them from an early age. That's of course not to say everyone who is free to be themselves is transitioning, as for most of us being ourselves means being the gender we were assigned at birth, but generally for those who don't identify as that gender they are only transitioning when they feel safe to do so. That's why I'm still coming back to this conversation: the perpetuation of the idea that people who are trans are simply responding to some cultural stereotypes or childhood trauma makes it harder for people to be themselves because now in order for them to be themselves they have to carry the baggage of other people who believe they are somehow just misguided. That makes it harder for people to come out as trans because they feel less safe and see the judgement from others and so in many cases they keep their heads down and just try to embody some stereotype forced upon them instead of embracing who they really are.