One is from the "gender is a social construct" post-modernist side, which views the very idea that people are either men or women with some suspicion, and leads to concepts such as gender fluidity, non-binary identities, and the idea that maybe young kids should not be gendered at all unless and until they chose to assume some gender.
The other current is much more conservative, and starts with the simple observation that some people experience extreme gender dysphoria that has only successfully been cured (or at least alleviated) by gender-affirming care (from gender expression to hormone treatments to top/bottom surgery to facial feminization/masculinization surgery and beyond). This current considers it much more clear that humans are generally either men or women, with relatively clear associated characteristics, and simply considers that some people happen to have the "wrong" characteristics. Rather than investigating the philosophical reasoning of why this might be happening and what it means for the concepts woman/man, it is much more concerned with the practical problem of how to make life better for people who feel like this.
My impression is that the second group is much much more prevalent, but also seen as problematic by the first group. The first group is much more extreme, and has much more "interesting" talking points, so it is significantly over-represented in online discussions and media.
My impression is that extreme opinions are mostly from two subgroups of the second group:
- Those who believe that gender is essentially defined by physical characteristics
- Those who believe that gender is essentially defined by social characteristics.
Their inability (or unwillingness) to more deeply consider the concepts of "men"/"women" place them in conflict with each other because each of them want to use a different concept, and neither of them are open to exploring different ones.
The only way I can see this being resolved is by taking an attitude more similar to first group.
However, I believe that the general attitude of the trans community is relatively moderate and easy to accept:
1. Trans people should be able to get the kinds of treatment they need (from therapy all the way to aesthetic surgery), in cooperation with their doctors. Children should be allowed to get some treatment, and their parents should be involved (with some complexity when the parents' bigotry may interfere with the best interest of the child).
2. Other people shouldn't be allowed to ostracize one for being trans, and should seek to accommodate them (such as not referring to them with the wrong pronouns or name); accidental use is easily forgiven, but intentional misgendering is clearly malicious; the problem of "non-passing" trans people complicates this somewhat
3. Trans people should be allowed to use the amenities that correspond to their gender, which will, in the vast majority of circumstances, correspond to their gender presentation; "non-passing" trans people complicate this, as does participation in competitive sports
However, I believe trying to modify society to dispense with the concepts man & woman, or to avoid inoculating them in children - as would be natural if we take the position of the first group too seriously - is way beyond what most people would agree with.
Of course, extreme positions such as trans-medicalists/truscum or people insisting everyone "shares their pronouns" and such are somewhat significant sub-groups, as are people who insist that children should be able to just take hormones without any supervision from doctors or parents if they really think it's right for them (I've seen this exact position on HN before). But while they exist, I think they are still loud minorities, even within the relatively small trans community.
The reality is more nuanced—while certain gender roles are purely social constructs, other aspects of gender are hardwired.
That's not true. It would just indicate that the gender dysphoria is socially caused (perhaps by the imposition of strong gender norms) rather than being an unavoidable part of someone's nature.
It does lead to very different policy proposals though: if gender dysphoria is socially caused then it makes sense to prioritise minimising the cause (by widening the scope of acceptable gender expression for each gender) rather than treating the symptom (by allowing people to change their recognised gender).
It seems unlikely to me that social norms alone could cause gender dysphoric people to believe so strongly that their gender identity mismatches their biological sex (i.e. physical body) that they are willing to undergo dramatic, irreversible medical procedures like gender reassignment surgery and other transitioning procedures to rectify the mismatch.
There are plenty of people who strongly defy gender norms yet still strongly identify their gender as being concordant with their biological sex. Gender dysphoria goes far beyond mere nonconformity to gender norms; many trans people explicitly say that they feel like they were born into the wrong body.
I think it's quite likely.
As an analogy, it seems relatively common for people to become so convinced that they are so unattractive that they undergo highly invasive cosmetic surgery. It's also very much the case that there are social groups where this is normalised (and many people in those social groups will choose to have this surgery) and social groups where it is not (and people in those groups are unlikely to opt for cosmetic surgery).
The difference seems to be that the people in one social group are telling each other that the appropriate solution to feeling unattractive means that one is unattractive and that surgery to change one's body is an appropriate response to that, whereas in the other social group people might either convince each other that they're attractive as they are, or seek alternative remedies such as changes in clothing, grooming, make-up, etc. Or even therapy, self-esteem coaching or similar.
Similarly, if one is an environment where one is constantly told that men (or women) are or should act/be a certain way, then it is hardly surprising that one might develop the notion that one isn't a man/woman. Such an environment is commonly created by people with traditional notions of gender. But it's reinforced by people suggesting that transitioning might be the solution to not fitting one's gender norms.
Which isn't to say that there aren't people for whom physically transitioning is the right answer (the best solution for them), or that do have an inherent dislike of their body that isn't externally influenced. Likewise, there are people for whom cosmetic surgery is absolutely the right solution (e.g. people with a cleft palate or who have suffered from severe burns). But I question the way it currently seems to being positioned (by some people) as the default response to not fitting in with the norms of one's existing gender, and I also question the idea that it is innate and not socially influenced.
Just imagine applying that same approach to addicts.
If you mean puberty blockers for trans youth rather than sex reassignment, they have much more support because of their non-permanent nature. We let many teenagers make decisions about things like tattoos and piercings too
We may not be talking about many years by raw count, but as a percentage of the total lifespan of those involved, the first group is ~50% older than the second.
https://accpjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.100...
If I say "For me it's a choice" then it undermines the people for whom it is not a choice. Because most of the audience in the bathroom stall aren't doing research to put together a comprehensive understanding of gender, they're just reading what in front of them for that day, and then leaving.
If I say gender can be learned, we can spend days bickering about what "learned" really means.
It's not fun. And I'm sorry that someone else said something you think is contradictory.
You cannot keep the society well-functioning by treating the law and social norms as a bathroom stall or as something that you should mindlessly follow without comprehensive understanding.