LGBTAIitp Part 60: Still Going Strong

[TaiLiu]

While this is true of any gender (including one which someone was assigned at birth, and remains happy with), naturally someone who's expressed their gender differently to society's norms might find themselves questioned on it frequently. This leaves them with two options: give an imperfect, but short, answer, or do an entire degree's worth of study and bring it up potentially multiple times a day.

I like this analysis, too.

I can understand that's frustrating if you're looking for more information. I'd recommend "Whipping Girl" by Julia Serano for a bit of further reading (it's mostly about trans women, and how we're subject to the same social forces as cis women, but it does a good job of summarising exactly what gender is in that context in doing so, which might give you the explanation you're after).

Whipping Girl is good. And also a good example of disagreement among trans people about gender—I think Serano is mistaken in several ways.

always recommend the Gender Dysphoria Bible.

Thanks for the link! Never seen this site before.

I clicked that link, and it literally said that gender was "unobservable" which, to me, definitionally precludes meaningful existence.

I think this is a difficult epistemology to uphold, although I'm vaguely sympathetic, and you're certainly not the first or only person to say this. Scientists (and others) posit unobservable entities all the time. Electrons and black holes are classic examples. Those in favor are scientific realists; those who have issues with this are a subset of scientific anti-realists.

Presumably, that it can't be detected, even indirectly, with the mind or senses. I don't know for sure if that's the sense they meant it in, but I also can't think of any other potential meaning.

Frankly, I can't think of anyone who posits the existence of something that can't ever be detected. Presumably, if you're genuinely positing the existence of something, you've "detected" it!

That's a contradiction. If something is "obvious" to you, that's because you're observing it.

I think you're using "observation" and "unobservable" in ways that many people aren't. We certainly don't need to observe anything to know the truth or falsity of some mathematical fact.