178
me when I hear the phrase "biological male(s)" 😖 (thelemmy.club)
submitted 1 month ago by [M] to c/transmemes@lemmy.blahaj.zone
123 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 0 points 1 month ago (1 child)

“Male socialisation” implies that everyone who was AMAB went through the same kind of upbringing and was exposed to the same kinds of indoctrination, toxicity, and bias. It is an over generalisation at best, and intentionally misrepresentative at worst.

You're making the mistake of confusing, "everyone is unique, therefore no description is perfect" with "everyone is unique, therefore no description is possible or useful."

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    I'm not making a mistake - I am directly stating that this term does not do a good job at capturing a group in a useful way.

    There is ample feminist literature for decades debunking how "male socialization" is used today.

    More current, is the concept viewed from intersectional feminism, which criticises the fact that flattening down "male socialization" in this way does a disservice by excluding other, perhaps more prominent social and circumstantial factors which all contribute together, such as race, class, disability, sexuality, nationality, etc.

    A more nuanced discussion is necessary, in my opinion, and I dont think I have ever seen "male socialization" used in a constructive context. I most prominently see it used to invalidate (trans) women's genders, hand-wave away poor behaviour, etc.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (1 child)

    I've seen the term used with extreme usefulness, even within the trans community.

    Studying male/female socialization is extremely useful for binary trans people who want to pass and assimilate into society. Maybe it's not useful for the most gender rebel nonbinary folks out there. And more power to such folks. But we shouldn't gatekeep trans identities and invalidate the experiences of binary trans people.

    And yes, you are making the exact mistake I suggested:

    More current, is the concept viewed from intersectional feminism, which criticises the fact that flattening down “male socialization” in this way does a disservice by excluding other, perhaps more prominent social and circumstantial factors which all contribute together, such as race, class, disability, sexuality, nationality, etc.

    A description does not have to be perfect to be useful. All models are wrong. Some models are useful. Gender socialization is not the sole determiner of behavior. It may not even be the greatest single factor of behavior. But that doesn't mean there aren't broad averages that are still very useful to reference in the right context.

    For example, men are generally socialized to take up more space than women are. And this is true across many other axes. Across most cultures, religions, income levels, etc. Men are encouraged to be big, bold, and be heard. See manspreading. Women are encouraged to be smaller and take up less space. Maybe you can find some rare culture in history that this wasn't the case. But it's true for the cultures that the vast vast majority of human beings on this earth live in.

    And this is not simply an academic matter. For a binary trans woman seeking advice on how to pass better, "take up as little physical space as possible" is actually fantastic advice if she isn't already doing it. You can have a body, face, and voice that are read as female. But if you sit down a couch, wearing a skirt, and spread your legs wide instead of keeping them crossed or closed? That will immediately out you as a trans woman, or at the very least draw attention to you. Women generally are socialized to close their legs when they sit. Maybe that's not true for the Sentilese, but for an American woman living in the US in 2026, it's certainly true in far more cases than not.

    Passing is all about appealing to societal averages. Again, if someone doesn't care at all about passing, fair enough. But we should not invalidate the experiences of those who wish to pass. And for those that do, studying their socialization and adjusting their behavior accordingly is something that most of us have to do.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago

    Again, it isn't a mistake - I am criticising the label not because it is imperfect, but because it is not a meaningful label. I would appreciate if you would consider the fact that I heard you the first time and disagree for a reason, not out of ignorance.

    I understand where you're coming from with behaviour and mannerism adjustment - I had not (until yourself) seen these aspects held under the nebulous umbrella of "male socialization", at least not when it comes to the kinds of things that binary trans women would be looking to change in an effort to be perceived as feminine. Perhaps this is the correct term for that, but I'm not convinced

    As a binary trans woman who is intentionally performing gender in a mostly traditional way, I wouldn't begin to gatekeep trans identities or invalidate the experiences of binary trans people. For all the conversation about behaviour and mannerism adjustment, I would have instead been using the terms "femininity" and "masculinity", or "traditional X gender presentation", especially given the widespread adoption of the term "male socialization" as a piece of transphobic rhetoric. I believe the aforementioned two terms to be more well defined, generally applicable, and less prone to centering the conversation on a gender they do not identify with.

    If it is useful to you to use this term in this way, more power to you. I shouldn't, can't, and won't prevent you from doing so.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent