Developing Trans* Competence - A Guide

The Watercooler
21

What would be your suggestion as to what the alternative, non-sexist approach could look like? This is not meant as criticism, I am really curious :slight_smile:

This is something I agree with 100%, and as so often, I should emphasize that it is a double-edged sword. Here’s an article about research potentially suggesting that the males are now discriminated against when applying to STEM academic jobs. Do women feel like they are in the dominant position here? Most of the time, quite the opposite. Do men feel like they are in the dominant position when women are discriminated against? I think, quite often they don’t. How can you prevent that protecting one gender leads to discrimination of the former dominant one, as it may have happened in the STEM field? Is it even possible? Let’s assume we all agree that the gender should be considered irrelevant when applying for the most jobs (I don’t say all jobs, because I don’t know, maybe for some of them the gender is crucial). That kind of solves the problem here. Still, there are some areas of life where we won’t be able to eliminate the gender altogether, like family life or, say, sports. How can we ensure there is no dominance of one gender over the others in these areas?

Besides, while I agree to you that the gender is to a very large extent a social construct, I still think there may be a significant biological element to it. My girlfriend studied neuropsychogy and I had a peek into her book every now and then, so I came across this research among higher apes, where gender differences started to be observed among males and females at a pretty early age. Now, it is possible their gender is formed by some form of primitive society among apes, I don’t know, but I still think this subject is too under-researced to make any definitive conclusions. Besides, even if the gender is to some degree biologically conditioned, or, better formulated, if there is sex-conditioned and gender-conditioned behaviour patterns, it doesn’t mean we should tolerate direct oppression or discriminate against trans-people, non-binary or agender people, it would be even more stupid than ostracizing Albinos or blond people. You are people like anyone and we are all in the same Samsaric boat, passing the butter for billions of years.

Well yeah, the Buddhist monasticism and Vinaya in particular emerged in a society, where any other gender politic would have led to enormously negative social consequences for the Buddhists. While internally you could have no gender identification, the people from outside would still see you as a man or woman, so keeping up the decorum was necessary. The Buddha allowed to change the insignificant rules before his Final Nibbana, so maybe it would be possible to revise some of the minor gender specific rules at least in the Western monasti circles at first.

At the same time, I don’t think that full elimination of gender specific rules would be a wise thing. Not God but man makes pot and pan, but it also means that most of the monastics are yet not ready or able to say goodbye to their gender once and for all. They may still need some of the major gender-conditioned rules.

22

Agree. After all, there are biological differences between men and women.
When we want to leave samsara, we have to get beyond sex and gender, but in our head , not in the world out there.

Even the Buddha referred to himself as “I” though he taught the doctrine of non-self.
This to show there is a difference between samsara out there, and the nibbana one should try and attain to reach.

There are people who despise labels. But in general labels can be a very good thing; they give certainty, they prevent confusion.

23

“He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me.” Those who harbor such thoughts do not still their hatred.

“He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me.” Those who do not harbor such thoughts still their hatred.

This is why some Feminist or some RedPillers end up having so much anger in them. Constantly thinking about how others oppress them builds anger. That is how even so called “miccroagressions” got to be such a big deal when nobody cared about such things before. Constantly looking for reasons why others are unfair to you, constantly contemplating how you are oppressed by others - builds up a lot of anger inside without been aware of it.

When there is attachment, wrong views develop to legitimize the attachment. For example one attached to drugs may think those drugs don’t harm him at all but actually are a good thing. If there would not be attachment, the person would not have that wrong view and would see drugs as any other person. In the same way, when there is anger inside there develops the wrong view that “It is perfectly fine to have all this anger against the oppressor because this makes me fight to help others and in the end it’s something beneficial” when in reality that is just a wrong view developed cause of attachment.

We all need to be careful with that.

3 Likes
25

Can you be more specific about which rules you mean? Because the rules that come to mind that are different between bhikkhus and bhikkhunis seem fairly sexist, eg. 8 garudhammas. Most other vinaya rules have parallels for men and women, which make sense to me, such as rules about private conversations, being in rooms together, where a man/women can touch, etc, etc,. So which gender differentiating rules should be kept?

I think this is very true, but I think it is also possible for people to legitimately and calmly speak out about what they have and are experiencing. How else will they indicate that something needs to change? Of course, as a Buddhist, cultivating hate and anger or using violence is unacceptable, but I believe it’s possible to stand up to something without hate and anger.

To be honest, as a woman, I’ve accepted that in some Buddhist circles I will always be subjected to being the lesser. What’s the point of being angry and outraged? I’d rather eat my scraps and sit alone in peace. But that doesn’t mean I’m not going to spend my time patiently and politely researching and explaining why that shouldn’t be acceptable, for me or any other ‘outsider’ who is still so very human and still wants to ‘sit close’ to the Buddha’s teaching.

2 Likes
26

I meant these :slight_smile: I mean, they are still gender specific, even though parallel to each other, while the female-only rules are pretty nasty, I agree. Of course, if we are not talking about purely hygienic stuff like menstruation cloth, etc. and / or security-related minor rules. Even then, the latter my be modified to an extent if the neighbourhood around the monastery is not very dangerous.

Sadhu! :anjal:

2 Likes
27

Ah yes :smile: well those are important, very very good point! I’m not sure about the security related ones though? I think some like ‘bhikkhunis not traveling w/out bhikkhuni companion’ are well intentioned, but end up being oppressive. However there are various ways to interpret this, some of which may be prudent.

Thank you as always! :anjal:

28

Ahhh, finally we come to the ‘meat’ of a proper discussions. And I am happy because I think as long as people are talking about this that we are bring light. So thank you for your meritorious actions. May we all benefit as well as the shores we touch with waves of enlightenment.

Now first my disclaimer. And this is only my subjective view as a Dual gendered person: I say dual gendered because I can not and would not want to forget the time I spent in the male sphere of conditioned existence. For it is this very set of experiences that has exposed me to the suffering of both sexes.[quote=“Vstakan, post:21, topic:3915”]
This is something I agree with 100%, and as so often, I should emphasize that it is a double-edged sword. Here’s an article about research potentially suggesting that the males are now discriminated against when applying to STEM academic jobs.
[/quote]

Thanks for asking. I did read the article about STEM, and it is a great segue to my description of the problem of 'Ism". The world we have created and in which we must live is based on our primitive biology with attendant lizard brain impulses. In our current state of evolution we have created a level of superficial society which includes the externalization of authority often embedded in the institutions we create or allow to be created. At the top of the hierarchy, men maintain control of social behavior by maintenance of the power structure-not by choice but by the implicit agreement of both sexes guided by testosterone and estrogen. Testosterone is the active principle, and estrogen is the passive principle. So as human animals barely a step up the evolutionary ladder, we often behave as animals , as pointed out here:

So there is good reason to acknowledge that gender exists in animal societies. But it is not sufficient to use these as models for we have apparently moved at least slightly beyond this animal state. But here is the problem: we cannot know the extent to which we are guided by natural impulse, or allow gender to be maintained as a control mechanism without taking responsibility for it on a personal level.

As I have mentioned before in past comments, institutions exploit gender, and as they are based on top down hierarchy will not change voluntarily. Change
truly profound change can only occur when people of both sexes make a commitment to meditate in deep exploration-without institutional bias- the ways in which we all benefit from and perpetuate the imbalance of the world in terms of gender with the commitment to restoring balance in society. It’s gonna take time. And we all got our work cut out for us. This discussion is a positive addition.

1 Like
29

Well, part of my point was that in some situations and in some contexts it is not men who maintain control, e.g. when we talk about academic jobs and custody legislation in Sweden. In fact quite the opposite is true. I mean, I don’t deny the existence of male sexism and that, let’s say, 90% of the time it’s perpetrated by males (even thought my gut feeling would be that in some Western countries the actual figures are low). But come on, you can’t tell a mathemetician he’s dominating the gender food chain without realiying it if he’s chances to get hired are 50% than those of his female colleague, just by virtue of her gender. Talking about sexism and how genders really work, how institutions exploit gender, would be impossible for me or many other males if we are always depicting as the ‘unknowing bad guys’. Quite often, we are or can be, but come on, let’s face the truth gals, we’re in the same league now! Sometimes, you are bad guys too, sometimes women say nasty things about men and have wild stereotypes, sometimes women objectify men, sometimes there is reverse sexism, just as there is reverse racism and other nasty -isms poisoning our lives. The problem of sexism is not that of exclusively male domination, it is, as you rightly pointed out, a problem of systematic hierarchical gender-based social structures.

Well said :anjal: Still, I kinda want to hear something more specific, because, honestly, I don’t like the gender-based social strcuture the way they used to be, I don’t like them the way they are now, and I don’t have a single clue what we should do specifically to bring about positive change or whether any groundbreaking change is even possible. So, any specific suggestions would be very welcome :blush: Again, not a criticism :slight_smile:

30

Dear Friend, I think you misunderstand me. My point was that sexism and genderism are institutionally maintained in the context of a given society. I am sure that some societies are more evolved than others. But as the saying goes -as a Transwoman I have no dog in this fight. And if I did have a dog in this fight she would be a Buddhist dog who sees ALL personality
or self
as illusory. I am not a defender of gender theory and while I have suffered substantial sexism as a Trans woman my suffering exists commensurate with my attachment to the concept of gendered personality.

So I cannot debate the issue of sexism or genderism and still claim detachment. The statistics relating to the prevalence of male dominated sexism are ubiquitous. But I don’t care as there is a good chance that I will be something or someone else in a future incarnation. And as I have stated in previous posts both sexes suffer from the burden of taking their gender much too seriously.

I will close now with a wish for your happiness and liberation in all aspects of your life, and happiness for all of us. Praise Buddha. Namaste

31

True, I fully agree with you on that, my point was just that the language used to describe sexism is a bit one-sided, but that doesn’t change anything on the substance of your point, and again, I agree with you 100% :anjal:

Which doesn’t mean there is no female sexism, just as there is black racism. One of the great achievements of the feminism was to highlight the innate sexist structures of the language, so I am just doing the same thing, asking for politically correct linguistic description of sexism, if you will. If sexism goes both ways, and sometimes it does, we should reflect it in the language, otherwise we will just replace one innate sexist paradigm with another. If I were given a dollar each time I hear there is no reverse sexism, I would be a rich man, so using correct language would be a step in the right direction, I suppose. This is one of the very few specific things that I might suggest in the gender discussion.

I wish you the very best as well, Rosie :anjal:

1 Like
32

So why don’t we interpret them in a prudent way? I mean, if a bhikkhuni lives in a relatively safe neighbourhood, I don’t think that travelling alone should be a big deal. Whereas if the said bhikkhuni is going to head to, say, Neukölln or Mollenbeek, having a high Muslim population, or Rostock, Germany, teeming with Nazis in some parts of the city, not travelling alone would be a wise decision. So enforcing this rule in an unsafe environment could be beneficial for all the concerned parties.

33

Sure, good point, but most women already know that. So why make a hard and fast rule about it? It’s almost always going to be either inconvenient or inadequate, because no matter what rule you make, it won’t protect you from other’s actions.

A person needs to have the sense not to go to a dangerous place, either alone or in company (I think this is a parallel Vinaya rule for bhikkhus too). As for having a rule that women always have to be chaperoned, it’s seems absurd and demeaning.

2 Likes
34

I don’t know the Vinaya well, so my comment is not about that (existing?) rule, but more in general:

As bhante Sujato said to me earlier in another thread: Whatever we think about the rules laid down in the Vinaya, whatever views we have of them, they will never change.

1 Like
35

Hi, I am new to this website, so please don’t judge too harshly. I read this discussion with interest, but I am perplexed by the emphasis on identity. In Buddhism, the doctrine of Anattā denies that there is anything called a ‘Self’ in any person or anything else, and that a belief in ‘self’ or ‘identity’ is a source of Dukkha (suffering). Whichever way you chose to interpret the the doctrine of Anattā, it seems clear, that according to Buddhist doctrine, identity does not exist. If, as Buddhists claim, identity does not exist, then there certainly can’t be any transgender identity. Put succinctly: Identity does not exist and belief in identity is a source of suffering, therefore trans-identity does not exist.
Am I missing something here ??
Reference: Peter Harvey (2012). An Introduction to Buddhism: Teachings, History and Practices. Cambridge University Press. pp. 57–62. ISBN 978-0-521-85942-4.

36

Hi DaoYaoTao, this conversation initially centered around a guide for monasteries and retreat centers to be more inclusive of trans* people. While one can argue that identity does not exist from fundamental perspective (i.e. it is false), there are still people who do identify and the non-recognition of this identity can be potentially dangerous, especially in monastic/retreat environments.

2 Likes
37

Dear DaoYaoTao:

My thought on this is that we have a sense of a mundane identity by which we navigate the world. Even the Buddha identified himself as the “Tathagata.” We go through this world with names, and a sense of our preferences and personality traits, and our biological status.

But we also know that there is a supermundane view toward this, which is that all things are conditioned, not-self and impermanent. Failing to appreciate this reality causes us suffering as we navigate the world.

So, in the mundane world, we need to observe some sense of identity, and respect that there are mundane aspects to life that create dangers and problems. We have to create protocols or rules to deal with these mundane concerns, ever mindful that they are the concerns of the samsaric mundane world.

3 Likes
38

Hi, and first I would offer that if anyone judged you here in this most excellent forum full of loving kindness that it would not be a legitimate Buddhist reference. Secondly, I perceive and am sorry for the evident judgment to which you have been exposed and by which you have been hurt. I honor the divine life force which flows through us all and you too. And as a Trans woman in the material world I am curious: Do you have no identity which is part of your kamma? Have you transcended your gendered identity? Please understand that I ask this question without ulterior motive
only to gain wisdom from your experience. For in my experience it is the first of all material divisions, and the last to depart the enlightened.
I look forward to your comment and wish you only love, peace and happiness. Namaste

2 Likes
39

Hi Brenna, beautifully skillful reply. Thank you :slight_smile:

40

Hi Rosie, Your reply is very thought provoking. I am not sure if what I say is accurate about me and I look forward to your reply.

Perhaps, I can say I am very ‘lucky’ in the sense that I have never had to think about my gender identity. I don’t try to be man or a woman or any other gender. I simply try to be a good human
honest, gentle and kind. Whenever I focus on my mental and physical health, my gender identity plays no role in that at all. I just try to maintain being fit and healthy and gentle and kind.

I also have a deep need for logical truth(
haha
analyze that). I love studying concepts and getting to the root of arguments. It might make me seem very argumentative, but it comes from a deep need to know the truth. For me the truth must be coherent and logically consistent, and I am easily perplexed by things that, to me, don’t make sense. Postmodernists would not approve of me :slight_smile: Brenna’s reply put things into context here, so now I do understand this topic and have no issues with it.
Thanks for your lovely post Rosie. I feel the love.

2 Likes
41

Dear AnagarikaMichael, Very well made point. Thank you.

1 Like