Harking back to https://lost-in-transition.tumblr.com/post/163866816634/regarding-definitions-of-sex-and-gender ; I am indeed saying that there are differences in perceptions between people in how their explicit or implicit gender definitions work. Some will regard self-identified gender as equally valid, some will not. This is not a disagreement on facts, this is taking up different social positions, this is choosing to act (in a maximally wide use of the words “choose” and “act”) in one way or another. So what is actually happening when we disagree?
In most modern, open societies now there seems to be at least local and growing respect of self-identified gender assignment – the opting-in/opting-out of an earlier post. Not all recognize it, but most are aware it is there. It is part of the discourse. Under such circumstances, using this definition for yourself or for another may or may not be immediately recognized, but it may not need to be explicitly stated. I need not preface my use of the correct pronouns, or of the correct facilities, by an explanation. The social contract does not spell out what definition of gender is agreed on. Rather the ongoing use of the inclusive form through practice and example is a front in the culture wars, a facet of the discourse, it is an arena of cultural reproduction where a progressive definition may come to become more established.
That is not the same as saying no communication is needed. An AFAB man being referred to as a woman may need to state he is a transman to be believed, and then if circumstances are favourable, his pronouns and presence will be respected. If they are not, this is worth taking note of, but not a breach of social contract as such.
Except where it is, because in some cases these things are enshrined formally. We still often have legal genders, and some laws separating them. Moreover, some context may specify their use of terms – these changing rooms // fellowships // online spaces are restricted according to anatomy // birth-assigned gender // karyotype. We ought not, but it can be done, and in that case, participating as a transperson in those contexts is actively breaching those agreements. This may still be a moral thing to do, perhaps, but it can also be risky, if laws support the practices, and it is also an active challenge which is only sometimes the easiest approach for anyone to take.
So what to do? Ultimately, your own gender definition framework matters most. Wherever there is no formal intersubjective agreement, go with that which is yours. State and explain where beneficial, but if you do not, you have not faulted, you have not been dishonest. Political impact may stem from being open wherever stylish. Where a formal agreement may exist, such as by participating by invitation in something created by another – entering, for example, into a non-public segregated space – then it makes sense to ask for and react to the definition in use; are transwomen or nonbinary people welcome in this “woman-only” facility? Perhaps we are not. That is the choice of the organizer. It is a legitimate choice, while at the same time likely also a bigoted one, and one that should be called out. Having one’s bigoted choice called out, does not remove one’s legitimacy in making it, if one legitimately may control the space within which that choice occurs in the first place.
So what do I do? I am not out in all spaces, I am not out in some family contexts or in some professional contexts. In those, when the choice is made between man and woman options, I may reluctantly go with the man option, feeling dark and cold as I do, ready to state at a moment’s notice that this does not reflect my identity, but not actively yet choosing as I should. Biding my time until I am certain and until I am ready. In all other spaces, I will choose and present as makes sense for a (perhaps nonbinary) woman of my temperament and anatomy, thus implicitly stating and dwelling within my gender, and thus implicitly within an identity-centred, optionality-augmented gendering framework. Where sensible or necessary I will state this. When explicitly asked for my sex or gender – on forms, or for participation in spaces which are not merely segregated by silent, wordless practice but where segregation is explicitly enforced – within that conversation I will come out as trans, and then act based on whether that is recognized by the corresponding access control authority.
There is pragmatism involved, too. As I do not “pass”, choosing or presenting explicitly female means coming out by definition, so need not necessarily be done explicitly in all cases. If I foresee too much conflict, I might play it safe and avoid it entirely. However, this is an area where I continually try to push my comfort zones. Also, at some point certain parts of the world will end up very difficult to travel to, except with various caveats.
lost in transition 