What’s interesting, and where this again, for me, sheds a lot of light on the amazingly strange ways that belief and doubt operate in the human mind, on what beautifully irrational little things we are, and feels like an important touchstone for skeptics to explore, is that a lot of this irrational denial can itself be framed as the due, logical level of skepticism that such a drastic decision demands.
After all, surely if we’re going to risk so much, put so much at stake, in such a monumental “decision”, we should approach it carefully, and make sure to be certain, right? Shouldn’t we be looking for proof that we’re trans before gambling our whole lives on that being the case?
This whole idea that your subjective identity can’t be legitimate unless you’re somehow able to back it up with objective evidence is a pretty awful situation to be put in, especially when you’re inflicting it on yourself, given how any “proof” of being trans is entirely dependent on subjective experience. What proves that you’re trans is only to understand yourself as trans. When dealing with gatekeepers and family and the numerous external forces that would deny us our identities, it’s not such a crippling situation, because at least we know, and we are the proof, and beyond that it’s simply a matter of figuring out what they think would count as “proof” and what exactly they need to see or hear to believe you (if anything). But when imposing this situation on yourself, when the only possible actual certainty is in accepting and understanding yourself as trans, but you refuse to accept and understand yourself as such until you have that certainty… you’ve created an impossible situation for yourself.
Cool! It’s still up, great to know. I love that essay.
Well, maybe… if proof of being trans was even really something possible, beyond the simple proof of subjectively experiencing your identity and gender as such. But more importantly: we never ask ourselves for “proof” that we’re cis.
Cis is treated as the null hypothesis. It doesn’t require any evidence. It’s just the assumed given. All suspects are presumed cisgender until proven guilty of transsexuality in a court of painful self-exploration. But this isn’t a viable, logical, “skeptical” way to approach the situation. In fact it’s not a case of a hypothesis being weighed against a null hypothesis (like “there’s a flying teapot orbiting the Earth” vs. “there is no flying teapot orbiting the Earth”), it is simply two competing hypotheses. Two hypotheses that should be held to equal standards and their likelihood weighed against one another.
Is it this one? https://freethoughtblogs.com/nataliereed/2012/04/17/the-null-hypothecis/
edit I started reading the above
That last part I highlighted is very interesting.
Cool! It’s still up, great to know. I love that essay.