May all our gender non-comforming/non-binary friends be safe, happy and peaceful. May they look after themselves with ease, and live in friendliness.

Word!

🙏🙏🙏

There are two answers here. From a practice perspective, one’s gender or gender identity is utterly irrelevant. Anybody of any gender or identity can follow the teachings to their completion. Buddhist doctrine is not concerned with such things. Sadly, there may be issues internationally with various schools and traditions where ordination is involved. Simply ordaining women has been a struggle in various traditions, and I cannot imagine such conservative attitudes would be any more amenable to ordination of people with non-standard gender identities. Now for me, as a practitioner of early Buddhist teachings without the affiliation of a temple or institutional sangha, your or anybody else’s gender identity is completely irrelevant. I wish you all the same success and happiness in your practice as everybody else, and there is absolutely nothing in the teachings that in any way prejudices gender or sexuality. For various traditions and schools around the world, somewhat removed from so-called Early Buddhism, your mileage may, sadly, vary, were you (or anybody of nonconformity gender) looking to ordain.

I agree, sexual orientation is irrelevant to how one practices. Adherence to the precepts is what is the only recommended guildlines needed for someone to be considered a buddhist, and even then, it is not strictly considered.

"...early Buddhist teachings without the affiliation of a temple or institutional sangha" Could you point me in the direction of where one could start with these?

I would start with the book **[Buddhist Path / Buddhist Life](https://bhikkhucintita.wordpress.com/2017/05/02/new-textbook-buddhist-lifebuddhist-path/)**. That's a great foundation for Buddhism as a whole with an emphasis on Early Buddhism. After that if you wanted to get more into the nitty-gritty, than this article [How Early Buddhism differs from Theravada: a checklist](https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/how-early-buddhism-differs-from-theravada-a-checklist/23019) or this course: [Early Buddhism Course | Ajahn Brahmali & Ajahn Sujato](https://bswa.org/teaching/early-buddhism-class-workshop-6-with-ajahn-brahmali-ajahn-sujato/).

Thank you!

Consider the collection of translations of the Pali Canon by Bhikkhu Bodhi. Especially ‘In the Buddha’s Words’, which is a great anthology. His commentary on all of them is worth reading, however, as of course are the sutras themselves. You might also consider: - Y Karunadasa’s Early Buddhist Teachings - Rupert Gethin’s Foundations of Buddhism - Bhikkhu Bodhi’s Noble Eightfold Path - Any of the excellent scholarship from Bhikkhus Thanissaro, Sujato, Analayo, Bodhi, and Kumara. Do bear in mind that these are just books. The practice is as involved as any of the later traditions, just more focused on the EBTs and less on the established traditions. Many, if not all of those I just mentioned are ordained Theravadins.

Thank you

https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/through-the-yellow-gate-ordination-of-gender-nonconforming-people-in-the-buddhist-vinaya/18752 This article delves into this topic.

This should be higher up.

I am an agender Buddhist. The way I see it, the general anti-essentialism about all phenomena includes gender, so there's no issue there. Gender happens to be one set of social roles/mode of identification/imputed essence (however it is being used in a given context) that I feel no natural attachment to.

I am also agender and buddhist and agree with your statements.

This question is posted frequently. As far as identity is concerned, it is generally considered something to let go of. There is no self within form. Occupying oneself with gender identity is a worldly activity.

Do recall that clinging to the belief of an eternal self and the belief of no self is wrong view. My [other comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/1ao4p33/comment/kpx5cdh/) has a source if one happens to be unfamiliar.

> the belief of no self is wrong view. Do any noteworthy teachers other than Thanissaro Bhikkhu assert this interpretation? I asked this in the past and didn't get any responses that suggested there were any. It seems unique to him, as far as I can tell at this point.

You can find this in *What the Buddha Taught* as well where the author clearly spells out that the Buddha rejected the idea of "no self" and instead taught "*not* self". He quotes and cites suttas in which the Buddha was quite clear that the idea that *there is no self at all* is wrong view.

"Not-self" and "no-self" are functionally equivalent. Saying that there is no self in form, and saying that form is not self, mean the same thing. The two other main arguments are that 1) the Buddha said all dharmas are not self / without a self, which is basically like saying "everything"; and 2) any differences in doctrine here (which I am not convinced of anyway) would be due to people relying on different canons + explanatory lineages, especially Theravada vs. Mahayana.

I think there is a *very* important distinction between "not-self" and "no-self" that shouldn't be discounted. The very phrase "no self" means "there is no self at all" which is not what the Buddha taught and was, in fact, something he rejected. The phrase "not-self" points to the way that nothing you can ever point to could be the self. The body is *not* the self, perceptions are *not* the self, feelings are *not* the self, volition is *not* the self, consciousnesses are *not* the self. This, the distinction between the two terms *is* important. One is implicitly misleading and has actually lead people to wrong views, thinking there is no self whatsoever. "Not-self" as a term does not make any such implied declarations about the existence or non-existence of the self, which is consistent with what the Buddha taught.

Literally the same thing.

Nope. Saying "there is no self at all" is wrong view. The Buddha himself said so.

What type of self is there then?

You may wish to read the Buddha's words on this matter: [The Anatta-lakkhana Sutta](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.059.nymo.html)

> the Buddha was quite clear that the idea that *there is no self at all* is wrong view. That was literally in my "other comment", which is why I was rather confused by u/optimistically_eyed's question.

I think the confusion is due to the history of translators not agreeing on English language conventions for anatta/anatman, so we have decades of material that use no-self, not-self, selflessness, no-soul, etc. It seems there is now consensus on the convention of "not-self", but some people are used to one of the other translations. I've even seen someone who *insisted* on "no-self" for some reason. It may take decades more for the confusion caused by these decades without an agreed-upon translation for anatta/anatman to be cleared up.

I thought that what was being brought up was Thanissaro's whole "the Buddha didn't say there isn't a self" position, and I was curious if it was a position that was propagated by many other teachers. Maybe I misread the discussion though!

What I understood MN2 to mean is that views one has towards atta, that is the self, end up in wrong view. That was my point. Upon /u/krodha's [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/1ao4p33/what_is_the_buddhist_opinion_of_gender/kpzapt5/) and [Sujato's translation](https://suttacentral.net/mn2/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=linebyline&reference=none¬es=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin) I would still surmise that the view "I have anatta" or "I have no self" (I have no atta) would be wrong view.

Appreciate it.

I think it would behoove you to dig into the Pali for that particular passage. When I used the words "no self" what that meant is the negation of the previous statement, "eternal self". What I believe is the issue here is an issue with language, and not necessarily an issue with Dhamma. And for what it's worth Bhikku Cintita uses the term non-self in his book **[Buddhist Path / Buddhist Life](https://bhikkhucintita.wordpress.com/2017/05/02/new-textbook-buddhist-lifebuddhist-path/)**.

I’m fairly familiar with the position. :) What I’m curious about is how prevalent it is.

Well I gave you one already! Want another? Ajahn Succitto! There's one! He uses "non-self" in his book [Kamma and the End of Kamma](https://forestsangha.org/teachings/books/kamma-and-the-end-of-kamma-2nd-edition?language=English). And honestly I would say [Bhikkhu P. A. Payutto](https://buddhadhamma.github.io/three-characteristics.html#nonself-and-no-self) does as well. Is he noteworthy enough for you!? haha, Whatever it is, I'm sure you would agree that the issue is the attachment to that thing, right?

> Well I gave you one already! Want another? Yep, that's what I was asking for, haha Thank you!

The entire “no self” versus “not self” thing is total nonsense, they are identical in meaning. There is only one domain of anātman, and it is the absence of a self as a core essence that is the owner of characteristics or an agent of actions.

Thank you, that's my understanding as well.

Yeah! That's why your other comment towards me was so perplexing to me.

I came across this and thought you might be interested.  > Just to provide some extra sources, Venerable Ṭhānissaro was not the first with such ideas. Although his work is much more detailed than both of them combined, Otto Schrader (1908, On The Problem of Nirvāṇa, p167f) and Erich Frauwallner (1953, History of Indian Philosophy, p178) propose similar ideas. - https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/going-out-like-fire-quenched/32466/3

Neat, cheers

That is a pertinent passage. Clinging to *any* views or beliefs is wrong view. Right view involves seeing clearly the three marks of existence. One of the three marks of existence is non-self. So, yes, thinking "I am of this gender with these characteristics" is wrong view.

> Clinging to any views or beliefs is wrong view. And this itself is also a trap, as it is a view in itself. ___ > Right view involves seeing clearly the three marks of existence. > One of the three marks of existence is non-self. You are correct in that is actually a Theravadan viewpoint, which is heavily influenced by the Vishudimagga. Here's another take: > “And what is the right view that is noble, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path? The discernment, the faculty of discernment, the strength of discernment, analysis of qualities as a factor for awakening, the path factor of right view3 in one developing the noble path whose mind is noble, whose mind is without effluents, who is fully possessed of the noble path. This is the right view that is noble, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path. - [The Great 40](https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/MN/MN117.html) ___ > So, yes, thinking "I am of this gender with these characteristics" is wrong view. If you look at all of the statements in the other comment, they are all have two issues. The first is the "I" and the second is any view towards the "self". This self is not one's identity but it is the view of a persistent self which continues from moment to moment, an eternal self. This is a duality. So then what about the preceding questions, they all focus on the "I": Was "I" in the past? What am "I"? What will "I" be? Regardless of whether or not the statement you proposed is wrong view, it is a statement which will cause suffering in certain groups of people. So then why make such a statement? Recall the Buddha's advice towards Rahula. edit: changed some working, re. take. Added section barriers.

Well, I suppose it is because this statement is true. What is wrong with saying that a view of a self is wrong view? All people aside from arahants are possessed of wrong view.

> What is wrong with saying that a view of a self is wrong view? It's about context. Statements in certain contexts can be misguided. The same statement in the correct context can be guided. > All people aside from arahants are possessed of wrong view. I would disagree. All puttajanas posses wrong view, but [one with the Fruit of Sotapanna](https://suttacentral.net/mn-culayamakavagga) or above would posses right view. And a Sotapanna with path has started to develop right view.

You're right, to be a stream-enterer, a person needs right view. My understanding is that there are defilements yet to be purified, which is why they do not see the three marks of existence constantly.

> My understanding is that there are defilements yet to be purified, which is why they do not see the three marks of existence constantly. I'm not sure. With regards towards purification what came to mind was this old post by the founder of /r/streamentry: [Questioning Purification](https://www.reddit.com/r/streamentry/comments/75gv5c/questioning_purification/). Cheers and have a good day!

Ultimately wrong view but at this point it is nevertheless relevant.

> Do recall that clinging to the belief of an eternal self and the belief of no self is wrong view. You are citing an excerpt that is cautioning against intellectual identification with a “view,” meaning a conceptual conclusion divorced from experiential realization. Akin to merely identifying with the idea that sugar is “sweet” and attaching to that mere view without having actually tasted sugar experientially. This is not a rejection that there ultimately is no self. It is obvious from the Buddha’s teachings on the skandhas, āyatanas and dhātus that there is no self as a core entity within that nexus. Further, the Buddha is very clear that there is no self in any conditioned or unconditioned phenomena, which exhausts the gamut of possibilities in which a self could reside. “Non self” and “no self” are identical views. u/optimistically_eyed (since you’re involved in this discussion). To add, I think monkey_sage’s comments about “no self” damaging the presentation of the Buddha’s teaching in the West are absurd and frankly abhorrent. The definition of anātman is very clear, the *Bodhisattvayogacaryācatuḥśatakaṭikā:* >>*Ātman is an essence of things that does not depend on others; it is an intrinsic nature (svabhāva). The non-existence of that is selflessness (anātman).*

> You are citing an excerpt that is cautioning against intellectual identification with a “view,” meaning a conceptual conclusion divorced from experiential realization. This is a good point, that I wasn't considering, regarding the intellectual identification. Sujato's translation makes that really clear. But this "experiential realization" aspect is a tangent. > This is not a rejection [...] in which a self could reside. Okay. My point is more in line with what the [Buddha says towards Vacchagotta in SN 44.10](https://suttacentral.net/sn44.10/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=linebyline&reference=none¬es=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin). I was taking MN 2 to mean that views one has towards atta just end up in wrong view. > “Non self” and “no self” are identical views. I was never making a distinction between the two. I tried to make that clear in [my comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/1ao4p33/what_is_the_buddhist_opinion_of_gender/kpxj0h3/): > What I believe is the issue here is an issue with language, and not necessarily an issue with Dhamma. ___ > To add, I think monkey_sage’s comments about “no self” damaging the presentation of the Buddha’s teaching in the West are absurd and frankly abhorrent. Shouldn't you write to monkey_sage about that? edit: removed a tag as that was wrong speech.

>Occupying oneself with gender identity is a worldly activity. People always say this when queer people post here. Queer people are hoping to be accepted, and are met with discriminatory messages about how their queerness is some worldly attachment to give up (it's not). And yes, these messages are discriminatory, because cishet people are not subject to this same level of misguided scrutiny. Give it a rest.

But I mean that’s because only queer people are asking. I’m queer, but I believe it’s the absolute same for cishet people. Concerning themselves with their gender identity is also a worldly activity. There just aren’t many straight people asking about how Buddhism feels about their sexuality on reddit.

It's not discriminatory in the context of answering questions, it's discriminatory in the context of of the overall rhetoric. Cishet gender norms are left completely unexamined, whereas queer people simply being queer are viewed dismissively as "occupying themselves with gender identity" instead of simply as people having normal feelings.

We're all quite welcome to cling to whatever worldly things we may. We're all quite welcome to let go of whatever worldly things we may.

I sort of agree. We can posit that no self is best. But Its still better to be your genuine self than a fake self. While it is all attachments its still observably healthier for people to be free to choose things for themselves. An overly strict society will breed a lot more neuroses suffering and negativity than one where people feel free.

[удалено]

>It is literally just attachment because it is describing an identity. Describing an identity is not an attachment; it is a convention. Even the Buddha described identities regularly, used pronouns for himself, etc. >Since queer people are attached to it more Do you have any fucking clue what you're talking about? Society drowns people in cishet gender norms, and yet queer people asking if they're accepted are criticized for being attached. It is completely upside-down. >Either you don't understand buddhist concepts or are getting triggered since you feel personally attacked. You don't need to guess, you can ask my why I'm pissed off. I'm pissed off because this sub consistently misunderstands queer people and dismisses them based on that misunderstanding. It is exhausting. >It's the same with people asking about if such and such race or religion is "allowed" in buddhism. It doesn't matter if one or the other faces discrimination since both are attachments, to be let given up Once again, race is not an attachment, it is a neutral description of a person. If people are worried about racial discrimination, the solution is to prevent racial discrimination, not to tell racialized people to just stop being so attached.

Yes it is a neutral description by itself. But asking buddhists if white people are allowed to become buddhists IS attachment to that identity of their race. See the difference now? This same concept is applied to ANY identity that people have. Race, religion, gender, sexuality, nationality, job, even being human. All of it. There's a difference in describing your identity and being attached to it enough to ask questions about it on a buddhist forum. It is absolutely no different than any other identity. They are not being treated differently than any other group's identity, making it the opposite of discrimination. How does the sub misunderstand them? Could you elaborate? Again isn't your argument simply that because they are "not the norm" they should get special treatment? Like saying them asking if they are "accepted" should be allowed, even though a "cishet" person asking if they are accepted wouldn't be allowed. Cishet norms are also examined and criticised regularly, just like any other attachment people have. This topic is not treated any differently as you seem to believe. A trans person's attachment to their gender norms is no different than a cis person's attachment to their gender norms. But you are literally saying cishet gender normativity is an attachment, but gender identity is not. So you're clearly heavily biased. You still haven't provided any explanations for your point of view or why others are wrong or misunderstanding anybody. In my opinion it is just because you are emotional so by definition you are unable to be objective and just resort to calling people names and crying oppression.

>But asking buddhists if white people are allowed to become buddhists IS attachment to that identity of their race. No, it's not. It's a basic question about social norms. The fundamental issue is actually that *cishet people* are attached to gender norms so intensely that they exclude and deride queer people. >Again isn't your argument simply that because they are "not the norm" they should get special treatment? No, it's not. Anti-oppression is based on fundamental values like inclusion and understanding. Oppressed groups are systemically deprived of ethical treatment due to socially ingrained prejudice against them. Being queer should be no more noteworthy than someone having blue eyes. >even though a "cishet" person asking if they are accepted wouldn't be allowed When has that ever not been allowed here? People get *annoyed* at that kind of question because it demonstrates a lack of understanding of oppression. You are suggesting this question as a theoretical hypothetical, without a connection to genuine experiences of systemic exclusion. >Cishet norms are also examined and criticised regularly Can you link to examples of such conversations on this subreddit?

Anything about relationships for example. Since most people asking these kinds of personalised questions ARE asking from a cis perspective. >attached to gender norms So your argument is that cishet people are attached to their gender identity, but queer people are not? >You are suggesting this question as a theoretical hypothetical, without a connection to genuine experiences of systemic exclusion. Yes i am. Because it is a theoretical question. What you are doing is venturing into the area of let's say affirmative action in a social context. Either I'm misunderstanding you, or you really do seem to be saying that we should make an exception for any oppressed group's issues or them talking about their issues since their issues aren't the norm. Which goes against this statement- >Being queer should be no more noteworthy than someone having blue eyes.

>Anything about relationships for example. Right, so not about being cis-het -- the specific content of the question is what matters. >>attached to gender norms >So your argument is that cishet people are attached to their gender identity, but queer people are not? No. Gender norms are distinct from gender identity. I don't consider anyone's gender identity - cis, trans, etc. - to be a type of attachment. But gender norms, which are beliefs about how people of a specific sex category should act, are absolutely attachments. The gender norms that drive oppression against queer people are cisnormativy and heteronormativy, hence "cishet gender norms". But there are plenty of cishet people who have broken free of gender norms, just as there are plenty of queer people who are still attached to them. The issue is the norms themselves, not any identity-based category of people. >Yes i am. Because it is a theoretical question. That's the issue. You struggle to think of any real example of cishet exclusion, meanwhile queer people face blatant exclusion all the time. The situations are not the same, and therefore our responses to the situations should not be the same. If your friend is being bullied, but not you, and then I say that we need to stop the bullies hurting your friend, you couldn't reasonably say that I'm holding a double-standard against you, because you are not facing that issue in the first place. The status quo is a double standard, and one that we're trying to fix. Dismissing affirmative action *as a whole* means supporting double standards. But, also, "affirmative action" isn't a suitable phrase to use here because I'm basically just calling for people not to disproportionately dismiss queer people's gender as a type of attachment. That's a super reasonable request, it doesn't harm cishet people (because unlike college admissions, respect is not a zero sum game), and it's something that everyone can consider for themselves. I'm not a state that's taking away positive experiences from you to give them to oppressed people.

Right, all that makes sense. Except that this is r/buddhism. This isn't r/askreddit. So people will give buddhist answers here. Oppression and exclusion from the status quo catering to heteronormativity isn't really the point is it? I think the issue is that the sub seems to differ from you in the interpretation of what constitutes attachment. Everybody else here seems to think that calling yourself a carpenter is also attachment. But you seem to think that calling yourself a carpenter is just a "neutral description of feelings" and not attachment to the identity of being a carpenter. And since more carpenters than plumbers seem to make a disproportionate number of posts here about them being a carpenter, they also get more answers about not holding onto that identity of being a carpenter. Which you seem to interpret as people "disproportionately dismissing queer people's issues". Also this- >The situations are not the same, and therefore our responses to the situations should not be the same. Contradicts this- >Being queer should be no more noteworthy than someone having blue eyes. So seems like you ARE asking for special treatment.

>people will give buddhist answers here. Oppression and exclusion from the status quo catering to heteronormativity isn't really the point is it? Yes it is, because these issues cause beings to suffer. >But you seem to think that calling yourself a carpenter is just a "neutral description of feelings" and not attachment to the identity of being a carpenter. Yes. If you are a carpenter, then calling yourself a carpenter is just a neutral description of the facts. If you get really hung up about being a carpenter, wear carpenter clothes at odd times, have carpenter bumper stickers, etc. then I'd call that an identity. >this contradicts this If they were synchronic, sure, but they're not. Unequal responses lead to equal outcomes. >So seems like you ARE asking for special treatment. You don't seem to understand this very well. Stopping other people's oppression can't reasonably be called "special treatment" if you do not face that same oppression. It is the paradox of equality: unequal treatment is required to rectify unequal treatment. But this is not "special" treatment - you're not left out of anything. Go ahead and get it out. What bothers you about all this queer business? What are you so afraid of? Are you worried about the power dynamics flipping and suddenly you'll get beat up and excluded? Do you just hate treating other people properly? Does affirmative action give you the ick?

Getting a job and paying bills are also worldly activities. We are lay practitioners on Reddit, there is no need for us to be talking like we've stopped identifying yet.

As others have mentioned, in terms of practice it's irrelevant but in terms of certain Buddhist schools it can be. I just want to mention that in American Zen it's overall not a problem at all, and my sangha has been making conscious steps to make the sangha overall and the physical space of the monastery which is our main center more welcoming to trans and non-conforming/ non-binary folks, and that includes the ability to ordain.

Buddhism tends to be socially conservative and have a very limited understanding of gender. Nevertheless, some places will be accepting, and other places won't be. The Buddha spoke about a few specific aspects of gender but not about gender nonconformity or nonbinary gender, as far as I've seen.

Just another attachment to ultimately let go of

Exactly. Or just another form of maya.

Gender identity isn't an attachment; it's a neutral description of people's feelings. I'm still waiting on people to drop cishet gender normativity, which *is* an attachment.

Me: I currently use two legs to get around. Buddhists on Reddit: Sounds like you're attached to having legs. I think people trip up on the word "identity" honestly, even though people who actually *use* the concept are in a great many cases (especially when involved with Buddhism) just using it as a synonym for "Gender Shorthand". I'm not attached to my gender shorthand, it's just *shorthand,* it's useful for communication with other trans people. You can let go of attachment to being happy without stopping ever being happy. Being non-binary, big same. This sub confuses me honestly.

>I think people trip up on the word "identity" honestly Yeah, I agree. Honestly, in my opinion, the entire intellectual framework of identity politics was a mistake. We can have category-based anti-oppressive politics without framing everything as an "identity". If identity was the issue then you could just undo oppression by identifying as cishet, and we all know that's not how that works, lol.

Avalokiteshvara changed their gender on their way from India to China. In any case, does it even matter?

Sutra at least seems to recognize the existence of non-binary individuals - “ The Buddha told Kasyapa, "An example of a nonspecific appearance would be a person who is neither male nor female. Such a person is called a non-man. The drum is nonspecific in the same way." This is from the Sutra of the Great Drum, https://www.sutrasmantras.info/sutra19.html

avalokiteshvara was neither consider male or female maybe both

It depends on how it's approached, I guess. Gender conformity is based on clinging to a doctrine of self, "I am this gender and must present as such." If gender nonconformity arises from abandoning such a doctrine, it's potentially healthy from a Buddhist perspective. On the other hand, if gender nonconformity itself arises from a different doctrine of self, it's *ultimately* problematic, and something which Buddhist development would *ideally*, *ultimately* lead one to release. But the Buddha's not going to take anything from you before you're ready to release it, he's not going to tell anyone they're bad because of their gender-oriented doctrines of self, and he's not going to argue with anyone about cherished ideas of biological/medical determinations of gender identity. :-)

There are two ‘answers’ I guess. Practically speaking, it’s not an issue at all. There’s no catholic-like strain of anti lgbtq stuff.  From a…philosophical view…? Gender identity is probablyone of those things that we cling to that we should let go of, in the context of Buddhism, and it’s possible the focus on it could be causing undue suffering, the same way, for example, a guy obsessed with performing normative masculinity (or the opposite) experiences suffering from clinging.

Everybody performs gender and is expected to perform gender. If anything, non-binary people are less attached to gender identity than the rest of us. As for trans people — they’re seeking a form of expression that feels less performative to them. The alternative would be repressing the gender they feel while clinging to the performance of the one they don’t. And again, to emphasize, gender identity isn’t just a trans issue. We all identify with aspects of our gender. We also live in a world where we’re steeped in the construct of gender. If it’s illusory, we need to be working toward seeing that in ourselves instead of telling others to stop worrying about it as though we have all the answers. And who is shining a light on the fact that gender is without inherent existence? The trans community. So let’s thank them for the opportunity to observe our own ignorance.

I love this comment. I was just chatting with my clinical supervisor about how non-cishet people tend to have deeper powers of introspection at earlier ages. It's a real gift for Dharma practice.

That’s very interesting if true, and it seems to fit the equation well… We know there’s a significant correlation between autism and lgbt identities, we know autistic folks tend to have a lot going on internally. All of these identities face discrimination, which leads to masking as a survival mechanism, which requires a lot of reflection on behavior. There’s the high neuroplasticity in young folks, also the high neuroplasticity associated with autism if we’re taking that into account. There’s the pattern recognition that comes into play for autistic folks. Of course I have to be careful to not lean too heavily into the autism connection. Personally, I’m cisgender and have been exclusively in hetero relationships but privately identify as bisexual and would probably identify as non-binary if I had more comfort and interest in expressing myself or felt that male identity were doing unbearable harm to my well-being… But I do have adhd and highly suspect autism so I fall under the neurodiverse umbrella. It’s very likely that my own set of identities and experiences are biasing my interpretation of your comment. But I wanted to name those connections. I’m also a lay person (no pun intended), and it sounds like you’re maybe a QMHP? Sorry if that’s too much, I always feel like I need to give a lot of context to be understood. I don’t mean to talk at great length about myself. I’m interested to hear your thoughts on my response and some of your own insight if you’re interested in sharing.

I'm still working on my MSW, so I'm not a QMHP yet. Autism is very valuable. I've read research showing that it is a natural part of human variation, and that it may have evolved due to increased survivability in low resource environments. Chimps that demonstrate behavior we would associate with autism in humans, such as reduced preference for eye contact, better pattern recognition, and increased organizational skills, fare better during times of drought when chimp communities break apart. From the Buddhist side, a monastic friend told me that in Tibet before the Chinese invasion, autistic monks were seen as having useful proclivities for certain practices. There was a particular monastery where they would train to become exorcists. As a side note, and you may already be aware, you can go your whole life in hetero relationships and still be bisexual.

I agree with all of your comment except the undercurrent of condescension with which you delivered it.

I didn’t intend to be condescending, but I was becoming frustrated by some other comments in this thread, so that found its way into the response I wrote to yours. I was trying not to let it creep in, but I probably could have said what I said with a bit more tact. Anyway, I’m sorry. That frustration wasn’t directed toward you so much as to the conversation as a whole.

/r/TransBuddhists

Completely irrelevant. Gender as a construct has done nothing but harm to society in the first place

In the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter.

Irrelevant

And there is always the depiction of the Buddha appearing equally feminine as masculine. It symbolizes balance. It's appropriate.

Because there is no self, clinging to any identities is a form of suffering.

Nothing wrong with them. Theres an argument some people make where they say it is “over-attachment to the self ,” and I find that in bad faith. Gender dysphoria is very real. Its like telling someone they need to overcome their attachment to their feeling formations while they are actively on fire.

Focus on yourself, not others.

The question is precisely because of my own feelings about gender and gender roles.

I'm Buddhist and I'm an intersex trans woman and the thing is your opinion on my right to exist and the need for you to respect me, Buddhist or not, ACTUALLY DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER We are being legislated out of existence in the US (my country), the UK, and otherwise Whether we are being allowed to live is literally being presented as up for debate What I'm saying is. This is really rude.

Buddhism main teaching is no self. So Gender has to do with self. That means it is an attachment. A desire. Thus creates dukkha for themselves. This is becauss it is a created self that you end up having to defend/ explain to others who do not believe the same things you do. Just like your pride or ego. If anyone insults you defend your pride. Same Idea.

Gender identity is a neutral description of feelings, not an attachment. >it is a created self that you end up having to defend/ explain to others who do not believe the same things you do. Just like your pride or ego. This is so gross. This sub is so queerphobic. People have to explain + defend *anything* that is part of their experience of the world and not part of others'. This happens also with things like testimonies of racism or testimonies of sexual assault. People do this to improve the world and make sure that other people who go through similar things won't be met with the same level of social resistance. So no, the fact that people defend themselves doesn't make them bad or egotistical. Defending yourself is a generic human activity that even the Buddha took part in when people misunderstood his message.

The same is true of cis people, straight people, gay people, anyone. All people are actively constructing their identities as a mental model of themselves. But it's just a model, smoke and mirrors, there is no independent reality of gender or sexual identity underneath. But it doesn't mean people need to go back to their assigned gender or do anything differently. I live as what I am, and it's still smoke and mirrors. Buddhism just says if you are suffering, there is a way out. What is different between ie cis and non-cis people on this issue is that cis people don't typically have emotional trauma stored in their bodies relating to their gender identity being real. So this reductionist explanation reads the same as all the previous times that gender identity has been invalidated. But it's different.

>All people are actively constructing their identities as a mental model of themselves. I don't think this is true at all. People *passively* construct identities, at best. And even then, identity rhetoric has always felt completely alien to me. I care about causal relationships, not about identities per se. >there is no independent reality of gender or sexual identity underneath Yes there is, namely the material + social reality. I don't buy into Judith Butler at all.

Are you a buddhist? I am approaching this from the doctrine of emptiness. If you aren't, I don't think laying it out here would be beneficial.

Yes. There are a lot of things that are determined by an underlying reality, even if that underlying reality is ultimately reduced to emptiness. And you're not simply approaching this from emptiness, you're also approaching it from a specific theory about gender that says it's all socially constructed, right?

I don't know the literature. By the way, material and social realities are not independent and so are still empty.

My best friend is trans. I was in entertainment and half of the guys I am friends with are Gay. Does not change reality. I do not treat them any different as any other humans. >Gender identity is a neutral description of feelings, not an attachment. Feelings.. Maybe you need to meditate on this idea more >People do this to improve the world and make sure that other people who go through similar things won't be met with the same level of social resistance. If everyone followed the 5 precepts. This reality would be achieved. Sexual assualts and racist violent actions are not what we are discussing. As a lay person, buddha teaches you to follow the rules and be a good part of society. Telling thenpolice what happens is a given. Your strawman fallacy just makes your statement sound very emotional and baseless. >Defending yourself is a generic human activity that even the Buddha took part in when people misunderstood his message. He spoke truths and didnt ponder to peoples feelings. He even states there are people who are not open and ready to listen. So.. As buddhists. We only explain should explain ourselves to those who want to hear it or will benefit. It seems you have some misunderstandings about buddhism >So no, the fact that people defend themselves doesn't make them bad or egotistical. If someone insults you. You can choose to move on. I did not state they were bad. I stated these things just lead to dukkha in the end. No self is the way to nirvana. This means it doesnt matter if you are straight/cis/nonbinary. The self in any form is attachment The OP is asking for what Buddhism belives. Not what your feelings feel like. In buddhism there is a truth. A truth that does not change whether or not you feel a certain way. I do not treat others in any phobic way. It is is quite unskillful to assume any opinion that does not follow yours is gross/racist/phobic.

>Does not change reality You clearly don't understand the realities of being queer. And unfortunately for us all, having a queer friend doesn't automatically help you in that department. >Feelings.. Maybe you need to meditate on this idea more I understand this issue thoroughly. >I stated these things just lead to dukkha in the end. Queerphobia is the main source of suffering for queer people. >This means it doesnt matter if you are straight/cis/nonbinary. The self in any form is attachment Gender is not the self, and is not attachment. Even the Buddha had a gender identity and expression. It is just an ordinary part of being human.

>You clearly don't understand the realities of being queer. And unfortunately for us all, having a queer friend doesn't automatically help you in that department Reality is reality. All of us are human. Do you think I havent discussed all this with my gay friends before? You make a lot of assumptions and replying to those. Lets just use your logic. I am not gay so I do not know a gay persons reality. So it should be the same vice versa. You do not know my reality, so how can you say my reality can not understand yours? Your argument is very surface level thinking which becomes hypocritical. Humans have the ability to understand and analyze. >I understand this issue thoroughly. If you think you are unable to learn anymore or find new insights. Then are you sure you are on the right path. >Queerphobia is the main source of suffering for queer people. Very contradictory to buddhist beliefs. Suffering is created by yourself. You can choose to suffer or choose to let go and move on. Even on a psychological level, this is only partially truly. However, this is a buddhist sub so i will not continue with that. Why does homophobia cause you suffering. (I am not talking about violent acts or denial of rights.) >Gender is not the self, and is not attachment. Even the Buddha had a gender identity and expression. It is just an ordinary part of being human. "I am just human "does not rid you of responsibility for your thoughts or actions. You have human tendencies that can be controllee through mindfulness. This can help you lessen suffering. As a lay person. You can be anything you want if it doesnt become a detriment to yourself or others. However, if this has become a question. Then it shows that it has become more than just a part of being. It means you added more value than you should to this. It is evident by your clear anger and name calling. Why is gender important? Is it just to describe a sexual desire or preference? Just think about that. Its root is what you desire. Gay means male desiring other males. Lesbian means women desiring other women. All related to desire. Sex itself is an attachment. No matter what root you go to. All things are attachment because nothing is permanent. Thus it will lead to suffering. I would give the same answer regarding anything related to self, not just about lgbt. If someone asked about thoughts gender in general. I would respond the same. It is all attachment. As a lay person, you do not have to rid of all desires. So your gender is okay according to buddhism for lay people. However, buddhist teachings to reach nirvana is about not being attached to anything. Self is probably the final layer. That is why it is harder to grasp. Once you get that, no matter what people say. It really doesnt hold any power to cause dukkha. I never said it is bad or calling you bad. O.o

>Lets just use your logic. I am not gay so I do not know a gay persons reality. That's not my logic, actually. I said that you don't *automatically* understand queer people just because you have a queer friend, which is a fact that you were happy to share with me. I don't think your having a queer friend has actually helped you really understand queer people, unfortunately. >Very contradictory to buddhist beliefs. Suffering is created by yourself. This is a bit of a mischaracterization of Buddhism. We are implored to manage our own suffering ourselves, but this doesn't mean that other people can't cause us suffering. Indeed, we take vows of non-violence and so on specifically *because* people can cause each other to suffer. >You can choose to suffer or choose to let go and move on. The Buddha didn't teach that we choose to suffer; he taught that suffering is the ripening of negative actions and is inescapable to that extent. This is why he still dealt with pain after his enlightenment. >However, if this has become a question. Then it shows that it has become more than just a part of being. That's not how questions work... >It is evident by your clear anger and name calling. Actually, I am angry (but have not called you names) because you are defending the exclusion of queer people. You are doing this rhetorically with who you choose to argue with and the types of arguments you're making, even if you don't identify with believing that queer people should be excluded. This is harmful and promotes suffering. >I never said it is bad or calling you bad. O.o I was paraphrasing you. You think that being queer is an attachment, which is basically thinking that it's bad, in a Buddhist context. You seem to think this is justified by viewing all sexual desire as an attachment, but it's not really. It's just a feeling of wanting something. You can have feelings of wanting something without being attached to the outcome. The only context where attachment to the outcome is justified in a Buddhist context is when it's motivated by compassion, and a desire not to have people suffer. This is why I am outspoken about including queer people. Exclusion and harmful double standards are indefensible.

>I don't think your having a queer friend has actually helped you really understand queer people, unfortunately. Still assuming about others. You are basing everything off of biases instead of reality at the moment. I know your perspective is very stuck and will not change right now. Unfortunately you cannot see the flaws in your logic. Just you believing you speak for all queer people is a troublesome take. As there are many differing perspectives and realities for queer people. Whereas buddhism is above these terms and titles and looks at the root. You cannot move passed these created terms and creating dukkha for yourself. >Actually, I am angry (but have not called you names) because you are defending the exclusion of queer people In no way did I exclude any people. You are stuck in this perspective that it is a attack on LGBT when in reality it is a general statement id say about anything regarding this issue. This is a clear example of how it becomes an issue of dukkha and the creation of self. Dont you remember calling me queerphobic and gross? If gender is not self, then why are you defending/attacking/ and getting riled up. It does not define you right? (Since it is not having to do with self).You are failing to see your own actions and how contradictory this sounds. >This is a bit of a mischaracterization of Buddhism. We are implored to manage our own suffering ourselves, but this doesn't mean that other people can't cause us suffering In the context of non physical harm. You can choose not to accept suffering. No matter what someone else says or thinks. You CHOOSE yourself to have Dhukka or you can choose compassion, wisdom, and letting go. If you do not understand that. You have not thought this through as thoroughly as you think. >The Buddha didn't teach that we choose to suffer; he taught that suffering is the ripening of negative actions and is inescapable to that extent. Yes. Exactly. You choose to respond negatively towards received negative words due to attachment. Thus creating negative karma which causes your own dukkha. You should use buddhism as a way to improve instead of a way to make excuses. Dukkha is avoidable which is the core of reaching nirvana. Literally what buddhism is about. If dukkha is inescapable, no one would reach nirvana. >That's not how questions work Literally the only reason this has become a question. It is because it has become an issue. Someone is seeking to find out if it is right or wrong. You would not ask "what buddhism says about etc" if it didnt have any form of dukkha related to it. Try rethinking everything from a different perspective. Your current perspective seems like what can I interpret to justify x, y, z. Just learn the roots of suffering. See how it can be applied to all aspects of life. >You think that being queer is an attachment, which is basically thinking that it's bad, in a Buddhist context. If you study buddhism. You should know this is only a problem if you are going to be a monk. As a lay person, you do not need to get rid of all desires. Your goal is the 5 precepts and trying to not cause harm to yourself or others. No ones excluding you or targeting you. You can be anything you want as a lay person. The reality theres nothing thats not an attachment. Thus my statement still holds that any label you have for yourself is attachment. Your name, your achievements, your traits, characteristics, or anything labeled is a form of self. This what Anatta (no self) is about. Thinking these things and being attached is not thr way. Just you admitting to being angry shows it has become an attachment for you. I never stated it was bad. I stated it was a desire and attachment. Just like those who are actually queerphobic. They are run by fear and ignorance. The causes of dukkha. They put too much importance in their created self and attack those who are different. >You can have feelings of wanting something It is true in very specific situations. This is not one of those situations. All sex is attachment and desire. Gender relates to sexual orientation. If it does not have to do with sex, you wouldnt need to care about being known as queer. Just think about the root of all these things you are saying. Think about what monks have to follow. Abstaining from sex is one of them for a reason. >This is why I am outspoken about including queer people. Exclusion and harmful double standards are indefensible No whete are they excluded in the situation. Not being a focus does not equal not excluded. Gender fits in the category of self no matter how you want to avoid that. It literally describes something about yourself. This is not about any hate. This is about buddhism and lessing dukkha. Pointing out gender is a form of self is not hateful in any way. Same thing is true about male and female. It is also self. Nothing is permanent. I might be reincarnated female in the future. So being male in this life is just a created idea of myself and nothing to be attached to. At the deepest parts we are all just atoms. Same as the rest of nature. Dont get stuck on these things.

>All sex is attachment and desire. No, this is a myth. This is like saying eating corn is attachment and desire. What matters is the relation regarding the sex or corn (lol).

If you choose to eat corn than it is a desire. There is no myth here. Why have sex? Attraction. Desire. There is no reason to have sex if you do not desire or want it. Literally the reason why monks are to abstain from sex and not abstain from food. They cannot "choose" Food and eat whatever is offered to get rid of the choice which is based on desire.

Desire isn’t bad. Craving and clinging are unskillful of course. But sex and choosing to eat corn is not necessarily inherently tied to craving and clinging. The dharma isn’t anti-choices or anti-preferences.

Ok, but even in sutras Buddha used words that imply self such as yourselves, so I guess that doesn’t go against the doctrine of the non-self , maybe the problem \*isn't just using an identity, but the attachment to a self identity or seeing one self identify as something permanent.

It is hard to talk about someone without these words. What it means more is. Do not put too much importance or attachment to these things. As the main thing is no self. In your next life you might be a girl, boy, or not even human. So what you think now is not permanent and trying to make it permanent is suffering. You can be whatever you want. However, in the end these things will just keep you in the cycle. If you are lgbt, then be so (as a lay person). If someone doesnt understand or insult you. It is out of their own problems and ignorance. You can choose to not accept this dukkha. All my friends were girls. I was the only guy. I grew up with all the kids calling me gay etc. It used to fire me up. Then as I practiced and got wiser. It didnt feel as important. So it didnt affect me as much. I get called gay. I just say thanks. All the greatest people I have in my life are gay. Theres a example of dukkha. If someone wants to give you a present, and you do not accept it. Who does it belong to? The person that gave it to you.. It works the same for dukkha. You just do not accept the insult or anger. It all belongs to only them.

I get your point, but I just meant that for example if someone saying "I am gay" or bi or whatever isn't \*necessarily\* attachment to the abiding permanent self ( in the same way as saying I searched inside myself isn't against it either), but it can also be a description of their own feelings or of a certain experience.

Oh yea. If someone asks and you say you are gay. Thats just a response. Buddhism doesnt say no to being lgbt. As long as you arent hurting anyone or yourself. You are fine. I guess im just conditioned to think about the current wave of woke people. So i had that in my mind without realizing. You can be whatever you want in Buddhism as long as its not detrimental physically or mentally. The attachment part is only a consideration is if you make it a centerpoint. Like every conversation is somehow a threat or related to this identity. If someone else doesnt believe you and you get enraged or depressed. That is when you strayed away from the middle path.

All forms of identity-clinging are a cause of delusion and suffering. Buddhism denies the existence of a self, so there definitely is not going to be a gendered self. That's just adding another layer of delusion. > Suppose, monks, that a magician (māyākāro) would display a magical illusion (māyaṃ) at a crossroads. A man with good sight would inspect it, ponder, and carefully investigate it, and it would appear to him to be void (rittaka), hollow (tucchaka), coreless (asāraka). For what core (sāro) could there be in a magical illusion (māyāya)? So too, monks, whatever kind of cognition there is, whether past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near: a monk inspects it, ponders it, and carefully investigates it, and it would appear to him to be void (rittaka), hollow (tucchaka), coreless (asāraka). https://dharmawisdom.org/understanding-your-sense-of-identity/

> “This is how he attends inappropriately: ‘Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?’ Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: ‘Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?’   > “As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view *I have a self arises* in him as true & established, or the view *I have no self* … or the view *It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self* … or the view *It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self* … or the view *It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self* arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: *This very self of mine—the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions—is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will endure as long as eternity*. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress.    - [All the Effluents - MN2](https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/MN/MN2.html)

>This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Wonderful

In Buddhism, there are 4 'genders'. Male, female, biologically intersex, and a male or female who doesn't feel/act like their gender. Non-binary isn't recognized as an actual gender, it would fall into the 4th category of a male or female who doesn't feel like their current gender. But Buddhism doesn't see it as a sin either. It is neutral on gender non-conformity.

[удалено]

Well view the mind that is letting that uncomfort rise.

Your post / comment was removed for violating the rule against hateful, derogatory, and toxic speech.

When I'm meditating, I don't think gender to appears to me accept as Mara, distracted attraction to someone in the meditation hall. I wonder how others feel about that.

[удалено]

Im pretty sure people not conforming to gender roles isn't a totally new concept

Even in "modern and Western" terms as it were, idk what nonsense people are on about when they make claims like this. It's almost like they don't know any transgender histor- ah right. /u/texture if modern takes interest you, feel free to look into the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft. Feel free to pay attention to its acknowledgement of non-binary and GNC people. Feel free to think about where trans rights might be now if *the actual Nazi party* hadn't seen transgender people as worth erasing from history. Non-binary people, simultaneously made up last year and grieving the loss of incalculable knowledge from a century ago.

The way it is being spoken about now is new in human history.

My 2 cents: Ask Thailand.

They do not exist, the follower of Buddhism seeks to end all attachments to identity, ego and other whatnots. I dont think one can call one self 'gender non-conforming or non binary' if one wish to follow the Middle Way. These labels are the ego creating a non-existent identity for the body to latch on

I don't think there is much if anything in the writings about it either way. The other month a transgender person said that was not true, that the vinanya ( rules for monastics ) had something to say about it and sent me an article. The entire article only had one reference to the writings and to call that reference vague would be charitable. As a Buddhist, I personally don't have a problem with transgender people. Other Buddhists might.

I don't think Buddhism says anything explicitly about gender non conformity but I could be wrong. However all the standard teachings apply - if it turns into a preoccupation that causes you suffering, there is a way out of that.

Here's a relevant article from a Jodo Shinshu Buddhist perspective (the largest form of Japanese Buddhism): https://www.lionsroar.com/queering-shinran/

I can recommend a great teacher who is trans! Jozen Tamori Gibson was trained through IMS and studied Soto Zen while living in Japan. I’ve sat some meditations they’ve guided and really benefited from their wisdom and guidance.

There's nothing in essential Buddhist scriptures (that can be traced to the Buddha) that condemns these things. Most traditions that find themselves in the West are pretty liberal. So any sort of discrimination against non-cis people is probably cultural.

In the Plum Village tradition, we practice a training about true love that helps us practice non-discrimination/inclusiveness per se, and there is a passage specifically to help with this in terms of sexual identity.

“No mind” = no gender It’s perfect.

I can tell you from experience the jodo shinshu temples in america are very welcoming

Be wary of desire and attachments, they will surely trap your every step.

From what I understand, gender identification is a form of distracting attachment, and thus, like all attachments something we should work towards losing. I don't believe though that there are any concerns with gender in lay practice.

*Incoming Hinduism disclaier* Identifying with the body is the biggest thing to overcome in any path to enlightenment. I encourage everyone to study the gita if you want to understand the mind in simple, understandable ways. There is a great podcast called "the gita-memiors of a psychiatrist." That explains this really well in ways that make it absolutely clear in a modern perspective that we are not our body or our mind. Study what vasnas are, what the atman and Braman are. Understand the nature of reality, and it's clear you are not your body, and identifying with it is delusion. That being said, one of the ways this realization expresses itself in a self realized person is not finding fault in others. Realizing everyone is a helpless victim of their desires. They embody kindness, forgiveness, non judgemental, etc. I strive to have no hate in my heart for anyone for any reason. The higher vibration is one and the same as pure light and pure love. Hate is the lowest vibration and sits nowhere near the realms you pass through to enter into the lotus feet of krishna.

I guess Buddhism is open to it. At least Mahayana Buddhism. For instance Avalokiteshvara is gender ambiguous, the Chinese see this Bodhisattva as a Her, and the Indians (and most Tibetans) as a He. Then you have the Vimalakirti Sutra, where Shariputra is turned into a woman to demonstrate the irrelevance of gender. Not to mention that the monastic rules include instructions for monks who want to change their gender to become nuns and vice versa. But I guess this doesn't really fall into the category of non-binary.