|
In order for this topic to stay open, keep in mind the following: - Understand the difference between sex and gender- Please be respectful to those involved, particularly the transgendered - If you post without reason, or do not add to the discussion, you will be met with moderator action - If you don't know which pronoun is appropriate please feel free to read the topic and inform yourself before posting. We're all for debate but this is a sensitive subject for many people. |
On April 03 2012 19:44 MasterOfChaos wrote:
Why do people identify so much with bodies?
As a thought experiment, suppose technology has improved a lot. Now your body is dying. So you go to a hospital where they transplant your brain into some kind of machine, a new body, or they simply scan your brain and run it in a computer simulation. <small>I'm neglecting a few details here, such as how hormones interact with the brain, but those are just implementation details, and can be simulated by the machine</small>
Is that still you? Do you keep your gender?
For me the answer is a clear "yes" to both questions. For me a body is not much more than an avatar I use to interact with this world. If my avatar doesn't fit how I identify myself, why shouldn't I modify it?
Am I wrong to think the trans community is a bit hypocritical in that way? They insist physical sex is not the 'correct' way of sex identification, that if you believe you're a woman in your head you are one. Yet they also insist on modifying their body to reflect that of a woman's. It just doesn't seem congruent to their beliefs that sex is a mental construct. There's clearly a huge connection to your physical appearance. Superficially you can change that but you can't ever scientifically change the fact that you were born one way and not the other.
It will for some reason be considered prejudice, but I think they are a third gender. A man is a man, a woman is a woman, and those who seek to alter their bodies based on what their mind tells them (should we count the ways our conscious minds lie to us?) are something else. It doesn't mean they're not worth basic human respect, it just seems too convenient for me to accept the fact that everyone is what they believe they are despite evidence to the contrary. Do we shrug our shoulders and accept the things schizophrenics see are real too?
|
Sex refers to the biological and physiological characteristics that define men and women, while Gender refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for men and women.
(Source and more information, since apparently some people need it: http://www.who.int/gender/whatisgender/en/ )
Anyway, she wasn't born a woman, which is one of the prerequisite rules of the pageant (and as it's a private pageant, they get to make the rules, however unfair or stupid they may be). Therefore, it's appropriate to disqualify her.
That being said, I think it's a pity that that rule actually exists, as it's pretty clear that she's just as much a woman (physically, psychologically, etc.) as any of the other women who were born that way. But my opinion only goes so far as some other hypothetical pageant that I deem as more fair and encompassing to all women. That being said, I'm not actually running one, so that's pretty much where my suggestion stops. I also think that beauty pageants objectify women and point out the importance of superficial traits, and therefore do more harm than good for them anyway.
EDIT: Apparently now the decision was reversed, and I suppose the rule is being thrown out for good (for consistency)? Either way, it makes me happy to see her allowed back in the pageant ^^
|
On April 03 2012 19:44 Iyerbeth wrote:
I promised myself I wasn't going to post in this thread, but here I am. I'm not going to address anyone particularly, but I'll just go with my unusual optimism of assuming they really mean well but just ultimately don't know what they're talking about. I'm aware that to do so I'd have to ignore the content of many of their posts, but I'm going to do so anyway. I'm sure this discussion will carry on with people seeing the length of my post and deciding that my well reasoned, and cited arguements aren't really worth reading if it'll challenge their preconceptions either way sadly.
Dissapointed to have been correct. 
|
I'm sure sex reassignment isn't even the most major surgery among these contestants.
|
On April 03 2012 19:44 Iyerbeth wrote:
Along with the above, you have no idea on the genetic make up of trans women. There are studies to suggest that they have, on average, a higher reaction to androgen. This would mean that in the womb, these individuals would be far more likely to take on male sexual appearance, regardless of their genetic history. They could in fact be perfectly healthy boys, and maybe even men too but the fact remains that nature makes mistakes. Further, you also have no idea at the chromosome make up of these women either and even if they were all XY, that would only prove once again that sex and gender are different things.
I understood all of your arguments regarding gender identity and gender/sex being two different things and they're sound and agreeable. I don't think many people will reject the claim that her gender identity is in fact female after reading your post, or are at least skeptical at this point.
My question though is what would you say of her sexual identity?
Are you arguing that her sexual identity should be considered female as well or are you conceding that her sexual identity at this point is still male (yet irrelevant to gender identity)?
|
United Kingdom3482 Posts
On April 03 2012 21:56 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2012 19:44 Iyerbeth wrote:
Along with the above, you have no idea on the genetic make up of trans women. There are studies to suggest that they have, on average, a higher reaction to androgen. This would mean that in the womb, these individuals would be far more likely to take on male sexual appearance, regardless of their genetic history. They could in fact be perfectly healthy boys, and maybe even men too but the fact remains that nature makes mistakes. Further, you also have no idea at the chromosome make up of these women either and even if they were all XY, that would only prove once again that sex and gender are different things.
I understood all of your arguments regarding gender identity and gender/sex being two different things and they're sound and agreeable. I don't think many people will reject the claim that her gender identity is in fact female after reading your post, or are at least skeptical at this point. My question though is what would you say of her sexual identity? Are you arguing that her sexual identity should be considered female as well because of the fact that women with those genetic mutations(*?) (such as being born with non-normal chromosome make ups) are still considered female + she identifies her gender identity as female, or are you arguing that her sexual identity at this point is still male?
I don't think sexual identity, as opposed to gender identity, exists or is completely meaningless. It's fairly obvious that chromosomal makeup does not control your gender identity, although it does seem to favour one direction, and people don't identify with their sex, they identify with their gender.
|
I had a niece who's now my nephew.
She always was very boyish. When she got a gf we just assumed that she was lesbian.
But that wasn't the case. She had a male brain, in a female body.
Finally she took the operations and now he has the male body he should have been born in.
He's so happy now and his gf too.
So we are too.
|
|
|
On April 03 2012 21:56 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2012 19:44 Iyerbeth wrote:
Along with the above, you have no idea on the genetic make up of trans women. There are studies to suggest that they have, on average, a higher reaction to androgen. This would mean that in the womb, these individuals would be far more likely to take on male sexual appearance, regardless of their genetic history. They could in fact be perfectly healthy boys, and maybe even men too but the fact remains that nature makes mistakes. Further, you also have no idea at the chromosome make up of these women either and even if they were all XY, that would only prove once again that sex and gender are different things.
I understood all of your arguments regarding gender identity and gender/sex being two different things and they're sound and agreeable. I don't think many people will reject the claim that her gender identity is in fact female after reading your post, or are at least skeptical at this point. My question though is what would you say of her sexual identity? Are you arguing that her sexual identity should be considered female as well because of the fact that women with those genetic mutations(*?) (such as being born with non-normal chromosome make ups) are still considered female + she identifies her gender identity as female, or are you arguing that her sexual identity at this point is still male?
There are 3 different points I think I'm forced to accept by the arguements I made.
First, her sexual identity would not have changed at all. This is obviously true at the moment as there is no genetic surgery at the moment, and so whatever she started as biologically, she would finish as.
Second, without further investigation I have no way to know what any person's genetic sexual identity is but that upon investigation we could find out one way or another for everyone, and as per my first point, that would be a static fact about the person.
Finally though, and the reason for my having raised that point in my post is that it doesn't actually matter outside of strict categorisation. As we have no way to identify the literal sex of any individual we tend to go by their primary and secondary sexual characteristics, which obviously also vary on a person to person basis. As those sexual characteristics are one's we can change, I would say they're far more useful for identifying an individual than their genetics, and I'd argue that we do in fact already do that for everyone except trans people.
It is true though that I'm forced to concede that there is room to argue whether a trans person has actually changed their sex, but in doing so we'd also have to reassign many other cis gendered individuals after screening. My position therefore is gender identity should take precident over sexual identity when determining whether a person is a man or a woman.
Edit: But in saying that I should add, I don't think it's unreasonable for society to argue that proof is required before that assessment will be allowed, given the importance of gender in today's world. As such I accept the current standards of care as being a reasonable measure of gender for trans individuals, and simply declaring yourself to be of a different gender may (or should) be insufficient.
|
United Kingdom3482 Posts
I'm glad they reversed that dumb rule, it seemed unnecessarily discriminatory.
Also it's she not he.
edit: Gendered pronouns are terrible.
|
On April 03 2012 22:09 Zandar wrote:
I had a niece who's now my nephew.
She always was very boyish. When she got a gf we just assumed that she was lesbian.
But that wasn't the case. She had a male brain, in a female body.
Finally she took the operations and now he has the male body he should have been born in.
He's so happy now and his gf too.
So we are too.
Was there an actual scientific determination of how a male vs female brain operates? Like do they map their brain, and neurologically and/or cognitively conclude that it looks and works more like a males than a females? Or was it just more along the lines of what he/she felt more like?
|
On April 03 2012 22:09 Zandar wrote:
I had a niece who's now my nephew.
She always was very boyish. When she got a gf we just assumed that she was lesbian.
But that wasn't the case. She had a male brain, in a female body.
Finally she took the operations and now he has the male body he should have been born in.
He's so happy now and his gf too.
So we are too.
Now I look at this and think "how beautiful and wonderful to have this worked out so well" Your nephew is fucking lucky to have you and to have people supporting him. Fucking hell man.
|
Terrible thread. So much bigotry, ciscentrism and irrational loathing that I despair for this community. People that are referring to her as he, he/she and it? Come the fuck on.
That's not even to get onto the fact that there is no damn written rule stating that you must be born with female genitalia, just that you have to be a woman. Implying that she's any less than a 'real' women is the sole preserve of fascist religious lunatics and rabid turbo-feminists.
|
It is unclear to me what the term sexual identity means. I think people are using it as synonymous with sex, but from the little research I've done I'm quite sure that is not accurate or necessary.
Besides this, it should be quite obvious that there is no valid reason to automatically disqualify transgender people from a beauty pageant. Don't think there is anything else to say about this, the burden of proof is on the bigots and some posters have done a good job refuting their arguments. I'm happy the decision has been reverted.
|
just to throw something out against the people stating that the genetic, or born gender is always the correct one: there are, in fact, men who have xx-chromosomen and women who have xy-chromosomen. naturally born, with all the organs, even if those are often damaged or don't work properly. are those male or female in your opinion? whats more important; genes, the phenotype (aka breasts or penis), or the gender identity, aka what they say they are? why shouldn't those be "fix'd" if they still felt like the opposite gender, the one that'd be correct by their genes? would they actually BE trans then?
all in all, it doesn't really matter altogether - she says she's female, she is female. not just for a week or for fun, but forever and for good. doesn't matter what her genes say, or what her phenotype said, does it?
|
On April 03 2012 19:44 Iyerbeth wrote:I promised myself I wasn't going to post in this thread, but here I am. I'm not going to address anyone particularly, but I'll just go with my unusual optimism of assuming they really mean well but just ultimately don't know what they're talking about. I'm aware that to do so I'd have to ignore the content of many of their posts, but I'm going to do so anyway. I'm sure this discussion will carry on with people seeing the length of my post and deciding that my well reasoned, and cited arguements aren't really worth reading if it'll challenge their preconceptions either way sadly. First, and most importantly, biological sex and gender identity are completely different things. First I'll provide evidence for this statement, and then show how it immediatly invalidates many of the "he's a man" comments. Gender identity is something that pretty much everyone has, when someone says they're male or female they don't first check their physical attributes, they know who they are. If a man was disembodied somehow his gender wouldn't suddenly become "not applicable" he'd still be a man, albeit a maybe distressed and confused one. If we were to then place that person's mind in to a naturally female body, he wouldn't suddenly be female, who he was as a core identity would still remain. If you accept this as accurate then you have to accept one of two possibilities, either there is some physical component in the brain that results in gender identity, or that gender identity is somehow inate and unchanging part of a person's identity. If you accept either of those, then unless nature were infallible, you would have to accept the possibility of transsexuals who literally were men or women, as they expressed. First to site some studies to prove that there are in fact physical brain differences in transsexuals specifically relating to expected gender norms. The following are a few examples, which between them don't actually all agree with the causes, but all provide evidence and examples that their are physical masculine or feminine differences in the brains of trans people. White matter microstructure in female to male transsexuals before cross-sex hormonal treatment. A diffusion tensor imaging studyThe microstructure of white matter in male to female transsexuals before cross-sex hormonal treatmentRegional gray matter variation in male-to-female transsexualismGiven then that there are physical differences in the brains of trans people, who are you to decide based on what they looked like at birth that their gender identity is what you think it is? If we are to ignore the physical evidence and instead decide that gender identity is an unchanging aspect of identity that does not have a physical basis in the brain, then how can you ignore the pyschologists who have observed transseualism exists and therefore that those people are men or women? Or does the identity of the person you're talking to or about take a back seat to what you think they look like? No matter which way you slice it, it is not simply a matter of deciding to change gender, with our current understanding of science that's impossible, but rather conforming to one's gender. For all of this to be the case, it necessarily follows that gender and sex are not the same thing. Well ok, you might say, they're still biologically male (to use trans women as the example for a moment, since most people seem to have less issue with trans men for some reason) and are unable to reproduce and so it's my right to hold the view that I can deride them and refer to them as "he". First to the biologically male part, as addressed in the previous section they're no biologically male, there are physical brain differences in the identity of trans people. But you of course mean genetics. There are frankly so many different pseudo scientific points made that it would be almost impossible for me to address them all so instead I'm going to make several points which refute most of them. Many women who're also born genetically female (cis gendered) are unfortunately unable to reproduce, sometimes as the result of genetics, and other times as the result of organs not forming correctly in a fetus. There are cis women who have testicles inside them, there are some who're born without a vagina, others still who're even born with a penis. Are we to tell these women that they are infact men? There are XX women, XY women, and XXY women, are you going to argue that we should screen everyone for their genetic make up before deciding on their sex (and also deciding that their sex and gender are identical by the power vested in you)? Along with the above, you have no idea on the genetic make up of trans women. There are studies to suggest that they have, on average, a higher reaction to androgen. This would mean that in the womb, these individuals would be far more likely to take on male sexual appearance, regardless of their genetic history. They could in fact be perfectly healthy boys, and maybe even men too but the fact remains that nature makes mistakes. Further, you also have no idea at the chromosome make up of these women either and even if they were all XY, that would only prove once again that sex and gender are different things. Finally, even if were to grant your unfounded opinions as fact and that we should call people based on their genitals as babys, then to what end are we insulting people? What reasons are there for seperating people, talking to their genitals rather than to the person as they are? Where does this leave trans people in your society? Should we ban the surgical options? There are already a minimum of 2 years of pyschological reviews before any surgery which picks out many of those who're not in fact transsexuals, do you think 10 years would help?* Is being a specific gender in fact a mental illness? The suicide rate amongst transsexuals is already far higher than in the rest of society, and it is proven that transitioning reduces that risk dramatically.** * Harry Benjamin Standards of Care** Psychosocial characteristics of applicants evaluated for surgical gender reassignmentI ask again then, what benefit is there in you deciding, in the face of the evidence, that everyone must be as you are - with the gender identity and biological sex being in allignment? It serves no practical, health, safety, or legal benefit and insulting people should hardly be seen as a positive (and when you intentionally call any woman "he" it is insulting). Transsexuals exist, it sucks, but it's not your place to tell them who they are what they must be. it is not your place to insult them or to decide that all women must be defined as sex objects. Your personal comfort on a matter has no bearing on the actual gender identity of other human beings. That being said, what I'm about to say will shock many people, she should have been removed from that competition. On signing up she signed a contract saying she was "Naturally born female" and it's clear what the organisers meant by that. At that point the competition should have been challenged, but she signed the contract in bad faith and that was not the right course of action.
This was a really good post, glad you managed to keep cool and address the issues whereas I just tend to get mad.
|
It's pretty simple.
If the contestant has to belong to the sex female, which is predetermined by genetic makeup, she can not participate.
If the contest is about gender, which is something you have to identify with, then she should be able to participate.
Seems like the people making this kind of events do not have explicitly stated rules.
Or am i wrong?
|
Canada13379 Posts
On April 03 2012 22:37 LurkersGonnaLurk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2012 19:44 Iyerbeth wrote:I promised myself I wasn't going to post in this thread, but here I am. I'm not going to address anyone particularly, but I'll just go with my unusual optimism of assuming they really mean well but just ultimately don't know what they're talking about. I'm aware that to do so I'd have to ignore the content of many of their posts, but I'm going to do so anyway. I'm sure this discussion will carry on with people seeing the length of my post and deciding that my well reasoned, and cited arguements aren't really worth reading if it'll challenge their preconceptions either way sadly. First, and most importantly, biological sex and gender identity are completely different things. First I'll provide evidence for this statement, and then show how it immediatly invalidates many of the "he's a man" comments. Gender identity is something that pretty much everyone has, when someone says they're male or female they don't first check their physical attributes, they know who they are. If a man was disembodied somehow his gender wouldn't suddenly become "not applicable" he'd still be a man, albeit a maybe distressed and confused one. If we were to then place that person's mind in to a naturally female body, he wouldn't suddenly be female, who he was as a core identity would still remain. If you accept this as accurate then you have to accept one of two possibilities, either there is some physical component in the brain that results in gender identity, or that gender identity is somehow inate and unchanging part of a person's identity. If you accept either of those, then unless nature were infallible, you would have to accept the possibility of transsexuals who literally were men or women, as they expressed. First to site some studies to prove that there are in fact physical brain differences in transsexuals specifically relating to expected gender norms. The following are a few examples, which between them don't actually all agree with the causes, but all provide evidence and examples that their are physical masculine or feminine differences in the brains of trans people. White matter microstructure in female to male transsexuals before cross-sex hormonal treatment. A diffusion tensor imaging studyThe microstructure of white matter in male to female transsexuals before cross-sex hormonal treatmentRegional gray matter variation in male-to-female transsexualismGiven then that there are physical differences in the brains of trans people, who are you to decide based on what they looked like at birth that their gender identity is what you think it is? If we are to ignore the physical evidence and instead decide that gender identity is an unchanging aspect of identity that does not have a physical basis in the brain, then how can you ignore the pyschologists who have observed transseualism exists and therefore that those people are men or women? Or does the identity of the person you're talking to or about take a back seat to what you think they look like? No matter which way you slice it, it is not simply a matter of deciding to change gender, with our current understanding of science that's impossible, but rather conforming to one's gender. For all of this to be the case, it necessarily follows that gender and sex are not the same thing. Well ok, you might say, they're still biologically male (to use trans women as the example for a moment, since most people seem to have less issue with trans men for some reason) and are unable to reproduce and so it's my right to hold the view that I can deride them and refer to them as "he". First to the biologically male part, as addressed in the previous section they're no biologically male, there are physical brain differences in the identity of trans people. But you of course mean genetics. There are frankly so many different pseudo scientific points made that it would be almost impossible for me to address them all so instead I'm going to make several points which refute most of them. Many women who're also born genetically female (cis gendered) are unfortunately unable to reproduce, sometimes as the result of genetics, and other times as the result of organs not forming correctly in a fetus. There are cis women who have testicles inside them, there are some who're born without a vagina, others still who're even born with a penis. Are we to tell these women that they are infact men? There are XX women, XY women, and XXY women, are you going to argue that we should screen everyone for their genetic make up before deciding on their sex (and also deciding that their sex and gender are identical by the power vested in you)? Along with the above, you have no idea on the genetic make up of trans women. There are studies to suggest that they have, on average, a higher reaction to androgen. This would mean that in the womb, these individuals would be far more likely to take on male sexual appearance, regardless of their genetic history. They could in fact be perfectly healthy boys, and maybe even men too but the fact remains that nature makes mistakes. Further, you also have no idea at the chromosome make up of these women either and even if they were all XY, that would only prove once again that sex and gender are different things. Finally, even if were to grant your unfounded opinions as fact and that we should call people based on their genitals as babys, then to what end are we insulting people? What reasons are there for seperating people, talking to their genitals rather than to the person as they are? Where does this leave trans people in your society? Should we ban the surgical options? There are already a minimum of 2 years of pyschological reviews before any surgery which picks out many of those who're not in fact transsexuals, do you think 10 years would help?* Is being a specific gender in fact a mental illness? The suicide rate amongst transsexuals is already far higher than in the rest of society, and it is proven that transitioning reduces that risk dramatically.** * Harry Benjamin Standards of Care** Psychosocial characteristics of applicants evaluated for surgical gender reassignmentI ask again then, what benefit is there in you deciding, in the face of the evidence, that everyone must be as you are - with the gender identity and biological sex being in allignment? It serves no practical, health, safety, or legal benefit and insulting people should hardly be seen as a positive (and when you intentionally call any woman "he" it is insulting). Transsexuals exist, it sucks, but it's not your place to tell them who they are what they must be. it is not your place to insult them or to decide that all women must be defined as sex objects. Your personal comfort on a matter has no bearing on the actual gender identity of other human beings. That being said, what I'm about to say will shock many people, she should have been removed from that competition. On signing up she signed a contract saying she was "Naturally born female" and it's clear what the organisers meant by that. At that point the competition should have been challenged, but she signed the contract in bad faith and that was not the right course of action. This was a really good post, glad you managed to keep cool and address the issues whereas I just tend to get mad.
While its a really good post, its important to note that the easiest way to teach people about gender is to dicuss the fact that Gender is a social construction. Being male and female is different from being masculine and feminine.
Every single person has times where they act more masculine and more feminine its just which of the two you identify with primarily that really defines whether you are a "man" or a "woman" in colloquial speech.
Just think about how you fill out paperwork at a doctors office, it asks for sex as male or female it never asks if you are a man or woman. This is because of the fact that gendered identity is fluid and not strict such as the case of biological sex.
Furthermore, but correct me if I am wrong, even as a transgendered person pre or post op if receiving medical attention you need to denote your birth sex and then further clarify what medications you are on if presenting characteristics of the opposite from birth sex. In part because sex linked diseases and characteristics (typically affecting males because of a short Y chromosome) could be important in diagnosis.
Liking that some people are being open minded in this thread though, its really quite important.
Of course some people prefer science, I think it can go over a lot of peoples heads if you don't approach it from a more simple social perspective.
+ Show Spoiler +As a social scientist I hate describing my field as simple but it is often easier to simplify for people who don't have a background in the studies than it is to point to psych or bio journals. I also don't believe people can be born into the wrong sex. This is simply because Gender is a socialised aspect of our lives and gender expressions differ across societies and cultures. I think its individuals upbringing and proclivity to particular activities and interests which leads them to creating their gender identity. Probably more a result of the strong sense of individualization than anything else wherein people are free to choose their gender and gender expression either explicitly or not. I'm a heterosexual male who happens to be a little more sensitive than most other guys. I don't worry about being manly or masculine at all, whereas my girlfriend is a little more masculine than other girls, not softspoken at all lol.
|
On April 03 2012 22:46 ZeromuS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2012 22:37 LurkersGonnaLurk wrote:On April 03 2012 19:44 Iyerbeth wrote:I promised myself I wasn't going to post in this thread, but here I am. I'm not going to address anyone particularly, but I'll just go with my unusual optimism of assuming they really mean well but just ultimately don't know what they're talking about. I'm aware that to do so I'd have to ignore the content of many of their posts, but I'm going to do so anyway. I'm sure this discussion will carry on with people seeing the length of my post and deciding that my well reasoned, and cited arguements aren't really worth reading if it'll challenge their preconceptions either way sadly. First, and most importantly, biological sex and gender identity are completely different things. First I'll provide evidence for this statement, and then show how it immediatly invalidates many of the "he's a man" comments. Gender identity is something that pretty much everyone has, when someone says they're male or female they don't first check their physical attributes, they know who they are. If a man was disembodied somehow his gender wouldn't suddenly become "not applicable" he'd still be a man, albeit a maybe distressed and confused one. If we were to then place that person's mind in to a naturally female body, he wouldn't suddenly be female, who he was as a core identity would still remain. If you accept this as accurate then you have to accept one of two possibilities, either there is some physical component in the brain that results in gender identity, or that gender identity is somehow inate and unchanging part of a person's identity. If you accept either of those, then unless nature were infallible, you would have to accept the possibility of transsexuals who literally were men or women, as they expressed. First to site some studies to prove that there are in fact physical brain differences in transsexuals specifically relating to expected gender norms. The following are a few examples, which between them don't actually all agree with the causes, but all provide evidence and examples that their are physical masculine or feminine differences in the brains of trans people. White matter microstructure in female to male transsexuals before cross-sex hormonal treatment. A diffusion tensor imaging studyThe microstructure of white matter in male to female transsexuals before cross-sex hormonal treatmentRegional gray matter variation in male-to-female transsexualismGiven then that there are physical differences in the brains of trans people, who are you to decide based on what they looked like at birth that their gender identity is what you think it is? If we are to ignore the physical evidence and instead decide that gender identity is an unchanging aspect of identity that does not have a physical basis in the brain, then how can you ignore the pyschologists who have observed transseualism exists and therefore that those people are men or women? Or does the identity of the person you're talking to or about take a back seat to what you think they look like? No matter which way you slice it, it is not simply a matter of deciding to change gender, with our current understanding of science that's impossible, but rather conforming to one's gender. For all of this to be the case, it necessarily follows that gender and sex are not the same thing. Well ok, you might say, they're still biologically male (to use trans women as the example for a moment, since most people seem to have less issue with trans men for some reason) and are unable to reproduce and so it's my right to hold the view that I can deride them and refer to them as "he". First to the biologically male part, as addressed in the previous section they're no biologically male, there are physical brain differences in the identity of trans people. But you of course mean genetics. There are frankly so many different pseudo scientific points made that it would be almost impossible for me to address them all so instead I'm going to make several points which refute most of them. Many women who're also born genetically female (cis gendered) are unfortunately unable to reproduce, sometimes as the result of genetics, and other times as the result of organs not forming correctly in a fetus. There are cis women who have testicles inside them, there are some who're born without a vagina, others still who're even born with a penis. Are we to tell these women that they are infact men? There are XX women, XY women, and XXY women, are you going to argue that we should screen everyone for their genetic make up before deciding on their sex (and also deciding that their sex and gender are identical by the power vested in you)? Along with the above, you have no idea on the genetic make up of trans women. There are studies to suggest that they have, on average, a higher reaction to androgen. This would mean that in the womb, these individuals would be far more likely to take on male sexual appearance, regardless of their genetic history. They could in fact be perfectly healthy boys, and maybe even men too but the fact remains that nature makes mistakes. Further, you also have no idea at the chromosome make up of these women either and even if they were all XY, that would only prove once again that sex and gender are different things. Finally, even if were to grant your unfounded opinions as fact and that we should call people based on their genitals as babys, then to what end are we insulting people? What reasons are there for seperating people, talking to their genitals rather than to the person as they are? Where does this leave trans people in your society? Should we ban the surgical options? There are already a minimum of 2 years of pyschological reviews before any surgery which picks out many of those who're not in fact transsexuals, do you think 10 years would help?* Is being a specific gender in fact a mental illness? The suicide rate amongst transsexuals is already far higher than in the rest of society, and it is proven that transitioning reduces that risk dramatically.** * Harry Benjamin Standards of Care** Psychosocial characteristics of applicants evaluated for surgical gender reassignmentI ask again then, what benefit is there in you deciding, in the face of the evidence, that everyone must be as you are - with the gender identity and biological sex being in allignment? It serves no practical, health, safety, or legal benefit and insulting people should hardly be seen as a positive (and when you intentionally call any woman "he" it is insulting). Transsexuals exist, it sucks, but it's not your place to tell them who they are what they must be. it is not your place to insult them or to decide that all women must be defined as sex objects. Your personal comfort on a matter has no bearing on the actual gender identity of other human beings. That being said, what I'm about to say will shock many people, she should have been removed from that competition. On signing up she signed a contract saying she was "Naturally born female" and it's clear what the organisers meant by that. At that point the competition should have been challenged, but she signed the contract in bad faith and that was not the right course of action. This was a really good post, glad you managed to keep cool and address the issues whereas I just tend to get mad. While its a really good post, its important to note that the easiest way to teach people about gender is to dicuss the fact that Gender is a social construction. Being male and female is different from being masculine and feminine. Every single person has times where they act more masculine and more feminine its just which of the two you identify with primarily that really defines whether you are a "man" or a "woman" in colloquial speech. Just think about how you fill out paperwork at a doctors office, it asks for sex as male or female it never asks if you are a man or woman. This is because of the fact that gendered identity is fluid and not strict such as the case of biological sex. Furthermore, but correct me if I am wrong, even as a transgendered person pre or post op if receiving medical attention you need to denote your birth sex and then further clarify what medications you are on if presenting characteristics of the opposite from birth sex. In part because sex linked diseases and characteristics (typically affecting males because of a short Y chromosome) could be important in diagnosis. Liking that some people are being open minded in this thread though, its really quite important.
signed - I'm male, and rather sure I'm not trans, yet I'm often more feminine than most of my female friends (okay, addmitted, most of my female friends are DAMN masculine....). also, important to add, I think; transmen can be gay, and transwomen can be lesbian.
|
United Kingdom3482 Posts
On April 03 2012 22:36 FalahNorei wrote:
just to throw something out against the people stating that the genetic, or born gender is always the correct one: there are, in fact, men who have xx-chromosomen and women who have xy-chromosomen. naturally born, with all the organs, even if those are often damaged or don't work properly. are those male or female in your opinion? whats more important; genes, the phenotype (aka breasts or penis), or the gender identity, aka what they say they are? why shouldn't those be "fix'd" if they still felt like the opposite gender, the one that'd be correct by their genes? would they actually BE trans then?
all in all, it doesn't really matter altogether - she says she's female, she is female. not just for a week or for fun, but forever and for good. doesn't matter what her genes say, or what her phenotype said, does it?
I'm not sure if being born male xx is possible because of how the y chromosome works (it modifies the expression of the x chromosome) but xy females are certainly possible if the y chromosome is not working or in specific conditions e.g. androgen insensitivity syndrome.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
