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 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.
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?
Not all transgender people choose to modify their body in rigorous ways. Everyone modfies their body to some degree to be more inline with what they consider to be aesthetically pleasing for their gender, and everyone chooses clothing appropriate to their gender.The desire to look like a woman, and the belief that sex is not the correct way to identify gender are not conflicting and it does not make them hypocrits in any way.
Transgender people are not a third gender. They identify themselves with either the male or female gender, not a third unnamed gender that you just made up. The human mind is probably wired (biologically) to identify with a gender, this desire is very strong and present in even very young children. Most boys who are raised as girls will spontaneously declare that they are the opposite gender (we know this because real world studies have been done).
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.
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.
Given 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.**
I 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.
But if it's purely a social construct what need is there for surgery to change your sex? I am just really confused where gender identity ends and sex begins. I don't understand "physicality has nothing to do with it, I will get surgery to change my physical appearance"
it just seems like you are trying to conform to those same gender roles that stop you from being what you are supposedly born as, ie a man in a woman's body or vice versa. If we sought to truly change these apparently restrictive social constructs then no one would need surgery and you can be happy in your body with your mind regardless if one is supposedly not in harmony with the other.
Am I making sense here? If society has decreed that men act masculine and women act feminine, and if one identifies as the other gender, then it's only through societal pressure that they surgically alter their body in very significant ways. It becomes as superficial as any kind of cosmetic surgery does it not?
Would anyone who is trans ever say that the ultimate goal for trans people is for them to be able to live their lives as they were born without fear of society alienating them, as in, as a man in a woman's body? Does anyone preach a philosophy about being what you are, instead of trying to change your body to match your mind based on social constructs? Or are they universally not okay with the idea of living as a woman in a man's body? And doesn't the expectation that everyone else should be okay with the alternative become a bit hypocritical?
So I've read the article and I can't seem to understand why this is an issue, he's clearly not a female. Just a man that had some surgery done to appear female. That's why he was disqualified right, because it's Miss Universe Canada?.. As far as I know you have to be biologically female to compete in this competition.
You can't change who you are just because you want to, like if you were born asian you can't just decide one day to be white and go around telling people you're native Irish, no matter how much you "feel" white inside.
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.
Given 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.**
I 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.
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.
I do actually agree that a lot of what gender is (and I dare say as a social scientist you're probably better positioned to argue this point than I) comes down to a social construct but I don't think that it is entirely the case.
Hormonal differences in adults probably played or do play a part in defining gender identity sterotypes, and it is clear that the brain at least in some way has an influence on the gender of an individual so there is something more to it than a human made idea. That isn't to say that women must be feminine and men must masculine, that is of course absurd but it would be equally absurd to assume that the gender lines we see in all other animals are imaginary or that we were somehow excluded from them.
Further, it seems that if gender were nothing more than a social construct than we either shouldn't have trans people, or it should be more common with people seeing no issue with it.
As to treatment as Dr's, it would be considered as any other historical fact such as familial illness, recent surgery or cancer. A trans person going to visit a dr for any usual issue would not be asked to, or need to disclose it. For more serious issues it would be found in medical records and medication lists are given by everyone. That's not to say there can't be times when it should be disclosed but generally a patient history is only taken for more serious issues anyway, or when an underlying issue is not immediately evident.
Additionally, most places will ask gender instead of sex on forms, at least in the uk.
Edit: Also a link to a surprisingly well done american news show documentary on trans children. They don't use all the right terms, but it's difficult to argue that there isn't something more to it when you consider the responses of the children and the issue's they're facing. Going to link it as a url rather than an embeded clip:
I think it was the right decisition to disqualify her. Because it is a contest for women and 'she' is not a women, if you closely look at her without watching the obvious parts..., you realize her wrists, shoulders, ankles, legs are certainly one of a man (a skinny man), so because she's not completely a girl then she shouldn't be considered one. It's good though for herself that there are surgeries around to make her look like a girl, but things are what they are and at the end of the day she is not one.
A really interesting read. Its a friggin beauty contest though, If she is hot, and if that was a picture of her on page one i see no problem in admitting her.
My old bio teacher used to qualify whenever he was speaking of genetics. He would say well a genetically normal person (whatever that means) all the time when we discussed genetics. I think i see a littly of why here.
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.
Given 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.**
I 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.
But if it's purely a social construct what need is there for surgery to change your sex? I am just really confused where gender identity ends and sex begins. I don't understand "physicality has nothing to do with it, I will get surgery to change my physical appearance"
it just seems like you are trying to conform to those same gender roles that stop you from being what you are supposedly born as, ie a man in a woman's body or vice versa. If we sought to truly change these apparently restrictive social constructs then no one would need surgery and you can be happy in your body with your mind regardless if one is supposedly not in harmony with the other.
Am I making sense here? If society has decreed that men act masculine and women act feminine, and if one identifies as the other gender, then it's only through societal pressure that they surgically alter their body in very significant ways. It becomes as superficial as any kind of cosmetic surgery does it not?
Would anyone who is trans ever say that the ultimate goal for trans people is for them to be able to live their lives as they were born without fear of society alienating them, as in, as a man in a woman's body? Does anyone preach a philosophy about being what you are, instead of trying to change your body to match your mind based on social constructs? Or are they universally not okay with the idea of living as a woman in a man's body? And doesn't the expectation that everyone else should be okay with the alternative become a bit hypocritical?
Many transgender people do not significantly alter their body, some do indeed consider it as superficial as any cosmetic surgery. Some just draw the line at the point where they chop off your dick. Views on these matters vary from person to person, I imagine, just like with any human.
The important point you seem to be missing is that gender differences are not a social construct, but many of the ways in which these differences are expressed are. There is no biological reason why women should wear dresses but not men. But there are real biological and psychological differences between men and women that are at the basis of gender differences. Gender differences will always be part of any sane society, because the human brain is simply wired to think in terms of gender. Transgender brains are apparently wired to think they belong to the ''wrong'' one.
If there were no specific rules relating to what kind of women could enter the competition, then it's the pageant's fault. Up until this point I have not seen any reportage about this incident where it states in the Miss Universe rules that trans-women were not allowed.
If they really want to ban trans-women, they can write it into their rules next time. Until then, best-looking chick wins.
On April 03 2012 03:41 StimFesT wrote: I seriously feel wierd when I look at the picture and know that she/he was born as a regular male. But she/he is actually beautiful
Wow... stumbling over the he/she awkwardness in this post. She chose to be a woman, just call her her.
He's a man who had surgery/hormone therapy; just call him him.
No. He was born a female mentally, and is now female completely.
You're an extremely rude and insensitive individual. I highly doubt you'd have the balls to tell this woman that shes a "man" to her face.
This raises the question. Are people born male/female mentally, or is that a part of growing up?
People aren't born male or female mentally. Kids before reaching puberty have no sexuality, that is, they are just boys and girls, physically only. At least that is what i learnt from a psychologist talking in a morning talk show.
ahhhhhhahahaha. No one with kids, both boy and girl, would ever agree with that statement. There is no way.
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.
Given 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.**
I 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.
But if it's purely a social construct what need is there for surgery to change your sex? I am just really confused where gender identity ends and sex begins. I don't understand "physicality has nothing to do with it, I will get surgery to change my physical appearance"
it just seems like you are trying to conform to those same gender roles that stop you from being what you are supposedly born as, ie a man in a woman's body or vice versa. If we sought to truly change these apparently restrictive social constructs then no one would need surgery and you can be happy in your body with your mind regardless if one is supposedly not in harmony with the other.
Am I making sense here? If society has decreed that men act masculine and women act feminine, and if one identifies as the other gender, then it's only through societal pressure that they surgically alter their body in very significant ways. It becomes as superficial as any kind of cosmetic surgery does it not?
Would anyone who is trans ever say that the ultimate goal for trans people is for them to be able to live their lives as they were born without fear of society alienating them, as in, as a man in a woman's body? Does anyone preach a philosophy about being what you are, instead of trying to change your body to match your mind based on social constructs? Or are they universally not okay with the idea of living as a woman in a man's body? And doesn't the expectation that everyone else should be okay with the alternative become a bit hypocritical?
it IS basically a cosmetic surgery (aside from the obvious, manhood vs womanhood), point being that a man doesn't want to be called a woman by EVERY stranger he meets every day, just because he happens to be born with breasts. or a woman doesn't wanna be called a man just cause he grows a beard if he doesn't shave like every hour and wears something to imitate breasts. its basically just very, very disrupting to them not to be recognized as the gender they actually have, just because of "bad luck"
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?
Yes you can see differences in male and female brains in brainscans etc. Check Iyerbeth's post a few posts before yours for some interesting links about that.
But I do think that how the person him/herself feels about it is more important yes. It's his/her life, not for you or me to decide or judge for.
The way you say "felt more like" makes it sound like an easy decision, be sure it isn't. It took years and years to finally make that step, probably 1 of the toughest decision in a persons life, of course that's not taken lightly. I'm pretty proud of him.
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.
Bigots will always blindly go about their business no matter how well you display evidence against their opinions. As always insightful read, and I am glad the rulin' was reversed so that she can compete. Hopefully they learn their lesson and clearly state certain rules next time. We know what they meant. She was born a female though...she just had some birth defects.
For me it's the brain. That's where your feelings, toughts and memories are. Your body is just a bag of meat water and organs to process food and provide the brain with oxygen and input via senses, with limbs to move the brain around.
To all those people who say that this person isn't a girl. Let's assume you are male, since most here are. If somehow in the future you had an accident but they'd managed to save you by putting your brain in a braindead female body, you'd still be male wouldn't you? You would really want to have a male body again?
ROFL that is the single greatest public note I have ever read. Just broadly insulting the entire userbase, hilarious lol. @CokeFreak, Great news, thanks for sharing!
What separates gay/lesbian people from transgenders? Is there some test that doctors can do to distinguish them, like something that shows up clearly in an MRI? I've seen some feminine gays and masculine lesbians. Is there a threshold that must be reached or is it some arbitrary thing that society decides?
EPT
