EPThttp://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/03/24/transgender-miss-universe_n_1377147.html?ref=mostpopular&just_reloaded=1
+ Show Spoiler [Mod Edit, fantastic post] +
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 study
The microstructure of white matter in male to female transsexuals before cross-sex hormonal treatment
Regional gray matter variation in male-to-female transsexualism
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.**
*Harry Benjamin Standards of Care
**Psychosocial characteristics of applicants evaluated for surgical gender reassignment
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.
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 study
The microstructure of white matter in male to female transsexuals before cross-sex hormonal treatment
Regional gray matter variation in male-to-female transsexualism
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.**
*Harry Benjamin Standards of Care
**Psychosocial characteristics of applicants evaluated for surgical gender reassignment
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.
