MysterionMuffles Posted June 22, 2014 Posted June 22, 2014 I want to know what people think or preferably know about transgenders. What causes it? Are people born physically what they're not mentally? A common thing transgenders say is that "at a very young age I just KNEW I was meant to be born a [opposite gender]."
MMX2010 Posted June 22, 2014 Posted June 22, 2014 I want to know what people think or preferably know about transgenders. What causes it? Are people born physically what they're not mentally? A common thing transgenders say is that "at a very young age I just KNEW I was meant to be born a [opposite gender]." I started a topic on this recently: https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/40399-why-do-the-terms-cisgender-and-transgender-exist/?hl=transgender I thought this video was very interesting: But what's most interesting is: (1) If the first six weeks of pregnancy are sufficient to produce a powerful sense of gender on a fetus, then (2) abortion is murder. This illogical disconnect makes me think that transgender exists only because the culture believes in it, and not because there's an inherently natural (a.k.a. "real") phenomenon called being transgendered.
MysterionMuffles Posted June 22, 2014 Author Posted June 22, 2014 oh I DID see that topic, forgot about it thanks! ill check it out
MMX2010 Posted July 1, 2014 Posted July 1, 2014 I thought this video was very informative, but ultimately infuriating. One of Laci Green's first statements manages to combine bad science and bad philosophy. She says (something like), "Your doctor looked at you and assigned you your gender based on your genitals." I think this statement philosophically translates to, "Your doctor looked at you and assigned you the subjective experience named your gender, based on your genitals." This statement is "bad science" because what really happened was, "Your doctor looked at you and assigned you your biological sex, based on whether you would produce sperm or egg cells as an adult." And the statement is "bad philosophy" because it removes "biological sex" - which is an objective term, and replaces it with "gender" - which is a subjective term. So, to me, being transgender is being delusional.
MMX2010 Posted July 8, 2014 Posted July 8, 2014 A friend of mine posted this article on facebook. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20032-transsexual-differences-caught-on-brain-scan.html#.U7s63PfD-po
Alice Amell Posted July 13, 2014 Posted July 13, 2014 I thought this video was very informative, but ultimately infuriating. One of Laci Green's first statements manages to combine bad science and bad philosophy. She says (something like), "Your doctor looked at you and assigned you your gender based on your genitals." I think this statement philosophically translates to, "Your doctor looked at you and assigned you the subjective experience named your gender, based on your genitals." This statement is "bad science" because what really happened was, "Your doctor looked at you and assigned you your biological sex, based on whether you would produce sperm or egg cells as an adult." And the statement is "bad philosophy" because it removes "biological sex" - which is an objective term, and replaces it with "gender" - which is a subjective term. So, to me, being transgender is being delusional. How does being described by a subjective term mean someone is delusional?
Aerostoth Posted July 13, 2014 Posted July 13, 2014 I thought this video was very informative, but ultimately infuriating. One of Laci Green's first statements manages to combine bad science and bad philosophy. She says (something like), "Your doctor looked at you and assigned you your gender based on your genitals." I think this statement philosophically translates to, "Your doctor looked at you and assigned you the subjective experience named your gender, based on your genitals." This statement is "bad science" because what really happened was, "Your doctor looked at you and assigned you your biological sex, based on whether you would produce sperm or egg cells as an adult." And the statement is "bad philosophy" because it removes "biological sex" - which is an objective term, and replaces it with "gender" - which is a subjective term. So, to me, being transgender is being delusional. How does being described by a subjective term mean someone is delusional? I interpreted that as being: nobody actually assigns you a gender. Gender is a set of behavioral tendencies and expectations stereotypically associated with a particular sex. Yes, others impose expectations on you based on your sex/gender (ie. the role of man or woman), but the core of it is the behavioral tendencies (BEING a man or woman), and behavior is always chosen. The delusion then lies in believing that someone else "chose" your behavior, and you are correcting it by "transitioning." In reality, the trans person is deciding to change their own behavior; individuals are responsible for their own gender, and the only thing about their gender they can "correct" is their own previous mistakes in deviating from who they are.
MMX2010 Posted July 13, 2014 Posted July 13, 2014 How does being described by a subjective term mean someone is delusional? Delusional, as in, "Even though the definition of transgendered requires the term biological sex, and even though "biological sex" is so complicated that only a constant, voluntary exposure to scientific-information about biological sex can help clarify what "biological sex" actually is, we-the-transgendered and we-the-transfriendly want our conclusions taken seriously when we deliberately avoid studying biological sex." So, to me, the delusion is only partially found in the term "transgender" and is mostly found in the attitude that "I don't need to scientifically study biological sex in order to define transgender". I interpreted that as being: nobody actually assigns you a gender. Gender is a set of behavioral tendencies and expectations stereotypically associated with a particular sex. Your interpretation of my position is incorrect. Your first statement is right, "Gender is a set of behavioral tendencies stereotypically associated with a particular sex." But as scientists actively debunk more and more of these stereotypical-associations, it becomes obvious that society is gender-confused. Myth: Women are more empathetic than men. Truth: Men and women are equally empathetic. Myth: Women are more focused on raising children than women. Truth: Men and women are equally focused on raising children, and are equally capable of nurturing children of all ages. Myth: Women have severely lowered sex drives in comparison to men. Truth: Men and women have equal sex drives. Myth: Men are more violent towards children. Truth: Women are more violent towards children. --------- The more "mythical" society's conception of gender is, the less sense it makes to say, "I am gender-confused, so I must mutilate my body to conform to my society's definitions of gender."
Alice Amell Posted July 13, 2014 Posted July 13, 2014 I interpreted that as being: nobody actually assigns you a gender. Gender is a set of behavioral tendencies and expectations stereotypically associated with a particular sex. Yes, others impose expectations on you based on your sex/gender (ie. the role of man or woman), but the core of it is the behavioral tendencies (BEING a man or woman), and behavior is always chosen. The delusion then lies in believing that someone else "chose" your behavior, and you are correcting it by "transitioning." In reality, the trans person is deciding to change their own behavior; individuals are responsible for their own gender, and the only thing about their gender they can "correct" is their own previous mistakes in deviating from who they are. Maybe I misunderstand, but as far as I'm aware transgender people do not think other people chose their behavior for them. They identify with one gender which happens to be the gender not typically associated with their sex, and they may or may not have treatment (hormones, surgery) because of that. They may feel as if they were born into the wrong body altogether and wish to change it to have the characteristics of the other sex. As MMX2010 posted above, a transsexual brain is similar to the other sex and that is why they feel that way. I don't understand how a person who changes their behavior due to gender identity is automatically delusional. Delusional, as in, "Even though the definition of transgendered requires the term biological sex, and even though "biological sex" is so complicated that only a constant, voluntary exposure to scientific-information about biological sex can help clarify what "biological sex" actually is, we-the-transgendered and we-the-transfriendly want our conclusions taken seriously when we deliberately avoid studying biological sex." So, to me, the delusion is only partially found in the term "transgender" and is mostly found in the attitude that "I don't need to scientifically study biological sex in order to define transgender". Your interpretation of my position is incorrect. Your first statement is right, "Gender is a set of behavioral tendencies stereotypically associated with a particular sex." But as scientists actively debunk more and more of these stereotypical-associations, it becomes obvious that society is gender-confused. Myth: Women are more empathetic than men. Truth: Men and women are equally empathetic. Myth: Women are more focused on raising children than women. Truth: Men and women are equally focused on raising children, and are equally capable of nurturing children of all ages. Myth: Women have severely lowered sex drives in comparison to men. Truth: Men and women have equal sex drives. Myth: Men are more violent towards children. Truth: Women are more violent towards children. --------- The more "mythical" society's conception of gender is, the less sense it makes to say, "I am gender-confused, so I must mutilate my body to conform to my society's definitions of gender." I didn't know that about sex drive, that's interesting. Thanks. Can you be more specific about what you mean? I only have a limited knowledge of evolutionary biology myself and I didn't personally define transgendered, but the definition from wikipedia is "Transgender is the state of one's gender identity (self-identification as woman, man, neither or both) or gender expression not matching one's assigned sex (identification by others as male, female or intersex based on physical/genetic sex)" What problem do you with this definition and what conclusions are you so opposed to that apparently every single transgendered person is claiming and is therefore delusional? And does being wrong about something mean one is delusional?
MMX2010 Posted July 13, 2014 Posted July 13, 2014 What problem do you with this definition and what conclusions are you so opposed to that apparently every single transgendered person is claiming and is therefore delusional? And does being wrong about something mean one is delusional? My problems with the definition of transgender are: (1) It assumes that society's definitions of male and female are valid. (I disagree with this, and think society's definitions of male/female are so full of wrong conclusions that society is gender-confused, not the transgendered-person.) (2) It assumes that a transgendered-person's conclusions about being transgendered are inviolate: that no one can deny, question, or put down these conclusions. (I think that a transgendered-person's feelings of gender-confusion are inviolate. But I think a transgendered-person's conclusion that he/she is transgender is debatable, if not controversial.) (3) It assumes that my opinion of sex/gender (which is derived from reading a fair amount of scientific books on sex/gender) is equally valid as a transgendered-person's opinion of sex/gender (which is NOT derived from reading any scientific books on sex/gender). (I disagree, and think my opinion should be weighed more heavily, because it's more scientifically-derived.) (4) It assumes that the solution to the problem is allowing all transgendered people to "freely express themselves", whether through hormonal therapy, sex-change operations, or through language-expression. (I disagree with this, and assert that the solution is a society-wide scientific-examination of gender-stereotypes, rejecting the invalid ones. Once these invalid stereotypes are rejected, I'm confident that transgendered-people will no longer feel transgendered.) The strongest objection I have to transgendered people is that they don't scientifically-study sex. ----------------------- Edited to add: I think transgender developed as follows. Step One: Society defined "traditional gender roles", and then tried to force everyone to believe in them. The negative consequences for this are numerous, but the only thing I care about is that "traditional gender roles" aren't strongly supported by scientific evidence. As such, they can only be violently-enforced. Step Two: Once enough people realized that they were betrayed by society-as-a-whole, they shouted, "There is no truth about sex/gender! And anyone who declares that such a truth exists is only trying to exploit and control you, just like the lying religious people did. Therefore, only I get to define what I am. And you can either support me, or never associate with me!" I'm proposing Step Three: Realizing that science can easily determine what is true/false about both sexes, and aligning our conceptions of male/female to that scientific-knowledge. (Most, if not all, transgendered people and trans-friendly people, however, openly reject Step Three - usually to the point of hostility.)
PatrickC Posted July 13, 2014 Posted July 13, 2014 There are men and thy're women.. The outliers are only interesting to the 2 - 3% of either gender or 'sex' that prefer to think otherwise, if we are going to make a play on words here.
Alice Amell Posted July 14, 2014 Posted July 14, 2014 My problems with the definition of transgender are: (1) It assumes that society's definitions of male and female are valid. (I disagree with this, and think society's definitions of male/female are so full of wrong conclusions that society is gender-confused, not the transgendered-person.) (2) It assumes that a transgendered-person's conclusions about being transgendered are inviolate: that no one can deny, question, or put down these conclusions. (I think that a transgendered-person's feelings of gender-confusion are inviolate. But I think a transgendered-person's conclusion that he/she is transgender is debatable, if not controversial.) (3) It assumes that my opinion of sex/gender (which is derived from reading a fair amount of scientific books on sex/gender) is equally valid as a transgendered-person's opinion of sex/gender (which is NOT derived from reading any scientific books on sex/gender). (I disagree, and think my opinion should be weighed more heavily, because it's more scientifically-derived.) (4) It assumes that the solution to the problem is allowing all transgendered people to "freely express themselves", whether through hormonal therapy, sex-change operations, or through language-expression. (I disagree with this, and assert that the solution is a society-wide scientific-examination of gender-stereotypes, rejecting the invalid ones. Once these invalid stereotypes are rejected, I'm confident that transgendered-people will no longer feel transgendered.) The strongest objection I have to transgendered people is that they don't scientifically-study sex. ----------------------- Edited to add: I think transgender developed as follows. Step One: Society defined "traditional gender roles", and then tried to force everyone to believe in them. The negative consequences for this are numerous, but the only thing I care about is that "traditional gender roles" aren't strongly supported by scientific evidence. As such, they can only be violently-enforced. Step Two: Once enough people realized that they were betrayed by society-as-a-whole, they shouted, "There is no truth about sex/gender! And anyone who declares that such a truth exists is only trying to exploit and control you, just like the lying religious people did. Therefore, only I get to define what I am. And you can either support me, or never associate with me!" I'm proposing Step Three: Realizing that science can easily determine what is true/false about both sexes, and aligning our conceptions of male/female to that scientific-knowledge. (Most, if not all, transgendered people and trans-friendly people, however, openly reject Step Three - usually to the point of hostility.) You didn't mention how that relates to being delusional, but I'll address what you did say. 1) I'm assuming you are referring to gender..you keep talking about gender and then sex, so I can't tell which one you are referring to. Gender doesn't exist and it's just a concept. I agree with you that the descriptions of male and female gender which people usually put onto those of male and female sex respectively are expectations of behavior and not the way one should act or may otherwise naturally act. Personally I see these definitions as just a way of controlling behavior and shaming people who don't fit into the prescribed boxes. But those are the definitions society is using, and the word transgender is just using those definitions to describe a deviance from it. 2) If someone is biologically male but identifies with the female gender (and vice versa), they fit the definition of transgender. If the definition of gender are changed as you want, then transgender will also change in definition. But as it stands now, this definition fits their situation. 3) I'm not sure how a definition can assume it's better than you, I think you are talking about people rather than a definition. Also, you are assuming no transgender person has any understanding of sex or gender. And what IS your opinion, then, that you keep talking about being so much more scientifically supported? Are you proposing a definition of gender based on science? I was under the impression sex is scientific while gender is not. If it's biological it would be sex, and gender is just labels for behavior that are associated with sex but may not be based on anything scientific. I dislike the existence of gender because as I said I feel that it limits peoples behavior by getting others to shame them, but I still recognize how it's defined currently. 4) Are you saying people cannot identify with socially constructed definitions of gender? Or cannot want to change themselves physically? Yes, a lot will change themselves to "pass" as the other sex; are you opposed to them wanting to be socially acceptable in that way? I agree with you that transgendered people won't feel "transgender" if stereotypes are rejected (which as far as I understand it, means gender would have no meaning), but because if gender has no meaning then the word transgender would have no meaning. There are many different types of transgender people, as transgender is sort of an umbrella term, but many want to change themselves physically to be more like the other sex. That isn't related to gender stereotypes, but a desire to change physically. They may call themselves transgender or transsexual and you can define it however you want but do you think no one will want to change physically if the definitions of gender go away? As for how you think transgender develops: Step one: I agree. Step two: I can only speak for myself, but obviously there is a truth in sex, but I see no truth in gender because gender is simply a construct. I'm not sure how anyone can reject sex altogether because humans are a sexually dimorphic species and sex determines genitalia development. Any transsexual implicitly recognizes this and acknowledges the existence of sex because they wish to change in order to be more like the other sex (and anyone on hormones). I haven't heard personally anyone say sex doesn't exist, but I would say myself that gender does not. We could discuss what gender actually is and how it is different than sex if you think it does exist and should be defined a certain way. Step three: You talk about studying sex and based on that, defining gender. I'm not sure how they are related. If you have any specifics about defining male and female gender based on sex, I'd like to hear it. Or if you meant defining sex based on that, well I thought you had a problem with the definitions of gender, not sex. I apologize if I'm misunderstanding your points, but hopefully we will reach an understanding. I do find this really interesting.
PatrickC Posted July 15, 2014 Posted July 15, 2014 I dislike the existence of gender because as I said I feel that it limits peoples behavior by getting others to shame them, but I still recognize how it's defined currently. This is why this 'gender is a social construct' argument falls flat on its face. All gender has ever meant was to describe characteristics that men and women share with their own gender. People shame people not because of gender, but because horrible people shame people. I don't see what there is to dislike about such a word. I means it's hardly like the word 'bossy' which at least holds some derogatory definition of sorts. Gender is just a neutral describing word. Being a man is much more than just his penis and vice versa women are more than just their vagina's. This is what the term attempts to encapsulate. It can only be the sweeping cultural Marxism that has infected much of the West's thinking of late that can find themselves offended by such dictionary terms. Because outliers exist, we therefore have a perfectly reasonable terms for them called transgender, homosexual, bisexual or lesbian. Attempting to dismantle the meaning of a word because it is felt to be used for shaming purposes. Would see the dismantlement of all manner of other words. Oh wait, where have we seen that before?
MMX2010 Posted July 15, 2014 Posted July 15, 2014 You didn't mention how that relates to being delusional, but I'll address what you did say. I apologize if I'm misunderstanding your points, but hopefully we will reach an understanding. I do find this really interesting. Let me see if I can boil this down extremely small. (1) Gender is not merely a social construct: it's a blend of biological truths (sex) and socially-constructed lies (definitions designed to control everyone's behavior, and to shame those who don't wish to be controlled in that manner). (2) If I (somewhat-arrogantly) proclaim myself as the minimum standard of how strongly a person must understand sex before they can comment on transgender, then I've never met a transgendered person (or a trans-friendly person) who studies sex as much as I have. For example, one of my friends said, "Women in every society are taught to fear men." - a statement which implies that women's constant fear of rape and exploitation are primarily socially-derived. However, women in every society have always been roughly 40% smaller and weaker than men-in-that-society - which implies that women's constant fear of rape and exploitation are primarily naturally-derived. So when you say, "Transgendered people want to identify more with the other sex.", I think, "Oh really? They want to either deny their relative 40% frailty and eschew society's gender-wide protection? OR they want to acquire a relative 40% frailty and all of the rights and privileges associated with it?" Yet, I anticipate your response to be, "No, in both cases. The acquisition or rejection of a relative 40% frailty has little, if anything, to do with transgender." Which is totally fine, if your response is honest. But your reply there forces me to counter-argue, "Okay, then. If relative 40% frailty is such an important component of sex, and if transgender has nothing to do with relative 40% frailty, then transgender is, in itself, a random social construct that's designed to control other people's behavior." (And this is true, because I can first reference yet-another-interesting-phenomenon-that-science-has-uncovered-about-sex, only to have you reject that finding as applicable to transgender.) (3) My major assertion is that transgender would go away once biological sex becomes better understood, because transgendered people are trying to align themselves with significantly flawed definitions of gender. These flaws will vanish once society becomes more acquainted with the definitions of biological-sex, and the implications of those definitions. (Therefore, being trans-friendly is just preventing people from acquiring a better understanding of biological-sex, a position which does NOT threaten the most powerful interests in society.)
Alice Amell Posted July 15, 2014 Posted July 15, 2014 This is why this 'gender is a social construct' argument falls flat on its face. All gender has ever meant was to describe characteristics that men and women share with their own gender. People shame people not because of gender, but because horrible people shame people. I don't see what there is to dislike about such a word. I means it's hardly like the word 'bossy' which at least holds some derogatory definition of sorts. Gender is just a neutral describing word. Being a man is much more than just his penis and vice versa women are more than just their vagina's. This is what the term attempts to encapsulate. It can only be the sweeping cultural Marxism that has infected much of the West's thinking of late that can find themselves offended by such dictionary terms. Because outliers exist, we therefore have a perfectly reasonable terms for them called transgender, homosexual, bisexual or lesbian. Attempting to dismantle the meaning of a word because it is felt to be used for shaming purposes. Would see the dismantlement of all manner of other words. Oh wait, where have we seen that before? "Gender...describe characteristics that men and women share with their own gender." Uh..what? Gender is not having a penis or vagina. You are talking about sex. Gender and sex are different. Gender describes stereotypical behavior typically associated with sex. And I have a problem because gender has no basis in reality, it is a prescriptive definition for behavior and is used solely for describing people in these limited terms. It has no other purpose. Yes the problem is people and if people were nice they wouldn't shame based on gender, but if that were the case gender would have no meaning and cease to exist, no? As MMX said, gender is based on lies. I don't, for example, oppose words like homosexual, gay, lesbian, because they do have meaning and although they can be used as shaming words, don't have to be. Let me see if I can boil this down extremely small. (1) Gender is not merely a social construct: it's a blend of biological truths (sex) and socially-constructed lies (definitions designed to control everyone's behavior, and to shame those who don't wish to be controlled in that manner). (2) If I (somewhat-arrogantly) proclaim myself as the minimum standard of how strongly a person must understand sex before they can comment on transgender, then I've never met a transgendered person (or a trans-friendly person) who studies sex as much as I have. For example, one of my friends said, "Women in every society are taught to fear men." - a statement which implies that women's constant fear of rape and exploitation are primarily socially-derived. However, women in every society have always been roughly 40% smaller and weaker than men-in-that-society - which implies that women's constant fear of rape and exploitation are primarily naturally-derived. So when you say, "Transgendered people want to identify more with the other sex.", I think, "Oh really? They want to either deny their relative 40% frailty and eschew society's gender-wide protection? OR they want to acquire a relative 40% frailty and all of the rights and privileges associated with it?" Yet, I anticipate your response to be, "No, in both cases. The acquisition or rejection of a relative 40% frailty has little, if anything, to do with transgender." Which is totally fine, if your response is honest. But your reply there forces me to counter-argue, "Okay, then. If relative 40% frailty is such an important component of sex, and if transgender has nothing to do with relative 40% frailty, then transgender is, in itself, a random social construct that's designed to control other people's behavior." (And this is true, because I can first reference yet-another-interesting-phenomenon-that-science-has-uncovered-about-sex, only to have you reject that finding as applicable to transgender.) (3) My major assertion is that transgender would go away once biological sex becomes better understood, because transgendered people are trying to align themselves with significantly flawed definitions of gender. These flaws will vanish once society becomes more acquainted with the definitions of biological-sex, and the implications of those definitions. (Therefore, being trans-friendly is just preventing people from acquiring a better understanding of biological-sex, a position which does NOT threaten the most powerful interests in society.) 1) I agree. That said, gender does not exist and is meaningless. If sex+lies=gender, then implanting truths only leaves sex. But you fail to answer some of my questions so I'll repeat them. Are you saying people cannot identify with socially constructed definitions of gender? Or cannot want to change themselves physically? Yes, a lot will change themselves to "pass" as the other sex; are you opposed to them wanting to be socially acceptable in that way? 2) I still don't understand how you get angry at people for using a word how it's both defined and commonly used. I can sort of relate because I got upset a few times when people would the word anarchy to mean chaos but in the dictionary that's one of its definitions. I can try to change peoples use of the word but I don't get angry anymore for people using it how its defined. And I don't call them delusional. For your example, no one provided evidence to show that women indeed fear men or to what degree in different societies. The reasons why they do fear men could be many and just because a biological fact exists that may be the reason doesn't mean it is or anything else isn't. Perhaps it is because men commit more violent crimes, or what you or your friend said. Likely a combination of many factors. But we'd need evidence to show whether size and strength correlate with fear, or prevalence of violence or whatever to really make such a claim. To your question of whether transgendered people want to acquire or rid themselves of 40% frailty and either gain or lose privileges associated with gender, I can't answer for anyone but myself. I know that after puberty, hormones will not change bone structure in any way. However, they will change muscle/fat ratio in the body and control the distribution of fat. So if by frailty you mean purely size then no one can do that, but they may want to nonetheless. It no doubt varies between individuals. As I said and you failed to answer in the questions above, people do want to fit into socially constructed boxes. Not all transgender. Some reject this entirely, so I won't lump all transgender together. But some do. They want social acceptance. Is that wrong? They wish to fit into the already established box of "male" or "female." I wouldn't say "transgender" is itself a box as you claim. 3) I think I understand what you mean now. Correct me if I'm wrong. You see transgendered people as being gender-confused because they have traits that others deem unacceptable in them but acceptable in the other gender/sex. And if they mostly identify with traits of the other gender, they will then undergo treatment and change themselves to "pass" as the other gender in order to express themselves without fear of negative social consequences. But once society as a whole accepts that gender is BS, then these individuals can express themselves and exhibit whatever traits they want, while being male or female, without being shamed. If the above is correct, then I'd respond with the following: If such a world existed, could someone not get hormone therapy and/or surgery? Could someone not want to change their body? Even in a world without limiting gender definitions, I would submit someone could still want to make those changes. The difference would be the individual may not feel as pressured to fit into a box to be accepted by most people. Many say they feel trapped in the wrong body, not that they feel socially rejected because of feminine/masculine behavior. And I don't think transitioning is to escape social ridicule at all. Being transgender will harbor much more ridicule than before. Many are targets of violence simply for being transgender.
PatrickC Posted July 15, 2014 Posted July 15, 2014 "Gender...describe characteristics that men and women share with their own gender." Uh..what? Gender is not having a penis or vagina. You are talking about sex. Gender and sex are different. Gender describes stereotypical behavior typically associated with sex. And I have a problem because gender has no basis in reality, it is a prescriptive definition for behavior and is used solely for describing people in these limited terms. It has no other purpose. Yes the problem is people and if people were nice they wouldn't shame based on gender, but if that were the case gender would have no meaning and cease to exist, no? As MMX said, gender is based on lies. I don't, for example, oppose words like homosexual, gay, lesbian, because they do have meaning and although they can be used as shaming words, don't have to be. You just exemplified my objection to your point. You are arguing definitions, pretending in a (faux) sophisticated manner that they have any value. They don't by the way.
MrCapitalism Posted July 15, 2014 Posted July 15, 2014 I haven't read much of this thread, or even watched the videos, but in what little time I have so far, I'd like to add this: One of Laci Green's first statements manages to combine bad science and bad philosophy. She says (something like), "Your doctor looked at you and assigned you your gender based on your genitals." I think this statement philosophically translates to, "Your doctor looked at you and assigned you the subjective experience named your gender, based on your genitals." This statement is "bad science" because what really happened was, "Your doctor looked at you and assigned you your biological sex, based on whether you would produce sperm or egg cells as an adult." I think the statement can be even further improved to, ""Your doctor looked at you and identified your biological sex, based on whether you would produce sperm or egg cells as an adult." I think even using the word 'assign' is incorrect, as it implies that the doctor had any ability to make a decision on the part of the sex of the child, or that the process is any way subjective. The doctor had no choice in the matter, his job was only to use his/her experience and medical training to make a proper identification of which plumbing the newborn was equipped with. Since I've jumped into this thread without reading it, I guess I can share a personal experience. I had a coworker that underwent a change from becoming a man to a woman. He was going to undergo the surgery soon, and wanted us to call him by his new name, and to address him as a female. Of course we were happy to comply, and 'she' later left the company. I've since seen her, and do in fact refer to her as a female, and by her new name. It really doesn't matter to me, we weren't terribly close at work, although he was (and is) a great source of help and a role model. He of course is free to do whatever he wants with this body, and I have no real issues with conversation. But on a fundamental level I still consider him a male (partly because the transformation is so subtle that I still recognize him as a man), partly because biologically in many ways he still is, even if he is post-op.
Alice Amell Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 You just exemplified my objection to your point. You are arguing definitions, pretending in a (faux) sophisticated manner that they have any value. They don't by the way. I'm not pretending anything. I'd appreciate if you stop making rude assumptions about me. Value is subjective. If you've any actual criticisms I'll gladly take them but simply declaring that what I've said has no value isn't an argument.
MMX2010 Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 But on a fundamental level I still consider him a male (partly because the transformation is so subtle that I still recognize him as a man), partly because biologically in many ways he still is, even if he is post-op. How did your friend turn out post-op?
hannahbanana Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 I'm not sure if this applies to all people, but I do know that there are cases of children born hermaphroditic, with both sex organs, and so then it can eventually be put up to the parents to "decide" which sex they'll settle on. A good amount of these kids then grow up feeling like they should be the opposite sex than what they are, and then they find out that it was because their parents just sort of had to make a crap shoot as to which gender was the right one to pick. So that starts me wondering whether there is some sort of biological influence (hormone levels or the like, that may be at different levels than are normal for a typical male/female) that influences what gender you feel that you are. I'm not sure if there's any more difinitive information on this, but I feel that that could be a logical hypothesis.
Alice Amell Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 I'm not sure if this applies to all people, but I do know that there are cases of children born hermaphroditic, with both sex organs, and so then it can eventually be put up to the parents to "decide" which sex they'll settle on. A good amount of these kids then grow up feeling like they should be the opposite sex than what they are, and then they find out that it was because their parents just sort of had to make a crap shoot as to which gender was the right one to pick. So that starts me wondering whether there is some sort of biological influence (hormone levels or the like, that may be at different levels than are normal for a typical male/female) that influences what gender you feel that you are. I'm not sure if there's any more difinitive information on this, but I feel that that could be a logical hypothesis. A really tragic example of this (although he was not hermaphroditic) is David Reimer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer A short synopsis of it: He was given sexual reassignment surgery after his penis was destroyed during circumcision. He was raised as a girl but didn't identify as female. He ended up transitioning to male again and in the end took his own life at age 38.
hannahbanana Posted July 18, 2014 Posted July 18, 2014 A really tragic example of this (although he was not hermaphroditic) is David Reimer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer A short synopsis of it: He was given sexual reassignment surgery after his penis was destroyed during circumcision. He was raised as a girl but didn't identify as female. He ended up transitioning to male again and in the end took his own life at age 38. That's absolutely horrifying. With the lies and abuse that he went through, I am not surprised he committed suicide.
nickhk Posted July 18, 2014 Posted July 18, 2014 I'm not sure if this applies to all people, but I do know that there are cases of children born hermaphroditic, with both sex organs, and so then it can eventually be put up to the parents to "decide" which sex they'll settle on. A good amount of these kids then grow up feeling like they should be the opposite sex than what they are, and then they find out that it was because their parents just sort of had to make a crap shoot as to which gender was the right one to pick. maybe the kids feel unsure of their sex, because the parents are unsure, and the kid gets that subconsciously. Prior to the 20th century, was desiring to be the opposite sex a thing? Historical evidence would be handy, right? I'd like to add my childhood experience, and a what-if variable based on it: I was "raised" by a second-wave feminist, a practicing one, who joined the US Military when slots opened for women in the 70's. When my parents divorced, I was 7 and my mom had some very cruel things to say about men, my father and by extension me, but she was unrestrained in her vitriol and would rant to me and at me. Because I was a man-to-be, I thought that she was talking about me, even if she claimed otherwise. Like, her angry bitching was valuable instructions on how to not be a bad man. After a while, it was men are just bad. I wonder if my mother had exasperatedly said something like "I wish you were a girl" along with those anti-man rants, maybe I'd want to be Nichole. Since this is FDR and all, how about we consider childhood trauma? David Reimer... was given sexual reassignment surgery after his penis was destroyed during circumcision. He was raised as a girl but didn't identify as female. He ended up transitioning to male again and in the end took his own life at age 38. Not only were his genitals mutilated, this was hidden from him, his parents lied to him and he was raised as the gender he wasn't. That sounds pretty fucking bad. Downright awful. That's terrible. I don't want to rule out child abuse and shitty fucking parenting. Society and all that jazz is great, but what if the parent(s) really really really wanted a child of the opposite gender? I am not a sexual male. <- This is a lie. I was raised to think that. I narrowly escaped that as a core belief. My younger brother, however, didn't get so lucky. Who knows what kind of lunatic bullshit parents of transgendered folks spouted at them growing up, or the way they were treated. Nobody is raised well, and to ignore childhood trauma and instead argue something like "Society's got a limited view of gender, man" on this board, of all places, come on. This isn't tumblr. This was a bit of a rant. My sexuality was affected by my parents, and I assume that's the case with everybody. Best not to overlook it.
Eternal Growth Posted July 20, 2014 Posted July 20, 2014 Prior to the 20th century, was desiring to be the opposite sex a thing? Historical evidence would be handy, right? Gender variance has always existed, in the same way that variance in every other biological (or for that matter, sociocultural) trait exists. The only things special about the 20th century are 1. advances in medicine that make hormone therapy, various surgeries etc. possible to those who want to present as the other sex 2. general secularisation and liberalisation of the culture and legal system that made it possible for trans people to live openly without facing extreme violence, familial disownment, poverty, unemployment, social exclusion, discrimination, etc. I wonder if my mother had exasperatedly said something like "I wish you were a girl" along with those anti-man rants, maybe I'd want to be Nichole. --- Who knows what kind of lunatic bullshit parents of transgendered folks spouted at them growing up, or the way they were treated. Nobody is raised well, and to ignore childhood trauma and instead argue something like "Society's got a limited view of gender, man" on this board, of all places, come on. This isn't tumblr. This was a bit of a rant. My sexuality was affected by my parents, and I assume that's the case with everybody. Best not to overlook it. My experience as a young trans woman is quite the opposite: upon discovery of my gender identity, there was a very strongly negative reaction from my parents, with my mother claiming to be "mourning the loss of her son", acting deeply upset and employing the biggest weapons in the bad parent's toolbox (threatening to make homeless, isolating from rest of family, etc.) in response to my exhibiting any individuality that deviated from her narcissistic image as to what "her son" was, and denying my capacity to even have an internal experience. As a trans child I experienced extremely strong pressure to conform to my coercively-assigned gender identity and social ostracism for any deviation, and as a result stayed in a repressed, non-self-expressive shell until my late teens when intellectual, social, legal and to some extent financial independence made being myself in the world possible (noting that I am in one of the world's countries with the most rights for trans people, though that doesn't say much).
MMX2010 Posted July 20, 2014 Posted July 20, 2014 As a trans child I experienced extremely strong pressure to conform to my coercively-assigned gender identity and social ostracism for any deviation, and as a result stayed in a repressed, non-self-expressive shell until my late teens when intellectual, social, legal and to some extent financial independence made being myself in the world possible. What specific aspects of gender are coercively-assigned, and how do you know they're both specific aspects of gender and that they're coercively-assigned?
Eternal Growth Posted July 20, 2014 Posted July 20, 2014 What specific aspects of gender are coercively-assigned, and how do you know they're both specific aspects of gender and that they're coercively-assigned? At birth it is declared that you are gender A or B. You are given no input on this classification, i.e. it is involuntary/coercive. Based on this involuntary classification, you will then go through childhood and adolescence: 1. Being required conform to the classification's dress code 2. Being required to conform to the classification's code for mannerisms and behaviour 3. Being required to go to a school with exclusively other members of your coercively-assigned gender (in some cases, including mine) 4. Being required to go by a name of the coercively-assigned gender 5. Being required to use toilets, changing rooms and other facilities of the coercively-assigned gender 6. Being required to be seen as a member of the coercively-assigned gender 7. Facing legal obstacles to accessing medical treatment for gender dysphoria (e.g. hormone therapy if uncomfortable with the effects of hormones of the coercively-assigned gender)
MMX2010 Posted July 20, 2014 Posted July 20, 2014 At birth it is declared that you are gender A or B. That's not true, though. At birth, you are declared sex M or F, based on your objectively-observed physiology. Since physiology is objectively-observed, it can't possibly be coercively assigned. How does receiving this new information alter your list?
Eternal Growth Posted July 20, 2014 Posted July 20, 2014 That's not true, though. At birth, you are declared sex M or F, based on your objectively-observed physiology. Since physiology is objectively-observed, it can't possibly be coercively assigned. How does receiving this new information alter your list? Whatever physiology is physically present is irrelevant to the fact that a classification is involuntarily imposed that will be used for many years into the future as the basis for aggression ranging anywhere from mild social rejection to murder* if the rigid code of permissible self-expression that accompanies it is considered to be violated. *The transgender community being distinguished in that its only annual day is the Transgender Day of Remembrance, where the trans people murdered over the year prior are memorialised.
MMX2010 Posted July 20, 2014 Posted July 20, 2014 Whatever physiology is physically present is irrelevant to the fact that a classification is involuntarily imposed that will be used for many years into the future as the basis for aggression ranging anywhere from mild social rejection to murder* if the rigid code of permissible self-expression that accompanies it is considered to be violated. I don't think you're emotionally-connected to what happened during our exchange. First you said, "At birth it is declared that you are gender A or B. You are given no input on this classification, i.e. it is involuntary/coercive." (This statement is meant to accuse your doctor, your parents, and everyone who didn't stop them of the Immoral Action called "involuntarily imposing a classification system on the most helpless being of all, an infant".) But then I said, "That's not true, though. At birth, you are declared sex M or F, based on your objectively-observed physiology. Since physiology is objectively-observed, it can't possibly be coercively assigned." (This statement provides scientifically-verified exculpatory evidence. In other words, it proves beyond any doubt that the people you've accused of that Immoral Action are NOT GUILTY. Next you replied, "Whatever physiology is physically present is irrelevant to the fact that a classification is involuntarily imposed that will be used for many years into the future as the basis for aggression ranging anywhere from mild social rejection to murder* if the rigid code of permissible self-expression that accompanies it is considered to be violated." To me, that statement just means that you're not really willing to deeply examine who's guilty; you're just going to declare people are guilty and you just want us all to agree with you. But to just declare people guilty is, in itself, "involuntarily-imposing a classification system upon people". Alice Amell asked me earlier, "I still don't understand how you get angry at people for using a word how it's both defined and commonly used." I don't like the word "transgender" because: (1) the people who most strongly use the word, a.k.a. transgendered-people, have conclusions that fly in the face of scientific truth, (2) when the correct scientific-truth is pointed out to them, they don't change their minds one iota, (3) the definition-itself begs the question of whether "transgender" is a biological-truth (like heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality) or a cultural-fiction (like religious-belief, and belief-in-the-awesomeness-of-your-sports-team), but (3a) only trans-non-friendly and trans-skeptical people with to deeply explore whether "transgender" is a cultural-fiction. Lastly, (4) being transgender does nothing to challenge any gender-falsehoods. A person who is born as a man and then decides to become transgender is STILL paying homage to gender-falsehoods, such as "Women are naturally more empathetic than men."
Eternal Growth Posted July 21, 2014 Posted July 21, 2014 But then I said, "That's not true, though. At birth, you are declared sex M or F, based on your objectively-observed physiology. Since physiology is objectively-observed, it can't possibly be coercively assigned." (This statement provides scientifically-verified exculpatory evidence. In other words, it proves beyond any doubt that the people you've accused of that Immoral Action are NOT GUILTY. But you don't get the point, and it makes sense that you don't get the point because you're cisgender and have never experienced discomfort with your involuntarily assigned and from then on heavily enforced classification. You are arguing that, at birth, a midwife looks to see if there is objectively a penis or a vagina and writes down "penis" or "vagina" on some piece of paperwork and is done with it. The reality is that a classification is assigned, which yes in many cases is heavily influenced by the objectively-present physiology (although not in all cases, if you read the stories of many intersex people). However, along with this classification comes an enormous amount of coercion for the rest of one's childhood, adolescence and adulthood to conform to the ruleset of "objectively penis-having people" and to never do anything in the ruleset of "objectively vagina-having people", lest one face very negative familial, social, legal, etc. repercussions. The involuntary infliction of behavioral requirements, whether influenced by objectively-observed physiology or not, is what individuals are guilty of. To give an analogy: Imagine a society in which those born with dark hair had a "D" written on their birth certificate and those born with light hair had an "L" written on that birth certificate. This already faces problems, because what about a baby born with an intermediate colour? What about a baby born with no hair? What about babies whose hair colours will change throughout their lives? However, one character on a birth certificate surely can't mean much, can it? So let's say it is fine, and nobody is guilty of anything. But let's now say that the D babies will go home find their bedroom painted pink, and the L babies will go home to find their bedrooms painted blue. The parents of the baby will be asked every day "Is it an L or a D?". The D babies will have their hair grown long and styled, and be put in dresses. The L babies will have their hair kept short, and be required to wear pragmatic clothing. Throughout the entire childhoods and adolescences they will be heavily regulated in every aspect of their lives to conform to the set of social expectations of their classification, and when at the age of 16 a D person would feel more comfortable dying their hair a lighter colour and following the social expectations of L people, they are disowned by their family, face a multiple-year legally-enforced procedure of being mocked by medical gatekeepers in order to access the chemicals that will change their hair colour, have offensive articles written about them across the media, face issues because they go to a school that is only for Ds, face legal issues achieving any recognition of the new hair colour, etc. If there were just the partially objectively-derived classification at the moment of birth, it would be an amoral situation. The enforcement of everything else is where it becomes immoral, for those for whom it isn't voluntary (certainly there are a lot of people who are comfortable with their assigned classification and its ruleset, and no trans person denies this). I don't like the word "transgender" because: (1) the people who most strongly use the word, a.k.a. transgendered-people, have conclusions that fly in the face of scientific truth, (2) when the correct scientific-truth is pointed out to them, they don't change their minds one iota, (3) the definition-itself begs the question of whether "transgender" is a biological-truth (like heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality) or a cultural-fiction (like religious-belief, and belief-in-the-awesomeness-of-your-sports-team), but (3a) only trans-non-friendly and trans-skeptical people with to deeply explore whether "transgender" is a cultural-fiction. Lastly, (4) being transgender does nothing to challenge any gender-falsehoods. A person who is born as a man and then decides to become transgender is STILL paying homage to gender-falsehoods, such as "Women are naturally more empathetic than men." Your points (1) and (2) don't make sense to me, could you please elaborate further? Regarding (3) and (3a), the extent to which gender identity is biologically and culturally defined is something I have personally discussed with other trans people, so I don't understand how you can make such a blanket statement. I don't understand (4) either; it is a non-sequitur. Moreover, describing a trans person as being "born as a man and then deciding to become transgender" is taking a purely external view of their situation, showing no empathy for their inner life and internal version of events. "Born as a man" means that the classification "man" was involuntarily placed upon them by people around them then they were a child. "Deciding to become transgender" is generally inaccurate in the case of trans people - they are uncomfortable with the involuntary classification, and want to take steps to reduce that discomfort. I would be interested in knowing what stake you hold in the existence of trans people (I've declared mine - I am trans myself), as it is quite unusual for a presumably cisgender, heterosexual, 38 year old man to be so interested in critiquing the lives of a very small minority of the population that already face enormous social opposition to their existence and who, in general, are just trying to live their lives without facing violence and exclusion.
Lucas Posted July 21, 2014 Posted July 21, 2014 I want to know what people think or preferably know about transgenders. What causes it? Are people born physically what they're not mentally? A common thing transgenders say is that "at a very young age I just KNEW I was meant to be born a [opposite gender]." Hello Rainbow Jamz, In discussions about transgenderism it is important to be able to distinguish between a few key concepts: Natal Sex (or Birth Sex). Omitting a wide range of cases where babies are born with differences of sex development, the biological sex can usually be determined by a physical observation of the genitalia. Gender Identity (man, woman, genderqueer): This is part of one's internal sense of self. It is thought to be located in the brain. Burrows (2011) states “sex is a label for someone’s body as male or female. Gender identity is someone feeling they are a man or woman, masculine or feminine” (p. 22). Gender Expression (masculine, feminine). This is one's expression of gender to the outside world. It's socio-cultural. Pink was not always associated with females. If a man wears heels, is he wearing "women's shoes?" Sexual Orientation (gay, straight, bisexual [or alternatively: gynephilic, androphilic]). These terms describe who we are attracted too. What causes it? Are people born physically what they're not mentally? The etiology is not that well understood. Twin studies have shown a strong genetic factor (Diamond, M., 2013). Stoller (1985) wrote “the more mother and the less father, the more femininity.” (p. 25). However, in regard to transsexuality, “[n]o difference in parent-reported gender role behavior was found between father-present [and father-absent] families for either boys or girls” (Stevens, Golombok, Beveridge, & Team, 2002, p. 47). From Diamond (2013): "Transsexuals have also been found to have auditory (Govier, Diamond,Wolowiec, & Slade, 2010) and olfactory (Berglund, Lindstr¨om, Dhejne-Helmy, & Savic, 2008) abilities that correlate with their desired gender more than their birth sex." The same Diamond article also discusses empirically verified brain differences between transgender females (male-to-female) and cisgender males (natal males that identify as males). Diamond predicts that with more research transsexuality will be seen as a form of intersex variation due to the brain (nervous system) intersexuality.
nickhk Posted July 21, 2014 Posted July 21, 2014 Gender variance has always existed, in the same way that variance in every other biological (or for that matter, sociocultural) trait exists. As far as evidence goes, I'm thinking like 19th century papers by Freud or something. Maybe Greek myths of some god or demigod of indeterminate or fluid gender. I bet Greek mythology has that somewhere. My experience as a young trans woman is quite the opposite: upon discovery of my gender identity, there was a very strongly negative reaction from my parents, with my mother claiming to be "mourning the loss of her son", acting deeply upset and employing the biggest weapons in the bad parent's toolbox (threatening to make homeless, isolating from rest of family, etc.) in response to my exhibiting any individuality that deviated from her narcissistic image as to what "her son" was, and denying my capacity to even have an internal experience. How old were you when discovery occurred? Does that mean when you told your parents? I wouldn't expect that it went over well, and I'm very sorry to hear that it didn't. Coming out as anything can be difficult and, wow, just leave yourself open from attack from the ones that supposedly love you. Sometimes they go full bore attack, and then they prove they don't love you. I'm really curious what your childhood was like prior to discovery. What sort of lessons were you being taught about gender and the sexes, implicitly or explicitly, when you were very young? I wonder if my mother had exasperatedly said something like "I wish you were a girl" along with those anti-man rants, maybe I'd want to be Nichole. I've remembered more about this, my mother often said she was glad to have boys instead of girls. She'd say that when I was really young and that was one of her refrains she'd say to family and friends throughout my childhood, until I was in my teens. As an example of a gender/sex lesson I received growing up, it was something like: Better you're a boy than a girl, but boy will become bad, and girls don't like boys because they're bad. To tie it back to the OP: I want to know what people think or preferably know about transgenders. What causes it? Are people born physically what they're not mentally? A common thing transgenders say is that "at a very young age I just KNEW I was meant to be born a [opposite gender]." Liberalismus, you are one of the few people who can answer that with your own experience. I think it's great that you can be here to do that. What were those gender/sex lessons you learned growing up? When did you know your gender? Would it be possible to choose differently? Do you even have that choice? Your early childhood may or may not have any influence on it. I have no idea. What do you think? What was your understanding of the genders, based on what your parents and family had to say about them when you were young?
J. D. Stembal Posted July 21, 2014 Posted July 21, 2014 Seeing how the feminist cause has been shaming men for the crime of being born with a penis for a generation and a half, I'm not surprised that some of the more abused examples of shamed men would want to surgically remove the source of the cultural stigma.
MMX2010 Posted July 22, 2014 Posted July 22, 2014 But you don't get the point, and it makes sense that you don't get the point because you're cisgender and have never experienced discomfort with your involuntarily assigned and from then on heavily enforced classification. Nobody's discomfort proves anything; not even yours. Saying that you experienced extensive discomfort about your gender provides zero evidence that "Gender is an involuntarily assigned, heavily enforced classification system." However, along with this classification comes an enormous amount of coercion for the rest of one's childhood, adolescence and adulthood to conform to the ruleset of "objectively penis-having people" and to never do anything in the ruleset of "objectively vagina-having people", lest one face very negative familial, social, legal, etc. repercussions. The involuntary infliction of behavioral requirements, whether influenced by objectively-observed physiology or not, is what individuals are guilty of. But that's just the thing; you keep referring to "a ruleset" - defined as a gigantic list-of-rules, but you never actually list the rules. In your earlier list, of seven items, not-a-single-item is a RULE! (1) "Being required conform to the classification's dress code." (There are no laws which say, "Thou must wear these clothes, if thou art male." Some schools have school-uniforms, but that's not nearly universally true in the U.S.) (2) "Being required to conform to the classification's code for mannerisms and behavior." (It would be lovely if you could list which "mannerisms and behaviors" you mean, how such "requirements" are enforced, how you know that they're "requirements" as opposed to, say, "suggestions", and, most importantly, how you know that such "mannerisms and behaviors" ARE NOT a product of biological sex, rather than gender.) (3) "Being required to go to a school with exclusively other members of your coercively-assigned gender (in some cases, including mine)" (How can this be a coercively-assigned "rule" when the majority of schools in my country don't follow it?) (4) "Being required to go by a name of the coercively-assigned gender." (This never happens. What happens is that you're required to go by a name of your objectively-observed biological-sex. If you have a penis, which is objectively observed, you're required to go by the name of those who have a penis. EXCEPT, you're not really "required" to do this, in any sense of the word, because your parents are free to give you an androgynous name like "Alex" or "Morgan".) (5) "Being required to use toilets, changing rooms and other facilities of the coercively-assigned gender." (This never happens. What happens is that you're required to use changing-rooms with those who share your objectively-observed biological-sex. If you have a penis, which is objectively-observable, then you're required to share toilets and changing-facilities with those who also have penises.) (6) "Being required to be seen as a member of the coercively-assigned gender" (The same objections from Items 4 and 5 apply here. I'll also add an anecdote: "Liberalismus' very carefully uses a ruler and concludes that MMX2010's height is 5'11" MMX2010 replies, "He's oppressing me by measuring my height!" Society says, "No, MMX2010; you're not being oppressed, because height is an objectively-observed phenomenon." The anecdote just gives you my impression of your claims of being oppressed, because other people notice your objectively-observed biological sex.) (7) "Facing legal obstacles to accessing medical treatment for gender dysphoria (e.g. hormone therapy if uncomfortable with the effects of hormones of the coercively-assigned gender)" (What you call "legal-obstacles", everyone else calls "Are you SURE?!?" Moreover, people face more "legal obstacles" when they want to donate a kidney to an absolute stranger than when they seek hormonally-induced sex-changes.) I would be interested in knowing what stake you hold in the existence of trans people (I've declared mine - I am trans myself), as it is quite unusual for a presumably cisgender, heterosexual, 38 year old man to be so interested in critiquing the lives of a very small minority of the population that already face enormous social opposition to their existence and who, in general, are just trying to live their lives without facing violence and exclusion. My stake is truth, plain and simple. Stefan says, all the time, "The only place anyone can truly connect is reality." (My addition to that quote is, "The majority of people choose to connect in UN-reality, a mythical place where their feelings-alone determine what is "true" - where "true" is circularly-defined as "that which I feel is true, not that which is philosophically-true nor scientifically-true". Once people claim that their feelings-alone are evidence of deeper "truths", they inevitably try to bully and impose those "truths" on others. This is because reality is the only form of truth which doesn't need bullying to impose itself on everyone; it merely imposes itself on everyone who philosophically and scientifically seeks it.") (I will also add that, "If it feels very strongly true to you, but you can't provide accurate philosophical nor scientific support for it, then it's bigotry / religion / bullying / violent.) In discussions about transgenderism it is important to be able to distinguish between a few key concepts: Natal Sex (or Birth Sex). Omitting a wide range of cases where babies are born with differences of sex development, the biological sex can usually be determined by a physical observation of the genitalia. I've always felt that "Natal Sex" is a poison-the-well term designed to restrict "biological sex" to "that which you're born into, which has absolutely no influence on how you develop later in life". However, two universally-present political phenomena have been discovered: (1) Once women are allowed to vote in any society, the government within that society will become larger and larger. (2) If a woman thinks prostitution should be legalized, she is highly likely to be between the ages of 18-35 and NOT in a monogamous relationship, but if a woman thinks prostitution should be outlawed, she is highly likely to (a) be over 35, (b) be in a long-term monogamous relationship, or © both. The question arises: "Why do those two political phenomena exist?" The answer is: "Because women are born with a egg-producing cells, which heavily influences their future political conclusions." (In other words, "Biological sex - an objectively-observed phenomena which, by definition, cannot be "coercively-imposed" on anyone - is really, really powerful. The depths of its influence are becoming more and more understood by scientists every year, but transgendered and trans-friendly people increasingly distance themselves from this scientific information. And this is the surest sign that what they believe is closer to "gender religion" than to "gender truth".)
PatrickC Posted July 22, 2014 Posted July 22, 2014 Well said MMX. My concern with all this gender bending has been watching some behaviours of modern parents rejecting the traditional genders of their children. This is quite the experiment frankly. It seems to me that some of these parents are actually enforcing the opposite gender onto their child and those children are willingly going along with them, since they don't know any better and clearly want to please their parents. That said, I have no issue with adults choosing their gender with what they feel most comfortable or affiliated with. Also I know that as a parent I would be fine if my son or daughter had a genuine conversation with me about conflicts they felt regarding their own gender. I would certainly not attempt to shame them in this regard and would seek to facilitate their need (if they so wished) to experiment with names, clothes, toys etc. This would be in the spirit of explaining the issues they can face and if need be all the professional help I can provide them. What I won't do is just assume that their biological sex is the opposite or one of the myriad of self prescribed shades of grey in-between. The fact remains that transgenderism only effects a very small minority and I have no wish to confuse my child if their wish is to remain the gender of their biological sex. It's proper and peaceful parenting that will resolve these conflicts amongst the small minority of children affected, not a dissolving of gender itself.
Recommended Posts