Does anybody have knowledge of transgenderism?

[J. D. Stembal]

What about the case of the Reddit poster with diphallia? http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1u75hh/i_am_the_guy_with_two_penises_ama

 

Is he objectively two men because he has twice the genitals? Does this developmental abnormality allow him a use special sex-assignment category?

 

There is also a recently documented case of a woman with two reproductive systems (two vagina, two cervix, two uterus). How does that effect the objective classification of gender? Is she considered sexually to be the same as two regular women? Can she have two husbands simultaneously without repercussions since she has twice the equipment and theoretically has the ability to have two children at once that aren't twins.

 

In the David Reimer story, it is important to remember that his sex reassignment surgery was only deemed necessary because the doctor botched the circumcision so badly. Perhaps if we just let people keep their genitals in the same condition as at birth, and refrain from sexually abusing our children, we wouldn't have so much misery regarding sex and sexual identity in the world. Circumcision and spanking are forms of sexual abuse!

[PatrickC]

You are talking about very rare outliers. This still doesn't mean that gender is a construct.

[Lucas]

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". 

 

...

 

(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".) 

 

 

I'm not sure how your feelings about the term "natal sex" are important to the discussion. Natal sex is a term well-defined and widely used by scientist, researchers, doctors and practitioners in this field. It is a fact that biological sex is not always neatly restricted to categories biological male or biological female that can be directly observed (e.g., turners syndrome [XO], XXY, ambiguous genitalia).

[MMX2010]

I'm not sure how your feelings about the term "natal sex" are important to the discussion.

 

That's funny.

 

I presented both my feelings against the term "natal sex", and my reasons (through two examples) of why I dislike the term. 

 

But your reply only addresses my feelings, and ignores the reasons. 

[Lucas]

That's funny.

 

I presented both my feelings against the term "natal sex", and my reasons (through two examples) of why I dislike the term. 

 

But your reply only addresses my feelings, and ignores the reasons. 

 

I wasn't aware that you presented any reasons that were logically or scientifically related to the term natal sex.

[MMX2010]

I wasn't aware that you presented any reasons that were logically or scientifically related to the term natal sex.

 

That's so clever!

 

You're not concerned whether the part you eliminated was scientifically or logically relevant, PERIOD.  You're only concerned whether the part you eliminated was scientifically or logically relevant to a specific term you chose to focus on. 

 

 

 

 

 

Well said MMX. My concern with all this gender bending has been watching some behaviours of modern parents rejecting the traditional genders in 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 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.

 

 

I agree with you. 

 

When I was younger, I didn't support gay marriage nor gay rights, because I believed that being gay was a choice. But once I saw the scientific consensus that being gay is not a choice - (i.e. - that hormonal influences in the womb precondition people to be gay), I instantly became a supporter of gay rights. 

 

Right now, there's no scientific consensus that being transgender is not-a-choice.  And there are too many reasons to suspect that being transgender is both a cultural-construction and a response to childhood trauma.  As such, it's not at all the same thing as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual.  And so it shouldn't be grouped in with LGB.  Nor, especially, should people who disagree with transgendered people be attacked with the same words like "bigoted" and "transphobic". 

 

Most importantly, transgendered and trans-friendly people show little, if any, understanding of "biological sex" - whose objective-descriptions and implications are inevitably part of "gender".  To me, any avoidance of scientific knowledge is Gigantic-Red-Flag. 

[Lucas]

That's so clever!You're not concerned whether the part you eliminated was scientifically or logically relevant, PERIOD. You're only concerned whether the part you eliminated was scientifically or logically relevant to a specific term you chose to focus on.

You decided to focus on that term by quoting the definition I gave of natal sex.

[MMX2010]

You decided to focus on that term by quoting the definition I gave of natal sex.

 

Pretending that my reasons didn't exist, (which is what you did by eliminating them from my post that you quoted-to-reply), is bullying.  Bullying makes you lose credibility with regard to transgender.  (Because if you understood transgender sufficiently, you wouldn't need to bully.)

 

Stating that my reasons aren't scientifically, nor logically, relevant to a specific term - WITHOUT discussing whether they're scientifically or logically relevant, PERIOD - is also bullying. 

 

If you can neither support your defense of transgender without bullying, nor recognize your bullying when you commit it, nor apologize for it afterwards, then you have no credibility on this issue. 

[Lucas]

Pretending that my reasons didn't exist, (which is what you did by eliminating them from my post that you quoted-to-reply), is bullying. Bullying makes you lose credibility with regard to transgender. (Because if you understood transgender sufficiently, you wouldn't need to bully.)Stating that my reasons aren't scientifically, nor logically, relevant to a specific term - WITHOUT discussing whether they're scientifically or logically relevant, PERIOD - is also bullying. If you can neither support your defense of transgender without bullying, nor recognize your bullying when you commit it, nor apologize for it afterwards, then you have no credibility on this issue.

The claims I have made have about transgenderism were supported by numerous scientific articles. I have not seen any such citations from you that were specifically relevant to transgenderism.

[MMX2010]

The claims I have made have about transgenderism were supported by numerous scientific articles. I have not seen any such citations from you that were specifically relevant to transgenderism.

 

Please cut-and-paste the "claims about transgenderism" that you have made. 

[Lucas]

 

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.

[MMX2010]

 

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.

 

 

Some of those are definitions, not claims.  Some of them are claims, not definitions. 

 

I'm asking you to cut-and-paste your claims, so I can focus on them. 

 

Please honor my request by applying more focus to your replies. 

[Lucas]

Some of those are definitions, not claims. Some of them are claims, not definitions. I'm asking you to cut-and-paste your claims, so I can focus on them. Please honor my request by applying more focus to your replies.

You seem to already have the ability to recognize claims.

[MMX2010]

You seem to already have the ability to recognize claims.

 

Lucas, you're now choosing to be less-than-clear in your posts, while saying, "You seem to already have the ability to recognize claims." 

 

Unloading your decision to be less-than-clear on to me strongly suggests that you're not currently willing / able to deeply explore the topic of transgender. 

[Frosty]

 

 

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."

 

In at least some cases this is factually false. Which doesn't surprise me with Laci who is a feminist who cannot think for herself. In some cases children are born with an ambiguous physical sex, doctors do tests on the infant to determine what mentality the child has when compared to early male/female infants to help assign sex. There is strong gender identifiers at early childhood which can be used to determine the mentality of the child, female babies stare at faces more frequently and for longer, male babies stare at systems/objects more frequently and for longer, this is before any social programming can take effect.

 

One point that I find interesting (maybe no one else does) is that transgendered people almost always feel like the right brain in the wrong body, that is to say a male feels like he was born female brain with a male body. One thing I've always heavily questioned is why this is framed as a physical issues rather than a mental one? Why is the body seen as the "wrong" part and not the brain? Maybe your physical body is perfectly fine and it's the feeling you're the wrong gender which is the issue?

[DaVinci]

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?

My initial thoughts here are that a child, who we understand is not in a voluntary relationship with their parents, might have parents who actively attempt to alter the way they are expressing themselves through threats or force. So a boy who wants to play with dolls, or a girl who wants to play 'war' might be threatened with future violence or punishment for deviating from a set of expectations.

[MMX2010]

My initial thoughts here are that a child, who we understand is not in a voluntary relationship with their parents, might have parents who actively attempt to alter the way they are expressing themselves through threats or force. So a boy who wants to play with dolls, or a girl who wants to play 'war' might be threatened with future violence or punishment for deviating from a set of expectations.

 

There are two problems with your analysis. 

 

(1) You may be implying that, "If boys were allowed to play with dolls, and girls were allowed to play with soldiers, then the number of stay at home dads would roughly equal the number of stay at home moms AND the number of female combat deaths would roughly equal the number of male combat deaths."  (I use the verb "may", because I'm not sure whether you are, or aren't.  And I don't want to paint you into any corners.) 

 

However, in practically every culture ever studied: (a) Mothers spend much more time with their children than fathers.  And (b) males are a much higher percentage of combat deaths than females. 

 

Therefore, if you're making the implication above, you have to concoct: (a) a detailed series of mechanisms that apply in practically every culture to explain why fathers are "prevented" from spending time with their children and why females are "prevented" from dying on the battlefield, (b) a detailed list of reasons explaining why every culture, most of which exist in profound isolation from other cultures, all developed the same gender-based conclusions, and © an explanation of why the development of the same gender-based conclusions IS NOT primarily genetically-based.  (Scientifically, whenever the overwhelming majority of independently-existing cultures behave in similar ways, the simplest explanation is, "Oh, that series of behaviors must have a primarily genetic (a.k.a. "natural") cause.") 

 

(2) Even if you could prove that such coercion was not primarily genetically-based, you still haven't provided evidence that "Oh, cismales and other trans-un-friendly people have this irrational hatred of transgendered-people; that's why those gender stereotypes exist." 

 

(My preferred hypothetical explanation for the existence of gender stereotypes is that they artificially raise the perceived-value of heterosexual women, which enables them to demand more from heterosexual men while keeping a straight face.  And I prefer this explanation because NO "gender un-truths" - defined as either: (1) scientifically debunked, yet highly popular, conclusions about gender differences, or (2) not-scientifically-proven, yet highly popular, conclusions about gender differences - are flattering to heterosexual males; they're always flattering to heterosexual females.)   

[DaVinci]

There are two problems with your analysis.  (1) You may be implying that, "If boys were allowed to play with dolls, and girls were allowed to play with soldiers, then the number of stay at home dads would roughly equal the number of stay at home moms AND the number of female combat deaths would roughly equal the number of male combat deaths."  (I use the verb "may", because I'm not sure whether you are, or aren't.  And I don't want to paint you into any corners.)  However, in practically every culture ever studied: (a) Mothers spend much more time with their children than fathers.  And (b) males are a much higher percentage of combat deaths than females.  Therefore, if you're making the implication above, you have to concoct: (a) a detailed series of mechanisms that apply in practically every culture to explain why fathers are "prevented" from spending time with their children and why females are "prevented" from dying on the battlefield, (b) a detailed list of reasons explaining why every culture, most of which exist in profound isolation from other cultures, all developed the same gender-based conclusions, and © an explanation of why the development of the same gender-based conclusions IS NOT primarily genetically-based.  (Scientifically, whenever the overwhelming majority of independently-existing cultures behave in similar ways, the simplest explanation is, "Oh, that series of behaviors must have a primarily genetic (a.k.a. "natural") cause.")  (2) Even if you could prove that such coercion was not primarily genetically-based, you still haven't provided evidence that "Oh, cismales and other trans-un-friendly people have this irrational hatred of transgendered-people; that's why those gender stereotypes exist."  (My preferred hypothetical explanation for the existence of gender stereotypes is that they artificially raise the perceived-value of heterosexual women, which enables them to demand more from heterosexual men while keeping a straight face.  And I prefer this explanation because NO "gender un-truths" - defined as either: (1) scientifically debunked, yet highly popular, conclusions about gender differences, or (2) not-scientifically-proven, yet highly popular, conclusions about gender differences - are flattering to heterosexual males; they're always flattering to heterosexual females.)

I wasn't implying what you went over in #1. As for #2, I'm not trying to prove that anyone has an irrational hatred of transgendered people, just that children are having their behavior modified by threats of future punishment for not conforming with a specific set of parameters. I'd like to hear you elaborate on your last paragraph a little more. What specifically are these flattering qualities that are raising the perceived value of women?

[MMX2010]

I wasn't implying what you went over in #1. As for #2, I'm not trying to prove that anyone has an irrational hatred of transgendered people, just that children are having their behavior modified by threats of future punishment for not conforming with a specific set of parameters.

 

Right.  But the presence of coercion is not sufficient to prove that "gender is a social construct". 

 

By analogy, the desire of heterosexual women to marry wealthy men is: (1) readily apparent in every culture in which women are free to date whomever they want, (2) culturally-enforced via "coercion" - a.k.a. female-to-female hints and nudges, and (3) considered to be a reflection of a natural desire - (meaning: the exact opposite of a "social construct"). 

 

 

 

I'd like to hear you elaborate on your last paragraph a little more. What specifically are these flattering qualities that are raising the perceived value of women? 

 

(1) If boys were allowed to play with dolls, and if men were allowed to parent young children, it would quickly be discovered that boys/men are equally capable to nurturing young children.  This would render women's self-anointed title of "the nurturing sex" a gigantic illusion.  And if every man knew this, then no man would marry a woman "because she's more nurturing that me". 

 

(2) If girls were allowed to play with toy soldiers, it would quickly be discovered that girls/women are equally capable of fighting / dying for one's country.  This would render man's self-anointed title of "the fighting sex" a gigantic illusion.  And if every man knew this, then men would be holding the feathers during the "White Feather" campaigns, and women would be receiving them.

 

http://the-white-feather-movement-worldwarone.wikispaces.com/

[DaVinci]

Right.  But the presence of coercion is not sufficient to prove that "gender is a social construct".  By analogy, the desire of heterosexual women to marry wealthy men is: (1) readily apparent in every culture in which women are free to date whomever they want, (2) culturally-enforced via "coercion" - a.k.a. female-to-female hints and nudges, and (3) considered to be a reflection of a natural desire - (meaning: the exact opposite of a "social construct").   (1) If boys were allowed to play with dolls, and if men were allowed to parent young children, it would quickly be discovered that boys/men are equally capable to nurturing young children.  This would render women's self-anointed title of "the nurturing sex" a gigantic illusion.  And if every man knew this, then no man would marry a woman "because she's more nurturing that me".  (2) If girls were allowed to play with toy soldiers, it would quickly be discovered that girls/women are equally capable of fighting / dying for one's country.  This would render man's self-anointed title of "the fighting sex" a gigantic illusion.  And if every man knew this, then men would be holding the feathers during the "White Feather" campaigns, and women would be receiving them. http://the-white-feather-movement-worldwarone.wikispaces.com/

When you say that coercion is not sufficient to prove that gender is a social contract do you mean that it is "necessary but not sufficient"? If it is not enough to prove that it is a social construct then what would be enough proof to convince you that it is? Aren't you arguing that there is no scientific proof behind the claim that transgenderism is biological? If it is not biological and it is not a social construct then what is it?

[MMX2010]

When you say that coercion is not sufficient to prove that gender is a social contract do you mean that it is "necessary but not sufficient"?

 

Yes, sorry I wasn't clear on that. 

 

 

 

If it is not enough to prove that it is a social construct then what would be enough proof to convince you that it is? Aren't you arguing that there is no scientific proof behind the claim that transgenderism is biological? If it is not biological and it is not a social construct then what is it?

 

Transgender-itself would be biological (a.k.a. "not a social construct") if it emerges at roughly the same percentages in each culture, regardless of the amount of pro-transgender and anti-transgender forces against it.  (Much like homosexuality always roughly-exists in the same percentage of the population, regardless of the pro-homosexual and homophobic forces applied to it.) 

 

Whereas transgender-itself would be a social construct (a.k.a. "not a natural phenomenon") if: (1) the pro-transgender forces are not willing to correct mistakes in their presentation of "scientific" knowledge, (2) the pro-transgender forces attack the morality and character of those who disagree with them, (3) the pro-transgender forces dismiss established scientific knowledge on biological sex as "irrelevant", (4) transgender-itself is presented as a "feeling that exists in childhood", without any curiosity as to how this feeling biologically arises, and (5) there is no specific set of rules/characteristics that are solidly characterized as masculine/feminine. 

[DaVinci]

Yes, sorry I wasn't clear on that.   Transgender-itself would be biological (a.k.a. "not a social construct") if it emerges at roughly the same percentages in each culture, regardless of the amount of pro-transgender and anti-transgender forces against it.  (Much like homosexuality always roughly-exists in the same percentage of the population, regardless of the pro-homosexual and homophobic forces applied to it.)  Whereas transgender-itself would be a social construct (a.k.a. "not a natural phenomenon") if: (1) the pro-transgender forces are not willing to correct mistakes in their presentation of "scientific" knowledge, (2) the pro-transgender forces attack the morality and character of those who disagree with them, (3) the pro-transgender forces dismiss established scientific knowledge on biological sex as "irrelevant", (4) transgender-itself is presented as a "feeling that exists in childhood", without any curiosity as to how this feeling biologically arises, and (5) there is no specific set of rules/characteristics that are solidly characterized as masculine/feminine.

Both 1 and 3 deal with accepting/correcting scientific knowledge. Number 2 is a little more easily handled as attacks on character are basically irrelevant. Number 4 is also dealing with science as it asks where in biology does the feeling arise. Number five is about establishing what are characteristics of masculine and feminine. I think the most interesting things on that list are the last two. Mainly because there are parallels between the way children "feel they are not their gender" and the way children "feel they are attracted to the same sex". How much scientific research had to happen before homosexuality was seen as be something more than a delusion or a disease? How does the scientific research into transgenderism compare? My question about number 5 is isn't there already a specific set of biological characteristics that are masculine and feminine?

[MMX2010]

 

I think the most interesting things on that list are the last two. Mainly because there are parallels between the way children "feel they are not their gender" and the way children "feel they are attracted to the same sex".

Right.  But, to be fair, there are also parallels between "feeling that you're not your gender", and between "feeling that your race is superior", "feeling that your gender is superior", "feeling that a specific God is real", and even "feeling that a particular sports team deserves loyalty.  (Those last four items are clearly cultural, which is why I don't automatically accept that feeling transgendered is not primarily cultural.) 

 

 

 

How much scientific research had to happen before homosexuality was seen as be something more than a delusion or a disease?

 

A whole heck of a lot.  From what I remember, many unethical and disgusting "experiments" were performed that attempted to "cure" homosexuality.  When none of those experiments worked, it become accepted that homosexuality isn't a choice. 

 

 

 

How does the scientific research into transgenderism compare?

 

I don't know.  The only person who posted any research is Lucas, but he's not willing to discuss the research he posted. 

 

 

 

My question about number 5 is isn't there already a specific set of biological characteristics that are masculine and feminine?

 

I'm not sure.  But: (1) If there are, but few (if any) transgendered people actually know what these traits are, then this strongly suggests that transgender is a cultural-phenomenon.  (2) If there aren't, then this arguably proves that transgender is a cultural-phenomenon.  (3) If there are, and most (if not all) transgendered people know them, then this strongly suggests that transgender is a biological phenomenon. 

[Lucas]

My question about number 5 is isn't there already a specific set of biological characteristics that are masculine and feminine?

 

Hello DaVinci,

 

I hope you are well.

 

I believe you will find the following article relevant, specifically the section "The Recognition of Gender."

• Bullough, V. L. (2000). Transgenderism and the concept of gender. International Journal of Transgenderism, 4(3), 97-03.

I'll be curious to know your thoughts.

 

In regards to your other comment:

 

How much scientific research had to happen before homosexuality was seen as be something more than a delusion or a disease? How does the scientific research into transgenderism compare?

 

Riley (2012) conducted a review of the literature about gender variance in children available between 2001 and 2011. She identified 21 categories:

• Heritability (Bailey, Dunne, & Martin, 2000; Coolidge, et al., 2002);
• Comparison of demographics, social competence and behavioural problems in children with GIDC (Cohen-Kettenis, et al., 2003; Zucker, et al., 2002)
• Children’s beliefs about violating gender norms (Blakemore, 2003)
• The impact of gender identity on children’s psychological well-being (Yunger, Carver, & Perry, 2004)
• Genetic and environmental influences onatypical gender development in early childhood (Knafo, et al., 2005).
• Play styles of children with GIDC (Fridell, Owen-Anderson, Johnson, Bradley, & Zucker, 2006)
• Developmental processes in children with GIDC (Coates, 2006)
• Correlates of anxiety in children with GIDC (Wallien, van Goozen, & Cohen-Kettenis, 2007)
• Internalised body normalization in the early childhood of transgender children (Sullivan, 2009)
• Validity testing of the Gender Identity Interview for Children (Wallien, et al., 2009)
• Peer group status of children with gender dysphoria (Wallien, Veenstra, Kreukels, & Cohen-Kettenis, 2010)
• Association of GIDC in children with autism (de Vries, Noens, Cohen-Kettenis, van Berckelaer-Onnes, & Doreleijers, 2010; Preece & Corneil, 2011)
• Obsessional interests of children with GIDC (Zucker, 2011a)
• Concordance of GID in twins (Diamond, 2011a; Zucker, 2011b)
• Gender atypical behaviours in Chinese school children (Yu & Winter, 2011)
• Separation anxiety (Vasey, VanderLaan, Gothreau, & Bartlett, 2011)
• Inequalities in education (Robinson & Espelage, 2011)
• The use of language by professionals and authors when referring to gender-variant children (Ansara & Hegarty, 2011)
• The associations between peer victimisation and depressive feelings of gender-variant children aged 10-12 (Pouwelse, Bolman, & Lodewijkx, 2011).
• Case reports of gender-variant children have also appeared in the literature (Perrin, Smith, Davis, Spack, & Stein, 2010), with some describing the child’s social transition (Luecke, 2011; Olson, Stone, & Pearson, 2011; Saeger, 2006).

Riley (2012) also identified research available from 2001 and 2011 concerning research on the parents of gender variant children. These are:

• The psychometric properties of the Parent-report Gender Identity questionnaire (Johnson, Bradley, Birkenfeld-Adams, Radzins Kuksis, & Maing, 2004)
• Comparisons of parent-reports on the Gender Identity Questionnaire for Children (Cohen-Kettenis, et al., 2006)
• Parents’ attitudes towards, responses to and acceptance of their children (D'Augelli, 2008; Grossman 26 & D'Augelli, 2006; Hegedus, 2009; Hill & Menvielle, 2009; Pearlman, 2006)
• Parents’ experiences and/or stories (Griffiths, 2002; Hill & Menvielle, 2009)
• Expressed emotion in mothers of boys with GIDC (Owen-Anderson, Bradley, & Zucker, 2010)
• Parents’ mental health ratings of their child (Hill, Menvielle, Sica, & Johnson, 2010). 

Using the similar literature review methodology as Riley (2012), I have identified new categories that have emerged in between 2011 and February 2014 concerning gender variance in children:

• Assessment techniques of gender variance in children (Zucker, & Wood, 2011)
• Attachment and shame in gender-nonconforming children and their families (Wallace & Russell, 2013)
• Click-evoked otoacoustic emissions in children and adolescents with early onset Gender Identity Disorder (GID) (Burke, Menks, Cohen-Kettenis, Klink, & Bakker, 2014)
• Descriptions of clinical programs designed to address the mental health needs of gender-variant children and their families (Menvielle, 2012; Zucker et al., 2012)
• Differences of sex development influence on clinical research about GID (Reiner & Reiner, 2012)
• Emerging gender therapy models (Ehrensaft, 2012)
• Factors associated with the desistence and persistence of childhood gender dysphoria (Steensma, Biemond, de Beor, & Cohen-Kettenis, 2011; Steensma, McGuire, Kreukels, Beekman, & Cohen-Kettenis, 2013)
• Self-harming thoughts and behaviors in a child and adolescents with gender dysphoria (Skagerberg, Parkinson, & Carmichael, 2013)
• Self-perception of gender variant children (Balleur-van, Steensma, Kreukels, & Cohen-Kettenis, 2013)
• State child emotional abuse laws (Ford, 2011)
• Psychiatric co-occurrence in gender dysphoric adolescents (de Vries, Doreleijers, Steensma, & Cohen-Kettenis, 2011)

I have not found any convincing reason in the contemporary scientific and peer reviewed journals to suggest that those who identify as transgender are inherently delusional or diseased.

 

Lucas

[Alice Amell]

 

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." 

1) I disagree that this is the case. Being transgender doesn't necessitate believing women are more empathetic for example. And even if people that use the word are wrong or stubborn (as in point 2) does not mean the feeling of being the wrong sex is invalid. 3) I would very much like to know whether it is biological or not, but would your facebook friend's post that shows difference in brains not be counted as evidence that is is indeed biological? I don't know if it's possible and to what degree culture and society will shape the brain's development and may account for these differences, however. 4) So what? I agree that challenging gender-falsehoods is not necessary for being transgender. Many do as I said wish to be in that socially acceptable box of gender. Others however do challenge gender falsehoods and do not care to be placed in a box and will do whatever they want.

 

(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.) 

 

 

 

 

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.) 

 

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".) 

1) It is not "required" per se, but it is almost universally enforced. Parents buy their children clothing. I was born with a penis therefore I have no choice but to wear dress shirts and pants on formal occasions and my sister had no choice but to wear skirts and dresses. It is socially enforced at older ages. If I had gone to school in a dress in high school I would be ridiculed.

 

2) Behaviors would include not showing weakness/being emotional for men and boys. If you do then you're "acting like a girl." This also includes wearing certain clothes. Wearing clothes isn't biological. It also changes from culture to culture, and it is socially enforced.

 

3) I agree it isn't often enforced anymore, but it still is. 

 

4) So wait, are you saying I am free to go by any name I want to because my parents choose it for me? I don't know how you can suggest the name is associated with sex at all. How is John innately biologically male and Jane is female? It is not. Names are gendered and socially enforced. 

 

5) Bathroom use is also based on gender. If you are biologically male but are a transsexual and pass as female, no one will question your use of the female facilities. You won't be allowed in the male bathroom anymore, though. I'd like to add that a lot of places are moving toward gender-neutral bathrooms and I think ending gender segregation in bathrooms is good in that it would help end this conflict that all transpeople face.

 

6) People do notice the biological sex but use all those gender stereotypes you hate so much and liberalismus is pointing out that we are all judged by this gender. although this is not only for transpeople, all people are judged unfairly on gender stereotypes.

 

7) In the past (and possibly in some places still) people are required to go through months of therapy in order to get a recommendation to give to a doctor to be able to get hormones. I know that isn't the case everywhere and there are doctors and institutions that are willing to help streamline the process.

 

 "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."

 

I don't see how that follows at all. If I have a feeling but have no scientific proof then I am a bully? Violent? Religious? A bigot?

 

 

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.

Do you think that childhood trauma is the reason for all transgendered people? It may be the case that some parents experiment on their kids with gender and the kids may act the opposite gender but many transpeople I've spoken to have been rejected by their parents, like someone coming out as gay, rather than conforming to their parents wishes.

 

In at least some cases this is factually false. Which doesn't surprise me with Laci who is a feminist who cannot think for herself. In some cases children are born with an ambiguous physical sex, doctors do tests on the infant to determine what mentality the child has when compared to early male/female infants to help assign sex. There is strong gender identifiers at early childhood which can be used to determine the mentality of the child, female babies stare at faces more frequently and for longer, male babies stare at systems/objects more frequently and for longer, this is before any social programming can take effect.

 

One point that I find interesting (maybe no one else does) is that transgendered people almost always feel like the right brain in the wrong body, that is to say a male feels like he was born female brain with a male body. One thing I've always heavily questioned is why this is framed as a physical issues rather than a mental one? Why is the body seen as the "wrong" part and not the brain? Maybe your physical body is perfectly fine and it's the feeling you're the wrong gender which is the issue?

Well, because the brain has the feeling. The body doesn't really vote on the issue and want to change the brain. It's the brain that has the feeling and makes the decision. I don't know if it is possible to change the brain to be "male" or "female" to achieve congruence. And given that people have the feeling the body is wrong, they would likely do as they want and change their body to feel better. It is part of who they are and I suspect most wouldn't want to give that up. If someone does want to and if it is possible to change that then they could do that too. 

 

There are two problems with your analysis. 

 

(1) You may be implying that, "If boys were allowed to play with dolls, and girls were allowed to play with soldiers, then the number of stay at home dads would roughly equal the number of stay at home moms AND the number of female combat deaths would roughly equal the number of male combat deaths."  (I use the verb "may", because I'm not sure whether you are, or aren't.  And I don't want to paint you into any corners.) 

 

However, in practically every culture ever studied: (a) Mothers spend much more time with their children than fathers.  And (b) males are a much higher percentage of combat deaths than females. 

 

Therefore, if you're making the implication above, you have to concoct: (a) a detailed series of mechanisms that apply in practically every culture to explain why fathers are "prevented" from spending time with their children and why females are "prevented" from dying on the battlefield, (b) a detailed list of reasons explaining why every culture, most of which exist in profound isolation from other cultures, all developed the same gender-based conclusions, and © an explanation of why the development of the same gender-based conclusions IS NOT primarily genetically-based.  (Scientifically, whenever the overwhelming majority of independently-existing cultures behave in similar ways, the simplest explanation is, "Oh, that series of behaviors must have a primarily genetic (a.k.a. "natural") cause.") 

 

(2) Even if you could prove that such coercion was not primarily genetically-based, you still haven't provided evidence that "Oh, cismales and other trans-un-friendly people have this irrational hatred of transgendered-people; that's why those gender stereotypes exist." 

 

(My preferred hypothetical explanation for the existence of gender stereotypes is that they artificially raise the perceived-value of heterosexual women, which enables them to demand more from heterosexual men while keeping a straight face.  And I prefer this explanation because NO "gender un-truths" - defined as either: (1) scientifically debunked, yet highly popular, conclusions about gender differences, or (2) not-scientifically-proven, yet highly popular, conclusions about gender differences - are flattering to heterosexual males; they're always flattering to heterosexual females.)   

Fathers were sent to die because historically the mothers had to spend their lives birthing and raising children for the survival of the species. It had to be that way and was socially enforced because only females could give birth to babies so it was necessary to protect women and children because men weren't as necessary for the survival of the species. This has continued to be socially enforced forever, This is only biological in that only women can bear children. And just because all cultures do it does not mean it is biological. Is it a biological imperative to abuse children or murder people?

 

I'm not sure anyone said cismen and non-trans-friendly people have an irrational hatred and that's why gender stereotypes exist. The gender stereotypes create the hatred. There are gender stereotypes negative to women and positive to men. I.e. men are more reasonable, rational, logical, better at math, they are taken more seriously, respected more, women are less competent at difficult or technical stuff, taken less seriously, respected less, bad at driving. I don't think they exist to elevate women but to act as a social enforcement for traditional gender roles (men: protector/provider, women: raising children)

 

When you say that coercion is not sufficient to prove that gender is a social contract do you mean that it is "necessary but not sufficient"? If it is not enough to prove that it is a social construct then what would be enough proof to convince you that it is? Aren't you arguing that there is no scientific proof behind the claim that transgenderism is biological? If it is not biological and it is not a social construct then what is it?

I agree with DaVinci here. As MMX said, reality doesn't have to be imposed. Wearing a dress isn't biological. It is socially enforced, and based on gender. I don't know what other evidence you need to say that gender is a social construct. MMX, you said yourself gender is based on a mix of sex and lies. Unless you are now retracting that statement, how is it not a social construct if its existence is dependent upon lies/stereotypes or non-biological concepts. 

 

Transgender-itself would be biological (a.k.a. "not a social construct") if it emerges at roughly the same percentages in each culture, regardless of the amount of pro-transgender and anti-transgender forces against it.  (Much like homosexuality always roughly-exists in the same percentage of the population, regardless of the pro-homosexual and homophobic forces applied to it.) 

 

Whereas transgender-itself would be a social construct (a.k.a. "not a natural phenomenon") if: (1) the pro-transgender forces are not willing to correct mistakes in their presentation of "scientific" knowledge, (2) the pro-transgender forces attack the morality and character of those who disagree with them, (3) the pro-transgender forces dismiss established scientific knowledge on biological sex as "irrelevant", (4) transgender-itself is presented as a "feeling that exists in childhood", without any curiosity as to how this feeling biologically arises, and (5) there is no specific set of rules/characteristics that are solidly characterized as masculine/feminine. 

I don't see how any of those statements are relevant tbh. What "scientific knowledge" are any "pro-transgender forces" presenting? And what mistakes do they have and are not correcting? Have you presented these mistakes to them? I'm not even sure who "they" are. Of course they attack the character of those who deny their identity. I don't know what scientific knowledge is dismissed at all or how it is specific to transgender people and why it is necessary for them to study intensely for years to even dare be called transgender. To say no one is curious how the feeling arises is just false. Most LGBT people I know understand gender is a social construct but accept that people can make their own choices and some people choose to live within a box of socially accepted behavior. Many LGBT also oppose the boxes because of the abuse they cause. I think you are mischaracterizing trans people as fully accepting the gender stereotypes as truth and thinking "I am female so I am empathetic" etc. and I disagree with that characterization. Wanting to be socially acceptable (and thus live in a box) is not unique to transpeople. I'd suspect more LGBT are actually opposed to gender stereotypes than anyone else.

[Alice Amell]

Hello DaVinci,

 

I hope you are well.

 

I believe you will find the following article relevant, specifically the section "The Recognition of Gender."

• Bullough, V. L. (2000). Transgenderism and the concept of gender. International Journal of Transgenderism, 4(3), 97-03.

I'll be curious to know your thoughts.

I read through that and one thing that stood out to me was the Canadian case they are referring to is the David Reimer case I mentioned earlier in the thread. The researcher John Money did some pretty questionable things. Reimer reported he was forced to practice sex positions with his brother and they were photographed nude as children. It is a very tragic but interesting case study in that they were genetic twins and one was raised as a girl from 17 months but then rejected that identity later on. There are instances though of identical twins where they are both brought up as the same gender but one becomes transgender. I don't know what that says about a possible cause, but sexuality isn't the same in all identical twins either.

[Lucas]

I read through that and one thing that stood out to me was the Canadian case they are referring to is the David Reimer case I mentioned earlier in the thread. The researcher John Money did some pretty questionable things. Reimer reported he was forced to practice sex positions with his brother and they were photographed nude as children. It is a very tragic but interesting case study in that they were genetic twins and one was raised as a girl from 17 months but then rejected that identity later on. There are instances though of identical twins where they are both brought up as the same gender but one becomes transgender. I don't know what that says about a possible cause, but sexuality isn't the same in all identical twins either.

 

My hope in posting the article (and referring to the section "The Recognition of Gender") was to expand the discussion on gender vs. sex and masculinity vs. femininity. I agree, even if Reimer's allegations are false, Money did some pretty questionable things.

 

In regards to twins: Norman Spack (2013) wrote, "studies of identical twins, who share the transgender diagnosis far more than fraternal twins or siblings, suggest that genetics play a major role in the etiology of transgenderism" (p. 480).

[MMX2010]

 

In regards to twins: Norman Spack (2013) wrote, "studies of identical twins, who share the transgender diagnosis far more than fraternal twins or siblings, suggest that genetics play a major role in the etiology of transgenderism" (p. 480).

 

Are you familiar with the phrenology-debacle that plagued scientists way back when? 

 

Society used to believe two falsehoods: (1) that larger brains equal higher intelligence, and (2) that women were genetically and permanently intellectually-inferior to men. 

 

During this time, a group of scientists attempted to prove that women's brains are significantly smaller by using a "grain-filling" measuring-method on empty skulls.  But the problem was that, when the scientists knew which gender applied to which skulls, they performed the measurements in a self-serving way.  (When scientists knew the skull was male, they really "packed in" the grain to produce a larger measurement; but when they knew the skull was female, they didn't really "pack in" the grain - which produced a smaller measurement.)  Such scientists universally concluded that men's brains were much larger, making them much more intelligent. 

 

However, when scientists did not know which gender applied to which skulls, they performed the measurements with equal proficiency.  And this equal-proficiency measurement produced the opposite conclusion that men's brains and women's brains are roughly similar in size. 

 

-----------------------------

 

Ever since I learned about the phrenology-debacle, I've preferred blind-experiments over sighted ones. 

 

So, I ask you, has any study of transgendered-people followed this procedure: (1) collect 100 people who are blended as follows: transgendered-people declaring themselves transgender, non-transgendered-people pretending to be transgender, and transgendered-people pretending to be non-transgendered.  (2) challenge scientists to separate the transgendered people from the non-transgendered people. 

 

If no such study exists, (and I suspect it doesn't), then literally every scientific study of transgendered-people has been performed by a scientist who: (1) was told to accept / believe that a person is transgender, in (2) an environment wherein everyone is loudly yelled at to be tolerant of transgendered people.  These two conditions pretty much guarantee that scientists will eventually find some collection of brain measurements / brain scans that define transgender people.  However, if scientists really have discovered such brain measurements, they should easily pass the "separate the real transgendered people from the phonies" experiment I've proposed earlier. 

[MMX2010]

 3) I would very much like to know whether it is biological or not, but would your facebook friend's post that shows difference in brains not be counted as evidence that is is indeed biological?

 

No way. 

 

The scientific-study of religion is very helpful here. 

 

At first, scientists used to believe that there was a "God Spot" - a particular region in the brain that, when electrically stimulated, produced a sense of "transcendence", of "oneness with the universe", and so on.  This discovery was extremely important because knowing that direct-brain-electrical-stimulation can produce a specific feeling also indicates that many other experiences (both natural and artificial) can produce that exact same feeling.  Scientists then concluded that religion propagates something like this: (1) A person is placed in an environment, such as a "church", wherein their "God spot" is stimulated, and then (2) That person is offered a specific "religious/spiritual explanation" as to why they're feeling-what-they-feel. 

 

Now, scientists don't believe there's a "God spot".  But they do believe that a multitude of brain images collaborate to  "facilitate an individual's spiritual/religious experience".  This "multitude-of-brain-areas" explanation doesn't dramatically change how scientists believe religion is propagated.  (It just replaces "God spot" with "a multitude of brain areas".) 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/20/god-spot-in-brain-is-not-_n_1440518.html

 

Religions and forms-of-spirituality are non-natural (a.k.a. mostly socially-spread).  We know this because: (1) there are way too many types of religions/spiritual practices, and (2) whenever a religious/spiritual person defines "god" in a scientifically-testable way, (such as when Christians claim that God heals believers), science debunks the claim.  In response, religious / spiritual people define "god" or "spirit" in deliberately non-scientifically-testable terms, and then "dare everyone" to disagree with them. 

 

That's extremely important, though.  An overwhelming majority of people are religious / spiritual.  And every religious / spiritual person explains their "god" or "higher being" with a "core" of similar, if not identical, language - such as "a benevolent higher power", or "a feeling of oneness with the universe", or "a loss of self that feels so pleasant, because it merges with a higher being or dimension".  AND YET, this agreement among over 75% of people IS NOT sufficient evidence to support their claims that religion / spirituality is objectively real.  (And religions / spiritual-forms are universally agreed upon, by scientists, to be socially-spread, a.k.a. "not natural processes".) 

 

Worse, it's easy to imagine how either frequently attending religious services (or engaging in meditation) can strengthen one's religious/spiritual experiences.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/20/god-spot-in-brain-is-not-_n_1440518.html  That article puts it perfectly, "It is like playing the piano, the more you train your brain, the more the brain becomes predisposed to piano playing. Practice makes perfect."  Thus, the majority of people deliberately engage in routine practices that produce a strong feeling; but this "strong feeling" IS NOT objective evidence that God/spirit exists in "natural" form.  (Instead, it's very strong evidence that God exists in "social", or "imaginary" form.) 

 

Thus, if religious/spiritual people cannot prove that their Gods/spiritual feelings are natural despite comprising over 75% of the human race, then neither can transgender people prove that their transgendered-feelings are natural. 

[Lucas]

 

Right.  But, to be fair, there are also parallels between "feeling that you're not your gender", and between "feeling that your race is superior", "feeling that your gender is superior", "feeling that a specific God is real", and even "feeling that a particular sports team deserves loyalty.  (Those last four items are clearly cultural, which is why I don't automatically accept that feeling transgendered is not primarily cultural.) 

 

There is a difference between (a) an individual making a claim about one's own internal sense of self, and (b) and individual making an existential claim about the existence of a god.

 

 

Are you familiar with the phrenology-debacle that plagued scientists way back when? 

 

Society used to believe two falsehoods: (1) that larger brains equal higher intelligence, and (2) that women were genetically and permanently intellectually-inferior to men. 

 

During this time, a group of scientists attempted to prove that women's brains are significantly smaller by using a "grain-filling" measuring-method on empty skulls.  But the problem was that, when the scientists knew which gender applied to which skulls, they performed the measurements in a self-serving way.  (When scientists knew the skull was male, they really "packed in" the grain to produce a larger measurement; but when they knew the skull was female, they didn't really "pack in" the grain - which produced a smaller measurement.)  Such scientists universally concluded that men's brains were much larger, making them much more intelligent. 

 

However, when scientists did not know which gender applied to which skulls, they performed the measurements with equal proficiency.  And this equal-proficiency measurement produced the opposite conclusion that men's brains and women's brains are roughly similar in size. 

 

-----------------------------

 

Ever since I learned about the phrenology-debacle, I've preferred blind-experiments over sighted ones. 

 

So, I ask you, has any study of transgendered-people followed this procedure: (1) collect 100 people who are blended as follows: transgendered-people declaring themselves transgender, non-transgendered-people pretending to be transgender, and transgendered-people pretending to be non-transgendered.  (2) challenge scientists to separate the transgendered people from the non-transgendered people. 

 

If no such study exists, (and I suspect it doesn't), then literally every scientific study of transgendered-people has been performed by a scientist who: (1) was told to accept / believe that a person is transgender, in (2) an environment wherein everyone is loudly yelled at to be tolerant of transgendered people.  These two conditions pretty much guarantee that scientists will eventually find some collection of brain measurements / brain scans that define transgender people.  However, if scientists really have discovered such brain measurements, they should easily pass the "separate the real transgendered people from the phonies" experiment I've proposed earlier. 

 

Those are amazing abilities you have, to ignore current scientific data based on your preference and to make unsubstantiated claims about the researchers of "literally every scientific study of transgendered-people."

 

I do not feel as if we are getting anywhere. Consider this my withdrawal from future conversation with you.

[Eternal Growth]

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? 

 

--

 

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?

 

It's difficult to say an age. I can recall memories of wanting to be a girl (by which I mean, wanting to be able to do girl things without provoking social ostracism, and being a girl feeling more "right" to me than being a boy) and envying cisgirls as young as 5 or so, though it wasn't until I was 12 that I discovered that trans people were a thing / were allowed to exist.

 

I never told my parents - they discovered by opening my referral letter to London's child and adolescent gender clinic that came in the post (addressed to me) when I was 16.

 

Gender/sex lessons I learnt while growing up is an interesting area that I probably haven't put as much thought into as I should have. A major theme throughout my childhood and adolescence was social isolation, so there aren't an enormous number of experiences to think back to in any case. Within my family, both my mother and father embodied very poor models of femininity and masculinity respectively, and I wouldn't want to imitate or be anything like either of them. If it adds anything, I was slightly closer to my father.

 

From being around other children, the lessons I learnt were that: Girls were allowed to be more sensitive, expressive and open about their emotions. Boys were expected to engage in explicit competition (sports, etc.), to be "tough", etc. 

 

In many ways throughout my life I've actually had stereotypically male interests such as being interested in building things, in systems, in maths and computers, etc. and have been less interested in stereotypically girl things such as make-up and gossiping, though I haven't perceived any of this as being in conflict with my identity as a girl/woman. 

 

 

In at least some cases this is factually false. Which doesn't surprise me with Laci who is a feminist who cannot think for herself. In some cases children are born with an ambiguous physical sex, doctors do tests on the infant to determine what mentality the child has when compared to early male/female infants to help assign sex. There is strong gender identifiers at early childhood which can be used to determine the mentality of the child, female babies stare at faces more frequently and for longer, male babies stare at systems/objects more frequently and for longer, this is before any social programming can take effect.

 

One point that I find interesting (maybe no one else does) is that transgendered people almost always feel like the right brain in the wrong body, that is to say a male feels like he was born female brain with a male body. One thing I've always heavily questioned is why this is framed as a physical issues rather than a mental one? Why is the body seen as the "wrong" part and not the brain? Maybe your physical body is perfectly fine and it's the feeling you're the wrong gender which is the issue?

 

Because, at least with current technology, it is a lot easier and more successful to change the physical to match the mental than it is to change the mental to match the physical. Moreover, the mental is where a person's identity resides. To change a person's brain is to change fundamentally who they are. In comparison, a physical transition keeps a person's ideas, thoughts, feelings, personality, identity, inner life, etc. intact, it just makes their body compatible with the person inside. 

 

There has been no successful corrective psychological therapy to convince trans people to be comfortable in their assigned-at-birth sex, and this isn't for lack of trying (much as has been the case with attempts at corrective therapy for gay people).

 

There was a study recently performed in the UK on the mental health of trans people that is available here (section 4.2 and beyond is most relevant): http://www.gires.org.uk/assets/Medpro-Assets/trans_mh_study.pdf

 

I quote from the study: 

"The participants were asked if taking hormones had changed how satisfied they were with their bodies. Of 417 people, 85% were more satisfied with their body since undertaking hormone therapy. Only 2% were less satisfied.

 

The participants were also asked if hormones had changed how satisfied they were with their overall lives. Of 398 people, 82% reported greater levels of life satisfaction than pre-hormones. As before, only 2% were less satisfied. "

 

My experience, and the experiences of other trans people who I've known, are entirely concordant with these results. Physical transition is an extremely successful treatment for gender dysphoria in those individuals who want it, greatly reducing suicidality, depression, self-harm and so forth.

[MMX2010]

There is a difference between (a) an individual making a claim about one's own internal sense of self, and (b) and individual making an existential claim about the existence of a god.

 

 

No transgendered person in this thread has made "a claim about one's internal sense of self", Lucas.  Instead, they've attached moralistic words like "oppressed", "involuntarily coerced", and "lacking in empathy".  Moralistic words are clear attempts to control other people's reactions/behaviors. 

 

Statements that would qualify as "an individual making a claim about one's internal sense of self" are, "For the longest time, I've felt confused about my gender.  Please don't assume that you owe me any sympathy because of this.  Please don't assume that you're at all a bad person if you don't offer me any sympathy.  Heck, feel free to be weirded out, confused, or annoyed by my feeling - if that's what you feel; that's what you feel." 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Those are amazing abilities you have, to ignore current scientific data based on your preference and to make unsubstantiated claims about the researchers of "literally every scientific study of transgendered-people."

 

I do not feel as if we are getting anywhere. Consider this my withdrawal from future conversation with you.

 

Lucas, we're not going anywhere, because you refuse to answer my very simple question, "Have any scientists attempted a double-blind examination of transgendered people?  Meaning, has a blend of (a) transgendered people, (b) non-transgendered people pretending to be transgendered, and © transgendered-people pretending to be non-transgendered ever been assembled to challenge scientists to differentiate the real-transgendered from the pretend-transgendered?" 

 

Shall I assume that, because you're not answering the question, the answer is No? 

 

There was a study recently performed in the UK on the mental health of trans people that is available here (section 4.2 and beyond is most relevant): http://www.gires.org.uk/assets/Medpro-Assets/trans_mh_study.pdf

 

I quote from the study: 

"The participants were asked if taking hormones had changed how satisfied they were with their bodies. Of 417 people, 85% were more satisfied with their body since undertaking hormone therapy. Only 2% were less satisfied.

 

The participants were also asked if hormones had changed how satisfied they were with their overall lives. Of 398 people, 82% reported greater levels of life satisfaction than pre-hormones. As before, only 2% were less satisfied. "

 

My experience, and the experiences of other trans people who I've known, are entirely concordant with these results. Physical transition is an extremely successful treatment for gender dysphoria in those individuals who want it, greatly reducing suicidality, depression, self-harm and so forth.

 

 

I didn't read the study, but I'm assuming that "the participants who received hormone therapy": (a) Voluntarily signed up for hormone therapy, and (b) expected that it would work. 

 

But if transgender is a biological-reality, rather than a socially-constructed myth, then transgendered people who would never sign up for hormone therapy because they don't think it'll work, or because they think it's "wrong for them" should: (a) be involuntarily placed on hormone therapy, and (b) report identical-satisfaction with it, as do transgendered people who voluntarily accept hormone therapy. 

 

Now, if you say it's unethical to force transgendered people to undergo hormone therapy, I'd agree with you.  However, because the study you cited focused only on those who both voluntarily-accepted the treatment and expected it to work, it is flawed-scientifically. 

[nickhk]

It's difficult to say an age. I can recall memories of wanting to be a girl (by which I mean, wanting to be able to do girl things without provoking social ostracism, and being a girl feeling more "right" to me than being a boy) and envying cisgirls as young as 5 or so, though it wasn't until I was 12 that I discovered that trans people were a thing / were allowed to exist.

 

I'd really like more elaboration of what kind of girl things you wanted to do, and why; and what kind of "right" the feeling was, like correct? or preferable to someone?  Tying ages to specific events may help.  Why did you envy girls?

 

 

Gender/sex lessons I learnt while growing up is an interesting area that I probably haven't put as much thought into as I should have. A major theme throughout my childhood and adolescence was social isolation, so there aren't an enormous number of experiences to think back to in any case. Within my family, both my mother and father embodied very poor models of femininity and masculinity respectively, and I wouldn't want to imitate or be anything like either of them. If it adds anything, I was slightly closer to my father.

 

I'm sorry to hear you were so alone.  Would you go so far to call it neglect?  Personally, I was left alone with my younger brother for the majority of my childhood.  We were neglected.  Were you by yourself at home?  Do you have siblings?  Did your parents divorce?  Will you describe what behavior and interactions you parents had with each other, and you?  Any memorably phrases or conversations?  I accept they were poor role models, why and how?

 

 

From being around other children, the lessons I learnt were that: Girls were allowed to be more sensitive, expressive and open about their emotions. Boys were expected to engage in explicit competition (sports, etc.), to be "tough", etc.

 

Being sensitive, expressive and open are great.  I like being that, they're great characteristics to have.  Shame they were presented to you as gender specific.  Not into explicit competition, especially between friends, then one take it seriously, like winning a card game is the best thing to happen that year or something.  It sounds like guys get the short end of the stick in that lesson.  Being a boy is lame.

 

 

In many ways throughout my life I've actually had stereotypically male interests such as being interested in building things, in systems, in maths and computers, etc. and have been less interested in stereotypically girl things such as make-up and gossiping, though I haven't perceived any of this as being in conflict with my identity as a girl/woman. 

 

I find this very interesting.  I interpret this like you've got a male brain, but choose to be female.  I don't know whether that's correct or not, just the impression I get.  Probably not politically correct either.  Bear with me.

 

As I've said earlier in this thread, my concern is the types of child abuse experienced by transgendered, all other stuff aside.  I don't know if it's causal or not, but I do know it's not something talked about much.

 

I really appreciate your openness, Liberalismus.  Thank you!

[J. D. Stembal]

In at least some cases this is factually false. Which doesn't surprise me with Laci who is a feminist who cannot think for herself. In some cases children are born with an ambiguous physical sex, doctors do tests on the infant to determine what mentality the child has when compared to early male/female infants to help assign sex. There is strong gender identifiers at early childhood which can be used to determine the mentality of the child, female babies stare at faces more frequently and for longer, male babies stare at systems/objects more frequently and for longer, this is before any social programming can take effect.

 

One point that I find interesting (maybe no one else does) is that transgendered people almost always feel like the right brain in the wrong body, that is to say a male feels like he was born female brain with a male body. One thing I've always heavily questioned is why this is framed as a physical issues rather than a mental one? Why is the body seen as the "wrong" part and not the brain? Maybe your physical body is perfectly fine and it's the feeling you're the wrong gender which is the issue?

 

I take issue with Laci's transgender adventure video. Why must the accusation of ignorance be leveled at people not able to understand the reasons behind a complicated life decision? If a friend makes a decision to marry or date someone radically different than before, don't I have the right to be curious and ask questions about the cause of the new situation? What if a friend decides one day that he wants to begin the process of identifying and becoming transgender? Should I have the right to be genuinely curious and ask questions about the reasoning behind it? If I don't know you well and I'm not certain with which gender you identify, can I openly ask you without causing shame or embarrassment? Why exactly does this have to be a delicate and touchy subject?

 

Here's an interesting article about a 22-year old male model that recently came out as trans. https://www.yahoo.com/health/model-andreja-pejic-comes-out-as-transgender-92841649992.html

 

An article about the same model undergoing SRS: http://www.refinery29.com/2014/07/71780/andrej-pejic-sex-reassignment-surgery-andreja

 

I found this quote troubling:

 

 

 

In an interview with Style.com, Pejic states that she knew at age 13 that she was meant to be a woman, and transitioning was "always something I needed to do." But, until transitioning was possible, "androgyny became a way of expressing my femininity without having to explain myself to people too much," especially to friends who had no understanding of trans culture or gender identity.

 

Personally, I don't take the issue of surgically removing genitalia very lightly being an infant when I was circumcised against my will, which has often negatively affected my enjoyment of sex. I also understand that not all male to female transgenders will elect to hormone therapy and sex reassignment surgery (NATALT!), but for the few that choose to go that route, I would want to ask them why they decided such a radical solution. If I knew a man who was considering becoming a female, I would be curious enough to ask some difficult self-knowledge questions first. Is that acceptable or considered politically incorrect? Why should I be concerned about offending sensibilities when he is at the point of enduring difficult and expensive elective surgery to become a woman? Will being a woman make him happier? Are women, in general, happier than men? Why would that be so?

 

I would turn the conversation towards feminism and the war that has been long waged against children, especially young boys. Knowing what we know about the role women play in child abuse in the home, isn't it a little concerning that more then 1300 men each year elect to undergo sex reassignment surgery in North America alone? How many women claim to be discontented with their gender or treatment of their assigned gender? How many of women who feel that they are discriminated against for their gender will subsequently seek SRS to become men? This is not a rhetorical question; I was unable to find any data as yet on female-to-male SRS.

 

For added perspective, here's a web site I stumbled upon about the tragedy of transgender regret. http://www.sexchangeregret.com/

[MMX2010]

 

I would turn the conversation towards feminism and the war that has been long waged against children, especially young boys. Knowing what we know about the role women play in child abuse in the home, isn't it a little concerning that more then 1300 men each year elect to undergo sex reassignment surgery in North America alone? How many women claim to be discontented with their gender or treatment of their assigned gender? How many of women who feel that they are discriminated against for their gender will subsequently seek SRS to become men? This is not a rhetorical question; I was unable to find any data as yet on female-to-male SRS.

 

 

Agree with this 100%.  If transgender is a biological reality, then the ratio of male-to-female-transitions divided-by female-to-male transitions should be roughly equivalent across all cultures.  But if this ratio fluctuates from culture-to-culture, (and especially if there are significantly more examples of demeaned-gender-to-esteemed-gender-transitions), then this strongly suggests that transgender is a cultural-myth. 

 

Liberalismus said earlier: "From being around other children, the lessons I learnt were that: Girls were allowed to be more sensitive, expressive and open about their emotions." 

 

But is he (and are you) familiar with a sociological study mentioned (I think) by Lloyd DeMause in "The Origins of War in Child Abuse"? 

 

In it, infants were spread into four groups: girls-wearing-pink, girls-wearing-blue, boys-wearing-pink, and boys-wearing-blue.  Females of varying "caregiving ages" were told to interpret each infant's "fussy behavior".  The results were: (1) If the infant was wearing pink (girl colors), the females interpreted "her" fussy behavior as sadness.  (2) If the infant was wearing blue (boy colors), the females interpreted "his" fussy behavior as anger. 

 

This is highly important because sadness is a "bonding emotion" - in that, whenever someone you love feels "sad", this creates sympathy, and spurs you to help.  Whereas anger is an "anti-bonding emotion" - in that, whenever someone you love feels "angry", this creates distress, and spurs you to defend yourself. 

 

Hence, FROM BIRTH female-caregivers discriminate against the fussy behavior of male infants.  And Liberalismus noted this as a (what seemed to me) highly-influential reason that he became transgendered.