So… when the law stated that black people counted for 3/5th a person, that was factually correct?
I prefer to be called woman. No more, no less. The single word woman will do, thank you, no modifiers needed or wanted.
I finally got my life on the right way and now the past is just a traumatic memory. I experienced being trans as a royal pain in the ass, and now that I’ve moved on, I’m not identifying with it or hanging onto it in any way. Life is good now that it’s well established I’m just another woman. I really don’t want to be highlighted or set apart from other women or treated like a freak show. I’m not a freak show. I’m a very private woman.
There are so many diverse feelings around these questions among trans people, the safe guiding principle is just to let each individual account for who they are. Don’t assume! Ask!
The word transgender is still so poorly defined, it conveys very limited information. Some trans individuals and movements like the word transgender and rally under it. Probably the majority of trans people don’t want to be called transgender, but that is the term that the collective mainstream of the LGBT movement has chosen as the T word (instead of transsexual, which many people feel is more accurate and informational).
So when someone is speaking for an organization, they’ll use the word transgender as a rule. And when trans people talk about themselves, only a minority of them, I think, actually call themselves transgender, and many of those tend to be the ones who actively participate in the cisgender-run LGBT movements. Most trans people on their own just call themselves “trans.”
And on that note, props to the OP who is modeling an excellent example of asking instead of assuming.
This has been an interesting thread. It always amazes me that discrimination and jokes about trans people seems to be the last remaining form of discrimination that is tolerated by everyone as evident by all the “tranny” jokes out there.
Yet the vast majority of transgender people never get their brains scanned to see if they, as indivduals, exhibit these physiological differences, right? Is it even possible to directly diagnose in a living person? As an occasional hypochondriac, that would bug the hell out of me. It’s a pretty big lifestyle change to base on a brain difference you only suspect yourself of having.
I’m interested in the medical outliers now. Is there much overlap between a feminine-leaning cismale brain and a masculine-leaning cisfemale brain? Are there any documented transgender people who don’t have the physical brain/body mismatch, or cisgender people who do?
Nitpick: back then, black people effectively counted as -3/5 of a person, as they added the weight of 3/5 of a person to the Congressional strength of their oppressors.
Nitpick over. Carry on.
So? If she wants to post she will, and if she doesn’t she won’t. Why assume the OP was even thinking of her?
With current technology the difference is only discernible on autopsy which, of course, we don’t do on living people.
Not at this time.
The people who undergo physical gender transition are actually certain, that’s why they go through the trouble and hassle and crap required to transition. It’s everyone around them who are uncertain about this.
I’m not sure exactly what you’re asking here. No, based on the research (which, admittedly, has been limited due to the small supply of transgender brains available for dissection and analysis) there isn’t really an “overlap”. With the brain structures in question transwomen and ciswomen have one set of traits regarding the size of the structure(s) involved and transmen and cismen have a different set. It’s much less a spectrum than some other human traits.
Not at this time. Again, there are limited brains available for the research in question. Some transgender folks have volunteered, but researchers are waiting for them to expire in order to obtain study material.
Eh…I don’t know, that just seems like kind of a stretch. I’ve seen people get up in arms about transgendered, but really? Over two little letters that don’t actually change its meaning? It just seems like maybe a case of picking your battles. Maybe save the animosity for the person who thinks that transgender(ed) people are subhuman.
Ah, but there’s a difference. They were counted as 3/5 of a person (which, btw, is a legally defined entity in that context). They were not defined as 3/5 of a person. But had they been, then yes, since a person is a legally defined entity.
At any rate, this has turned into a hijack, so I’ll end on that note. Lecture away on the proper etiquette!
I’m sure they are. I just know that some people, upon hearing about any kind of medical/psychological condition that they can’t directly disprove themselves as having, will began to wonder if they have it. I guess it is likely that those people aren’t transgender, just hypochondriacs.
I’ve never been anyone but me, so how would I really know what it feels like to be “a man” or “a woman”? There is no experience to compare against, I just assume that I am experiencing being “a man” because that is what I and others assume I am, based on physical characteristics. I’m thinking more on a philosophical level than a practical level here (cf. Nagel’s “What it is like to be a bat?”).
You understood well enough to give me a good answer. That’s pretty interesting about there not being much of a spectrum.
I have no beef at all with transgender people, but this is exactly the sort of self-defeating holier-than-thou bullshit that could turn otherwise rational and compassionate people against a cause. “Taking the men out of women”? Get over yourselves, seriously.
That’s not a transgender thing, it’s a radical feminist thing. But yeah, it’s pretty dumb
No, they are not quite literally “people with male bodies and female brains.” For two reasons:
-
In a prior thread on this topic someone demonstrated that in some “trans” individuals there were abnormalities in a certain region of the brain. This may have some significance or may not. I’d have to reference the earlier thread (and the studies it cited) to get more specific, but that isn’t the same as saying “literally a female brain in a male body.”
-
Again, if I asked a biologist to sex two individuals of the species canis lupus familiaris they would not even look at the brains of the animal to do that, because it is unnecessary. Mammalian gender is not defined by brain structure.
See: Gender Identity Disorder, DSM-IV.
Under the law it would have been, yes, for the purposes of congressional apportionment.
IF you have a concept defined by the law “legal person” and the law defines certain people as “3/5ths” of a person, then yes, under the legal definition they were 3/5ths of a person.
Under a “common” definition of the word, or a moral/philosophical definition most people would rightly say the law didn’t make blacks 3/5ths of a real human being or a real person, but they were legally 3/5ths of a person. So factually they were 3/5ths of a legal person.
As a point as to why brain structure is so irrelevant, evolving views on mental illnesses like schizophrenia have started to focus on abnormalities of the brain of schizophrenics. Different parts of the brain of a person with schizophrenia have different activity levels than a healthy human brain, there is also some genetic predisposition to schizophrenia (some 10% of cases) so quite likely brain structure has a play in that (and many mental diseases.) But that doesn’t mean if a person with schizophrenia believes they are an Angel or Napoleon they “literally have Napoleon’s brain inside a normal person’s body.”
When I say brain structure is irrelevant I’m referring of course to the definition of male/female. For purposes of treatment brain structure is probably part of the important learning process that will eventually allow us to cure people with GID without having to resort to barbaric mutilations of their genitals along with unnatural hormone therapies.
You mean the Gender Identity Disorder that’s proposing to be revised to Gender Dysphoria in the DSM-V? Psychology is a living science, and the terms, definitions, and understanding of 30, 40, or 50 years ago are often not valid today. We don’t refer to Multiple Personalities anymore, we say Dissociative Identity Disorder. We no longer classify homosexuality as a mental illness.
Just what decade are you living in? Because you appear to be firmly entrenched in the nineties.
The DSM-IV is still being used clinically, so your allusions to me being out of touch are unfounded. It’s still the DSM “in effect” and the DSM-V still acknowledges the basic fact that people who feel they are different sex than they actually are have a mental problem. Multiple personality disorder as it was understood in the past mostly doesn’t exist, dissociative identity disorder is closer to the real condition, but a lot of that was just slight changes too. So I don’t think you actually know very much about the DSM just based on how you’re using these terms.
Also, the ICD-10 also classifies it as “Gender Identity Disorder” and it falls under Chapter V: Mental and behavioral disorders. The ICD-10 is internationally recognized, FWIW.
The OP is relatively new here. I’m not, and I remember there being some extreme unpleasantness connected to this subject in the past. I was merely trying to forestall any ugliness. If I have offended anyone, I apologize.