Any transgender Dopers?

In My Humble Opinion
121

Lefthandedness is also an aberration from the norm due to a difference in the brain. Does that make it a mental illness? Like homosexuality, it can be suppressed at a behavioural level but not “unwired” - you’ll still be innately left-handed even if you’re forced or force yourself to use your right hand. And, unlike homosexuality, lefthandedness actually does have negative effects. So it is a personality disorder? A mental illness? A mental defect? Is it only because of political pressure from the mighty left-handed lobby that it isn’t recognised in the DSM-IV?

Seriously, like someone else said, a difference isn’t necessarily a defect. It’s bizarre to argue that it is.

122

I don’t know if I can factually answer that question. But if so, there are nonetheless several mis-codings which aren’t defects, but just differences - left-handedness was just brought up, and is a good example. Colour blindness would be a bad example, except in certain very specific circumstances.

123

Well, I would say it lies at least between left handedness and colour blindness. Miller’s blithely hand waving it away as “Oh, they’d still probably reproduce” is kind of silly. A “difference” that completely messes with your ability/desire to reproduce is fairly called a “defect” from a biological standpoint. It is a defect I think we can safely let run though.

Smearing ink versus hardwired against wanting reproductive sex? Hmm.

124

Why is it silly to say homosexuals will still reproduce? It seems to be obviously true that many people of all sexual preferences enjoy raising children and find ways to do so even if their reproductive organs don’t work or they prefer non-reproductive sex. And given the ridiculous overpopulation of our world, not wanting reproductive sex seems to me to be a valuable asset and not a negative effect!

125

Look in Chutney Popcorn, The L Word, The Kids Are All Right, etc. All about gay women and their girlfriends/wives poppin’ out babies right and left like it’s goin’ out of style.

126

There’s no “probably” about it. The desire to reproduce is separate from the desire to have sex. The fact that gay people are wired to want sex with their own gender doesn’t mean they’re also wired to not want to have children, as is amply demonstrated by the increasing number of same-sex parents.

Left handed people have an average life span about ten years shorter than right handed people.

Not sure how that compares to the average life span of homosexuals, but I kind of suspect we don’t do all that much better.

127

It’s silly because yes they may close their eyes and think of England, but babies aren’t produced every time. Maintaining a population is a lot easier when people naturally want to do what’s required so that the odds add up.

Some percentage of the population not being reproductive is normal. That doesn’t mean that all the people with low sperm counts or non-sticky uterine walls don’t have a defect. How far are you willing to go here? Would you reject that dwarfism is a defect? I mean smaller people means less resources used, so little people are a valuable asset, right?

128

We have much more reliable methods than that now.

129

So not reproducing is a defect now? I always thought I don’t have children because of a choice I made, but apparently it’s because I didn’t get the maternal gene. Now I know, I’m defective! And really we do NOT need to worry about maintaining a population! Have you noticed how overpopulated we are?

By the way, I have to say sorry to the OP as we have drifted a long way from your topic.

130

Miller, I never said gay people don’t want to raise children. I would have to be pretty blind to think that. See my first paragraph above. Yes, we can deal with it now, it doesn’t change my point, as I never said we should “fix” gay people.

And ok, so lefties have some longevity deficiency. But obviously there is some other factor causing both, as I can’t imagine people die younger BECAUSE they are left handed. But your lower likelihood to reproduce is a direct result of homosexuality. So it’s not a straight (ha!) comparison, imho.

eta: kayt, no need to get ridiculous. I am using “defect” in clinical way, not attacking every childless person on the planet. What about my question?

131

Certainly, heterosexual desire leads to an increased number of children - I’m not arguing that point. But “most number of children possible” is not always a desirable outcome, particularly in situations where you have a limited amount of resources. Nature has developed a bewildering number of reproductive strategies, very few of which rely on sexual attraction as we understand the concept. The fact that some percentage of the human species is capable of reproducing without opposite-sex sexual attraction is not evidence of a defect, it’s just an alternate reproductive strategy.

132

You can think of it that way if you want, but it doesn’t make sense to me at all. Except for most recently in human history, homosexuality is basically opting out of reproduction. I know there’s all sorts of speculation that it may have some evolutionary advantage, none of it really rings true. eta: Unless you can show that limited resources tends to increase # of homosexuals. Most animals make as many offspring as possible and let the lack of resources starve them to a more reasonable size population.

133

Social insects, where massive numbers of the population opt out of reproduction, might disagree with that stance.

Granted, we aren’t social insects, we’re mammals. Let me introduce you to the naked mole rat which employes a similar reproductive strategy.

The point is, some individuals opting out of reproduction is hardly an unknown strategy in the wild. For that matter, homosexual behavior has also been observed in wild animals. Either it actively serves some evolutionary purpose, or else it is not harmful enough to be harshly selected against.

The other thing is that in the old days when virtually everyone was expected to marry in some cultures no one thought much if a man only rarely had sex with his wife, and that only to produce children, and spent the rest of his time with other men. What women did amongst each other was likewise often overlooked or ignored so long as they otherwise conformed to the role of good wives who produced children. Most homosexuals are capable of having sex with the opposite gender even if it’s not their preference. If that was the price of otherwise being able to do what they wanted most of them could endure it. I’ve always found it odd this notion that being homosexual made one incapable of having procreative sex. It doesn’t.

In other words, homosexuality need not hamper human reproduction even in a primitive society.

134

Sorry, hit submit before addressing this point.

Actually, this is not true of human societies. Many hunter-gather societies actually did limit human births, employing various strategies to do so. For example, it might be taboo for any man to have sex with a nursing woman and women might nurse 3-4 years. Some hunter gatherers would only raise one child at a time, so if twins were born one of them would be killed immediately. Infanticide was used to dispose of deformed, unwanted, and children too close in age to those already living. These strategies where probably most common among nomadic groups (where infants and toddlers needed to be carried and it would have been difficult or impossible for a woman to carry more than one for any lengthy time) but some highly civilized and advanced societies in the past, like Ancient Rome, also practiced infanticide. Romans also attempted birth control of various sorts and abortions as well.

So, we aren’t “most animals”.

135

So, we’re going to hypothesize that <10% homosexuals are some sort of worker ant, that aren’t actually sterile and are still able to compete for leadership?

Having a trait that still gets passed on, isn’t proof that it’s somehow advantageous, fyi. Just that it’s not disastrous. I’ve said from the beginning that it isn’t a fatal defect.

136

Except for most recently in human history, homosexuality did not exist. Sure, people had same-sex encounters, and a certain percentage of the population would prefer same-sex encounters, but the concept of sexual orientation is a product of the modern era. People who we would, today, identify as “gay” still got married, and still produced children, as was expected by society. They would almost certainly be producing fewer children, but they would still be reproducing.

Very few animals have “as many offspring as possible.” Virtually all of them all have evolved some sort of limitation on how often they can reproduce, from lengthy estrus cycles, to specialized fertility, to complicated courtship rituals. Homosexuality is just another such limiter - one that evolved out of our natural ability to make rational reproductive decisions.

If homosexuality really meant opting out of reproduction, as you said previously, then it would absolutely be a fatal defect - on a generational level, if not a personal level. The fact that the trait persists indicates that it either confers a pretty strong group survival advantage, or it’s not as much of a bar to reproduction as you think.

137

I’ve always had a hard time with “transgender” as a concept because I find “gender” troublesome as a concept. In this context, it’s a (fluid, at times) social concept, and so I think it’s only tenuously “real.” It’s useful, of course, but something about it grates.

I feel nothing but support for trans individuals, because I believe people have total autonomy over their identities. I don’t think it’s right for any social constructs (save necessary laws) to be forced on anybody.

A “woman’s brain in a male body” has always bothered me as a phrase, because I don’t like the implication that there’s such a thing as a “woman’s brain.” If trans persons often have structural brain similarities to persons of opposite biological sex, that is of course important and meaningful, but it also implies a threshhold for “real” transgender versus “choice.” I’m not a fan of that.

I suppose part of the problem for me is that I don’t find either gender identity to be fully relatable, but I also don’t feel like “genderqueer” fits me right. I think of myself as male-identified, but a very mix of masculine, feminine, and…odd traits. “Cisgender” implies things I don’t like. I hate binaries in general, because I tend to find myself in a middle zone and frequently told I don’t exist.

It took me a long time to not hate it, but I’m increasingly in love with the broad concept of “queer.” Categorizing people is always ugly; it’s useful inasmuch as it assists understanding, but awful inasmuch as it assists in defining.

I’ve no real dog in this race, and, of course, I fully support trans persons to define themselves, their identities, and the common (and uncommon) experiences they face. I just find myself frequently worried that the current dialogue could erect walls instead of the sort of true understanding, compassion, and acceptance all people (trans, cis, and otherwise) should enjoy.

138

I would agree but it’s a difference of degree. Believing something that is wrong about the world, like the existence of a SkyGod or that you can win a free trip to the Bahamas selling magazines door to door just makes you garden variety stupid. However if you genuinely believe that you yourself are something fancifully impossible for you to be that is a sign to me of a grave disorder. People believing in SkyGods or who buy into MLM schemes are dumb, but they’re just dumb about something most people are dumb about. People that believe they are 19th century French Emperors or people who are born with dicks and an XY chromosome who think they’re “women inside” are sadly afflicted with a grave dysfunction of the mind.

Miller wanted to know why you would even have transgendered people watch erotica and monitor brain activity, I told him the paper he can look into to get an answer as to why the researchers did what they did.

I would disagree. If I was a farmer and I bought a bull to fuck my cows to produce more cattle I would be extremely pissed at my defective merchandise if my expensive bull ended up being unwilling or unable to fuck the cows. I’m sure professional farming with prize stud bulls probably frequently don’t rely on the cattle actually mating normally and can manually extract the semen and implant it as it were, but the point remains an animal that won’t copulate with its opposite gender is defective to that farmer who purchased it for that sole purpose.

Humans aren’t farm animals, but biologically if any mammal can be said to have a “purpose” (in as much as a species can have a “purpose”) it is to continue to exist by propagating, anything that is less than efficient at getting that done is not ideal. And in the normal course of a species existence a dispassionate biologist would observe members of the species that were for various reasons not adept at siring children were defective as compared to the rest of the species.

It clearly is.

139

There are plenty of genetic disorders that cause blindness, deafness and early death. They persist, but I doubt you’d say that indicates they are somehow useful.

140

I think that’s being a little rough on Alessan. It seems to me that he/she (;)) was simply trying to directly answer the question posed by the OP, but chose to use discretion by not naming names (as this can be a sensitive topic).