In the XY sex-determination system, the female-provided ovum contributes an X chromosome and the male-provided sperm contributes either an X chromosome or a Y chromosome, resulting in female (XX) or male (XY) offspring, respectively. Wikipedia.
gender: the state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones).
The concept of gender sounds far removed from science from the above definition. You are probably confusing the social sciences with actual science.
Did you know there aresexualtrisomies? Sometimes one parent contributes a sexual chromosome and the other parent contributes two. Are those people part of a different species for being chromosomically atypical?
Did you also know that there are multiple conditions which lead to someone developing physically in a way inconsistent with whether they’re genetically XX or XY? The one I usually bring up is androgen sensitivity syndrome, but I must admit it’s because it’s the only one whose name I happen to remember.
Did you know that people, including Una but I don’t have a wiki cite for that, can be intersex, that is, neither evidently male nor evidently female?
I passed sixth grade biology too. But sorry, again no cite for that.
You don’t seem to truly be conscious of what those “birth defects” represent to those who have them, of how deeply it affects their lives, and your prior references are all dismissive of their very existence. People whose apparent sex does not match their chromosomal sex aren’t just some curiosity in a flask of formaldehyde; they’re, well, people, and they are people who do not match the simple “if you’re XX you’re a woman and if you’re XY you’re a man” we learned in 6th grade. That simple view is ok in sixth grade, but not in adult life or when used to decide healthcare policies.
We see biological age as the only useful marker for age because the reasons why biological age are relevant are all biological. Why can’t a 10-year-old drink while a 20-year-old can? Because alcohol is really bad for people whose brains and bodies haven’t fully developed. Why can an 18-year-old consent to sex, but a 14-year-old can’t? Because a 14-year-old’s brain (in the vast majority of cases) is not mature enough to wrap itself around the issues involved.
By contrast, the issues of gender and sex are, at best, messy. Just to take one particularly prominent issue: why is it important that only men go into the men’s bathroom, while only women go into the women’s bathroom? There’s no biological reason that holds up to scrutiny there. It’s cultural, and it only gets messier if we insist on strict biological definitions, which would leave Shawn Stinson in the women’s bathroom, and Bailey Jay in the men’s bathroom.
There’s no clear, easy dividing line. What defines a man or a woman? Outward appearance? Genitalia? Genetics? Role in childbirth? None of these proposed definitions are perfectly clear, and more importantly, picking any one seems like a largely arbitrary decision, without good explanation for why we should distinguish like that. The categories are for the man, not man for the categories; there is no platonic ideal of what “man” or “woman” means.
With that in mind, there’s another factor here: harm. There is significant harm reduction by treating gender dysphoric people as the gender they identify with. Given that these definitions are largely arbitrary, at least this arbitrary decision fits with both what we understand of gender in the social sciences and does the most to reduce harm.
You’re confusing “sex” with “gender”. This is a very easy mistake to make, especially if the very first time you’ve ever examined the subject is in the middle of a 13-page-long thread. But maybe you should read the rest of this comment. Or literally any primer on sex and gender.
The SDMB has an anti-trans “interested newbie” phenomenon, which has historically (but not always; I don’t want to accuse any specific person because sometimes they’re legit) turned out to be socks from current and former members here who are too cowardly and dishonorable to post how they really feel under their own anonymous screen names. This happens all the time in transgender threads.
The typical talking points are:
Try to redefine and confuse sex and gender.
Mix crossdressers with transgender persons in their examples.
Throw out the birth defect thing to deal with those pesky intersex folks like me.
Refer to “medical textbooks” or “biology”.
Demand that people write essays to educate them on points they could easily find out by Googling.
Wring hands over “how do we verify” someone is transgender.
Mock the brain studies by claiming they have “special medical knowledge” without providing cites.
Bring up the spectre of people faking being transgender, and “who will save the children.”
Claim some horrible “SJW policy” is out of control, while either misrepresenting or refusing to cite the policy (or refusing to discuss it after it’s proven the policy didn’t say what they claimed it did).
Make false insinuations as to what really happens in ladies’ rooms.
Claim that it’s “impossible” for children to know they are transgender (while willfully ignoring how children can know they are cisgender…)
Claim transgender persons are the “true bigots” by using the scientific word “cisgender” (while continuing to use “transgender”)
Focus on the numbers of transgender persons being small as reason to discriminate or dis-accommodate.
Then try to redefine and confuse sex and gender…
At least on the SDMB they don’t normally fall back on the religious arguments that make up the majority of what I have to debate against IRL (one reason I have a group of 4 clergy who work with me to stamp out those anti-trans pests).
I know, right? How people with actual skin in the game take matters seriously when folks who have no investment or care in the issue decide to play debate games with made-up Wiki-justifications for their wild ass opinion to justify why we need to be further discriminated against and dis-accommodated.
I respond with total seriousness and respect towards people who show seriousness and respect towards the issue.
For some, it’s a conversation. For me and mine, it’s more.
Maybe you haven’t read the thread. Is there a reasonable assumption that the person you are meeting through a dating service has good credit? If something like that is important to you then, yes, the obligation is on you to disclose your desire to only date people with good credit scores.
Wait. Are you accusing me of trolling? In Great Debates? Really?
Making an observation is not trolling or an admission of trolling. Accusing me of trolling on the other hand is against the rules.
Many accusations? Maybe I need to dial it back if you think I’m accusing you of stuff.
Pot calling kettle.
I am asking you YOUR opinion on the matter. Do you think transwomen are women full stop? Because the crux of his (and other people’s) argument seems to be based on that statement.
No you’re right, I use my phone and sometimes the autocorrect feature does weird stuff.
I also missed that one burden you think that the transgender should assume. That a transgender person should say something before their partner is confronted with unexpected genitalia. I was wrong, you did say that.
If we need to make reasonable accommodations for transgender folks that’s fine. You want to be able to use public bathrooms, sure, lets figure something out. You want to play on a gender segregated sports team? Sure, lets figure something out. You want to be able to change your gender on your birth certificate after GRS? Sure we can figure something out. But insisting that anyone that doesn’t want to date transgender folks have to put that in their profile so that transgender folks can date total strangers without letting them know that they are transgender is not reasonable.
What kindness am I showing the disabled that I am not showing the transgender?
I would say that someone in a wheelchair should say that up front before the first date.
I am addressing you. I am addressing you with his argument and asking for a response.
When someone says “what would you say to the people that say X” It is not really responsive to say “well, they didn’t ask me so I’m not going to answer”
I get criticized for being overly responsive and then i get criticized for not being responsive enough. Such is the lot of the rational person who wins too many arguments against emotional people.
Sly innuendo? I thought I was almost incredibly frank, I don’t know how I can be more frank than I have been. What is it that you think I am slyly trying to imply without actually saying?
You win nothing by having arguments where you shut the other side down by saying “I’m transgender and society makes my life miserable so you should let me win all the arguments” societal attitudes won’t change, they will only change the way they talk around you and if that’s all you want then I will just STFU.
You do realize that people tip toes around you a bit regarding these issues right, especially on this board? Everybody likes you (and I do too, you’re a better person than me in most ways) and I’m just an asshole that is bursting your bubble (and I’m really starting to feel like I should just STFU and let you keep believing that you are right about something on which I am pretty sure most reasonable people will think you are wrong).
So, can you present some cites for transwomen what were stalked and killed based on disclosure of their status on dating sites? Because I think this is about the 6th time I have heard this justification for dishonesty but no examples of this actually happening. ISTM transwomen get killed for not disclosing (or disclosing after the dating starts) far more than they do for stating their status on a dating site.
Sure, I realize that the disabled have protections the transgender don’t. AFAICT, most of mainstream America just thought of Transgender as a subject of homosexual. It wasn’t until we started respecting gay rights that we recognized that transgender issues were not merely gay issues plus a little extra. I mean, how long as trans issues been at the forefront of our social consciousness? AFAICT, it wasn’t until the conservatives couldn’t get any mileage out of persecuting gays anymore and they shifted their focus to transgender folks a few years ago.
Sure I feel sorry for transgender but that doesn’t mean that you get to win all the arguments just because life is especially unfair for you. Its a tough break but its your problem. I think society should make reasonable accomodations for your condition but that doesn’t mean we ought to do whatever you say and it doesn’t mean you can’t be wrong.
I am asking you the question, not him.
So why did you tell Fiera before your first date? Because you’re honest and you may not have felt as honest if you didn’t?
I said i posted things to get a reaction from you? Where did I say that? Or are you just accusing me of trolling again? One of us doesn’t understand what trolling means when I throw your argument style back in your face, that’s not trolling, not as I understand it.
I don’t laugh at you, I feel sorry for people like you (not you, mostly because you seem to have figured out how to deal with it all). And please stop making comments about my character, I get the impression that you are making it personal.
I don’t think I have bored you. I think I have challenged you in a way you don’t typically get challenged on this board because people like you and don’t really challenge you about stuff. I mean you MUST have noticed people gushing over your informative but fairly mundane posts, right?
In his “Philosophy of Antifa” video I’ve been meaning to make a thread about, Oliver SomeLastNameIDK makes a point about fascist speech I think applies well here too.
Link to specific section, but the whole video is good:
(Note that he’s using “Liberal” in the classical sense here, as in the philosophy of Liberalism, not left wing).
I’m not implicating any specific person, but the drive-by newbies and Youtube commenters and other assorted randos, when they make these claims they’re not necessarily saying that it’s true, they’re merely spreading a message to onlookers of the thread or video. It’s a message that doesn’t mean “children are mutilating their bodies because they’re a little confused and then regret it” or “men are pretending to be women to rape little girls in the women’s room”, it means “I want to persecute transgender people” and a signal for others to join in or look further into that message underlying the words they’re actually saying.
It must be beyond devastating and I wish anyone in such circumstances the absolute best. However, the thread was about mental illness. Whether someone is regarded as mentally ill should have its basis in science. Science is about the pursuit of knowledge and truth for its own sake. It is not about trying not to hurt people’s feelings.
Healthcare policy should be based upon many factors, including real science and the level of distress people are suffering. Science should not be polluted by vested interests. It is bad enough that right wingers in the US shun science and reality, it seems alive and well on the left as well.
Rather than bastardising science at the alter of healthcare, my advice would be that your country implement universal health care for all its citizens. This could be easily achieved if the poor were not so hell bent on donating their wealth to the top 1%.
Well if it’s not a mental illness, then what exactly does cause it, since it’s not something a person chooses? Is it something with a person’s brain structure, or whatever?
You don’t know people’s intent. Your use of language could be claimed to be doing the same thing you warn of. I don’t think that’s helpful in trying to advocate a position.
Where on earth did you get the idea that mental illness has any basis whatsoever in science?
“Mental illness” is a theory about being crazy — it dates back to the golden age of medical discovery and it reflects an optimistic hope that the human condition of being insane would prove to have a specific biomedical cause. But mostly that didn’t happen. In the rare cases where a proven biomedical cause was determined to be the source of behavioral and cognitive craziness, the illness was swiftly removed from the auspices of psychiatry and handed over to the branch of medicine relevant to that biomedical condition — neurology in the case of epilepsy, internal medicine in the case of tertiary syphylis, endocrinology in the case of hypothyroidism.
Perhaps you mean the whole thing about schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and clinical depression being caused by chemical imbalances? Surely those ailments are still classified as psychiatric!? Oh indeed they are — they just aren’t caused by chemical imbalances. Here’s how the chemical imbalances thing got started: some pharmaecuticals were found to blunt the most extreme symptoms displayed by psychotics in an institutional setting. There was a hopeful and optimistic suggestion that maybe those pharmaceuticals had those effects precisely because they addressed a medical deficit or blocked the action of some kind of medical agonist — a “chemical imbalance” — and that if we studied how the pharmaceuticals worked in the brain we’d quickly get a handle on the true nature of the underlying conditions and what they actually consisted of. But, nope, it simply isn’t so. Just as headaches are not aspirin-deficiency diseases, there was no chemical imbalance of that kind to be found even if the pharmaceuticals were wonderful as symptom relief. Actually they weren’t so wonderful even as symptom relief, but that’s a bit tangential to the point, which is that, no, regardless of what you may have heard, there is no medical science clearcut explanation of what any of the mental illnesses are and how they work at the brain level.
What we do know is that the label “mental illness” has a social function. It serves as a way of simultaneously discrediting the thoughts and behaviors of disturbing people, designating them as meaningless brain static, while giving the appearance of sympathetic and compassionate caring, which together excuse and exonerate the practice of involuntary incarceration and forced treatment of people. It masks the act of dealing with inconvenient and disturbing people as “for their own good” and therefore, magically, not a police function, not a coercive social response to them, oh no not at all, it’s a caring intervention. They don’t appreciate it because they’re too crazy to know how crazy they are. We do it to them for their benefit, not ours, really we do. It’s for their own good.
Sorry to say that latter insight comes from the social sciences. If you feel the need to confine yourself to what the physical sciences have to say about mental illness, you’re stuck with “their entire existence is an unresolved hypothesis”.
Those same disparaged social sciences do shed some light on why someone might wish to perceive transgender people as “mentally ill” though. It’s a way of stripping away any and legitimacy of whatever they may be saying about their identities and about gender in general, it sets the stage for declaring them to be “disturbed” (translation: disturbing), and it shifts the focus from “how do we need to change our collective behavior to better accommodate them as they’ve requested” to “how do we change or treat them with or without their consent since if they’re mentally ill they can’t decide that for themselves and it would just be for their own good anyhow”.
