Again, I think you’re making a mistake. There is a fundamental difference between *not having evidence for something *and having evidence that something does not work. If you have no evidence for something, then you can say nothing about it. If you have evidence that something doesn’t work, then you can say something about it - it doesn’t work. It’s a really important difference.
Think of it like trying to find out if it is raining. On one hand, I am inside a room with no windows, and I declare that it is. On the other, we have a rainfall-measuring device outside the room which registers no rain. In the first case, since I have no weather-knowing powers, my opinion is not reliable evidence. In this first case, because we have no reliable evidence, we cannot conclude anything; it might be raining. It might not be raining. In the second, we do have reliable evidence, that says that it isn’t raining. In such a situation we should conclude that it is, in fact, raining.
I really can’t emphasise the difference between a *lack of evidence *and an amount of evidence indicating no change enough. It’s an incredibly important distinction. I mean, to apply to medicine specifically, thousands of years ago there was no reliable evidence that aspirin, or quinine, or penicillin worked. But that does not mean we had evidence that those things had no effect. If they were the same thing, we would never have discovered their uses, or indeed the uses of any useful medical substance or tool.
I think this one’s my mistake for being unclear. The “topic” I referred to was not brain transplants, but transgender people and how they should be treated. That said, we need not actually have people undergoing brain transplants today for the hypothetical to matter, because unless our definitions of gender or sex depend upon our current medical technology, the answer to the question should show consistency even now.
Thanks for the cite, I found it interesting. So I did a few seconds of googling myself. This is all from a layman so feel free to correct or elaborate if you’re a sciency type.
Somatostatin would appear to have many functions within the human body. Since one of these is regulating the endocrine system, this study supports the theory that gender identity issues may be at least partially rooted in biology. However Somatostatin would appear to do alot of other stuff, and alot of other things affect the endocrine system. This does not seem to be definitive proof that these individuals possess a female mind trapped inside a male body (or vice versa). Isn’t it possible that these Somatostatin issues could aggravate psychological issues, and that gender identity issues are partly biological, partly psychological? If Somatostatin is the only issue and cause wouldn’t make sense to try to attempt to correct the Somatostatin discrepancy rather than give the patient testosterone or estrogen then perform extreme surgical procedures?
I read some of this thread. I was also married to someone who eventually began to identify as transgendered. During this time, while under the influence of three different (prescribed) psychiatric medications, I began to suspect that I was transgendered, though, really, it was just a response to the whole relationship issues thing. My thoughts from my experiences, both with my ex-spouse and the community at large.
There are some people who really do seem to have always been the opposite of their physical gender. There are also people who seem to be just generally fucked in the head. In my ex’s case, it seemed to be more of a positive feedback thing. He cross-dressed once in a while, got positive feedback. Created a persona, got positive feedback. Started on hormones without a prescription. . .etc.
In my case. . .well. It was complicated, and medicated. But I’m not, and it never went beyond some vague musings and a mildly embarassing thread on this board.
In the end, though. . .really, if spmeone considers themselves to be a gender, I don’t lose anything by acknowledging that and respecting that, other than some kind of vague committment to the concept of truth. Well, frankly? Fuck that. My social interactions aren’t a science experiment, and I’m not being held to some kind of standard of empirical truth. If it improves people’s lives to refer to them by their preferred gender, then I’ll do it. It doesn’t cost me anything. And, really, it’s not for me to determine whether or not someone else’s situation is somehow legitimate.
I believe that the mechanism behind it is still up for debate. But, you know, regardless of any of that, everyone deserves to be treated with dignity and respect. Holding abstract truth over their well-being is wrong.
Again, since poeple seeem incapable of understanding this, I do not bother judging what someone’s “legitimacy” is, because that is not a relevant or valid question. What I do judge is what someone functionally is by their measurable physical makeup, without emotion. My exasperation is not for the subject, but for you (plural), that you cannot seem to grasp that the very concepts you are talking about are themselves fictional.
This is why I made a comparison to wolves and gods. The entire human species is far younger than Male and Female. The sexual functions are old. That women usually wear dresses in this society is not relevant to the individual’s self-perception or the functional uses of grammar. There are no “women trapped in a man’s body” because I do not accept the fictional constructions of men and women regardless of what culture creates it, period, ever.
Have you ever given the slightest consideration to the idea that our best well-being is found in truth? That poeple would be better off accepting what is (and which they fundamentally cannot change) and ignoring that which is not. The fact that anyone cares about their
Franly, I get the distinct impression of a lot of poeple whining about others because they themselves can’t serperate emotions from fact. I can, and reserve the right to condemn your pursuit of fuzzy thinking and investment in the very worldview you claim to question. I categorically reject the concepts of gender identity which you as a whole seem incapable of doing while busily subverting it. There are only two specific sexes (plus a minimal amount of intersexed humans due to biological error). Anything you want to talk about beyond that is an irrelevancy.
I treat people based on the human creatre (faults and virtues) not some arbitrary category they place themselves into. If they proved themselves worthy, I can embrace someone who adhered to the Nazi-AlQaeda-WestboroBaptist-CommunistButcher-LiberationFront. This is not the same thing as refusing to perceive the culturally-created communication signals (and the relevance of this statement to the current topic should be obvious). Indeed, I lack compassion principally in one area: people who try to fool around with thought or truth and then try to change the nature of the debate when they find they can’t understand what they themselves brought up. I refuse to condone or excuse sloppy thinking. I have defined my terms, explained how they are derived and why they are logically consistent and applicable, and what the consequences of these principles are. If you cannot deal with that sort of thing, there isn’t anything more to say and your entire paradigm fails to interact with mine.
This is ironic coming after there have been several posts and links to scientific evidence for specific brain phenomena that contradict your simplistic claims of just two sexes and your denial of gender.
It seems to me that what most irritates you is not a failure of some posters to “accept truth” so much as your own desire to reject any truth that does not comport itself in the world-is-black-and-white manner you need to assert. I would agree that there have been several posts on gender confusion in this thread that have were pretty squishy in terms of logic, but your absolutist claims in denial of the scientific facts (even if the facts turn out to have differing levels of relevance) are no more logical.
No, I’m still not making the connection. I’m glad I have genitals, but it seems to me that if I had a different set of genitals, I’d be just as happy about them. To the extent it matters to me at all, it’s just that I want to eventually have kids with someone, and I find it convenient that my genitals and orientation are such that I can do so by having sex with someone I’m attracted to. If you transplanted my brain into a female body, I would regard myself as a female lesbian, and would be mildly inconvenienced that my equipment wasn’t appropriate to breed with a person such as I’m attracted to (and, of course, would also amuse myself by sitting naked in front of a mirror, but that’s irrelevant).
So, you would agree that the following statement is true - 'We do not know if homeopathy cures cancer".
What you seem to believe is that double-blind studies are worthless. Which is pretty ridiculous.
Read one of my earlier cites. They divided up transsexuals seeking SRS into two groups - one got the surgery and the other did not. There was no statistically significant difference in their outcomes. I.e. - it doesn’t work.
I’ll have to admit that i’m not an expert in homeopathy-cancer studies. If there are are reliably performed studies into the subject, which show that there is an effect, or that there isn’t, then we do know. If there aren’t any reliable studies, then we don’t. I’d guess there probably are, but I don’t have any to hand.
To try and clarify, “studies show that homeopathy has zero effect on cancer” is not an equivalent claim to “homeopathy studies are flawed, and so we do not know if they cure cancer”, or indeed “we have no data, so we do not know if they cure cancer”.
Double-blind studies are not inherently worthless, certainly. They can be extremely useful. Like any other type of study, they may well be flawed, however. I’d say the ridiculousness of the idea is a good reason for me not holding that opinion, but eh, i’m sure i’ve given you reason to have such an opinion.
Which cite are you referring to? The second cite i’ve argued is out-of-date, and you haven’t contested that as of yet. The first cite is not about a study which shows no statistically significant difference, but rather, a group commissioned by the paper to look at studies in general, who believed that the results were (in general) not reliable; in fact, they specifically claim that the results (due to the unrealiability) favour the claim that it does help, which would tend to suggest that those studies (if they were reliable) showed that they did help. Again, it’s the difference between “the data shows there is no effect” and “the data is not reliable, and should not be considered”. Have I missed one of your cites?
I don’t really feel like looking it up, but I recall reading about the proportion of people who had regrets. The early cases were like 1/5 but I recall reading that it’s dropped to like 1-2% in the present day.
I don’t understand why some people don’t get this.
Brains are gendered. The cite I keep bookmarked for occasions like this won’t load at the moment. The short version-
The part of the brain in question cannot be examined properly in live patients.
Sex hormones do not appear to effect or change it in adulthood.
The gender of the brain does not always match the genotype of the body.
Somebody saying “I’m a wolf!” is claiming a biological impossibility. Somebody claiming “I have a male brain and female body” is backed by solid science.
You wouldn’t happen to know what sort of accuracy this actually has, would you? There’s obviously been cases where people have managed to conceal or deny such a gender mismatch their whole lives, but I’d imagine that there’s some tiny number of cases where someone has asserted such a thing where the brain was actually matched to their birth gender. I’m just curious if anyone knows how often this happens.
1.) There are sex differences in the chromosomes;
2.) There are sex differences in the form and function of the genitalia;
3.) There are sex differences in the skeleton;
4.) There are sex differences in body fat distribution;
5.) There are sex differences in the brain.
If you can accept that there are a very few individuals out there for whom some of these are either ambiguous or mismatched to one another, then what is so impossible about the combination of having numbers 1, 2, 3, and for the most part 4, at odds with number 5?
You’re saying you only see your genitals as a means to procreate? If someday when you have kids, you woke up one morning to find your genitalia completely gone, you wouldn’t be devastated? (Assuming you could still experience sexual pleasure somehow.)
That you view the concepts as fictional doesn’t mean that they don’t influence someone else’s experience. You judge other people’s legitimacy–I admit, that was crappy word choice, but bear with me–by saying something like this:
They would be. But, guess what? You don’t get to decide what’s best for everyone else. If someone says that it makes them feel better to be referred to as female instead of male, or to operate as a male instead of as a female within the culture they’re inhabiting, what gives you the right to say, “no, it doesn’t actually make you feel better?”
And if they do say they feel better, and it doesn’t negatively impact society or put themselves or others in imminent physical danger, why shouldn’t they be indulged?
I’m not debating whether there’s an organic cause for gender dysphoria; I’m arguing that it shouldn’t matter whether there is or isn’t because the civil thing to do is to allow them to conduct casual social transactions as their chosen gender.
If I’ve had enough kids that I can be absolutely certain that I would never want any more, then no, I wouldn’t be devastated at all. Though I would be extremely curious as to how it happened, since body parts just spontaneously disappearing overnight is a rather rare phenomenon.
Why, should I view my genitals as something other than as a means to procreate and to experience sexual pleasure? What else would they be?
Let’s be honest here: the gender you see someone as is largely based on your sexual preference. In particular, most people want to avoid having sex with someone who could conceivably be the wrong gender for their preference. As a heterosexual male, here are my guidelines:
Woman’s brain in a man’s body? Man.
Man’s brain in a woman’s body? Man.
Woman who thinks she is Napoleon? Man.
I’m not serious above, but I do think it is a large part of the reason some people are so unwilling to accept the possibility that there are real structural brain differences between males and females, and sometimes brain and body don’t match.
As the research requires brain dissection the progress has been slow, relying on deceased transsexual people who had agreed to brain donation prior to death. That’s only a subset of a very small minority of the population.
I’ve read some of the published scientific literature and the results seem both consistent and clear, but the sample they’re working from is quite small so it’s too early to state that it is definitive proof.
Regardless, even if we had rock-solid proof of transsexuality being a result of brain structures not matching the body the religious and irrational would still deny the truth of it, just as they deny evolution and other scientific facts they find inconvenient.
No, I just don’t consider there to be “male” and “female” brains. All humanity is probability: distribution curves so sharp as to represent extremely strong distinctions. There is no such thing as a male brain: just brains with specific characteristics with a probability of matching other brains of people with the same genitalia.
Simpler version; If someone feels that they have different interests from most people of their sex, so what? It doesn’t mean they are the other sex. It means… they have different interests. And that’s perfectly fine. Hell, if someone really wants to be the other sex, that’s fine too. They cannot actually become so.
It’s not about truth, but about clear thought which leads to it. Sure, I believe I am right in knowing this truth, but the point is not to absolutely find it now but to accept reality for that it is, even if we specifically disagree on our assuptions about it. And it pisses me off to no end when people talk about their feelings. Feelings can only be relevant after the mind. The chest must rule the head must rule the heart must rule the genitals, metaphorically speaking.
I do not deny the science. What I deny is the facile and self-serving meaning ascribed to that science by some here. That pisses me off to no end. The science simply says they are possibly outliers in terms of brain function, a situation I can well understand in several ways.
I don’t know if Chronos understands or agrees with me, but he gets it. Sure, if someone changed my genitals around I’d be miffed (for one thing, penises are very useful for avoiding certain diseases and being quicker and less messy), but they don’t define who and what I am. The only oddity would be that I’d be annoyed is someone randomly replace just one aspect of my body with a woman’s (or a sheep’s, or Napoleon’s): it wouldn’t match and it wouldn’t work as well. I’d have only part of the function and it might not even be a function I choose to want.
I have no problem with it. But there is no ambiguity in it either, and it’s all probability and statistical distribution. Your brain is simply your brain, nothing more or less. it wasn’t meant for anyone else or another body. It’s simply your body, your brain, nothing more or less. If you (the generic, abstract “you”) really could change to another sex, it might or might not help you feel better, nor would I stop you. But you aren’t magically “meant” to be anything else. You might, depending on your views of causality and theology, might not be “meant” at all. You are what you are, nothing more. Or less.
That’s not judging anyone’s “legitimacy,” which is a hazy and meaningless concept much favored by post-modernist precisely because it means nothing. People aren’t legitmate or illegitimate. But their feelings and thoughts can be ordinate (that is, relevant, appropriate, and accurate) to the reality around them.
Whether you feel like you’d like to be a girl or an animal or Napoleon is definitely not relevant. You either are or are not. The fact that this means you might have to accept you don’t entirely fit in with the culture around you is a subsequent and seperate issue.
Hold on there, 'hoss. I didn’t say it didn’t make them feel better. It might do just that, or not. But I am not going to pray Let’s Pretend to amuse them. let them dress up in women’s clothing and mutilate their genitals all they like, they are not changing sexes. For that matter, a constant stream of ecstacy or being surrounded by an adulating crowd of people telling me I’m fantastic and great and wonderful would also be really pleasurable. But the pleasure they create is ephemeral and in fact deadens existence. It does not mean I am living a good life, but just the opposite, covers for a really bad one.
You are talking about gender, which I don’t recognize at all. What the fuck is gender? Where do I find some? How do I measure it?
Moreover, after that weak claim that I’m saying what’s good for others*, you don’t get to decide what’s best for me simply by pretending your asking a question rather than telling me what to do. It does offend my mind and my lifelong struggle with truth and fact to call a thing what it is not. It does offend me to be asked to pretend something that is real is not except in play and for practicing for for real things.
But there is a huge problem with it in any case. Cultures create meaning by channeling communication so we don’t have to start every interaction by completely rebuild language and thought. This is where these poor people are hitting a brick wall - they can’t set outside that cultural frame and accept that they may not fit into to it in one way. If they could, there’d be no problem. What you are asking, however, is to disrupt those channels but pretend they are not being changed at all. And that will tend over time to destroy that very channel entirely, leaving it in a state of confusion and chaos devoid of meaning.
You could ask to change the channel. You could, for example, state that men should be allowed to wear frilly sundresses. In some times and places this might indeed have been considered “manly”. We can only guess that men who wanted to wear loose trousers likewise felt confused. We can probably guess that men who really wish to experience life/sex/their own body as a female almost always feel confused and unhappy. However, the answer is not in going about deliberately confusing people to soothe our own inner Ego (or maybe Id).
If communication is to mean anything, it msut be kept consistent, and always free of the do-gooders who want to use it in the kindliest manner. Gentleman once meant something. When it was turned from a descriptor into a compliment, it went from meaning something of value to a word which simply meant “polite”. But we already had words to mean the latter, and so gentleman lost its value. In the same way, more subtlely but more importantly, this pollutes thought and language, and will if anything lead to greater confusion and personal anguish. We something like it in the lack of positive identity which hurts so many people these days, post-modernist thought devouring itself like the Ouroboros.
*Here’s a better one: I do claim to know what is best for people. Now there’s no need to argue over it. What I don’t claim to believe others are “fake” or “legitimate”. I also don’t feel the need to force them to do what I say.
I further find it amusing that people claim it’s not possible to be a “wolf in a human’s body”. Why not, exactly? I am prepared to well believe there are people who would very much prefer to be an animal, just as there are people who very much wish they were the opposite sex, or Napoleon, and even act as if they were. Now, exactly who here is defining what is “legitimate” or not, hmmm? There’s no difference between the crazy man and the sane one, except that the supposedly sane one can manage to take care of himself.
