I think you’re comitting the same problem here that you’re complaining of in others; not actually understanding or taking into account the other person’s views. Just because you disagree with the notion of a “male” or “female” brain, does not mean that others don’t, and that in doing so find reason to consider the idea of a “wolf in a human’s body” to be an absurd idea while not saying the same for a “man in a woman’s body” (or vice-versa). The reasoning, it seems from my perspective, has been spelled out - and while you may certainly disagree with definitions and assumptions, surely that doesn’t mean you aren’t able to see how an argument accepting those concepts might go.
I mean, I disagree with you, but that doesn’t mean that I can’t see how the arguments you’re making stem from and logically lead from your base assumptions (at least, I hope I can).
Beyond that, I believe I disagree with your notion of not having other’s views or definitions forced upon you, or that you will not force your definitions or views onto others. By claiming that it is a matter of truth versus falsehood, falsehoods being a general problem for society, don’t you make the assumption that it is your views which are truth (not exactly a problem), but that society as a whole works per your own personal views? I mean, logically speaking, if everyone else in the world had different concepts of truth and falsehood, then even if they were wrong, a destruction of actual truth might well have no effects on a society which holds to “untrue” truth, if that makes sense. I mean, to put it another way, if somehow you manage to subvert the idea that 1+1=2, that probably won’t mean a vast amount to a society which thinks that 1+1=3. To say that a certain subversion of truth will have negative effects on society presumes that that society holds to that subverted truth.
Don’t be silly. I do udnerstand their views. I;'m saying they are not logically consistent or rigorous and that their assumptions are poorly grounded in mistaken confusions over what science says.
:dubious:
What? Since when did I say that society works like anything, apart form the notion of communication / channels of meaning? This isn’t about what society is, but rather what huamns are. If you want to talk about what societyis or should be, that’s a different question.
Society is a mass of crazy people, half of which are of below average intelligence, and few of which want to look at their real circumstances . I don’t claim here that they believe anything in particular, but rather, that you are deliberately subverting how people communicate. And it is a subversion, not a change.
Don’t confuse the fact that I am talking about truth which what society believes, because they are not the same thing, nor do I think so, nor did I say so. Society looks at male and female sexes and communicates that to each other. This makes a lot of very useful things possible, but whether it is good or bad is not my concern. Advocate the channel be revoked in that case, but do not attempt to change it while pretending it is not being changed. All things should be done without deception.
Edit: And know what it is you are changing if you do want to say so.
smiling bandit, hand me an ounce of race or an ounce of culture or an ounce of heritage or an ounce of whatever sociological construct you care to name. I can’t give you a cup of gender, but I can point you to the fact that there are different expectations for males and females in society. Men are expected to act one way, and women are expected to act another. Men are expected to dress one way, and women are expected to dress in another. I don’t think that you’re arguing that these differences in expectations don’t exist.
Now, take an individual who feels that they can operate better within the confines of the other gender–for instance, an individual with XY chromosomes who feels they can operate better within the female gender role. Maybe this is due to some sort of quirk of brain chemistry or structure or what-have-you (as stated upthread, and in the other GD thread, there’s some evidence for that). Maybe it isn’t. But if a person feels that they can operate better within that role, and are doing everything they realistically can to conform to said role, then I think there’s less inherent confusion in addressing them as he/she, him/her by the terms of that role, as opposed to by the terms of biology.
But within their views, the idea of a “wolf in a human’s body” and a “man in a woman’s body” can be considered to be different things (and so treated and considered differently).
Possibly i’ve just misunderstood your points. My point was that communication is only subverted if everyone holds to the view being subverted. If 9 people call a dog a dog, and one person calls it a cat, and over time that one person’s view gets greater prominence, then communication problems will ensue. But if all 10 people call a dog a cat, even though it’s not one, there won’t be any communication problems. Everyone will know what you mean when you talk about cats. The problem you’re highlighting doesn’t arise from truth, but from lack of consistency. Communication can’t be subverted by an untruth if everyone believes that untruth; if you refer to X as X in a society where everyone believes X is X, there’s no communication problems. If you refer to X as Y when everyone believes X is Y, again, there’s no communication problems.
Honestly, if anything, I would say it’s your usage of the terms “male” and “female” that are different from the norm, not the other way around.
Certainly there are societal expectations for men and women. Men are expected to earn a paycheck, while women are expected to raise children. Men are expected to like action stories, while women are expected to like romances. Men are expected to watch sports, while women are expected to watch performance arts. But if a man wants to be a full-time stay-at-home dad, prefers Sleepless in Seattle to Terminator 2, and would rather spend the evening at the ballet than at the big game, that doesn’t mean that he’s a woman; it means that society’s expectations of him are wrong. To say that peoples’ genders are defined by the societal expectations of gender isn’t a rejection of the binary classification, it’s an over-enthusiastic embrace of it.
And if it differs, you simply declare that it does not really because you cannot wrap your thoughts around a concvept outside your comfort zone. (In other words, it bothers your feelings.)
On the other hand, you are willing to ignore the science when it does not conform to your narrow definitions, simply because you do not like the way others frame the discussion. It IS about truth, and you want to define the argument in such a way that only the “truth” that you feel comfortable accepting, (such as the denial of gender), can be discussed.
As to feelings being mandated to follow the mind, the world would be a much poorer place if love, friendship, patriotism, honor, and other mere feelings were subject to the rational decisions that would dictate we never extend ourselves for another person if it might bring harm or loss to ourselves. YMMV.
Fair point; I think it’s more complex than raw stereotypes, though. However, that really isn’t relevant to this thread. It’s not a rejection of binary classification, but rather a rejection of the idea that it’s biology that determines one’s slot, and not one’s own definition or presentation.
If an XY individual decides to live in the role of a woman–to embrace that role, and all the challenges and conflicts that come with it–and chooses to present himself to the world that way, it’s better to just acknolwedge her as such in situations where biology itself isn’t of immediate importance. The reverse applies, as well.
And, really, when you get down to it, unless you’re a medical professional or looking to become intimate with the person, the role that a person lives in is way more relevant to everyday experience than their chromosomal makeup and/or OEM genitalia.
Whether or not the desire to do so is biologically determined, influenced by environment, or a long-lasting, persistent delusion is irrelevant. I don’t think it causes any harm. If it doesn’t cause harm, then I don’t see a reason not to. They have the opportunity to make their reality virtually indistinguishable from what they believe it should be. Good for them.
And I don’t really give a shit what they do. I’m saying I am not going to play Let’s Pretend to suit them, that it’s probably not healthy, and that it won’t really solve their problems. Neither am I saying that they should just go along with whatever society claims is right. I am saying they should damn well accept that they don’t quite fit in with the common categories and figure out on their own what to do, rather than choosing from binary choices, and deal with the fact that they’ll have to explain themselves more often than they’d like if they make a point of being obvious about it.
But that’s the problem. Here the demand is not that I call a dog a cat, but that I call some dogs cats if and when the dogs feel like it, while the dogs themselves aren’t sure if they are dogs or cats, and without any particular rule or useful information being communicated. That’s why it’s “subverting” the channel and not changing it.
I believe I defined that extremely specifically beforehand. You shgould be able to locate my stated definitions in this thread. While it is quite true that I define things differently, I also define them more clearly.
Yeah, that’s one of the single stupidest statements I’ve seen yet in my life. You actualy think I say this because it makes me comfortable? I should probably pit you for that. My analysis leads to believe that not only are we utterly without a real identity, but much of what we call “ourselves” is a conditioned response, and that the only way to really approach something real - or even to appreciate the value of culture - is to accept that it is false and work to acheive a deeper understanding. It’s incredibly arrogant to think this brings me comfort. No, it frightens the bejeezus out of me, and it means that everything I am might be fake, or even that I cannot perceive reality. Ruthless self-analysis is the only escape from madness.
blinks
You just randomly quoted something and didn’t bother to read it, didn’t you? I’ve seen you do it before. If you had bothered, you would have seen that I explained that certain posters were assigning an incorrect social meaning to the science. Unlike you apparently do, I specifically do not feel free to interpret scientific fact as it suits me.
As with all simple thinkers, you fail to comprehend what I actually said. This 'analysis" is so facile it fails to even approximate what I said. Epic Fail. try reading for once, and you might get a healthy dose.
Here is another way of saying it: feelings cannot dictate morality, only sympathy. Morality, including the value of truth and how we create and alter society, must flow from Reason, imperfect as human reason is. Our feelings are transitory, erratic, always personal, and rarely honest. They cannot accomplish even the ends they desire, and there is no truth in them. I value them for what they are, but not because they ought to rule the human being. They can only motivate, but never explain or direct properly.
Indeed, the big problem with feelings is that they are both powerful and in conflict. Feelings change, often from moment to moment, and balance against each other both in different people and in the individual. When someone suddenly cuts me off in traffic, I have multiple feelings: Confusion, fear, anger, and soon relief. But none of them separately can tell me what I should do.
In order to decide that, my Reason must direct those feelings. I must encourage some, moderate others, quash still more feelings. And everybody does this every single day of their lives, without even thinking about it, just to get by. I do not claim (would never claim, and have pointed out the falsity of claiming this before), that reason is or should be logic thought devoid of emotion. If so, it would be useless to us. But it must control and direct us or we are not humans but beasts.
My Reason tells me that, with careful consideration, we do not have the power to alter one sex to another. it also tells me that, while they are useful and descriptive of socially adaptive purposes, culture categories of sex are partly arbitrary and cannot be a carrier of ultimate value. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with those who “feel” they aren’t in the “right gender”, because they cannot be the “wrong gender”. They are what they are. They can either square with that and that they cannot have what they desire, and proceed to go on and live as they can, or spend their lives trying to chase after it. Some may even do awful things trying to “fit into” the role they think they “should” become. And ultimately I am saying they don’t have to. They choose or create any role and don’t have to live by other people’s norms. And if they choose to dance around those norms with pretense, they have no good and decent way to demand others pretend along with them.
The thing is, those binary choices are entrenched as the norm; if someone wants to fufill the role of a female–wants to embrace that aesthetic and dress in those clothes and serve that role in society and all that good stuff–it’s a lot easier to do it if they’re named Jill than if they’re named Jack. People in general don’t do really well with others that buck the norm; fully adopting the gender role, including forms of address and such, allows, IMHO, for something closer to normalcy. And deep down, a lot of people want to be normal.
The thing is, though, you state that people should figure out on their own what to do–and they do. Some people choose to live in that grey area. Some people choose to transition. Thing is, though, if they make the choice for themselves, I think that it’s courteous and civil to respect that, and to use the form of address that they prefer. Will they have to sometimes explain? Yes, of course. I think most people who transition or who are in the process of transitioning understand this, however, and are at the very least resigned to it.
In the end, even if you think the whole thing is hooey, I see it as being, at worst, a polite fiction. It’s not really any different than being shown a picture of your co-worker’s newborn and saying, “oh, he’s so cute!” even if he isn’t. Or, maybe more aptly, no different than an atheist returning a heartfelt “Merry Christmas!” with “Merry Christmas to you, too!” or “Thank you; you too!” Civility is made of such things.
If one were to choose to deliberately not acknowledge that person’s choice, and were to continue to use the forms of address not preferred by that person, then. . .well, the person would be well within their rights to do so. I would also think that person was being unnecessarily uncivil, and therefore kind of a jerk, at least in that circumstance.
But the entirety of communication is drawing the line between specificity and generalities, with the lines being pretty much subjective. As I understand, you’ve already yourself pointed out that there are people who subvert your definitions. What metric do you use to decide where the lines of definition are drawn?
But you define them differently. Communication is not aided by people who stick to non-norm definitions. I would argue that it is considerably more likely that, on the whole, neither of us will convince the other we are right. With that in mind, the vast majority of people define these things in a different way to you, so if useful information is a goal when communicating, you’re shooting yourself in the foot by sticking to yours. If I am muddling the waters because the words I used I define more loosely, why is it not a subversion for you to muddle the waters by defining the words you use in an abnormal way? In both situations, the information is less useful.
You may define things more clearly, but if you have to explain your definitions to people - and indeed find yourself in a debate where you appear amused or annoyed to find that people are incapable of understanding your definitions and your arguments - i’m not entirely sure I can see your side as being the clear one. Communication is, after all, not just about sending.
Hmm. I point out that you are doing something because you are uncomfortable and you call my statement stupid because you claim I am saying it makes you comfortable.
I think you just broke the irony meter, particularly when you challenge my reading skills.
You are the one who is in denial about the facts, regardless of interpretation. Several citations have been provided regarding the way that human brains function, with clear indicators that both form and function can have conflicting messages. As long as you persist in asserting only a binary “sexual” identity and heaping scorn on anyone who does not accept your limited interpretation, you are in no position to object to others on the basis that they are “interpreting” anything.
You and I have been using the word feelings in different ways. That said, you are setting up a straw man argument:
Your reason is based on little more than your feelings about how the world should be. The evidence, (presented above), is that the human mind is much more complex–the brain is much more complex–than you are willing to acknowledge, so you roar into these discussions with your condemnation of what you fail to understand.
As I have already noted, a number of your opponents have demonstrated poor logic and several have expressed beliefs that are no more factual than yours, but their errors do not make yours correct by default. That Lamarck and Haeckel got the process of evolution wrong does not make the Creationist argument the default truth.
Angel of the Lord, your attitude falls into the response category I like to call, “Don’t bother the nice lady about her penis.” This is increasingly how people seems to be responding to MTF transsexuals and it is a great improvement over those who choose to be rude or worse.
I’ll take your word that a transsexual has a similar brain to a person of the other gender. What I fail to understand is why the genitals are assumed to have anything to do with this. I mean, I don’t go through life thinking, “Gee, I sure am glad I have a penis!” If I had been born with a female body, and thus didn’t have memory of possessing a male body to refer to, I honestly don’t think that my male brain would notice that there was something wrong.
Basically, I feel people are drawing the wrong conclusion from this, and using it to bolster the idea that “physical gender” (being a male or a female) and “behavioural gender” (acting and thinking in a stereotypically male or female manner) should be the same rather than attack it.
Many times dysmorphia accompanies gender identity issues. I don’t know why, nor have I read any scientific explanation, but it is common. The severity varies from person to person and also can vary dependent on hormone usage and other factors. Some people hurt themselves because of it.
Not every transsexual wants surgery. Some don’t think the results worth it. Some don’t like the associated risks. Many can’t afford it. Some are not candidates due to health issues. The same does for hormone treatment, though most I have heard opine on it do prefer to take hormones.
One thing I find laughable is that people who don’t have any such issues with their own gender seem to feel free to make judgments on how those with it choose to deal with it, like they will only acknowledge a person’s preferred gender identity if they have had surgery. Sadly, some of these judgments are enshrined in law or government policy.
I agree with you, Grumman. The people advocating for the “trans people have brains of the opposite sex” view haven’t provided any reason as to why that’s relevant, or realize they’re actually reinforcing traditional gender/sex binaries that dictate how sex should correspond to gender identity and performance. My personal hunch is that the brain theories presented here are not going to pan out to much. It just sounds like an attempt by the non-queer majority to rationalize unconventional gender experiences by reducing them to traditional gender binaries, as in “this biological man can’t possibly self-identify as a woman, he has a penis! Unless…he actually is a biological woman, albeit in some abstract way! AHA! Society’s conventional notions of male biology=male gender identity=male gender performance (or wait, gender isn’t performed, women are biologically geared to wear makeup and men to love fast cars, it’s in their DNA) triumphs again!” Kind of like how they were trying to prove for a while that homosexuality in men was the result of having a lot of estrogen or something, and most evidence now shows that probably has next to nothing to to do with it.
It’s relevant because the central claim against transsexualism is that it’s contrary to biology. Your argument is centered around the idea that if you have boy parts, you must be a boy, and if you have girl parts, you must be a girl. But there’s more to physical gender than dicks and pussies: just because that’s the parts that are easiest to see, doesn’t mean they’re the most important. And since most of you are willing to make exceptions for people with ambiguous genitalia, it’s entirely reasonable to ask why that set of sex-linked physical characteristics gets a pass, but this set of sex-linked physical characteristics does not.
I look forward to seeing your hunch submitted to a peer-reviewed journal.
Jesus, if only this was the view of the non-queer majority. If that were the case, there wouldn’t be an issue with transsexual rights at all. Unfortunately, the non-queer majority tends to side with you: that sex is immutable, and any who challenges that assumption must be mentally ill.
Do you honestly think that anyone who supports transsexual rights is hung up on enforcing traditional gender roles? Seriously? I mean, I suppose there are a few - if there’s people who are okay with gender bending, but get as bent out of shape by transsexualism as smiling bandit does, I guess there’s got to be someone out there who thinks guys turning into women is okay, but only so long as they turn into June Cleaver.
But I’m guessing that’s pretty fucking rare. I’m thinking most people who view sex as a changeable attribute got over the gender hurdle a long-ass time ago.
My argument isn’t actually centred around the idea that “if you have boy parts you must be a boy, and if you have girl parts, you must be a girl.” At least it isn’t intended to be, because that is not what I believe. It seems to me that is what you’re arguing; isn’t a female/male brain a kind of male/female part? I guess what I was getting at, is why does gender have to correspond to biology? Is the problem that transgendered people were born into the “wrong body”? Or is the problem that our society expects male-sexed people to be born with a male gender identity? I wonder if the reason so many transsexuals feel so tortured growing up is because of this binary that dictates male gender identity has to correspond to male biological sex, and female gender identity with female sex. If this binary didn’t exist, could trans people live happily with the bodies they were given? If someone was born biologically male but wanted to be treated as female from an early age and everyone accepted him as female, would he/she be really bothered by the fact they had no breasts and a penis and more hair if no one else cared? Maybe transsexuals would still grow up and want sex reassignment and hormone replacement, who knows. But our current notions that sex must be connected to gender, as you seem to assume, is the root is the root of discrimination against trans people, and virtually forces them to medically alter themselves because society is outraged by a woman with a little bit of stubble. I’m thinking society would be a better place for trans people if society did away with the notion that gender identity has any correlation with biological sex. Just not caring about people’s biological properties and accepting whatever gender they identify as, seems like the most humane thing to me. Your brain theory seems to assume that if a man identifies as a woman, he must be biologically female, even if it’s on a hormonal or neurological capacity-this seems like a step backwards, instead of freeing ourselves from gender restraints placed on us because of the sex we’re born with.
I would be interested to see a cite that indicates brain microstructures cause behaviour, as opposed to perpetual behaviour altering brain microstructures. Or what reason there is to treat homosexual transsexualism and non-homosexual transsexualism as the same etiology, which the brain hypothesis seems to do. This link is interesting and addresses the claims of Zhou et. al, which I think was the first study to propose the brain theory. http://www.annelawrence.com/twr/brain-sex_critique.html
I think it’s pretty obvious I never implied that transsexualism is the result of mental illness. Did you actually read my posts carefully before you assumed I was a bigot? Because I assure you, I am not. We’re pretty much on the same side here, we just differ in the nuances.
Perhaps the non-LGBTQ majority generally accepts that things like makeup and fast cars are culturally imbued notions of gender that are foisted on men and women, and not things they are born wanting. The ones that support LGBTQ rights might be even be starting to accept the idea that gender is at least partially a construction (although to what extent gender is a construction, no one can say they know for sure and I’m trying not to argue about that point). I probably over-reached, athough I was being a little tongue in cheek there. But I don’t think people who generally support trans rights while reinforcing gender roles are pretty fucking rare. I have a male cousin who is gay and very, very, very effeminate. Like wearing a full face of makeup every day, mostly female friends, loves fucking pink and glittery tight girl clothes-basically as close to enacting a traditional notion of a female gender role as you can get. Many people mistake him for a biological female at a distance. One time someone in the family asked him point blank if he was planning to transition to become a woman. He replied no, he wasn’t, he thought of himself as completely male, he was just really feminine and liked being that way. This completely blew her fucking mind. It sounds weird, but she was really irked by the fact he didn’t want to become a woman. She was all, “but he acts like a woman! Doesn’t that mean he wants to be one? It doesn’t make sense to me!” She could understand and support his homosexuality, since he told her it’s genetic and she has met gays and lesbians and seen their relationships aren’t different from those of straight people. She could support transsexuality, because then at least men who act like women actually become women so the gender/sex binary is sort of intact. But a man co-opting behaviours that belong to a female gender role, without wanting to become that sex? Proudly sporting a nutsack and wearing eyeshadow? Totally effing incomprehensible to her. Everything has to kind of fit into her notions of gender roles and the way straight relationships operate for her to understand it. He’s encountered this from a few people so I don’t think this attitude is extremely rare, even if it may not be really common. You might also want to consider Aubrey Levin, who allegedly forced homosexuals in the military to undergo sex-reassignment surgery. http://www.thegully.com/essays/africa/000825sexchange.html Apparently the South African military was a lot more “accepting” of the idea of transsexuals (even if it has to be forced on people), than people that fall outside of the traditional gender roles that say men can’t be attracted to other men or women to other women. All of which brings me to my previous assertion that a lot of the non-LGBTQ majority feel a need to attempt to make LGBTQ individuals and communities fit into traditional gender roles and binaries.
Aaaaaaannnddd that concludes the end of my spiel. Things get pretty heated here on the SDMB, don’t they?
This is in response to some of what Ataraxia says:
I sort of understand where you’re going with all that. I even have some experience in “gender bending” though not in the sexual sense. I’m a woman and I’ve always had an interest in boy’s toys, boy’s hobbies, etc. In fact, I currently work in construction and landscape maintenance, going to work with my pick up truck in my work boots, jeans, and flannel shirt and using power tools like chain saws. All very masculine, butch, whatever. As a result, I’ve been accused of being a dyke, a transsexual, a wannabe transsexual…
You know, I have NEVER, not for one second, ever doubted I was a woman. I don’t want to be a man (well, the upper body strength would be nice, but I’d like to have a man’s strength in a woman’s body). I am as heterosexual as it is possible to be, having zero sexual interest in my own gender, never having had a fantasy or a dream of a homoerotic nature…
This screws with some peoples’ heads. They can’t reconcile my butch behavior with my complete heterosexuality and complete comfort in being a woman.
On the other hand, I have encountered transmen less butch in behavior, less masculine than myself (before hormones, etc.) who are absolutely certain they are men despite being born in a female body.
Now, I don’t pretend to have all the answers here, I certainly don’t understand their viewpoint on a visceral level (I have some trouble understanding it at all, to be honest, but I try) but I also try to be objective about it. These people aren’t, by and large, dysfunctional. They work, they have relationships, they pay their bills on times… but they also have this other thing going on with them they seems unrelated to external genitals, sexual orientation, and so forth. Seems to me that if you feel strongly enough about an issue that you’re willing to endure years of medical treatment (actually, life long for some of it), surgery, and turning your life upside down that there has to be some respect for the fact these people are driven.
Are there some transsexuals who manage to force themselves to conform to their born gender/sex/genitals? Wouldn’t surprise me - why would this condition be binary, after all? There are different degrees of sexual orientation, different degrees of physical androgyny, why wouldn’t there be a spectrum of transsexuality? In fact, I think there is - as lee points out, not all transsexuals get surgery. Some opt for hormones and social changes and seem content with that - and if they’re content then I am, as I have no need to force them to surgery to somehow “prove” they’re “really” transsexual. Others won’t be happy with anything less than top and bottom surgery.
I don’t think the issue is helped by a notion that you either ARE or you ARE NOT this particular sort of person any more than the notion that you are EITHER a screaming queen sort of gay OR a totally straight he-man helps anyone in regards to sexual orientation. There is nothing wrong with being an extreme, but most people aren’t and there’s nothing wrong with that, either.
Then what is your specific objection to transsexualism?
It doesn’t. Where have I argued otherwise? I don’t believe I’ve said anything about gender one way or the other, until I started replying to you.
It seems to me that the example you gave of your cousin pretty much shoots this idea down, doesn’t it? He’s someone who clearly has no investment in traditional gender roles, but is also comfortable in his biological sex. Further, wouldn’t you expect places like San Francisco, Los Angeles, and New York to have very few transsexuals? These are places with large gay communities, where acceptance for different expressions of gender are very high. And yet, there’s still a large number of transsexuals in all three cities. This seems a pretty clear indication that there’s a difference between transgressive gender and transgressive sex.
Add to that the existence of transsexuals who don’t adopt a gender identity commonly associated with their desired sex, such as one FTM poster on this board who identifies as an effeminate gay man, and this theory of yours appears to have more holes than a colander factory.
I’ve never argued that gender must be associated with sex. To the contrary, I’m arguing for a flexible view of both sex and gender.
I think society would be a better place for everyone if we did that, but I don’t think it would change the specific needs of transsexual people.
I don’t think that’s obvious at all. In fact, you seem to be doing that in this very post. I don’t see any other way to interpret your basic stance that the desire to alter one’s biological sex is a result of damage imposed by a society that insists on strict gender and sexual binaries, and that it would not exist absent those pressures.