Why are biologists the determining body here, and not doctors?
Because Martin has personally defined them as such, of course. Right along with his other personal definitions that are unsupported by mammalian biologists, medical science, veterinary science et al.
Regardless, his erroneous claims are a pointless threadjack.
And for whatever reason, no matter how clearly multiple posters explain it to him, and provide citations, Martin still does not (or refuses to or pretends not to) comprehend the difference between the “determination of sex” and the “definition of sex.”
In mammals sex is usually, but not always determined on a chromosomal basis. Sex is defined by biologists and physicians on the basis of physical pheontype and in some species behavior. “Determined” means that it is what causes the sex, i.e. the specific physical and behavioral phenotype, to occur. The biological sex of a mammal is that collection of features which is the phenotype.
So yes, in humans, as in other mammals, the physical features that are the biological sex of the organism, such as which gonads are present and where and what the external genitalia look like and hip structure, etc. are usually determined on a chromosomal basis.
Martin, I am not trying to make you “appear fundamentally ignorant.” You don’t need my help.
I think there is a lot of merit to the idea that if someone has made a point before, they can link to it to avoid having to reargue every detail. But that seems to me incumbent upon the person wanting to avoid repeating themselves. I see no reason why the person who did not engage in the debate earlier should feel any need to look up old threads. I assume the board is designed to promote threads that are recently posted on to the top for a reason. That is, current discussion is privileged over old inactive discussion.
Both of you knock it off or take it to The BBQ Pit.
[ /Moderating ]
To expand on my last post:
*In mammals *the Y chromosome, or more precisiely one particular section of the Y chromosome, usually determines the cascade of events (utilizing genes located elsewhere and creating structures that further differentiate in an experience-expectant way) that results in differentiation into one or the other biological sex (the phenotypic state).
A wide variety of circumstances result in situations of biological sexual ambiguity, sometimes referred to as intersex. Differentiation into one completely congruent set of sexual features in these cases does not occur. Chromosomally the individual may have a Y chromosome but the physical features that define biological sex are not all male or female. Please note: this ambiguous state, often referred to as “intersex” does not only occur in humans, it occurs in and has been studied in other mammals as well (“Mammalian sex reversal and intersexuality: deciphering the sex-determination cascade.” - note these biologists are not referring to these mammals reversing their chromosomes.) Here’s another article specific that also discussed incongruent behavior.
One part of the body is physically and functionally dimorphic in mammals is the brain. In most mammals the effects of this dimorphism is noted as differences in structure and in behavior; if these non-human mammals have a gender identity we have no way of assessing it. Of note varying hormone levels at different points in gestation
Humans of course have many factors, in partuclar many cultural and sociologic factors, that impact behavior and thus behavior gets classified as “gender role.” But “gender identity” does seem to be substantialy biologically based and (this much IMHO) an aspect of biological sex almost as much many external features. (And able to be incongruent just like differnet external features can be.)
That last cite puts it fairly well:
Tom,
Direction noted (and I will behave) but dang, that’s a hard set up to resist!
I’m trying to figure out how** Martin** is remaining confused (assuming such is the actual case). I am serious here and not trying to be snarkey. Martin, are you thinking that “determine” means like looking at an individual and determining which sex it is? As in “I’d like to determine if this is a male or a female dog so I’ll lift it up and see if there is a penis or not.”? If so please note that such is not what “determine” means in the context of sexual differentiation.
IMO, someone who wants to refer to previous threads as a shorthand is fine, if they actually link to the specific part of the a prior thread which addresses the specific point under discussion. What isn’t nearly as fine is what’s happening here, in which people - led by you, IIRC - have simply linked to a dozen or so prior threads (some or all of which are likely long and discuss many aspects of the issue) and said “hey read through all this stuff and you’ll see that you’re wrong”.
I mean, you can use the prior threads as an excuse for not bothering to debate the issue in this one. But I don’t think you can make a big deal or harp on someone else for his or her refusal to read a voluminous amount of material just because you claim that somewhere in that vast literature they will find the refutation to their argument.
Exactly. If they are tired of debating it, no one is forcing them to continue. But the logical consequence of their argument is that posting volume here should steadily decrease as more and more stuff has “already been covered”; and that younger/newer posters should, as time goes by, be increasingly hesitant to post for fear of covering ground already trod. I doubt that is really what this site’s owners want.
Wait, so this “tiny fringe” you guys were dismissing includes Germaine Greer and Gloria Steinem?
Even Steinem’s bete noire Camille Paglia seems to feel the same way.
All three are high profile figures. I had no idea; but now I think some of you have been a bit disingenuous about this, perhaps trying to sweep these objections under the rug.
I also found interesting and edifying the following comments on Slate:
Yes. Lovely people who did an amazing amount of work to make my life as a woman in the USA a whole lot more equitable and bearable, and to whom I will always be profoundly grateful. But old people, who have not kept up with the latest medical theories, and are indeed therefore “fringe” on this particular issue. Their names don’t lend more numbers, and so yes, they are part of the “tiny” fringe.
<Mod hat on>
SlackerInc, having taken a look at Slate’s terms of service I think quoting comments from the site wholesale is a little bit much. I’ve trimmed them down and those interested can take a look through the link.
<Mod hat off>
This is simply wrong. I can’t remember the case off the top of my head, but at least one of the early transwomen to undergo srs had such a transplant. It failed spectacularly. As the state of medicine advanced, a successful transplant seemed less probable. That is the reasons you don’t hear about transplants. It is not that they aren’t desired. It is they are not possible.
It’s interesting that you did not see fit to provide sources for these quotes. A quick Google indicates that the Greer quote is from the '90s and the Steinem quote is from the '70s. I think it’s likely that many posters here were unfamiliar with these quotes, and that anyone who did remember them didn’t think quotes that old were relevant to a discussion of feminist attitudes today.
I don’t know or care much about what Gloria Steinem thinks about transwomen now, but Google also produced this 2012 Time Out interview where she’s asked about the '70s quote:
So regardless of what she may have believed in the '70s, it sounds like Steinem now thinks transgender people should be able to have sex-change operations if they want to and that the only thing she really objects to is people who don’t conform to traditional gender roles being pressured into sex-change operations.
So your cites for your claims about the views of contemporary feminists on transwomen thus far are 1) a blog post, 2) some quotes that prominent feminists made in decades past, and 3) comments by two anonymous posters in response to a Slate column.
I strongly suspect their towering position in the feminist movement automatically lends credibility and thus numbers to pretty much any arguable position. And that credibility automatically makes them not “fringe”, regardless of numbers.
Isn’t the Steinem book from 1984? And I love how the '90s is treated as ancient history, LOL.
I don’t think she ever thought they should be legally prohibited from doing so. (But wait: do you not know or care what she thinks now, or you do know something about it and do care to discuss it?) And the first word out of her mouth when asked if she has changed her views is “No”.
I also note with interest that in that interview she takes the same position I do on BDSM, which I have gotten raked over the coals for when expressing it online amongst people I’d generally consider progressive. She’s nearly four decades older than I am, but I guess I’m just “old school” or something. I’ll accept that: the newer fashion of thought is not always more correct (as I assume pro-choice feminists would agree when seeing the poll numbers on abortion going increasingly against them).
If you’re referring to Outrageous Acts and Everyday Rebellions then it was published in 1983, but it looks like the essay “Transsexualism” was first published in 1977.
Even if you thought the quote was from 1984, that’s still 29 years ago. It’s a bit funny that, in the same post where you accused others of trying to sweep inconvenient facts under the rug, you chose to post these quotes without saying how old they were.
Get back to me with her repudiation of those views. I see nothing wrong with quoting from books that were not just written. If I hear an undated quote from someone, I won’t be shocked that it came from way back in their misspent youth, when they were fifty. Nor do I expect people to have radically different views as they age. Is there not a common belief that thinkers do their best work early in their lives?
There is if you’re trying to pass these quotes off as representative of the views of people today. The claim that you were asked to support with a cite was this (emphasis added):
A 1977 quote from Gloria Steinem may be indicative of what a decent number of feminists believed in the 1970s, but it is not evidence of anything about the present.
The quality of your cites has been so poor that they strike me as better evidence against you than for you. I’m sure there are some feminists and lesbians who are hostile towards transwomen, but if the best evidence you can come up with is a blog post, a couple of comments on Slate, and some old quotes then it seems unlikely that this is a widespread view today.
It’s a perfectly fine thing to do if the person is seeing information about an issue. But you are correct that its less effective if the person is pushing an agenda, as is the case here.