I agree. But that isn’t really what was being argued.
Recall what started the discussion of brain structure:
Setting aside the bizarre characterization of trans people the above contains,“brain structure” is an answer to this question.
I thought that objective differences were the exact thing that is being argued.
Just because you can’t see the differences without an autopsy doesn’t make them any less objective.
I see. So we can’t objectively determine if someone is transgender until they die and an autopsy is performed?
We can’t examine the relevant brain structures without an autopsy. In the meantime, there are criteria for diagnosing gender dysphoria in the DSM-5.
I agree. But it seems like the argument was “having a penis” wasn’t an objective fact since you can’t know it without asking, but somehow “brain differences” WAS an objective fact even though you can’t know it without an autopsy.
It seems to me that either they are BOTH objective facts, or neither of them are.
And there lies the argument: To some people, those criteria seem to be the “subjective states of mind” that **Shodan ** mentioned
Actually, so far as I was concerned, that was my point. Shodan characterised the debate as objective fact users vs. subjective fact users; assuming he considers his own “side” the objective ones, that isn’t accurate, even for himself.
True, but if you consider that BOTH of them are objective facts, the view he was explaining is that the objective fact of “having a penis” is stronger than the objective fact of “brain differences”
And if you consider neither of them objective facts, then “brain differences” cannot be used as proof of gender any more than “having a penis” can be used as proof of gender.
I’m not sure this is the correct question, but I’ll try to address it: the relevant difference is that they don’t want to admit it.
A more accurate question would be this: what is the relevant distinction between a person with XY chromosomes and a penis who publicly identifies as male, and a person with XY chromosomes and a penis who publicly identifies as female?
The relevant distinction is that, in virtually all settings, a person’s chromosomal makeup has nothing to do with my social interaction with them. Similarly, a person’s genitalia has nothing to do with my social interaction with them. Their public gender identification has a little bit to do with my social interaction with them, however. Their identification determines what pronoun I use for them.
Is their gender identification an objective fact? It is, in the same sense that their preferred name is an objective fact, as is their ethnic identification, as is their least favorite pizza topping. If you tell me my least favorite pizza topping is feta cheese, you’re wrong; if you tell me I identify as female, you’re wrong, nothing subjective about either.
Now, you may decide to insult a traitor by misidentifying them. Maybe you look at Trump and you call him a Jew because you dislike him. Maybe you insist on calling Obama Sambo to show your displeasure. Deliberately and objectively misidentifying people in a way that ties into a form of social oppression is absolutely a thing you can do. But it’s a shitty thing to do–not to the person you’re trying to irritate, but to the people who tend to suffer under that oppression.
It’s convenient to those people to ignore science, sure. Nothing new there.
They’re both objective facts. Neither is the relevant objective fact. If brain differences were the operative criterion, I’d need to murder all y’all and autopsy your brains before I could figure out what pronoun to use. If genitalia were the operative criterion, I’d need to perform a less drastic but still illegal action.
The operative criterion is how folks want to be identified.
That’s probably not the best question to ask, as it could be easily answered by someone who doesn’t believe (for my lack of a better word) in transgenderism.
That’s YOUR operative criterion. But some people believe different. What do you say to them other than “You’re wrong!” Remember, in this line of reasoning, you are not allowed to use “brain differences” as a reason they are wrong.
I don’t care what people believe in. I care how they act.
What other operative criterion could there be, that doesn’t break laws?
What I say to them is that they’re not checking skulls or pants when they determine someone’s gender identity: they’re checking the person’s appearance as they present it to the world. Some of the things about a person’s appearance (say, chin shape) are beyond their control; others are within their control. We look at both, and in general when a person’s body shape doesn’t give us enough clues, we look at their attire, hair style, presence or absence of makeup, presence or absence of facial hair, etc. for clues. We also listen for their name, and sometimes their title, and for the pronouns others use about them.
Again: we check neither skulls nor pants.
Given the things we check, THESE are the markers of gender identity.
Sometimes a person’s gender identity markers are confusing: a person with a square jaw and no clear breasts is wearing a skirt and heels. In that case, you have a choice: make a guess based on their body shape, or make a guess based on the clues they’re deliberately giving you?
In this case, objectively speaking, you’re likelier to be correct about their preferred gender identity if you use the clues they give you.
Now, whether you should respect that or not kind of comes down to your ideas about whether you should respect other people or not. Whether someone identifies as a Jew, or a woman, or a liberal, is an objective truth. Whether you act like a jerk to them or not is your decision.
It happens that the brain research is convincing. But it doesn’t need to be in order to show some basic decency toward other people.
Well, I could link to photos of people who you would swear were women but who identify as male, but this is really getting far away from the original argument, which isn’t even mine anyway. Besides, I’m leaving work now and have non-Internet things to do with my time. Thanks for the discussion though.
I remember times when I’ve driven by someone jogging. From a distance the person looked stereotypically female - long hair and narrow waist - and it was appealing. As I got closer (or passed) I saw details and realized it was a man - and lost interest. How strange that some prejudices outweigh others.
I realize from reading (some of) this thread that I’m more interested in how a person wants to be self-identified than how I want to identify them. If a person has a square jaw, facial hair, and an Adam’s apple, but dresses in low-cut V-necklines, wears a skirt, and high-heels, I’ll assume the elements that are more easily controlled (the clothes) determine the identity and use “she”. If the person then corrects me and says they are just on break from a rehearsal of “South Pacific” and is a “he” then I’m going to take their word.
I then encounter someone at a party and they insist on being called “Your Lordship”. They say that, just like “he” or “she”, they are simply identifying with what they feel they are. Well, I’m not buying that! I’m not calling you “Your Lordship”, “Sweetie Pie”, “Stud Muffin”, or just any 'ole appellation you want! I may not even feel like calling you “Sir” if you keep this up!
I think this is where some people draw the line. To those who think Person A is a ‘traitor’ to their gender (or simply don’t look hot enough) - they will not use the newly identified pronoun. To those who think Person B is a traitor to their ethnicity - they will perhaps use an ethnic slur. You use the title you think is subjectively deserved.
No, the objective fact is what they told you. They told you they are a woman. Anything else is you making guesses about what is in their pants or genes. And guesses aren’t objective. So be objective, and treat people like they gender they explicitly told you they are.
And this isn’t telepathy, here, guys. You don’t need to guess, or piece together the clues. If you aren’t sure about someone’s gender, ask, and they will tell you. Then there’s no more guessing involved, and only objective facts.
Given he hasn’t talked back his point about one side wanting to refer to objective facts and the other subjective things, no, I don’t believe this is reasonable to say. Beyond that, I think the post of his you’re talking about isn’t “explaining” so much as “asserting”, and even then, you’re going to have to define “stronger”. Stronger in what sense? More testable? The example I already suggested to Shodan, whether or not someone claims to be male, is an even stronger objective fact by that standard.
If objective facts are the only proof, then this seems accurate.
My understanding, based on the studies I have read, is that the brain structures in question basically require an autopsy to analyse. Research is further hampered by the small pool of transgender people to begin with, and the even smaller pool within that pool of transgender people willing to donate their brains to science after they’re done using them, and of course, the waiting for the willing donors to die so you can get their brains in an ethical manner.
This small pool of donor brains also makes generating results that are consistently repeatable and reproducible by others difficult. Thus, it is currently a hypothesis with supporting evidence but not definitively proven.
The brain structures in question ARE objective facts and can be identified - but not currently by non-destructive imaging technology (that may or may not change in the future). That still leaves the problem of identifying transgender traits in living people in a definitive and objective manner however objective the brain structures may be.