It's like that movie with Arnold

The BBQ Pit
161

[QUOTE=matt_mcl]

The point is that physical makeup won’t necessarily determine the way that a person will identify their gender.

The point isn’t that physical embodiment doesn’t matter at all, as I stated before. Most people’s gender identity, whether trans or non-trans, heavily emphasizes their body.

A person who identifies their gender differently than the way they’re assumed to based on their body will have to decide for themself whether or not they, with their individual needs, psyche, and personal and social situation, need to change their body. Some don’t find that necessary; others do, to a greater or lesser extent.
[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I’ll agree with that - I have no problems with people who feel that they were, as it were, born into the wrong body.

I simply disagree with the extent to which gender roles are a mere nothing or an invention (not saying you are saying this of course). I used to be more receptive to this idea, but the experience of watching my son grow up has persuaded me otherwise.

My son and my brother’s daughter were born at pretty well exactly the same time. We never put any pressure on him to wear or do “boy stuff”; they never put any pressure on her to wear or do “girl stuff”. If fact, quite the contrary, they swore that their daughter would “never wear pink” and “not play with dolls”.

Well, these resolutions did not last long. Our boy is, at the ripe age of 2, most definitely a boy. He conforms to a whole list of gender stereotypes in a manner that would make a fine gender studies doctorate subject. He loves trains and cars; dolls he could not care less about; clothes he hardly notices; he’s attracted to tools. Througout all this, he wasn’t exposed to many other kids other than his cousins, and certainly was not “coached” to like one thing or another - he just wanted those things.

In contrast, his cousin is a girl. She likes fancy dresses and dolls, and even the colour pink. She has small interest in cars and trains.

Now, obviously one can be born physically female and pursue traditionaly “male” pursuits - say, grow up to be a train conductor; just as a person born a boy can love dolls and not cars. I just found it interesting to note that these roles have IMO some basis in (at least partially) uncultured reality.

162

[QUOTE=Miller]
Okay, apparently now I’ve pissed you off, for reasons that are every bit as impenetrable to me as the ones behind your tantrum at matt_mcl. I apologize for attempting to have a dialogue with you. I won’t make that mistake again in the future.
[/QUOTE]

Dialogue? Pedantic dissection of my posts is dialogue? :confused:
You are free to reread at your leisure. I dislike being lectured at, especially in this thread. If you have something to say to me that is not a reiteration of the facts and may actually acknowledge some of what I’ve said here in a meaningful way, I’m happy to listen. FTR, I did not have a tantrum (I’d be interested to know if you use that term with angry male posters, but that’s off topic)–I had a visceral, angry reaction to one post here. Since matt and I have cleared that up, quite publicly, I think it’s time to move on.

Ah, to hell with it, Miller–I’m sick of the anger and the snark. I apologize to you, but keep this post the way it is–for no good reason, I suppose, except that word choice matters and I’m feeling hostile re gender issues at present. Let it stand and let the chips fall where they may. I have no real beef with you, Miller.

163

Matt, what would you like me to say? Your response acknowledged that the situation I presented would be an issue, and that Transgender people of all stripes have to wrestle with them. Unisex facilities make sense, but Americans are far to prudish in general to accept such an option, media fearmongering about sexual predators completely aside.

I’m merely asking for some logical basis for backing a persons completely baseless assertion to being a member of the opposite sex. If there isn’t one, then it boils down to : Be Nice, and Because I Said So type arguments. The problem there, is that we cannot base societal guidelines on such flimsy ground. If there is any good reason that I should change my mind, I want to hear it, but as of now it just seems like there isn’t anything to go on other than i’m okay your okay feel good semantics.

164

[QUOTE=Acid Lamp]
Which is a nice way of saying, : I don’t have a logical answer to your question, so stop asking them and just do as you are told."
[/QUOTE]

I now this is the BBQ Pit. But it’s also the SDMB, so I’m going to try to steer this into the civil canal.

Acid Lamp, here’s the logical answer:

In my last post, I said:

While I was talking mainly about such things as how to dress and how stoic or strong to be, this also applies to biology. Really.

In our culture we have a conventional idea of gender as a binary, and/or thing. It’s Mars and Venus, boys and girls, 1 and 0. Little circle with a cross below, little circle with an arrow pointing up. And by and large, this works. Most people are very clearly men, or very clearly women. Children are born, and it’s immediately apparent which gender they are. So it’s no surprise that a culture like ours grew up on that base: humans come in two distinct kinds, and if culture is going to impose certain behaviours on individuals, it might as well impose them differentially to the two types of individual.

But this isn’t a real thing granted by nature. This is a definition we’ve created to categorize natural things, and we’ve built a culture taking that definition as an assumption. And it turns out that nature isn’t so clean cut and binary about gender. A small fraction of people end up blurring the distinction in one way or another – and here I’m talking biologically. Leaving the complex details and the many different cases aside, the upshot is you get people who are neither 1 nor 0. They’re a small fraction – it’s not like humans exhibit a continuous variation between 1 and 0 or anything, rather there are a handful that don’t land quite on one or the other.

So for people like this, physiology and psychology and upbringing can all be at odds. When the physiology isn’t clear, or where it’s in disagreement with the other main things that build gender, it’s possible to get someone who by some measure might have female traits, but can nonetheless be considered a man. Or, as I said, there isn’t, after all, an ISO Standard Manhood to refer to, because even physiologically the line is blurred by a small number of cases.

Take, as an analogy, wierd Australian mammals. There are a very few animals in Australia that have fur, and mammary glands, and lay eggs. Mammals aren’t supposed to lay eggs, and reptiles aren’t supposed to have fur. Does the existence of the echidna and platypus mean that the distinction between mammals and reptiles is meaningless, or that it’s just a question of placing animals into one category or other on pure whimsy?

Of course not. It’s very clear that a beaver is a mammal and an alligator is a reptile. For virtually all reptiles and mammals, the conventional physiological clues are enough to determine the class without much doubt. And biologists, while initially finding their straightforward classification challenged by the monotremes – and in fact, insiting early on that the platypus need be a hoax – eventually came to develop a more nuanced way of classifying animals. And life, and science, go on.

Nobody doubts that a beaver is a mammal, regardless of echidnas. Nobody doubts that you, Acid Lamp, are a man, even in light of our pregnant subject today. And Thomas, here, isn’t arbitrarily choosing a gender, or putting on airs for some reason, any more than the platypus is a hoax.

There isn’t a single, standard, one-size-fits-all test for gender, much as we’re used to thinking of it as a black-and-white thing. Thomas doesn’t have to be held to your ideas about what a man should be, and your ideas of what a man should be don’t have to crumble because Thomas lives.

165

Wolfstu Thanks for the reply. got a few points though. Those that don’t fall into the binary categories naturally, Hermaphrodites and such have a term for themselves whether it’s commonly used or scientific jargon, it is still there, and appropriate. Someone can have female parts, in conjunction with male characteristics and be culturally male and live as such. No problem. Thomas however is biologically female. He is not the product of an unusual birth or irregular physiology. he is not a hermaphrodite or other aberrant birth. He is, a normal binary female that has altered his cosmetic appearance with science to conform to his gender identity issue. He is not however a binary male by any sense of the word other than the amorphous mental construct variety. Just like how monotremes have a special term for their uniqueness, thomas deserves a term for his. After his delivery if he chooses to continue his process to becoming a binary male, then he can be one. As of now though I feel that it is disingenuous to apply the moniker to him.

166

[QUOTE=wolfstu]

There isn’t a single, standard, one-size-fits-all test for gender, much as we’re used to thinking of it as a black-and-white thing. Thomas doesn’t have to be held to your ideas about what a man should be, and your ideas of what a man should be don’t have to crumble because Thomas lives.
[/QUOTE]

See, I think that what is causing the confusion is a conflation of two concepts:

  1. There are two genders, and some people are not born into the gender they feel suits them. Therefore they switch, to bring their bodies in line with how they perceive themselves; and

  2. Genders, as concepts, have no real existence. They are social constructs. If we free ourselves of the false notion that biology dictates gender, we will all be better off.

Thing is, to a certain extent these concepts appear antithical. If genders have no real existence, it makes no sense that someone would wish to physically change their bodies to accord with the “gender” they feel appropriate - really they ought to simply embrace the truth that gender doesn’t matter.

Way I see it, the people unhappy with the Thomas story feel that they have been in a sense mislead; they have bought into idea #1 (Thomas is unhappy self-identifying as a “woman”, so sympathize with his desire to change to being a “man”); only to be told that they ought to have been following #2 (gender, as a concept, doesn’t really matter - I can be a “man” and be pregnant).

For myself, I am not disturbed by Thomas, but I can certainly understand why others are.

167

[QUOTE=Acid Lamp]
I’m merely asking for some logical basis for backing a persons completely baseless assertion to being a member of the opposite sex. If there isn’t one, then it boils down to : Be Nice, and Because I Said So type arguments. The problem there, is that we cannot base societal guidelines on such flimsy ground.
[/quote]

Why not? We already do it for everybody else. On a daily basis, you take people’s word, and their gender presentation, cheerfully as evidence for what gender they are. It scarcely ever has anything to do with their physical embodiment, because we scarcely ever see other people’s genitals.

If someone introduces herself to you as Ms. Smith, you don’t ask her for a pussy check before you agree to go along with it and call her Ms.

You might not realize this because you’re used to assuming people’s body parts on the basis of the way they present, but it’s the case. We’ve been working for so long with the assumption that gender presentation, gender identity, and sexual anatomy will all be congruent in a fixed way that we forget that some things are social and some aren’t.

So we already deal with everybody on the basis of taking their word, and their presentation, for what gender they are. This is just a matter of generalizing it.

168

Yes, Malthus–and Thomas himself has lived according to #1 and now has pulled #2 out of his hat(?). :confused: If he believes so strongly in #2, why remove his breasts? Why not just live in his biological body that he purports to hate (or at least not feel comfortable in, #1 again) until it’s true bio function can be of use to him?

I may never get this.

169

[QUOTE=matt_mcl]
Why not? We already do it for everybody else. On a daily basis, you take people’s word, and their gender presentation, cheerfully as evidence for what gender they are. It scarcely ever has anything to do with their physical embodiment, because we scarcely ever see other people’s genitals.

If someone introduces herself to you as Ms. Smith, you don’t ask her for a pussy check before you agree to go along with it and call her Ms.

You might not realize this because you’re used to assuming people’s body parts on the basis of the way they present, but it’s the case. We’ve been working for so long with the assumption that gender presentation, gender identity, and sexual anatomy will all be congruent in a fixed way that we forget that some things are social and some aren’t.

So we already deal with everybody on the basis of taking their word, and their presentation, for what gender they are. This is just a matter of generalizing it.
[/QUOTE]

One small correction - you made a typo and are quoting me, when you meant to quote Acid Lamp.

170

[QUOTE=Malthus]

  1. There are two genders, and some people are not born into the gender they feel suits them. Therefore they switch, to bring their bodies in line with how they perceive themselves; and

  2. Genders, as concepts, have no real existence. They are social constructs. If we free ourselves of the false notion that biology dictates gender, we will all be better off.

Thing is, to a certain extent these concepts appear antithical. If genders have no real existence, it makes no sense that someone would wish to physically change their bodies to accord with the “gender” they feel appropriate - really they ought to simply embrace the truth that gender doesn’t matter.

Way I see it, the people unhappy with the Thomas story feel that they have been in a sense mislead; they have bought into idea #1 (Thomas is unhappy self-identifying as a “woman”, so sympathize with his desire to change to being a “man”); only to be told that they ought to have been following #2 (gender, as a concept, doesn’t really matter - I can be a “man” and be pregnant).
[/QUOTE]

But the thing is that both are true to a certain extent, and to different extents for different people (assuming a less categorical phrasing).

For some people, their anatomy has little to do with their gender identity - a transgender person who identifies as a gender other than that assigned, but who doesn’t feel a need for physical changes, or a non-transgender person who feels male/female for many reasons of which anatomy is the least.

For some people, their anatomy influences their gender identity - many non-transgendered people, who identify their sense of their gender very strongly with their genitals or reproductive abilities.

For some people, their gender identity influences their anatomy - trans people who want surgery.

For some people, their anatomy and gender identity are linked in some ways but not in others – me, for example (I experience my anatomy as part of my gender identity, but not a strong part, and I certainly don’t feel it determines my gender identity).

I think that everyone draws on these possibilities to a greater or lesser extent. It’s by far more obvious for trans people because their way of mediating them is not affirmed by society, and non-trans people’s way of mediating them usually is.

171

Matt that doesn’t jive for me. I’m not suggesting that I would treat thomas any differently in day to day life, only that his use of the term man is disingenuous.

Think of it like this. I could have sex with the following:

a.Ten Binary women
b.Ten Binary men
c.Ten Transsexual women
d.Ten Transsexual men

In reality, my chances of pregnancy should play out like this:

a. 50-100% Since women have the equipment
b. 0 % Since men do not
C. 0% Since they used to be men and have altered themselves
D. 0%Since they used to be women but have altered themselves

Since thomas doesn’t fit into any of those categories I don’t see how he can be legitimately defined as a male. It’s just fallacious in the scientific, literal sense of the word.

172

[QUOTE=Malthus]
One small correction - you made a typo and are quoting me, when you meant to quote Acid Lamp.
[/QUOTE]

My mistake, sorry.

173

Well, if we need a special word to call him, and a special category to place him in during this transition, how about “pre-op transsexual”? Seems simple enough to me. Of course, since we live in a society where everyone is going to be so very hung up on just which gender he is, and we have to send him to one or another public washroom and use one or another pronoun to refer to him, we might as well assign him the gender he himself identifies with, and the one he expects to reach sooner or later.

No? Is it better to insist he be referred to by the gender he feels isn’t his because we think he has more female traits, on balance? If gender is ambiguous, and Thomas claims one or the other, who are we to dispute his choice? And, what would it serve to classify him differently than he reports? To appease mine or your sensibilities about what a proper man is? To insist that the plumbing is paramount, for everybody, in determining gender assignment?

174

In fact the term I’d use for him is omnimale since apparently he will house functioning characteristics from both sexes and at least ONE full reproductive apparatus.

175

The main trouble I have with all of this is somewhat metaphysical.

If we assume that someone can be born in the “wrong” gender, are we not assuming the existence of a self that precedes, supercedes, and is independent of the physical self? Doesn’t this require a bit more of a rationale to support such a notion? Do we have small people being born in the “wrong” body, i.e., large?

Its a bit too close to the notion of a “soul” as a wholly seperate essence that precedes existence.

176

[QUOTE=matt_mcl]
But the thing is that both are true to a certain extent, and to different extents for different people (assuming a less categorical phrasing).

For some people, their anatomy has little to do with their gender identity - a transgender person who identifies as a gender other than that assigned, but who doesn’t feel a need for physical changes, or a non-transgender person who feels male/female for many reasons of which anatomy is the least.

For some people, their anatomy influences their gender identity - many non-transgendered people, who identify their sense of their gender very strongly with their genitals or reproductive abilities.

For some people, their gender identity influences their anatomy - trans people who want surgery.

For some people, their anatomy and gender identity are linked in some ways but not in others – me, for example (I experience my anatomy as part of my gender identity, but not a strong part, and I certainly don’t feel it determines my gender identity).

I think that everyone draws on these possibilities to a greater or lesser extent. It’s by far more obvious for trans people because their way of mediating them is not affirmed by society, and non-trans people’s way of mediating them usually is.
[/QUOTE]

Certainly, I would not deny it; but we aren’t talking about “some people”, but about one person - Thomas. That is leading to the sense of (if you like) cognitive dissonance some people are getting from this story.

If the story was about two people, one of whom wished to have gender reassignment surgery, and another who, while physically male, wished to have a baby (through the miracles of modern medicine), it would not raise the same issue - in that case, obviously individual #1 would fall within my category #1, and individual #2 in category #2.

177

[QUOTE=matt_mcl]
My mistake, sorry.
[/QUOTE]

No problem at all. :slight_smile:

178

[QUOTE=Acid Lamp]
Matt that doesn’t jive for me. I’m not suggesting that I would treat thomas any differently in day to day life, only that his use of the term man is disingenuous. […]

Since thomas doesn’t fit into any of those categories I don’t see how he can be legitimately defined as a male. It’s just fallacious in the scientific, literal sense of the word.
[/QUOTE]

One thing you need to know is that there are plenty of trans men who haven’t had hysterectomies. I dated a young man in this position this winter. Now he’s just had a hysterectomy this week; but his gender identity didn’t change between the time I was dating him and now.

This use of several different senses of the word “male” as if one indissolubly implied all the others, and also use of the words “male” and “man” interchangeably, is problematic. We all acknowledge that Thomas has what most people would characterize as a female reproductive system. (In discussing gender variances, people often speak of “female-bodied” people.)

But when we say that Thomas is a man, the point is we aren’t referring to his anatomy any longer. Hell, I’ve had discussions with people who insist that the level of discrimination is chromosomes, and that it’s grammatically correct to refer to a woman who has had complete SRS and estrogen therapy and has cross-lived for thirty years, as “he,” as if everyone had to go out and submit to genetic screening before anyone could decide what pronoun to use for them.

I’ll stop now because once again Wolfstu came in with something more interesting while I was writing this. I used to think I typed quickly.

Like I said, I think many people find their anatomy and gender identity linked in some ways, but not in others. I know that’s my case, and lots of people, including lots of conventionally gendered people, have told me it’s the case for them as well.

179

[QUOTE=elucidator]
The main trouble I have with all of this is somewhat metaphysical.

If we assume that someone can be born in the “wrong” gender, are we not assuming the existence of a self that precedes, supercedes, and is independent of the physical self? Doesn’t this require a bit more of a rationale to support such a notion? Do we have small people being born in the “wrong” body, i.e., large?

Its a bit too close to the notion of a “soul” as a wholly seperate essence that precedes existence.
[/QUOTE]
It doesn’t seem so to me. More like someone is born with a brain that is wired one way and a body that is wired the other. So to speak.

180

[QUOTE=Acid Lamp]
Which is a nice way of saying, : I don’t have a logical answer to your question, so stop asking them and just do as you are told."
[/QUOTE]

It’s actually a nice way of saying that you’re a total fucking idiot, but with fewer swears.