Transgender - transracial. What is the essential difference?

[Little_Nemo]

@mr_jp

This doesn’t really seem to work as an explanation of the matter though. Since female-to-male transgender people (I assume) still have these values closer towards the female brain averages. So it must be some other traits.

What do you base this on? From what I’ve read (and I’ll admit I’m a layman) scientists have found evidence that the brains of transgender people often are more similar to the gender they identify as rather than the gender they were assigned at birth.

Of course they express this in terms like “They reported higher degree centrality in the primary somatosensory cortex and the bilateral superior parietal lobule for transgender subjects” and “Neuroanatomical differences were region specific between transgender persons and their natal sex as well as their gender identity, raising the possibility of a localized influence of sex hormones on neuroanatomy” and “Graph theoretical analysis of whole-brain probabilistic tractography networks (adjusted for differences in intracranial volume) showed decreased hemispheric connectivity ratios of subcortical/limbic areas for both transgender groups” so I may not be getting all the subtleties.

[mr_jp]

@Little_Nemo

What do you base this on? From what I’ve read (and I’ll admit I’m a layman) scientists have found evidence that the brains of transgender people often are more similar to the gender they identify as rather than the gender they were assigned at birth.

To take one thing, the brain volume of men is ~10% larger on average. This is a large difference. If the brain volume of female-to-male transgender people was also 10% larger on average than that of women this would surely be known.

[LSLGuy]

Except brain volume is at least partly a matter of skull size. If size was all that mattered to make a brain male, then women with large heads would tend to be trans and men with small heads would tend to be trans. That’s not what we see in the statistics.

Men also have bigger biceps. Does that mean small male biceps is correlated with being trans. Again, no.

[Riemann]

@mr_jp

To take one thing, the brain volume of men is ~10% larger on average. This is a large difference. If the brain volume of female-to-male transgender people was also 10% larger on average than that of women this would surely be known.

What on earth is your reasoning here? Nobody is claiming that every aspect of dimorphism is a significant determinant of gender identity or that every trait is always going to be seen in all people (whether cis or trans) of a given gender identity. And most aspects of dimorphism in neuron configuration probably don’t have any gross physiological manifestation at all.

We may not really have a clue about the details, but that’s hardly a surprise, since we don’t have much detailed knowledge of how brains are wired up at all. In neuroscience we still have nothing more sophisticated than fMRI that tells us in a crude sense “something is going on in this part”, but we really know very little of the details about how our brains are wired up.

The point here is that sexual dimorphism in brain development provides a credible theoretical basis for how transgender people naturally arise, and one that is supported by some of the limited evidence that we do have. If you are pushing back against this, what is your alternative hypothesis, and what evidence supports it?

[iamthewalrus_3]

@LordHarry

In short, “transracial” is not, in fact, a thing. Transgender folks, however, have existed and been documented back to the very dawn of civilization, across cultures. This whole binary idea of gender and sex is a very modern phenomenon, that is mostly categorical laziness, rather than social or biological reality.

Aren’t there many examples of people in the past who didn’t feel comfortable in their racial/cultural group and found a home in another, often taking a new name, adopting a new appearance, joining in religious and cultural activities, etc. That seems like a pretty good case for historical “transracialism”.

The Boston Review article you linked is good. It’s well-reasoned and argued. Ultimately, I found it kind of unconvincing. The attempted analogy of people like Dolezal to victims of a damaging government project who were eligible for reparations seems totally misguided. Dolezal isn’t unjustly receiving reparations; there are no reparations to be had.

[MrDibble]

So people being “adopted” into a different ethnic group is completely a thing. Historically, for instance, the Iriquois aggressively adopted outsiders, including Europeans, in their “mourning wars”. But less violent forms of this have also happened.

The difference between that and the Rachel Dolezals of the world is the duplicity involved in the latter cases.

[mr_jp]

@Riemann

@mr_jp

To take one thing, the brain volume of men is ~10% larger on average. This is a large difference. If the brain volume of female-to-male transgender people was also 10% larger on average than that of women this would surely be known.

What on earth is your reasoning here?

Maybe it wasn’t clear, but I was arguing specifically against this:

From what I’ve read (and I’ll admit I’m a layman) scientists have found evidence that the brains of transgender people often are more similar to the gender they identify as rather than the gender they were assigned at birth.

I think this is not true, in the physically measured traits we have at this time. That’s all.

[mr_jp]

@mr_jp

@RivkahChaya

Also, by weight and volume, the corpus corpus callosum is a larger part of the female brain than the male.

Lastly, because men are on the whole, larger, their brains are, on average, slightly larger than women’s, but the volume is mainly motor neurons and supportive (non-neuron) tissue.

This doesn’t really seem to work as an explanation of the matter though. Since female-to-male transgender people (I assume) still have these values closer towards the female brain averages. So it must be some other traits.

Which originated from here earlier in the thread.

[mr_jp]

@iamthewalrus_3

@LordHarry

In short, “transracial” is not, in fact, a thing. Transgender folks, however, have existed and been documented back to the very dawn of civilization, across cultures. This whole binary idea of gender and sex is a very modern phenomenon, that is mostly categorical laziness, rather than social or biological reality.

Aren’t there many examples of people in the past who didn’t feel comfortable in their racial/cultural group and found a home in another, often taking a new name, adopting a new appearance, joining in religious and cultural activities, etc. That seems like a pretty good case for historical “transracialism”.

Cynthia Ann Parler seems like a possible good example. She never identified with her identity and culture after returning to white society.

Young Texan girl kidnapped during Native American raid - HISTORY

[RivkahChaya]

Actually, while I don’t know that “transracial” exists, that may be because “racial” is too big a category.

I think it’s possible that “transethnic” exists.

I know people who converted to Judaism as adults who are thoroughly immersed in Yiddishkheit, and by their speech or behavior, and indistinguishable from native Jews.

I know people who moved to other countries, and after several years, observe all the special celebrations of that country, have dropped or downplayed the ones of their native country, and have altered the way they celebrate shared holidays to be more like their new country-- they also have adapted their palates to the food of their new country; they speak the language, or dialect of their new country-- they may have an accent that belies their origin to an extent, but is not as pronounced as that of a visitor.

The same thing applies to people who change regions in the US, such as moving from small town Texas to downtown Brooklyn. Or a New England town to Hawaii.

Many people-- IME, more frequently, men-- have transethnic experiences when they marry women from very different backgrounds, because of a married couple, the woman usually does most of the work in holiday preparations, and such things, so traditions observed by nuclear families often default to the wife’s background.

Some people become fascinated by an ethnic background, and choose a transethnic experience.

I think this is a very real phenomenon, even if it isn’t recognized by psychology-- albeit, “culture shock” is, and so is “reverse culture shock,” although these are not really regarded as illnesses, just transitory states that are anxiety-inducing, and the person may need extra help and support getting through them; they’re like grief, or PTSD that way (some people have PTSD for life, though, and I never heard of culture shock emotionally crippling someone for life).

I wouldn’t be surprised if many people have gone to therapists with something like “I was born to parents of German and French descent, but I always felt like I should have been born into a big Irish family,” or “I’m obsessed with the idea that my not being being born Jewish was a cosmic mistake.”

I don’t know what a therapist would label that. Maybe an identity crises. If fantasies preoccupy the person to the point of disrupting their daily function, maybe DID. Maybe some kind of “obsessive disorder,” without the “compulsive.” I’m not a therapist, and can’t really guess.

[Smapti]

Honestly, at this point, I’m not even sure what gender is, and my general attitude is just “let people be whoever they want to be, because it isn’t hurting anyone”.

Maybe in another hundred years we’ll have this sorted out.

[Filbert]

I think for me, the difference is although the expression of gender is a social construct, gender itself is an internal thing- it’s obviously great if people accept an individual as the gender they are, but that’s not required for them to be that gender.

When it comes to race, it’s entirely socially determined. Although obviously things like skin colour have a genetic component, it’s entirely social where the boundaries are drawn between ‘races’; as such, it’s the members of the racial grouping who really get to determine if someone is a member or not.

I’ve met a guy who was, as an adult, adopted as a Maori, after doing a lot of work to protect Maori lands. No-one seems to question the right of the group to do that, but if he had just declared himself to be Maori, that would have been ridiculous.

TLDR version: gender is an individual thing so no-one else gets to decide it for you, race is a group thing, so the rest of the group kinda does.

[Novelty_Bobble]

[quote=“Filbert, post:72, topic:932117, full:true”]TLDR version: gender is an individual thing so no-one else gets to decide it for you, race is a group thing, so the rest of the group kinda does.
[/quote]

That doesn’t sound consistent to me, why would the rest of the gender group not also get to decide for you as well? Why wouldn’t the same thinking apply to any definable group?

[Smapti]

@Filbert

race is a group thing, so the rest of the group kinda does.

Best as I can tell, my ancestry is 50% English, 25% Scottish, and 25% Italian. My family name is Scottish, so I tend to describe myself as Scottish if people ask, but my favorite kind of food to cook and to eat is Italian. Which of these groups gets veto authority over what race I’m part of? Or am I just doomed to be an amorphous “White” even though some of my ancestors barely had anything in common with the others, and some of them wouldn’t even have been considered white by some of the others as recently as a century ago?

[Lavender_Pebble]

I am not a scientist, but this Nature article “Neurosexism: the Myth that Men and Women have Different Brains” puts forth the argument that all of the studies saying the brains are different between sexes are flawed and bad science. There is a size difference on average, but because men are on average bigger than women. A man and woman of the same size would have around the same brain mass.

It briefly mentions agender and trans people in the ending but doesn’t expound on what it thinks this means. I found the author Gina Rippon being interviewed here in an Undark Interview where she explains more:

GR: I’m trying to break the idea that there’s an inevitable link between being male [or female], having XX or XY chromosomes and the particular kind of brain you have. But it’s a well-entrenched belief, and informs a lot of expectations we have.

With transgender individuals, or individuals who don’t adhere to the standard binary of male/female, it’s quite clear that the link is not inevitable. [Many] claim, “I was born with a female brain in a male body.” It’s quite challenging if someone like me comes along and says, “There’s no such thing as a female brain.”

But every brain is different from every other brain, and our brains are mosaics of all sorts of different characteristics. No brain is wholly “male” or wholly “female.” We’re starting to unpack that equation.

So Rippon seems to think it’s external, social forces that cause the psychological neurological differences, and not physical differences, which lines up with gender being a purely social construct. She’s also appears to not be a TERF, so I don’t think she’s making this argument in bad faith.

[Filbert]

If the Scots are OK with people with 1/4 Scottish ancestry claiming to be Scottish, yeah fine; best I can tell, they roll their eyes a bit at Americans -assuming you are American- who claim to be Scottish due to one grandparent; so far as they’re concerned they’re American, but they don’t really care if they want to claim to be Scottish as well. Being Scottish is only really important in the English/Scottish issues. That doesn’t necessarily extend to other racial groupings though- some really do care.

The fact that, as you pointed out, Italians were not considered ‘white’ 100 years ago by the people who called themselves white, but now they are, demonstrates that it is the group making the decision- regardless of if that’s fair or reasonable to an outsider. Not saying that’s OK, just that it is.

[Strassia]

Race is not the same as culture (which can be changed or adopted) or genetic population (which can’t). Race was a concept that was created to allow powerful people and groups to exploit less powerful people and groups while still claiming enlightened ideals.
There are many Black cultures and sub-cultures. Anyone can adopt a culture, although the culture may or may not adopt them. But to actually be Black means having a legacy of assumed lesser humanity always a part of your existence.

If we took took a bunch of babies and raised them fully isolated from all adults, with no exposure to any racial concept, I do not believe they would develop any hierarchy or groupings that match the race based ones we have now.*
I believe they would develop a gender presentation, though. It may not match anything we have seen, but it would exist. And, I believe some individuals would not feel at home in the gender that matched their birth presentation. After that, I have no idea. In a different society would it be more common to exist somewhere between the poles, or is the ratio of trans- to a- to inter- gendered more fixed**

*I am not optimistic enough to assume that even in a true tabula rosa no hierarchy would arise, it just wouldn’t be the same.
**There are some real edge cases out there that could either shed light on the underling reality or just really confuse things like alternating gender incongruity:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/ramachandrans-lab-looks-into-whether-you-can-be-a-man-in-the-morning-and-a-woman-at-night/#:~:text=“Alternating%20gender%20incongruity%20(AGI),a%20biological%20basis%20for%20AGI.

[Filbert]

If the general response from African Americans to Rachel Dolezal had been ‘Fine, if she wants to be one of us, no problem’, would the wider response have been the same?

[Smapti]

@Filbert

The fact that, as you pointed out, Italians were not considered ‘white’ 100 years ago by the people who called themselves white, but now they are, demonstrates that it is the group making the decision- regardless of if that’s fair or reasonable to an outsider. Not saying that’s OK, just that it is .

But by that same standard, there are people we now consider to be women who wouldn’t have been considered women 100 years ago by those who called themselves women. Would it not then follow that “the group”, rather than the individual, decides what “woman” means?

@Strassia

There are many Black cultures and sub-cultures. Anyone can adopt a culture, although the culture may or may not adopt them. But to actually be Black means having a legacy of assumed lesser humanity always a part of your existence.

One could easily substitute “female” for “Black” and “gender” for “culture” in that sentence and it would be exactly as true, though.

I honestly don’t get why this should be a sticking point. You were born white but you have made a decision to identify as black, or vice versa? OK by me. I’ll call you whatever you want. It causes me no harm and means the world to you.

[RitterSport]

@Lavender_Pebble

So Rippon seems to think it’s external, social forces that cause the psychological neurological differences, and not physical differences

This part seems odd to me, because social forces have been seriously anti-trans for most of history. It’s one of the reasons why transgender people tend to be very depressed and have high suicide rates – there are social forces trying to make them be something they’re not. Does Rippon try and explain that?