"Her penis" - not at all Orwellian - argh

[Firenze]

I realize you weren’t addressing me, but I disagree with your *assumption* that the brain is like a sex organ, and therefore reject your label as an “angry, uneducated bigot” for not agreeing with your *assumption*.

Neuroscience - assume the mind emerges from the brain and then assume any associated brain activity is the root cause of any behavior. Truly profound stuff.

Strawmen are the sign of a lost position. No one has even implied that 'brain activity is the root cause of any behavior'. The point you missed or are afraid to acknowledge is that several systems are involved in the determination of sexual morphology and identity. Ignoring the role of the brain is what leads to bad conclusions like "If they have penis, then they are completely male".

 

[Treasure Hunter]

Strawmen are the sign of a lost position. No one has even implied that 'brain activity is the root cause of any behavior'. The point you missed or are afraid to acknowledge is that several systems are involved in the determination of sexual morphology and identity. Ignoring the role of the brain is what leads to bad conclusions like "If they have penis, then they are completely male".

What is the primary determiner of gender identity in your view?

 

[icehorse]

I think that you are, like, soooo much ahead of yourself. Right now, changing gender is still a rather complicated procedure. Trans women experience a lot of discrimination... some of it from other women, and plenty of men are still far too caught up in weird machismo to ever take a female identity... even if it would give them an advantage. Anyone who is announcing a change of gender during a trial to get into a different prison would be under a lot of scrutiny, I imagine. I really don't see that becoming a widespread phenomenon.

I'm talking specifically about men who claim to be transgender ONLY for the purpose of being sent to a woman's prison. Men who have zero interest in looking like women.

As for it being wide spread, it's happening more than you might imagine, and again it brings up the question, should we be putting MANY women in more danger to accommodate a few?

Then why did you think that your statement was a meaningful argument? It was just a claim. I am not sure what exactly is going on where you live... but where I live, the concern of women's shelters was brought up, and found to be a minor concern since shelters can decide who comes in on an individual basis. And in general, trans people are more likely to be vicitms rather than offenders

It strikes me that yours was a variation on the "it's not happening" argument. The fact that you do not know how much it's happening isn't a strong argument. If I'm correct, then I'm legitimately arguing to improve the safety of many women. If you're wrong, you are endangering the lives of many women. Don't you think you ought to do a bit of research?

I didn't. is there a good selection of meaningful statistical data I can check instead?

There might be. But I will say I'm quite happy that you place value on statistical data, that makes you somewhat rare in this debate.

But here are a few more data points. Admittedly not statistical, but perhaps the tip of the iceberg:

- A documentary called "Lost Boys"
- Couple of companies dedicated to fast-tracking approval for GAC drugs and surgeies:
getplume.com
circlemedical.com
folx.com

I would not call it different sexes, but rather a mix of factors that leads to a variety of phenotypes. There's the genetics, and variations from the XX /XY are rare but a regular phenomenon (0,2%). Then there are the hormones, that can totally shape someone's phenotype even independent of their genetics. And then there are all the little variations that make up the human spectrum. Different sized genitals, different body size, different expression of secondary markers like face shapes etc. - we're all on a spectrum somewhere, between what is considered male or female bodies. And that's only bodies... when you throw psychology and gender identity into the mix, it gets indefinitely more complicated.

I don't think that is helps if we try to force every human strictly into one of two boxes. It just enforces the stereotypes that we'd like to soften up.
And in the end, the first right and responsibility to decide on their own identity lies with a person themselves.

Of course, a huge variety of phenotypes. But - for example - as you age depending on which of the two sexes you are, you might have to worry either about prostate issues or menopause. Sex matters for safeguarding and also for health care.

It seems maybe that you're conflating biological sex with phenotypes with gender stereotypes?

 

[icehorse]

When you say that you sound even more anti-trans...

Hmmm. I thought we were having a decent conversation. Do you really want to degrade your arguments by conflating the message with the messenger? sigh.

 

[icehorse]

What does any of this has to do with pronoun usage?

Forgive me. I think your last post was about 150 posts ago, can you refresh the context of this question? thanks

 

[Firenze]

What is the primary determiner of gender identity in your view?

First, you need to understand the definition of gender:

noun. 1. the state of being male or female with reference to socially and culturally defined characteristics of masculinity or femininity, or of having an identity that does not correspond to such characteristics.

That definition correctly recognizes the imprecise manner in which cultures decide what gender is, and how limited that worldview is.

That said, the science clearly reveals that there are several things that determine an individuals gender identity. The science of embryo develop makes that clear. All embryos start out as female. A chemical wash must occur, initiated by the presence of a Y chromosome, for male physical characteristics to develop. Those characteristics develop in the 1st trimester - while the brain characteristics develop later. In a perfect world, the brain chemistry matches the sex organs. But it ain't a perfect world, and so we get babies born with both a penis and ovaries, or a vagina and testicles. What is their gender identity? We won't know until they tell us, pursuant to the brain chemistry. But more often than people are educated enough to know, we get babies with completely male, or female, genitalia - but a brain chemistry that does not match. Some people will take the intellectually lazy course and claim that since they can't 'see' brain chemistry, these people are simply 'confused' - which is insulting to the subject, and should be an embarrassment to the claimant.

 

[Treasure Hunter]

What is their gender identity? We won't know until they tell us, pursuant to the brain chemistry.

Again, what is the primary (singular) determiner of gender identity in your view? I don’t need a lesson in human development, thanks.

 

[icehorse]

But more often than people are educated enough to know, we get babies with completely male, or female, genitalia - but a brain chemistry that does not match. Some people will take the intellectually lazy course and claim that since they can't 'see' brain chemistry, these people are simply 'confused' - which is insulting to the subject, and should be an embarrassment to the claimant.

Sorry to jump in here, but since you're talking about gender stereotypes, can't we just be happy that some girls are tomboys and some boys are effeminate and not try to make them feel like they have the wrong bodies?

 

[Tamino]

should we be putting MANY women in more danger to accommodate a few?

Let me pick up this one. Accommodating the few ist super important. It's the true measure of a free society: how we protect minorities.
You make it seem like there is a unescapable choice of either the one or the other. I don't believe that. I think we can allow a freer choice of gender identity without risking anyone's safety.

It strikes me that yours was a variation on the "it's not happening" argument. The fact that you do not know how much it's happening isn't a strong argument. If I'm correct, then I'm legitimately arguing to improve the safety of many women. If you're wrong, you are endangering the lives of many women. Don't you think you ought to do a bit of research?

I just did. I conclude that I can find no evidence of women being systematically endangered by trans or "fake-trans" people in my country. I can, however, find a lot of evidence of women being endangered by their domestic partners, so that's where I'd focus my efforts, if the safety of women is the goal.

There might be. But I will say I'm quite happy that you place value on statistical data, that makes you somewhat rare in this debate.

But here are a few more data points. Admittedly not statistical, but perhaps the tip of the iceberg:

The tip of the iceberg? Or a Mountain made out of a molehill?

Of course, a huge variety of phenotypes. But - for example - as you age depending on which of the two sexes you are, you might have to worry either about prostate issues or menopause. Sex matters for safeguarding and also for health care.

exactly. That's why medical research needs to take sex-specific issues into account, to provide the best possible care for the individual. I don't see how that contradicts my points?

It seems maybe that you're conflating biological sex with phenotypes with gender stereotypes?

No, really not. I just see it a bit different than you. I think that biological sex is created by a number of factors which lead to a variety of phenotypes rather than a strict binary on all levels.
To be clear: I am not saying that intersexual or hermaphrodite bodies are common, they are still rather rate. But the variations from the binary norm are not restricted to rare diseases and outliers. They start with men with a round face and little beard, women who need to shave their faces, women with small breasts, men with a small penis, women who are infertile, men who are infertile, men who have relatively little testosterone, women who have relatively high levels... and so on. It's a continuum. So where can one draw the line of which body is still male, or not anymore?

And gender identity and gender stereotypes are superimposed on that, with its own mess of cultural issues.

But I see that we probably will not come to an agreement, so I don't know if there's any use in continuing this conversation...

 

[Firenze]

Again, what is the primary (singular) determiner of gender identity in your view? I don’t need a lesson in human development, thanks.

Clearly you do. Human development indicates there is no primary determinant. An embryo with a Y chromosome will develop testosterone. Will that be enough to determine gender identity? Maybe, maybe not. The brain chemistry might override the testosterone in one case, and not another. Or the develop of a vagina even in the presence of testosterone may be the deciding factor. We also have to respect the cultural pressures that influence what an individual decides to accept or reject about themselves. I'm sorry that nature isn't as simple as you'd like it to be.

 

[Treasure Hunter]

Clearly you do. Human development indicates there is no primary determinant. An embryo with a Y chromosome will develop testosterone. Will that be enough to determine gender identity? Maybe, maybe not. The brain chemistry might override the testosterone in one case, and not another. Or the develop of a vagina even in the presence of testosterone may be the deciding factor. We also have to respect the cultural pressures that influence what an individual decides to accept or reject about themselves. I'm sorry that nature isn't as simple as you'd like it to be.

When you fill out a form, which gender do you identify as? How do you come to your answer?

 

[icehorse]

Let me pick up this one. Accommodating the few ist super important. It's the true measure of a free society: how we protect minorities.
You make it seem like there is a unescapable choice of either the one or the other. I don't believe that. I think we can allow a freer choice of gender identity without risking anyone's safety.

We're mostly agreed here. But these solutions are currently of a sort of zero-sum nature and they do not need to be.

I just did. I conclude that I can find no evidence of women being systematically endangered by trans or "fake-trans" people in my country. I can, however, find a lot of evidence of women being endangered by their domestic partners, so that's where I'd focus my efforts, if the safety of women is the goal.

I don't know where you live, but this is an issue in the UK. And as far as domestic violence, solving that is indeed worthy of our attention.

The tip of the iceberg? Or a Mountain made out of a molehill?

How many needlessly mutilated gay kids does it take to make a mountain? Not very many in my opinion.

No, really not. I just see it a bit different than you. I think that biological sex is created by a number of factors which lead to a variety of phenotypes rather than a strict binary on all levels.
To be clear: I am not saying that intersexual or hermaphrodite bodies are common, they are still rather rate. But the variations from the binary norm are not restricted to rare diseases and outliers. They start with men with a round face and little beard, women who need to shave their faces, women with small breasts, men with a small penis, women who are infertile, men who are infertile, men who have relatively little testosterone, women who have relatively high levels... and so on. It's a continuum. So where can one draw the line of which body is still male, or not anymore?

None of that means that biological sex is a continuum.

I agree that phenotypes vary greatly, but that's a different topic.

But I see that we probably will not come to an agreement, so I don't know if there's any use in continuing this conversation...

This is clearly a very volatile topic. I sincerely appreciate your civility, I wish other posters were as civil as you.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

genital remove surgery?

And you can't even get terms right.

 

[Treasure Hunter]

And you can't even get terms right.

Devastating critique.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

expect consensus to happen far down the road,
as there is ever more experience with transitioning

Or should be there now. It's not like this is a new thing. Just a lot of loud mouth bigots who refuse to consider what science and medicine say.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Devastating critique.

It means you're very uninformed but pretending to know anyways.

 

[McBell]

When you fill out a form, which gender do you identify as? How do you come to your answer?

I do not recall a form that asks for gender.
Can you provide an example of one?

 

[Treasure Hunter]

It means you're very uninformed but pretending to know anyways.

A wise person doesn’t look to gender specialists or trans activists for insight on the mind and gender.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

A wise person doesn’t look to gender specialists or trans activists for insight on the mind and gender.

For medical stuff people who aren't dumb turn to medical professionals who are experts in the field.

 

[Treasure Hunter]

For medical stuff people who aren't dumb turn to medical professionals who are experts in the field.

When it comes to understanding the mind as a society, we are still very much in the dark age, clearly.