Support NeoGAF

[figadapaura]

I hate TERFs. They ruin everything.

 

[kirblar]

Neuroscience has made great strides this decade, it's no longer a science in its infancy so excuse me if I'm frustrated by the constant denial of scientific research. Furthermore the consensus about "different brains" doesn't exist only in neuroscience, evolutionary biologists and biologists also agree, and these are also sciences a certain feminists are trying to discredit.

To me it's very reminiscent of what the Economics field went through over the past century. Many ideas like Communism were once taken seriously in the absence of research/data, but slowly got discredited as history, data, and research allowed us to understand more about what was occuring in various market structures. Austrian Economics was initiated as a counter-point to it to fight against it. Over time, the good ideas from Austrian Economics (the focus on microeconomics, emphasis on personal agency) got absorbed from the mainstream, but the bad ideas from Communism/Austrian Economics were left on the sidelines. The mainstream moved on, but those ideas were still very appealing to people and so they've essentially become zombie shells that attract people who like the concepts, not those who are objectively interested in finding truth.

A similar thing seems to be occurring with Feminism, in that many older ideas from its infancy have evolved or been replaced with better ones, but people are still attached to those old concepts and aren't able to break out of the dogma they were taught. And so they remain as traps for people who are drawn to explanations that they "like", rather than ones that objectively hold up.

 

[Mumei]

Neuroscience has made great strides this decade, it's no longer a science in its infancy so excuse me if I'm frustrated by the constant denial of scientific research. Furthermore the consensus about "different brains" doesn't exist only in neuroscience, evolutionary biologists and biologists also agree, and these are also sciences a certain feminists are trying to discredit.

You're acting as if this is an issue of monolithic settled science versus science-denying feminists. This is uninformed. From the OP of the topic I linked to earlier:

Skepticism about neuroscience (handily shortened to “neuroskepticism”) is almost as much in fashion now as brain science itself was a few years ago. Perhaps inspired in part by the disgrace of popular neuroscience writer Jonah Lehrer, there’s now a whole cottage industry devoted to critiquing the use of brain scans to explain our lives. And yet there’s one area where we remain highly neuro-credulous: gender.

Witness a recent study that found gender differences in the way brain regions connect with one another, and argued that these differences give men better motor skills and women better “social cognition.” Published in PNAS, the study bore the relatively modest title “Sex differences in the structural connectome of the human brain,” but mainstream media headlines made bigger claims: “Different brain wiring in men, women could explain gender differences” (CBS), “Brains of women and men show strong hard-wired differences” (Los Angeles Times), and “The hardwired difference between male and female brains could explain why men are ‘better at map reading’” (the Independent). This is hardly news — media outlets, including Salon, like to choose grabby headlines — but the particular way in which these were grabby is noteworthy. Even if we’re growing skeptical of neuroscience, we as a society seem to love the idea that the difference between the genders is “hard-wired.”

A number of scientists have weighed in to criticize the PNAS study itself. In the Conversation, psychologist Cordelia Fine cites research by the same team that conducted the PNAS study, showing that sex differences in various psychological skills are actually vanishingly small, “so small that if you were to select a boy and girl at random and compare their scores on a task, the ‘right’ sex would be superior less than 53% of the time.” Georgina Rippon, a professor of cognitive imaging, writes that the study authors may have shown structural differences between male and female brains, but they can’t actually prove those differences have any relationship to how people live: “Any relationship with behaviour can only be speculative at this stage.”

And NYU neuroscientist J. Antony Movshon told Salon via email that the PNAS study overstates what we actually know about the human brain, male or female: “the relationship between the pattern of anatomical results and the paper’s claim that ‘… male brains are structured to facilitate connectivity between perception and coordinated action, whereas female brains are designed to facilitate communication between analytical and intuitive processing modes’ strikes me as fanciful at best, because we actually have no clear idea what connections are involved in connecting ‘perception and coordinated action’ or ‘analytical and intuitive processing modes.’”

There are larger issues at play than a single study, though. Our appetite for the idea of gender “hard-wiring” may be immense (at least judging by headlines), but it’s also likely misguided. In a 2011 paper on the subject, sociomedical scientist Rebecca Jordan-Young and psychologist Raffaella I. Rumiati argue that the idea that prenatal sex hormones forever lock the brain into certain gendered behaviors is specious for several reasons. For one thing, there’s compelling evidence that the kinds of skills that are supposedly etched in the brain from birth are actually quite susceptible to change through simple practice. And perhaps most notably, it’s not possible to determine through brain imaging which brain characteristics are truly innate: “there is no reason to assume that these differences do not arise, at least in part, from gendered patterns of social roles and behaviors — that is, brain differences may result from the very characteristics that are supposedly ‘hard- wired’ into the brain in the first place.”

And the popularity of the hard-wiring idea has pernicious real-world effects. Fine told Salon in an email, “Seeing the differences between the sexes as large, distinctive, and fixed is associated with accentuation of gender differences in both self and others, and greater acceptance of sexism and the status quo.” It’s easy to see this play out in real time, as gender traditionalists crow over each new study like the PNAS one, holding up supposedly scientific evidence that, for instance, women can’t do math. PNAS study author Ragini Verma (who has not yet responded to Salon’s request for comment) helped such traditionalists along a bit by linking her team’s findings to maternal instinct: “Intuition is thinking without thinking. [...] Women tend to be better than men at these kinds of skill which are linked with being good mothers.”

The standard response to any questioning of the hard-wiring paradigm, at least in the kind of cocktail-party setting where a feminist might be engaged in debate about such things (note: I would often prefer to discuss baseball), is some variant on, “So are you saying men and women are exactly the same?”

Rarely is anyone saying that. Rather, what critics of hard-wiring object to is the idea that there are inborn characteristics of the brain that should dictate what men and women do with their lives. Specifically, the argument often runs that since women’s brains are built for nurturing and men’s for analysis, women aren’t fit to be scientists or men to be parents. This in turn leads to the argument that we don’t need social programs to support female scientists or involved dads — or, even more dangerously, that those people who choose to do something their brains are allegedly hard-wired against are deserving of suspicion or discrimination. The problem with the discourse of hard-wiring isn’t so much its descriptive elements (though these can be misguided) but its prescriptive ones. As Jordan-Young and Rumiati write, “Hardwiring is an unethical metaphor because it says ‘what is, must be.’”

Who are those people mentioned in that OP? Georgina Robbin is Professor of Cognitive Imaging and Pro-Vice Chancellor (International) at Aston University; Cordelia Fine is an Associate Professor at Melbourne Business School, Australia, and a Senior Research Fellow at the Department of Psychological Sciences at the University of Melbourne, Australia; Dorothy Bishop is Professor of Developmental Neuropsychology at the University of Oxford; Adam Hampshire is Senior Lecturer in Restorative Neurosciences at the Imperial College London; Heidi Johansen-Berg is Professor of Cognitive Neuroscience, FMRIB Centre, University of Oxford. As I said in that topic, these are experts in their field who are making specific, reasonable criticisms about the overinterpretation of the data and shortcomings in the study design.

 

[IronRinn]

Was going to post this yesterday, as I saw a number of people in my Twitter feed (both trans and cis) who were quite angry with The New Yorker and the article, some going so far as to call it transphobic. It didn't strike me that way, though I suppose one could see its uncritical presentation of TERF ideology as lending them legitimacy and the author apparently uses some questionable terminology and phrasing. Either way, however, TERFs are pretty shitty and GIDWatch (mentioned in this thread) is fucking terrible, hateful shit.

 

[FelixOrion]

I hate TERFs. They ruin everything.

If there's a TERF and we launch them into space, does that make them an AstroTERF?

 

[Mahadev]

You're acting as if this is an issue of monolithic settled science versus science-denying feminists. This is uninformed. From the OP of the topic I linked to earlier:



Who are those people mentioned in that OP? Georgina Robbin is Professor of Cognitive Imaging and Pro-Vice Chancellor (International) at Aston University; Cordelia Fine is an Associate Professor at Melbourne Business School, Australia, and a Senior Research Fellow at the Department of Psychological Sciences at the University of Melbourne, Australia; Dorothy Bishop is Professor of Developmental Neuropsychology at the University of Oxford; Adam Hampshire is Senior Lecturer in Restorative Neurosciences at the Imperial College London; Heidi Johansen-Berg is Professor of Cognitive Neuroscience, FMRIB Centre, University of Oxford. As I said in that topic, these are experts in their field who are making specific, reasonable criticisms about the overinterpretation of the data and shortcomings in the study design.

So you're using an article by a feminist that tries too hard to discredit neuroscience using a crapload of phychologists as her sources, Georgina Robbin, someone I can't even find on google, and Adam Gopnik the only actual neuroscientist of the bunch who is only quoted saying the generic "We learn and shape our neurology as much as we inherit it". And you use that to argue against my post that pretty much says that some feminists are hellbend on trying to discredit sciences that disagree with feminist theories...

Maybe I take this shit too seriously because I've been arguing against religious people all my life but honestly I find this attitude some feminists have towards science when it doesn't agree with their worldview deeply concerning.

 

[Karkador]

Maybe I take this shit too seriously because I've been arguing against religious people all my life but honestly I find this attitude some feminists have towards science when it doesn't agree with their worldview deeply concerning.

Newsflash: Lots of different groups use science (or the evidence they want to invest in) to credit their worldview. You use it that way, too. If you think this is strictly a feminist/religious thing, look again. I don't think it's inherently wrong to do that, but a healthy view of science (which scientists themselves have) is to constantly ask questions about it. Not questioning their own beliefs is what puts religious people in weird places of reasoning. Likewise, putting so much weight on evobiology and evopsych, and vetting your scientists through a Google search sounds just about as dogmatic.

 

[besada]

So you're using an article by a feminist that tries too hard to discredit neuroscience using a crapload of phychologists as her sources, Georgina Robbin, someone I can't even find on google, and Adam Gopnik the only actual neuroscientist of the bunch who is only quoted saying the generic "We learn and shape our neurology as much as we inherit it". And you use that to argue against my post that pretty much says that some feminists are hellbend on trying to discredit sciences that disagree with feminist theories...

Maybe I take this shit too seriously because I've been arguing against religious people all my life but honestly I find this attitude some feminists have towards science when it doesn't agree with their worldview deeply concerning.

Given that the only argument you've made so far is that you're deeply angry, and you say so, therefore it must be so, I don't think you have a lot of room to go picking at other people's sources. If you're going to make an argument, based on evidence, present some beyond your personal opinion, otherwise, you're just an angry guy with an axe to grind, who's wasting everyone's time. Mumei addressed you in a reasonable fashion, including producing actual external sources. If your anger and frustration makes it impossible for you to do the same, why would anyone take anything you say seriously? If you're correct, and the consensus is as overwhelming as you suggest, and neuroscience as robust as you believe, then proving your point should be child's play.

 

[Gotchaye]

So you're using an article by a feminist that tries too hard to discredit neuroscience using a crapload of phychologists as her sources, Georgina Robbin, someone I can't even find on google, and Adam Gopnik the only actual neuroscientist of the bunch who is only quoted saying the generic "We learn and shape our neurology as much as we inherit it". And you use that to argue against my post that pretty much says that some feminists are hellbend on trying to discredit sciences that disagree with feminist theories...

Maybe I take this shit too seriously because I've been arguing against religious people all my life but honestly I find this attitude some feminists have towards science when it doesn't agree with their worldview deeply concerning.

Let's back up a bit. It's not clear to me what scientific research you think people here are denying. This all started when Yrael expressed skepticism of this: "Researchers concluded that when it comes to math, the brain of a 12-year-old girl resembles that of an 8-year-old boy."

So, first, it's not at all unreasonable to be skeptical of the results of a single study, absent replication, etc. But moving on, obviously that's not even a very science-y statement. This is at best the result of taking a good study and distilling it down to a very unhelpful sentence, and it's likely to be misleading for all kinds of reasons. If the study even talks in these terms, it's going to have some probably not terribly proven way of identifying the parts of the brain that are involved in doing math and an unintuitive metric for resemblance. Undoubtedly there's going to be a lot of variance within sexes. Some explanation is going to be needed for how, nevertheless, there doesn't appear to be a huge gap in actual mathematical ability between boys and girls of the same age (studies on this tend to be all over the place, suggesting that innate brain differences can't be making that big of a difference on something so broad as "math" in general). Of particular relevance to this topic, statements like the one above assume that boys and girls are natural groupings of similar children; it can be quite misleading to talk this way if it's possible that some children who look like girls actually have brains which are very typical of boys, even if it is the case that the brains of most girls differ from the brains of most boys in ways which are important to explaining gender identity.

But, really, I think it'd be helpful if you would point to specific instances of science denial which trouble you. Like, which statements in the article Mumei links do you find to be very unreasonable? As-is, you sort of come across as just wanting to rant about unspecified transgressions by unnamed feminists.

 

[SRG01]

Let's back up a bit. It's not clear to me what scientific research you think people here are denying. This all started when Yrael expressed skepticism of this: "Researchers concluded that when it comes to math, the brain of a 12-year-old girl resembles that of an 8-year-old boy."

So, first, it's not at all unreasonable to be skeptical of the results of a single study, absent replication, etc. But moving on, obviously that's not even a very science-y statement. This is at best the result of taking a good study and distilling it down to a very unhelpful sentence, and it's likely to be misleading for all kinds of reasons. If the study even talks in these terms, it's going to have some probably not terribly proven way of identifying the parts of the brain that are involved in doing math and an unintuitive metric for resemblance. Undoubtedly there's going to be a lot of variance within sexes. Some explanation is going to be needed for how, nevertheless, there doesn't appear to be a huge gap in actual mathematical ability between boys and girls of the same age (studies on this tend to be all over the place, suggesting that innate brain differences can't be making that big of a difference on something so broad as "math" in general). Of particular relevance to this topic, statements like the one above assume that boys and girls are natural groupings of similar children; it can be quite misleading to talk this way if it's possible that some children who look like girls actually have brains which are very typical of boys, even if it is the case that the brains of most girls differ from the brains of most boys in ways which are important to explaining gender identity.

But, really, I think it'd be helpful if you would point to specific instances of science denial which trouble you. Like, which statements in the article Mumei links do you find to be very unreasonable? As-is, you sort of come across as just wanting to rant about unspecified transgressions by unnamed feminists.

The one thing that Mumei's article only briefly touched upon is the concept of neuroplasticity. It is extremely difficult to gauge brain development because it's easy to change cognitive behavior and abilities by simple conditioning.

This is even more problematic when it comes to child development, as many develop at incredibly different rates. And that's not even accounting for the proper controls!

 

[MaschinenZimmer]

People may find this useful:

I don't want to come as rude but how is agender supposed to look like? Does the gender expression only goes by appearance like shoes or jeans? I am mean at some point you must have either a penis or a vagina, there are people with both but those are hermaphrodite, right?

My mind can't comprehend how a person with a neutral gender is supposed to look like. I know that in Christianity angels have no gender, but people don't consider themselves angels, right?

Or is the sex the part about the genitals but if someone is asexual this means that s/he is not feeling any sexual feelings, right? It's has nothing to do with the genitals. I am really confused by this picture.

 

[sploatee]

The one thing that Mumei's article only briefly touched upon is the concept of neuroplasticity. It is extremely difficult to gauge brain development because it's easy to change cognitive behavior and abilities by simple conditioning.

This is even more problematic when it comes to child development, as many develop at incredibly different rates. And that's not even accounting for the proper controls!

Correct me if I'm wrong (no, honestly) but what will be achieved by actually finding a biological basis for trans-ism? I don't think it will change the minds of those who have already fixed their opinions. To those people, it's a moral or political issue and questions of science are likely to be irrelevant.

It's not like finding the pattern behind a disease which can then be cured (again, correct me if I'm wrong, my education is heavily on the arts side and I'm a bit of a neophyte with anything scientific). Surely it would be like conclusively finding the 'gay gene'. What do we hope to achieve with that knowledge? To eradicate homosexuality? Selective breeding? I just don't see what it achieves.

 

[SRG01]

I don't want to come as rude but how is agender supposed to look like? Does the gender expression only goes by appearance like shoes or jeans? I am mean at some point you must have either a penis or a vagina, there are people with both but those are hermaphrodite, right?

My mind can't comprehend how a person with a neutral gender is supposed to look like. I know that in Christianity angels have no gender, but people don't consider themselves angels, right?

Or is the sex the part about the genitals but if someone is asexual this means that s/he is not feeling any sexual feelings, right? It's has nothing to do with the genitals. I am really confused by this picture.

I think you're confusing gender expression with biological phenotype...?

 

[SRG01]

Correct me if I'm wrong (no, honestly) but what will be achieved by actually finding a biological basis for trans-ism? I don't think it will change the minds of those who have already fixed their opinions. To those people, it's a moral or political issue and questions of science are likely to be irrelevant.

It's not like finding the pattern behind a disease which can then be cured (again, correct me if I'm wrong, my education is heavily on the arts side and I'm a bit of a neophyte with anything scientific). Surely it would be like conclusively finding the 'gay gene'. What do we hope to achieve with that knowledge? To eradicate homosexuality? Selective breeding? I just don't see what it achieves.

I don't really have the answer for that, unfortunately.

Edit: Oops, sorry for the double post.

 

[sploatee]

I don't really have the answer for that, unfortunately.

Edit: Oops, sorry for the double post.

Neither do I! I was hoping you might!!

 

[Amalthea]

And yet, theres plenty of girls who transition into girls at around age 5 or 6 or even earlier. So those girls ARE raised as girls from pretty much the beginning. With only female puberty being delayed maybe a year or two because of stupid doctors not giving out horomes when they should. (Sorry, that has always grinded on me.)


Where is your logic now radical feminists?

Spoiler

They have no logic.

You don't even have to be raised as such directly if you just instinctively listen to what adults tell to girls while ignoring the lessons they specifically give to boys. That way you actually internalyize a lot of the stuff that girls grow up with despite being strictly assigned and brought up as a boy.

 

[ElFly]

The "MtF don't feel the oppression of being raised as women" is kind of crazy, and falls apart at the very moment of considering how oppressed transwomen are.

 

[kirblar]

Correct me if I'm wrong (no, honestly) but what will be achieved by actually finding a biological basis for trans-ism? I don't think it will change the minds of those who have already fixed their opinions. To those people, it's a moral or political issue and questions of science are likely to be irrelevant.

It's not like finding the pattern behind a disease which can then be cured (again, correct me if I'm wrong, my education is heavily on the arts side and I'm a bit of a neophyte with anything scientific). Surely it would be like conclusively finding the 'gay gene'. What do we hope to achieve with that knowledge? To eradicate homosexuality? Selective breeding? I just don't see what it achieves.

Having more information is a good thing. Being able to definitively show what causes it and explain it that way in textbooks is a good thing. It could potentially help identify kids who are likely in need of assistance before the kids are even aware of the issue, helping smooth parts of what's likely going to be a bumpy road for them.

 

[MaschinenZimmer]

I think you're confusing gender expression with biological phenotype...?

So neither the sex, nor the expression have anything to do with the biological phenotypes? I think the biological part is where I am not sure.

For example: You can feel an asexual attraction to males, while yourself Identity as male but express yourself as female via dresses. But your genitals have no role? Your physical sex has no meaning for your gender? Did I understand that right?

 

[Amalthea]

The "MtF don't feel the oppression of being raised as women" is kind of crazy, and falls apart at the very moment of considering how oppressed transwomen are.

I wrote a comment in FB concerning this article that read as follows:
"What kind of privilege does a child have that gets harrassed like a girl but beaten like a boy?"

 

[sploatee]

Having more information is a good thing. Being able to definitively show what causes it and explain it that way in textbooks is a good thing. It could potentially help identify kids who are likely in need of assistance before the kids are even aware of the issue, helping smooth parts of what's likely going to be a bumpy road for them.

I hope so. I'm just instinctively mistrustful of any kind of external certainty when it comes to identity. What about people who 'fail the test' (or even 'pass it') - do they get denied support?

I believe gender identity and sexuality are something which an individual has the right to claim for themselves and declare - or not - as they see fit. Bringing in some kind of biological determinism into the debate feels a bit...eugenic-y, even though there might be some benefits.

 

[CapNBritain]

People may find this useful:

I just wanted to say that I found this graphic to be extremely helpful, as I've always been confused at the notion of gender being both a societal construct and a biological one. If gender was just a societal construct, then do they just have a desire/need to have society respond to them a certain way? But then I've heard people here say that there is a physical discomfort with their body and it's biological sex, which is also hard to understand as a cis(?). Any way, this graphic was very helpful and I hope that this thread continues to deliver on interesting viewpoints.

 

[SRG01]

So neither the sex, nor the expression have anything to do with the biological phenotypes? I think the biological part is where I am not sure.

For example: You can feel an asexual attraction to males, while yourself Identity as male but express yourself as female via dresses. But your genitals have no role? Your physical sex has no meaning for your gender? Did I understand that right?

Well, that's actually one of the parts that doesn't really click for me with that infograph. The Male/Female self-ID shouldn't be in the Biological Sex portion because that part seems indicative of the biological phenotype and not Gender Identity (which is already listed as the first category). That's especially true if they list 'intersex' as one of the categories there. Perhaps they're talking about self-identification of biological gender in intersex cases (such as a case I read a while back whose ovaries were actually testes... or was it the other way around? Or was it an extra set? I digress), which is an extremely difficult area to discuss because of the amount of fluidity that can occur.

On the other side, gender expression is definitely the external, non-genetic expression that a person gives themselves judging from the descriptors there.

 

[Timeaisis]

Interesting indeed. And a tad depressing to read as I feel we should live in a world where people can just be what their free will leads them to.

A random thought 1 in the morning: as it stands now, we will never see a FtM ever achieve the rankings and status of someone born with dick and balls.

Regardless, big picture, i feel this is about social control and assigning roles. You assign roles and then start assigning behavior and then appearances and so on and so on. In the process we come to original question posed in OT.

I think this issue goes beyond issue of self identity (not to dismiss the importance of that issue), but its about a select few of our global population who impose what is. Metaphysically it violates the concept of free will. This is about control.

I could give two shits about labels. What you are , who you are, goes beyond what is in between your legs.

Well said. And furthermore, trying to label people in and out of your group only leads to divide society further. Shit like this where people say "you're not a real women, real women do/have this" or whatever just increases tension and makes potential allies hate you. Society seems to be spinning out of control into a system where everyone is going to be in their own little niche socio-political bubble where they have the same opinions but are sworn enemies with the people on the other side who share similar ideals except one detail.

I'm reminded of that great south park episode where the atheists of the world are at with war with each other over what name they use to represent themselves. Willing to kill each other for it.

It's like people aren't allowed to have different opinions if they are part of socio-political groups anymore. "If you're a real feminist, you would be against trans people identifying as females", for example. Why alienate potential allies in the feminist movement? Disagreement over things is natural, but its one thing to disagree and another to outright chastise entire segments of society for not falling in line with your "perfect" worldview.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

my head is hurting.

 

[mollipen]

Correct me if I'm wrong (no, honestly) but what will be achieved by actually finding a biological basis for trans-ism? I don't think it will change the minds of those who have already fixed their opinions. To those people, it's a moral or political issue and questions of science are likely to be irrelevant.

I think it would help provide a counter-argument to those who see gender identity as a choice. When you choose to be something, it's easy to look down upon that person; when that person had no choice in who they are, it's harder.

For now, being transgender is still a "fantasy" thing in some people's minds. The trans person is delusional, or not dealing with their "real" issues, or think the grass is greener on the other side, or they're confused, or it's a sexual fetish, or whatever. So, it's easy to not see this as a real, legitimate issue. But, if we were to say have proof of a physical link that causes a person's brain to be wired the wrong way, it's something that is tangible.

Really, tangibility is one of the hardest parts of trans acceptance I think. It's hard for people to understand why one person would identify as another gender, and those reasons aren't as easily explained as, say, what it means for a person to be homosexual. If you can say "the brain developed the wrong way" or whatever, that's something anyone can understand.

Of course, the question may then become "well can you just fix their brain?", or if the brain can't be "fixed" and more major physical fixes are the only solution.

 

[Dr.Acula]

Interesting paradox. If you have male and female brains, and all sorts of other kinds of brains, then it is completely possible for you to be born with a brain that doesn't match your body. But are we ready to preclude men or women from certain things because of innate aptitudes?

I remember early in the gay-rights movement there was an awful lot of argument over homosexuality being a choice, or something you were born with. I've known people who swear they always knew, others, who have lived as straight, have had straight marriages, families, who have then had an epiphany about their emergent sexuality.

Clearly the trans movement is much further behind. Today, whether someone was born or became gay seems irrelevant. I can't even recall anyone talking about it in the last few years. Attitudes have changed. Yesterday, it really did seems like born v. choice was some kind of lynchpin in shaping policy.

Clearly the trans movement has a future where this kind of nit picking or navel gazing or drive by analysis won't matter. For the next generation we will have to deal with brain makeup, privilege, and all sorts of minutiae as society shakes the branches trying to figure out whether those who identify as trans get to be actual people deserving of respect or not.

 

[Platy]

Interesting paradox. If you have male and female brains, and all sorts of other kinds of brains, then it is completely possible for you to be born with a brain that doesn't match your body. But are we ready to preclude men or women from certain things because of innate aptitudes?

People do things that they don't have innate aptitudes all the time.... for some people is driving, other is exercising, other is talking to people .....

 

[Gr1mLock]

A MISE.. .fuck

A MISERABLE LITTLE PILE OF SECRETS

BUT ENOUGH TALK, HAVE AT YOU!

 

[SquiddyCracker]

I just wanted to say that I found this graphic to be extremely helpful, as I've always been confused at the notion of gender being both a societal construct and a biological one. If gender was just a societal construct, then do they just have a desire/need to have society respond to them a certain way? But then I've heard people here say that there is a physical discomfort with their body and it's biological sex, which is also hard to understand as a cis(?). Any way, this graphic was very helpful and I hope that this thread continues to deliver on interesting viewpoints.

And it is still a simplification, a lot of those axii could be given an N dimensional treatment.
For starters, there's not just woman-ness and man-ness, but rather a number of traits that different cultures assign to different gender archetypes (so in many western countries, this might correspond to "man" and "woman".) In some cultures, you actually have 3+ distinct genders to which these traits are ascribed of, so you get X-ness, Y-ness, and Z-ness.

 

[danwarb]

Just treat people as the individuals they are, with their own unique histories. Leave the talk of "privilege" to the generalities it is appropriate for.

 

[The Technomancer]

I think it would help provide a counter-argument to those who see gender identity as a choice. When you choose to be something, it's easy to look down upon that person; when that person had no choice in who they are, it's harder.

For now, being transgender is still a "fantasy" thing in some people's minds. The trans person is delusional, or not dealing with their "real" issues, or think the grass is greener on the other side, or they're confused, or it's a sexual fetish, or whatever. So, it's easy to not see this as a real, legitimate issue. But, if we were to say have proof of a physical link that causes a person's brain to be wired the wrong way, it's something that is tangible.

Really, tangibility is one of the hardest parts of trans acceptance I think. It's hard for people to understand why one person would identify as another gender, and those reasons aren't as easily explained as, say, what it means for a person to be homosexual. If you can say "the brain developed the wrong way" or whatever, that's something anyone can understand.

Of course, the question may then become "well can you just fix their brain?", or if the brain can't be "fixed" and more major physical fixes are the only solution.

What does this mean for the trans people who don't believe in a biological foundation though? I didn't know they existed before this morning but I'm doing some reading, and apparently there are trans people who don't experience dysphoria, for whom their gender is "a choice", and some of the sentiments in this thread seem to be in the same vein.

 

[zbarron]

Ugh. I hate when shit like this comes out. It gives all feminists a bad rap. No, what those women are saying isn't real feminism. Real feminism involves intersectionality. It's just like those white feminists who say that women like Rihanna are bad because they show skin. smh.

May I ask who you are and what position you hold that gives you the right of categorizing other people against their will? You are doing exactly the thing you decry.

But what of Scotsmen?

Economy of words wins again.

 

[Dash_]

It depends how you interpret the transgender umbrella. Some people identify as genderfluid or genderqueer for example, while others come to the conclusion that they're trans much later in life than others. Does that mean they're undeserving of having their identities respected?

No.

The diversity of transgenderism is one of its greatest strengths.

 

[OmegaFax]

A MISERABLE LITTLE PILE OF SECRETS

BUT ENOUGH TALK, HAVE AT YOU!

 

[mollipen]

What does this mean for the trans people who don't believe in a biological foundation though? I didn't know they existed before this morning but I'm doing some reading, and apparently there are trans people who don't experience dysphoria, for whom their gender is "a choice", and some of the sentiments in this thread seem to be in the same vein.

I think it's complicated. I was going to say "I have no problem with those who choose to be trans", but the reality probably is that I do, a little. In the same way that, say, someone who is gay might have a problem with someone who just chooses to be gay, because that gives support to those who say everyone is just choosing to be gay (or trans).

At the end of the day, I think you should be able to be what you want to be, and if you want to be trans—whatever that means for you—you should have that right. But, at the same time, I feel like a lot of people don't have that choice, and I'd love to have some sort of backing to prove that. (Or, in the bigger picture, I just want to know for sure what it is that causes gender dysphoria.)

 

[FartOfWar]

This.


It honestly reminds me of the whole 'fake girl nerd' shit. "Nerds were belittled and bullied, and now you just want to be a nerd because it's cool! You didn't earn it!"

Same sentiment. Apparently because they weren't oppressed from birth like cis women, trans women don't get to be in the 'club'? Fuck that nonsense.

Despite social media crowning the white professional class cis woman the most oppressed person on the planet, I'd argue that trans men and women face more oppression. Weighing oppression against other oppression isn't productive, mind you, but it's implicit in the lunatic-fringe feminist argument which is why I address it. Of course, if on principle you insist that there are no brain sex differences, that leaves purely socio-cultural causes. And left and right extremists arrive at the same shitty place yet again.

 

[Sibersk Esto]

A MISERABLE LITTLE PILE OF SECRETS

BUT ENOUGH TALK, HAVE AT YOU!

Something tells me a lifelong dream was fulfilled

 

[Platy]

What does this mean for the trans people who don't believe in a biological foundation though? I didn't know they existed before this morning but I'm doing some reading, and apparently there are trans people who don't experience dysphoria, for whom their gender is "a choice", and some of the sentiments in this thread seem to be in the same vein.

I call bullshit.

Either they don't know what they are doing and will regret this HUGELY later since they will get gender dysphoria, or they are having problems with their definition of choice and dysphoria.

The second might happend because of how it is not "omfg i am going to kill me NOW" for everyone as the media make people believe ... so a person with a lower dysphoria might think that the feeling must not be dysphoria


Edit : Also, if they do it by choice ... they are not trans, since kinda the DEFINITION of trans is being the gender you are not assigned ... so if they GET gender dysphoria by transitioning by choice ... that is where they become trans ?
*blue screen*

 

[AzureSkies]

Something tells me a lifelong dream was fulfilled

Just check my Nintendo Network ID and tell me otherwise.

 

[OnettHansen]

A MISERABLE LITTLE PILE OF SECRETS

BUT ENOUGH TALK, HAVE AT YOU!

WOMANKIND ILL NEEDS A SAVIOUR SUCH AS YOU

 

[Majima Everywhere System]

A MISERABLE LITTLE PILE OF SECRETS

BUT ENOUGH TALK, HAVE AT YOU!

Beaten, but I ain't even mad. The right person for the job.

 

[Erin S Kittens]

WOMANKIND ILL NEEDS A SAVIOUR SUCH AS YOU

Between you and Dracula up there, I'm cracking up

 

[Gr1mLock]

WOMANKIND ILL NEEDS A SAVIOUR SUCH AS YOU

Lmao

 

[Sibersk Esto]

WOMANKIND ILL NEEDS A SAVIOUR SUCH AS YOU

lol

 

[lazorexplosion]

Radical feminists are bigoted and hateful? Who knew?

 

[Storm Kyleis]

A MISERABLE LITTLE PILE OF SECRETS

BUT ENOUGH TALK, HAVE AT YOU!

WOMANKIND ILL NEEDS A SAVIOUR SUCH AS YOU

Perfect.

 

[MisterGrey3000]

Radfems suck. They're basically feminists who completely missed the boat on queer theory, trans feminism, intersectionality, sex-positive feminism, and poststructuralist feminism, and now exist as a sort of frustrating confirmation bias-inducing version of the worst stereotypes of feminists.

Also, while there are differences in male and female brains (most notably size, which creates differences in structure as a large brain is not just a small brain scaled up), we know very little about how those differences translate to differences in behavior or thought processes or aptitudes. I made a topic about it last year, and the article is very good.

Seriously, these people (especially the old second wave gals) often come off as an IRL version of those ridiculous monster-like straw feminist in that one "Hark! A Vagrant" comic. It's embarrassing, quite honestly.

 

[Erin S Kittens]

I'm fond of this rebuttal.

 

[Fine Ham Abounds]

I think it would help provide a counter-argument to those who see gender identity as a choice. When you choose to be something, it's easy to look down upon that person; when that person had no choice in who they are, it's harder.

For now, being transgender is still a "fantasy" thing in some people's minds. The trans person is delusional, or not dealing with their "real" issues, or think the grass is greener on the other side, or they're confused, or it's a sexual fetish, or whatever. So, it's easy to not see this as a real, legitimate issue. But, if we were to say have proof of a physical link that causes a person's brain to be wired the wrong way, it's something that is tangible.

Really, tangibility is one of the hardest parts of trans acceptance I think. It's hard for people to understand why one person would identify as another gender, and those reasons aren't as easily explained as, say, what it means for a person to be homosexual. If you can say "the brain developed the wrong way" or whatever, that's something anyone can understand.

Of course, the question may then become "well can you just fix their brain?", or if the brain can't be "fixed" and more major physical fixes are the only solution.

I'd generally agree with this. I'm old enough to have seen the transition of the majority perception of homosexuality in at least US society from an affliction of perversion to a civil rights issue, and much of that I think rests upon the general acceptance that it is an accident of birth. As an outside observer anyway, I see this as the same path trans people are having to walk now.

I think one of the hurdles that the societal majority need to get around with trans people that didn't have to take place with gay people is the idea that some would elect to "mutilate" their healthy body for no reason other than an identity conflict they can't relate to. To some straight, same-gender identifying people, it seems like it smacks of elective indulgence by someone with an issue that could be fixed otherwise. Which again, sounds a bit similar to earlier considerations of homosexuality.

Personally I don't pretend to understand it as a straight man in a straight man's body, but I don't presume to know what it's like to be something I'm not, and frankly I didn't see a problem with homosexuality being a choice either so I don't see why I'd have anything to say if being trans was a choice. I just stay empathetic and try to learn what I can from what people care to share about their experiences of it.