The way the Vatican talks about transgender and non-binary individuals reminds me of the way older US Senators sounded when questioning the executives of Facebook and Google. What do they mean when they say "gender theory"? Is this a term used more in Continental Europe as a catch-all for anything other than traditional gender assignments? Because it sounds awfully strange to me.
Then again, the Vatican has a history of pretending that if it doesn't call something it doesn't like by the name everyone else is using, it can somehow wish it out of existence. "Same Sex Attraction," anyone? "Deep-Seated Homosexual Tendencies"? (OK, Dead Horse alert, back to discussing Transgender).
Yes, I think that's true. The Vatican uses a mixture of opaque and slippery language, which cannot be pinned down. And of course there are no references at all, as far as I can see. I suppose it's saying all of this hyper-modern fiddling with sex and gender is just bad for the family, and irritating for conservatives, thank God for Trump. I wonder what LGBT Catholics will make of it.
I find the language problematical in general, not just that emanating from the Vatican. Mainly because "gender" is not well defined at all, and means different things to different people.
I find the language problematical in general, not just that emanating from the Vatican. Mainly because "gender" is not well defined at all, and means different things to different people.
Yes, it's a terminological nightmare. But anybody writing seriously has to start off by defining the terms they are going to use, obviously. You can't expect that on the internet, but short definitions are in order. Gender, sex identity, and sexuality have to be described, plus sub-divisions, such as gender roles, gender expression, gender identity, gender performance, and so on. This already covers a book!
NOprophet_NØprofit: That's not how it works. The individual is only one person. And not really that important.
NOprophet_NØprofit, if the above quotation was addressed to my remarks, I would welcome clarification regarding the first sentence: What are the 'that' and the 'it' to which it refers? And why is the 'individual' seeming regarded as 'not really important'?
The questions I would want to raise re sport are: Does sport only recognise two sex/genders? Does sport recognise other sex/genders but only arranges competition for males and females? Does sport have a right to request healthy individuals to submit to gender-bending treatment? Do doctors have a right to be complicit in such treatments at the request or pressure from third parties where the subject has been content with their lot?
Those indeed are the questions being considered. With those who compete in sports, their national organizations, and all of the corporate monied interests debating it all.
It's a bit like "collateral damage" when militaries drop bombs on civilians. No one really cares about the individual. And although science is often referenced, most of this isn't science.
NOprophet_NØprofit: And although science is often referenced, most of this isn't science.
Thanks for the clarification. I thoroughly agree with your concluding comment. I suspect that scientists involved in these questions find the popular definitions of sex as irrelevant to their biological and genetic research categories and understandings. My guess is that they identify clusters of individuals spacially located on a multi-dimensional model of sex determination, for which 'male', 'female', 'trans' or whatever have little analytical value.
Thanks for the clarification. I thoroughly agree with your concluding comment. I suspect that scientists involved in these questions find the popular definitions of sex as irrelevant to their biological and genetic research categories and understandings. My guess is that they identify clusters of individuals spacially located on a multi-dimensional model of sex determination, for which 'male', 'female', 'trans' or whatever have little analytical value.
Sex is not a spectrum. And once again, conflating intersex conditions with trans is completely unhelpful.
The other important point is about listening to LGBT people, and giving them room to speak. How many discussions of trans people ignore their voice? Hello, the Vatican.
quantpole: Sex is not a spectrum. And once again, conflating intersex conditions with trans is completely unhelpful.
I didn't say it was, did I? Nor was I wishing to support the concept of 'trans' but to question its usefulness to the analysis and identification of sex in a scientific sense. The concept of 'intersex' is also, I would suggest, non-scientific, because it arises from a preconception of sexes between which an individual might be placed. Unless we have hopelessly surrendered to post-Modernism, there is merit in trying to separate fact from value. As I understand NOprophet_NØprofit he was trying to point out that value judgements were being treated as objective scientific facts, and I agree with him. It would be very helpful to me, at least, to know how disinterested scientists conceptualise their explorations in this area.
NOprophet_NØprofit: And although science is often referenced, most of this isn't science.
Thanks for the clarification. I thoroughly agree with your concluding comment. I suspect that scientists involved in these questions find the popular definitions of sex as irrelevant to their biological and genetic research categories and understandings. My guess is that they identify clusters of individuals spacially located on a multi-dimensional model of sex determination, for which 'male', 'female', 'trans' or whatever have little analytical value.
I think the spectrum idea is a humanistic construct, an idea which thinkers proposed to explain and organize thinking. Then the social scientists try to collect some data about it. The data is observational, survey and qualitative. "Qualitative" in this context means using individual case histories or a collection of them, to derive themes. Their hope is that their information (I hesitate to call it data) provides insight. This information has been used to promote agendas, whether for or against some position. This is why, at least in part, people talk about "hard science", "soft science" and humanities. As I've been through more of the information about everything I can find, I think most of it is humanities (ideas not really subject to testing scientifically) and promotion of human rights.
There is no multi dimensional model of sex. It has a very clear definition. e.g. a female is:
"Of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes."
@quantpole back on page 16 we did discuss some of these ideas around the differences between males and females. I dug out various articles - this is one
I find the knowledge of how complicated the in utero processes are for forming the sex/gender of individuals convinces me that there are many ways that these processes may be disrupted, which would leave the individuals at different points on the sex/sexuality/gender spectrum. Intersex individuals often have genetic differences, which will change things again.
NOprophet_NØprofit: And although science is often referenced, most of this isn't science.
Thanks for the clarification. I thoroughly agree with your concluding comment. I suspect that scientists involved in these questions find the popular definitions of sex as irrelevant to their biological and genetic research categories and understandings. My guess is that they identify clusters of individuals spacially located on a multi-dimensional model of sex determination, for which 'male', 'female', 'trans' or whatever have little analytical value.
I’m not sure exactly where you’re defining the limits of “science”, but there is quite a lot of clinical work out there in gender identity that uses transgenderism as a clinical term. Obviously, it’s not “pure” science, but most clinical work isn’t pure science.
NOprophet_NØprofit: And although science is often referenced, most of this isn't science.
Thanks for the clarification. I thoroughly agree with your concluding comment. I suspect that scientists involved in these questions find the popular definitions of sex as irrelevant to their biological and genetic research categories and understandings. My guess is that they identify clusters of individuals spacially located on a multi-dimensional model of sex determination, for which 'male', 'female', 'trans' or whatever have little analytical value.
I’m not sure exactly where you’re defining the limits of “science”, but there is quite a lot of clinical work out there in gender identity that uses transgenderism as a clinical term. Obviously, it’s not “pure” science, but most clinical work isn’t pure science.
Clinical thinking may apply science and scientific reasoning to a presenting problem with a patient/client but it isn't necessarily scientific at all and science reasoning may not enter into it. The clinical environment may be simply about relieving suffering. Hence the prescribing of antibiotics for infections not caused by bacteria. Or the discussion with client/patients of being bullied by one's co-workers as post-traumatic stress disorder. It can be sort of like evangelism where the answer to your problems is always Jesus; not scientific either.
I’m referring, for instance, to the very considerable volume of clinical literature cited in version 7 of the WPATH Standards of Care, which I’ve linked to here before and which Google will easily find for you. Is it your position that this is all junk science?
I’m referring, for instance, to the very considerable volume of clinical literature cited in version 7 of the WPATH Standards of Care, which I’ve linked to here before and which Google will easily find for you. Is it your position that this is all junk science?
Don't attribute your thoughts to me please, even if you disagree with what I'm saying. I didn't didn't use the term "junk science". Those standards state this on page 7 of their PDF of standards of care:
The SOC are based on the best available science and expert professional consensus. ....The overall goal of the SOC is to provide clinical guidance for health professionals to assist transsexual, transgender, and gender-nonconforming people with safe and effective pathways to achieving lasting personal comfort with their gendered selves, in order to maximize their overall health, psychological well-being, and self-fulfillment.
The standards want to apply science and are a consensus of professionals. When there is an absence of data, expert panels and groups are not a replacement. And they stated clearly that the purpose is to help people become comfortable with themselves, which is a clinical, not a scientific purpose.
quantpole: There is no multi dimensional model of sex. It has a very clear definition. e.g. a female is:
"Of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes."
......and how are the other sexes/ is the other sex defined in this schema, and where does Semenya fit into it?
Your position was unclear. I was trying to clarify it.
If your point is just that the clinical sciences are not pure sciences, then I don’t think anyone is going to disagree with you. Certainly not me. You seemed to be saying something different than that.
Your position was unclear. I was trying to clarify it.
If your point is just that the clinical sciences are not pure sciences, then I don’t think anyone is going to disagree with you. Certainly not me. You seemed to be saying something different than that.
I'm saying that the WPATH standards have little to do with other than how to take care of people and look after their needs. Minimal to do with validity of anything.
But basically all medical science is, in a broad sense, about taking care of people and looking after their needs. You seem to be suggesting there is something peculiarly scientifically substandard about WPATH, and clinical work in transgenderism generally, and the basis for your suggestion is unclear.
I'm well aware that your family had an experience with the medical system that, at least as you've described it here, appears to have been an experience with substandard clinical practice. But that's why we have standards in the first place...
But let give a medical example as parallel. Disks between vertebrae can become ruptured. With the advent of MRI this could be seen more clearly than before. This led to an increase in surgery. Over time it became apparent that physical therapy and prescribed exercise allowed disks which were not impacting nerves to heal and surgery was avoided. The surgical standards of care were not appropriately applied in these cases. But if you do have surgery you need the standards to be followed. In the same way the WPATH standards apply exactly when ? Standards do not apply to this question. We have local young people struggling with social relationships, identity issues, many influences. We see locally that there is quick jump to assume things with young people when they express the equivalent of back pain. The current push is not even to have the equivalent of MRI - confirm and reify transgender without assessment for children prepuberty and in adolescence. This is political not medical nor psychological and unwise in my view.
I'm struggling to see how you take care of people without employing various scientific discoveries. I suppose there is some objection here that trans identity is not scientifically established, well, I'm not sure that any identity is. But this has been discussed already here, with regard to 3rd person descriptions and first person experience.
I suspect that scientists involved in these questions find the popular definitions of sex as irrelevant to their biological and genetic research categories and understandings. My guess is that they identify clusters of individuals spacially located on a multi-dimensional model of sex determination, for which 'male', 'female', 'trans' or whatever have little analytical value.
I refer you back to the distinction between sex and gender.
Humans, like other mammals, reproduce sexually. There are only two sexes - sperm-producers and egg-producers.
But humans are social animals. We attach expectations of behaviour and cultural roles to the sexes. And these social constructs are genders.
So in many societies there are 2 genders corresponding to the 2 sexes.
However, different individuals display different amounts of and combinations of not only sex-linked physical characteristics (e.g. facial hair) but also sex-linked behaviour (e.g. aggression) and also behaviour deemed culturally appropriate to people of different sexes (e.g assertiveness ?). And there are links between these, because nature and nurture can play off each other in complex ways.
And some societies cluster individuals into more than two genders, based on such factors.
So the relationship between gender and objective truth may be less than straightforward.
Sex determination in humans is not as simple as XX=female, XY=male, starting with variations in the chromosomes - this below is the very simplified version:
In humans, half of spermatozoons carry X chromosome and the other half Y chromosome. A single gene (SRY) present on the Y chromosome acts as a signal to set the developmental pathway towards maleness. Presence of this gene starts off the process of virilization. This and other factors result in the sex differences in humans. The cells in females, with two X chromosomes, undergo X-inactivation, in which one of the two X chromosomes is inactivated. The inactivated X chromosome remains within a cell as a Barr body.
Humans, as well as some other organisms, can have a rare chromosomal arrangement that is contrary to their phenotypic sex; for example, XX males or XY gonadal dysgenesis (see androgen insensitivity syndrome). Additionally, an abnormal number of sex chromosomes (aneuploidy) may be present, such as Turner's syndrome, in which a single X chromosome is present, and Klinefelter's syndrome, in which two X chromosomes and a Y chromosome are present, XYY syndrome and XXYY syndrome. Other less common chromosomal arrangements include: triple X syndrome, 48, XXXX, and 49, XXXXX.source Wikipedia
So just considering X and Y chromosomes there are humans who are intersex.
Scientists originally described foetal development as starting by default as female, whatever their chromosomes. That's why we all have nipples, which are redundant in men. The changes to create a male foetus are switched on by the SRY gene (discovered in 1990) and at about 5 weeks gestation testes instead of ovaries start developing. But more recently it has been discovered that femaleness is not just passively formed in the absence of the SRY gene, there are other genes (WNT4) that promote the development of ovaries and switch off testicular development, and since then more genes involved in sex determination have been found.
If these genes are faulty or not switched on fully, then differences in sex determination occur. And we end up with sex determination not as binary, but a spectrum, which is what biologists now understand it to be. That article ends:
So if the law requires that a person is male or female, should that sex be assigned by anatomy, hormones, cells or chromosomes, and what should be done if they clash? “My feeling is that since there is not one biological parameter that takes over every other parameter, at the end of the day, gender identity seems to be the most reasonable parameter,” says Vilain. In other words, if you want to know whether someone is male or female, it may be best just to ask.
TL:DR - humans are not just male or female, biologist are identifying a spectrum as they understand more about sex determination
If these genes are faulty or not switched on fully, then differences in sex determination occur. And we end up with sex determination not as binary, but a spectrum, which is what biologists now understand it to be.
When you talk of faulty genes you acknowledge the reality that things can go wrong. That not every conception results in the birth of a fully-functioning human being.
When you talk of a spectrum you liken the situation to continuous variation in a single dimension. And that may well be accurate in terms of hormone levels or one of the other factors in the multi-dinensional process.
But the outcome is a human being who can bear children. Or one who can father children. Or one who is too badly damaged to be able to do either.
Christian tradition portrays a world in which things do go wrong. We face up to it and live with it and try to make this afflicted universe a better place. We don't have to pretend that every bug is a feature.
The aim of medical science is to restore normal health.
That article ends:
So if the law requires that a person is male or female, should that sex be assigned by anatomy, hormones, cells or chromosomes, and what should be done if they clash? “My feeling is that since there is not one biological parameter that takes over every other parameter, at the end of the day, gender identity seems to be the most reasonable parameter,” says Vilain.
Whether the law considers someone male or female is a matter of gender, not sex.
Just for example, imagine a country where males and females have different rights under the law but the law states that the queen is male. Objectively she is of the female sex. And will probably bear children to be princes and princesses to carry on the dynasty. When she's not fulfilling her male gender role as the custom of that society requires.
And I suspect there's a philosophical error in M. Vilain's thinking. Hormones and chromosomes are just chemicals. They have no intrinsic sex or gender. They are considered male or female only because of and to the extent of their association with sexual anatomy.
To the extent that the correlation between having a Y chromosome and being anatomically male is less than 100% - which I think is part of the case you're making - that weakens the case for thinking of the Y chromosome as a male feature (or an indicator of maleness).
But let give a medical example as parallel. Disks between vertebrae can become ruptured. With the advent of MRI this could be seen more clearly than before. This led to an increase in surgery. Over time it became apparent that physical therapy and prescribed exercise allowed disks which were not impacting nerves to heal and surgery was avoided. The surgical standards of care were not appropriately applied in these cases. But if you do have surgery you need the standards to be followed. In the same way the WPATH standards apply exactly when ? Standards do not apply to this question.
Actually, it's clear from the document itself that the WPATH Standards of Care are intended to be a comprehensive set of standards for treatment of gender dysphoria - with emphasis on the more severe forms that usually attract a surgical response. If (say) CBT were considered to be an appropriate therapeutic approach to severe gender dysphoria, then CBT would be included in the SOCs. It's not included, because it's not considered to be an appropriate therapeutic response.
As far as I know there's no MRI-based way of confirming transgenderism. I suppose if it did exist, it might be useful for reassuring nervous parents that they are doing the right thing for trans kids. I doubt very much that we're anywhere close to reliably diagnosing gender dysphoria, or for that matter most other mental health issues, in this way though.
We use the calendar of TEC - easy and readily available. Tomorrow, we remember Marina, born Mariam. The text suggests that he was transgender, born (in the 5th century) a woman but lived as a man. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any other transgender people in Jewish or Christian writings as long ago as that.
As far as I know there's no MRI-based way of confirming transgenderism. I suppose if it did exist, it might be useful for reassuring nervous parents that they are doing the right thing for trans kids. I doubt very much that we're anywhere close to reliably diagnosing gender dysphoria, or for that matter most other mental health issues, in this way though.
Yes.
One of the philosophical distinctions here is between saying -as you seem to be - that this is an objective condition which we'd like to be able measure (so as to ensure the best treatment for each individual patient) but we can't with current or foreseeable-near-future technology, so we have to rely on interpretation (by qualified mental health professionals) of reported subjective feelings and experiences.
As against the notion that the feelings are the reality.
@Russ - did you read the linked article above? Because the more we know about sex determination the clearer it becomes that it's a very complicated process that may, for a myraid of reasons, be fully or partially expressed in various ways, leading to a spectrum of sexualities and genders.
When you talk of faulty genes you acknowledge the reality that things can go wrong. That not every conception results in the birth of a fully-functioning human being.
The phrase faulty gene is a common scientific term referring to genetic mutations, which are both drivers of evolution and signifiers of damage through radiation or other mutagens.
Picking up on that phrase to suggest that
Christian tradition portrays a world in which things do go wrong. We face up to it and live with it and try to make this afflicted universe a better place. We don't have to pretend that every bug is a feature.
is incorrect as those bugs are features, unless you're going to challenge evolutionary process, at which point we need to move to Dead Horses. Although we do need to consider our own influence here: for example the overuse of plastics is filling our world with endocrine disrupters.
To the extent that the correlation between having a Y chromosome and being anatomically male is less than 100% - which I think is part of the case you're making - that weakens the case for thinking of the Y chromosome as a male feature (or an indicator of maleness).
Yes, that's the whole point - you cannot say XX = female and XY = male as the picture is far more complicated.
Interesting clash of science and ideology, I suppose some Christians see the whole LGBT spectrum as a moral aberration, diverging from God's plan. Shudder. The internet is full of websites demonstrating how trans people are going against it, see the recent Vatican statement. What cruelty in human form.
the more we know about sex determination the clearer it becomes that it's a very complicated process that may, for a myraid of reasons, be fully or partially expressed in various ways, leading to a spectrum of sexualities and genders.
My first objection to this statement is that it suggests that gender follows automatically from sex. Gender is a cultural construct. Traditional western culture has two genders. Some cultures have three or four. Wikipedia tells me that in 18th and 19th century Europe some writers considered gay men to be a third gender. Different responses to the same human biology.
Secondly, genders are discrete categories, not a spectrum. Part of the act of interpretation is a bundling-together of similar instances into categories. Nobody doubts that there is individual variation within categories; this does not invalidate the categories.
What do you think it means for a particular observable outcome of this complex process (such as person who has male genitalia but no facial hair) to be categorised as a separate sex ? (Rather than as an extreme case of the range of observable variation within the category "male")?
If someone is functionally-male (i.e. capable of fathering a child) why would you not call them male ?
those bugs are features
Your scientific basis for this is what ? That those bugs observably exist ?
We agree that they exist. Where we may disagree is whether they're bugs. I'm suggesting that that question goes beyond science into philosophy.
The traditional medical paradigm is about restoring people to normal health. Medical science is about how to do that. There is nothing in the scientific method which sets a limit to that paradigm, which determines whether or not some particular form of what appears to be a damaged example of a normal human is actually a fully-functioning member of a minority type of human.
But let give a medical example as parallel. Disks between vertebrae can become ruptured. With the advent of MRI this could be seen more clearly than before. This led to an increase in surgery. Over time it became apparent that physical therapy and prescribed exercise allowed disks which were not impacting nerves to heal and surgery was avoided. The surgical standards of care were not appropriately applied in these cases. But if you do have surgery you need the standards to be followed. In the same way the WPATH standards apply exactly when ? Standards do not apply to this question.
Actually, it's clear from the document itself that the WPATH Standards of Care are intended to be a comprehensive set of standards for treatment of gender dysphoria - with emphasis on the more severe forms that usually attract a surgical response. If (say) CBT were considered to be an appropriate therapeutic approach to severe gender dysphoria, then CBT would be included in the SOCs. It's not included, because it's not considered to be an appropriate therapeutic response.
As far as I know there's no MRI-based way of confirming transgenderism. I suppose if it did exist, it might be useful for reassuring nervous parents that they are doing the right thing for trans kids. I doubt very much that we're anywhere close to reliably diagnosing gender dysphoria, or for that matter most other mental health issues, in this way though.
If we consider that an MRI isn't diagnostic in a determinative sense but provides some data which may inform about options: physical therapy, waiting to see progress, effects on quality of life, with decision for surgery made with the patient understanding all of the risks, months to a year after symptoms start, the analogy to back pain holds. Which does not hold re urgent, emergency cases. But are there urgent trans cases?
With trans, with children, we see they are affirmed promptly. I think it's out of love and concern, out of kindness. But is it kind and right to just support this with nonadults who are not developmentally ready to solidify adult life structures about so much else? There's desire to not even inform parents. Sure, some parents are hostile. But the vast majority of parents love their children and are not the enemy. Their legitimate concerns for children are dismissed as anti-trans and basically evil.
I think there's an continuing failure to understand development and growth, physical, psychological and social aspects. There's a failure to appreciate peer influence, the general Zeitgeist of "you do and be you" (spirit and thrust of the times), media influence, and the incompletely formed nature of child and adolescent identity.
I know this touches the sense of rights and not to cause harm, with knowledge of individual cases where the harm had been great and terrible by nonacceptance. But this isn't what the debate should be about. The exceptional cases should not make the rule. And there are empirical science questions to be answered. Such as the frequency of normal exploration in children and adolescents of gender identity which is then moved on from developmentally, roles of mental health conditions in the autism spectrum for example, also mood disorders and personality adjustment and disorder, social influences and social media influences.
I'm getting somewhat confused over the meaning of 'trans'. In one sense it seems to refer to individuals who are biologically one particular sex but see themselves as another (i.e. not cisgendered), but in another sense are individuals biologically somewhere between one sex and another but may be quite comfortable with the sex and gender to which they have been assigned. Thank goodness there are some exceptional teachers around capable of outlining these distinctions and their consequences to primary school children. Perhaps they could do that for us!
Basically they should testosterone bands / classes for sports where they feel it’s that important - then compete on that basis rather than gender.
Given that it's perfectly natural for individuals to have different levels of testosterone perhaps they should also have different bands/classes for athletes based on height, stride-length, lung capacity, and every other conceivable physical difference.
In what sense is this a "spectrum"? A spectrum of what? Sex or gender, or both? What are the two ends of the spectrum? Aren't LGBT ideal' types of sexual behaviour? (Difficult to see how 'trans' fits in). In which case should not an inclusive classificarion include chastity and heterosexuality? Or is sexual orientation to be differentiated from sexual behaviour?
I'm getting somewhat confused over the meaning of 'trans'. In one sense it seems to refer to individuals who are biologically one particular sex but see themselves as another (i.e. not cisgendered), but in another sense are individuals biologically somewhere between one sex and another but may be quite comfortable with the sex and gender to which they have been assigned. Thank goodness there are some exceptional teachers around capable of outlining these distinctions and their consequences to primary school children. Perhaps they could do that for us!
I think "trans" is being used in different ways, some very wide, and some more narrow. The obvious solution is to define one's terms. I notice that Wiki describes an "umbrella" usage, meaning neither masculine or feminine, and even cross-dressers, so this is confusing. Eddie Izzard often describes himself as trans.
Russ: ....... genders are discrete categories, not a spectrum. Part of the act of interpretation is a bundling-together of similar instances into categories. Nobody doubts that there is individual variation within categories; this does not invalidate the categories.
I generally agree with the rather sensible nature of your
remarks: genders are discrete categories, that within categories there are variations, and that gender categories are social or cultural constructs.
Categories, however, require definition, so the question arises as to whether the categories can maintain their definitional integrity while including the overwhelming proportion of cases. The danger of a limited number of categories is that their definition is too wide to be useful, or that an unacceptable number (however defined) of cases cannot be included. If the excluded cases fall into distinct clusters then there could well be a case for the creation of more categories. (I think there is a link between spectrum and discrete categories). On the other hand if the excluded cases are little more than random outliers then there seems less pressure to amend the categories.
The idea of gender fluidity suggests a spectrum, which the individual can move along. However, I don't really know how this works in practice, except again, somebody like Izzard fluctuates in his appearance, e.g., cross-dressing at times. But I don't know if fluidity means feeling differently at different times. I don't even know what I feel with regard to gender, quite often, I feel nothing. This thread is recycling itself.
The idea of gender as a spectrum seems to imply that everyone is non-binary, unless you say that there are extremes which are embodied by some people. Well, somebody has to do it.
We are all non-binary, that is what the scientists are saying. We all have XX and XY cells to varying degrees and effect. Our hormones and the different expressions of our genes (all of which can change through life depending on our environmental exposure) can change the nature of the testes and ovaries from one to the other. And then there is mosaicism.
There were many examples showing this in that article, including that of a man in his 70s who had fathered four children, who was found to have a womb when he had a hernia operation.
Curiosity killed:@Russ and @Kwesi I do suggest you read the linked article. It's from Scientific American so not controversial and explains how complicated things are.
I don't have any problems with the thrust of this article. You will note that I have suggested earlier than sex is scientifically located in some sort of multi-dimensional space, and that there is a problem in moving from scientific fact to the social context. I though that the conclusion of the article was particularly instructive on the relationship between science and cultural norms (in this case a binary understanding of sex), and had the kind of ambivalent conclusion that I find attractive:
"So if the law requires that a person is male or female, should that sex be assigned by anatomy, hormones, cells or chromosomes, and what should be done if they clash? “My feeling is that since there is not one biological parameter that takes over every other parameter, at the end of the day, gender identity seems to be the most reasonable parameter,” says Vilain. In other words, if you want to know whether someone is male or female, it may be best just to ask."
Spectrum and fluidity are ideas aren't they. The first presuming continuum, the second presuming movement along the continuum. Categorical classification describes more people, thus assumed as factual.
Fluidity particularly appears to have been used descriptively, I think predictive usage isn't appropriate. Particularly with children.
But let give a medical example as parallel. Disks between vertebrae can become ruptured. With the advent of MRI this could be seen more clearly than before. This led to an increase in surgery. Over time it became apparent that physical therapy and prescribed exercise allowed disks which were not impacting nerves to heal and surgery was avoided. The surgical standards of care were not appropriately applied in these cases. But if you do have surgery you need the standards to be followed. In the same way the WPATH standards apply exactly when ? Standards do not apply to this question.
Actually, it's clear from the document itself that the WPATH Standards of Care are intended to be a comprehensive set of standards for treatment of gender dysphoria - with emphasis on the more severe forms that usually attract a surgical response. If (say) CBT were considered to be an appropriate therapeutic approach to severe gender dysphoria, then CBT would be included in the SOCs. It's not included, because it's not considered to be an appropriate therapeutic response.
As far as I know there's no MRI-based way of confirming transgenderism. I suppose if it did exist, it might be useful for reassuring nervous parents that they are doing the right thing for trans kids. I doubt very much that we're anywhere close to reliably diagnosing gender dysphoria, or for that matter most other mental health issues, in this way though.
If we consider that an MRI isn't diagnostic in a determinative sense but provides some data which may inform about options: physical therapy, waiting to see progress, effects on quality of life, with decision for surgery made with the patient understanding all of the risks, months to a year after symptoms start, the analogy to back pain holds. Which does not hold re urgent, emergency cases. But are there urgent trans cases?
Untreated gender dysphoria can wreak havoc in the affected individual's mental health, so as a general principle, the sooner it is properly addressed the better.
Like @quetzalcoatl I am starting to get an overwhelming sense of déjà vu from this thread, and I'm sure there's anything more I can say that hasn't been said before either by myself or someone else. I think reasonable people know that these issues involve major life decisions that people shouldn't be making lightly. Nor should anyone be forced down a road that isn't right for them. But as I say, untreated gender dysphoria is a destructive thing that ruins lives. And experience shows that appropriate early interventions can greatly improve outcomes for transgender people.
Comments
Then again, the Vatican has a history of pretending that if it doesn't call something it doesn't like by the name everyone else is using, it can somehow wish it out of existence. "Same Sex Attraction," anyone? "Deep-Seated Homosexual Tendencies"? (OK, Dead Horse alert, back to discussing Transgender).
Yes, it's a terminological nightmare. But anybody writing seriously has to start off by defining the terms they are going to use, obviously. You can't expect that on the internet, but short definitions are in order. Gender, sex identity, and sexuality have to be described, plus sub-divisions, such as gender roles, gender expression, gender identity, gender performance, and so on. This already covers a book!
Those indeed are the questions being considered. With those who compete in sports, their national organizations, and all of the corporate monied interests debating it all.
It's a bit like "collateral damage" when militaries drop bombs on civilians. No one really cares about the individual. And although science is often referenced, most of this isn't science.
Thanks for the clarification. I thoroughly agree with your concluding comment. I suspect that scientists involved in these questions find the popular definitions of sex as irrelevant to their biological and genetic research categories and understandings. My guess is that they identify clusters of individuals spacially located on a multi-dimensional model of sex determination, for which 'male', 'female', 'trans' or whatever have little analytical value.
Well, in the full panoply of LGBT, asexual and agender are listed, LGBTIAAQ, and others. LGBT+ covers it.
I didn't say it was, did I? Nor was I wishing to support the concept of 'trans' but to question its usefulness to the analysis and identification of sex in a scientific sense. The concept of 'intersex' is also, I would suggest, non-scientific, because it arises from a preconception of sexes between which an individual might be placed. Unless we have hopelessly surrendered to post-Modernism, there is merit in trying to separate fact from value. As I understand NOprophet_NØprofit he was trying to point out that value judgements were being treated as objective scientific facts, and I agree with him. It would be very helpful to me, at least, to know how disinterested scientists conceptualise their explorations in this area.
I think the spectrum idea is a humanistic construct, an idea which thinkers proposed to explain and organize thinking. Then the social scientists try to collect some data about it. The data is observational, survey and qualitative. "Qualitative" in this context means using individual case histories or a collection of them, to derive themes. Their hope is that their information (I hesitate to call it data) provides insight. This information has been used to promote agendas, whether for or against some position. This is why, at least in part, people talk about "hard science", "soft science" and humanities. As I've been through more of the information about everything I can find, I think most of it is humanities (ideas not really subject to testing scientifically) and promotion of human rights.
"Of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes."
I’m not sure exactly where you’re defining the limits of “science”, but there is quite a lot of clinical work out there in gender identity that uses transgenderism as a clinical term. Obviously, it’s not “pure” science, but most clinical work isn’t pure science.
Clinical thinking may apply science and scientific reasoning to a presenting problem with a patient/client but it isn't necessarily scientific at all and science reasoning may not enter into it. The clinical environment may be simply about relieving suffering. Hence the prescribing of antibiotics for infections not caused by bacteria. Or the discussion with client/patients of being bullied by one's co-workers as post-traumatic stress disorder. It can be sort of like evangelism where the answer to your problems is always Jesus; not scientific either.
The standards want to apply science and are a consensus of professionals. When there is an absence of data, expert panels and groups are not a replacement. And they stated clearly that the purpose is to help people become comfortable with themselves, which is a clinical, not a scientific purpose.
......and how are the other sexes/ is the other sex defined in this schema, and where does Semenya fit into it?
If your point is just that the clinical sciences are not pure sciences, then I don’t think anyone is going to disagree with you. Certainly not me. You seemed to be saying something different than that.
I'm saying that the WPATH standards have little to do with other than how to take care of people and look after their needs. Minimal to do with validity of anything.
I'm well aware that your family had an experience with the medical system that, at least as you've described it here, appears to have been an experience with substandard clinical practice. But that's why we have standards in the first place...
But let give a medical example as parallel. Disks between vertebrae can become ruptured. With the advent of MRI this could be seen more clearly than before. This led to an increase in surgery. Over time it became apparent that physical therapy and prescribed exercise allowed disks which were not impacting nerves to heal and surgery was avoided. The surgical standards of care were not appropriately applied in these cases. But if you do have surgery you need the standards to be followed. In the same way the WPATH standards apply exactly when ? Standards do not apply to this question. We have local young people struggling with social relationships, identity issues, many influences. We see locally that there is quick jump to assume things with young people when they express the equivalent of back pain. The current push is not even to have the equivalent of MRI - confirm and reify transgender without assessment for children prepuberty and in adolescence. This is political not medical nor psychological and unwise in my view.
I refer you back to the distinction between sex and gender.
Humans, like other mammals, reproduce sexually. There are only two sexes - sperm-producers and egg-producers.
But humans are social animals. We attach expectations of behaviour and cultural roles to the sexes. And these social constructs are genders.
So in many societies there are 2 genders corresponding to the 2 sexes.
However, different individuals display different amounts of and combinations of not only sex-linked physical characteristics (e.g. facial hair) but also sex-linked behaviour (e.g. aggression) and also behaviour deemed culturally appropriate to people of different sexes (e.g assertiveness ?). And there are links between these, because nature and nurture can play off each other in complex ways.
And some societies cluster individuals into more than two genders, based on such factors.
So the relationship between gender and objective truth may be less than straightforward.
Which may be what you're getting at...
So just considering X and Y chromosomes there are humans who are intersex.
As the Wikipedia article indicated another gene (SRY) is involved in sex determination. But this Scientific American article - Sex Redefined: The Idea of 2 Sexes is overly simplistic from 2018 (and with thanks to Josephine who linked it earlier on this thread) discusses why humans are not dimorphic, either male or female.
Scientists originally described foetal development as starting by default as female, whatever their chromosomes. That's why we all have nipples, which are redundant in men. The changes to create a male foetus are switched on by the SRY gene (discovered in 1990) and at about 5 weeks gestation testes instead of ovaries start developing. But more recently it has been discovered that femaleness is not just passively formed in the absence of the SRY gene, there are other genes (WNT4) that promote the development of ovaries and switch off testicular development, and since then more genes involved in sex determination have been found.
If these genes are faulty or not switched on fully, then differences in sex determination occur. And we end up with sex determination not as binary, but a spectrum, which is what biologists now understand it to be. That article ends:
TL:DR - humans are not just male or female, biologist are identifying a spectrum as they understand more about sex determination
When you talk of faulty genes you acknowledge the reality that things can go wrong. That not every conception results in the birth of a fully-functioning human being.
When you talk of a spectrum you liken the situation to continuous variation in a single dimension. And that may well be accurate in terms of hormone levels or one of the other factors in the multi-dinensional process.
But the outcome is a human being who can bear children. Or one who can father children. Or one who is too badly damaged to be able to do either.
Christian tradition portrays a world in which things do go wrong. We face up to it and live with it and try to make this afflicted universe a better place. We don't have to pretend that every bug is a feature.
The aim of medical science is to restore normal health.
Whether the law considers someone male or female is a matter of gender, not sex.
Just for example, imagine a country where males and females have different rights under the law but the law states that the queen is male. Objectively she is of the female sex. And will probably bear children to be princes and princesses to carry on the dynasty. When she's not fulfilling her male gender role as the custom of that society requires.
And I suspect there's a philosophical error in M. Vilain's thinking. Hormones and chromosomes are just chemicals. They have no intrinsic sex or gender. They are considered male or female only because of and to the extent of their association with sexual anatomy.
To the extent that the correlation between having a Y chromosome and being anatomically male is less than 100% - which I think is part of the case you're making - that weakens the case for thinking of the Y chromosome as a male feature (or an indicator of maleness).
Actually, it's clear from the document itself that the WPATH Standards of Care are intended to be a comprehensive set of standards for treatment of gender dysphoria - with emphasis on the more severe forms that usually attract a surgical response. If (say) CBT were considered to be an appropriate therapeutic approach to severe gender dysphoria, then CBT would be included in the SOCs. It's not included, because it's not considered to be an appropriate therapeutic response.
As far as I know there's no MRI-based way of confirming transgenderism. I suppose if it did exist, it might be useful for reassuring nervous parents that they are doing the right thing for trans kids. I doubt very much that we're anywhere close to reliably diagnosing gender dysphoria, or for that matter most other mental health issues, in this way though.
Yes.
One of the philosophical distinctions here is between saying -as you seem to be - that this is an objective condition which we'd like to be able measure (so as to ensure the best treatment for each individual patient) but we can't with current or foreseeable-near-future technology, so we have to rely on interpretation (by qualified mental health professionals) of reported subjective feelings and experiences.
As against the notion that the feelings are the reality.
The phrase faulty gene is a common scientific term referring to genetic mutations, which are both drivers of evolution and signifiers of damage through radiation or other mutagens.
Picking up on that phrase to suggest that is incorrect as those bugs are features, unless you're going to challenge evolutionary process, at which point we need to move to Dead Horses. Although we do need to consider our own influence here: for example the overuse of plastics is filling our world with endocrine disrupters.
Yes, that's the whole point - you cannot say XX = female and XY = male as the picture is far more complicated.
I'm not denying complexity. Or evolutionary process. Not questioning your science at all. Only your philosophy.
I'm saying that you're setting the boundaries of what science tells us is true a little too widely.
My first objection to this statement is that it suggests that gender follows automatically from sex. Gender is a cultural construct. Traditional western culture has two genders. Some cultures have three or four. Wikipedia tells me that in 18th and 19th century Europe some writers considered gay men to be a third gender. Different responses to the same human biology.
Secondly, genders are discrete categories, not a spectrum. Part of the act of interpretation is a bundling-together of similar instances into categories. Nobody doubts that there is individual variation within categories; this does not invalidate the categories.
What do you think it means for a particular observable outcome of this complex process (such as person who has male genitalia but no facial hair) to be categorised as a separate sex ? (Rather than as an extreme case of the range of observable variation within the category "male")?
If someone is functionally-male (i.e. capable of fathering a child) why would you not call them male ?
Your scientific basis for this is what ? That those bugs observably exist ?
We agree that they exist. Where we may disagree is whether they're bugs. I'm suggesting that that question goes beyond science into philosophy.
The traditional medical paradigm is about restoring people to normal health. Medical science is about how to do that. There is nothing in the scientific method which sets a limit to that paradigm, which determines whether or not some particular form of what appears to be a damaged example of a normal human is actually a fully-functioning member of a minority type of human.
Isn't that one of the issues here ?
If we consider that an MRI isn't diagnostic in a determinative sense but provides some data which may inform about options: physical therapy, waiting to see progress, effects on quality of life, with decision for surgery made with the patient understanding all of the risks, months to a year after symptoms start, the analogy to back pain holds. Which does not hold re urgent, emergency cases. But are there urgent trans cases?
With trans, with children, we see they are affirmed promptly. I think it's out of love and concern, out of kindness. But is it kind and right to just support this with nonadults who are not developmentally ready to solidify adult life structures about so much else? There's desire to not even inform parents. Sure, some parents are hostile. But the vast majority of parents love their children and are not the enemy. Their legitimate concerns for children are dismissed as anti-trans and basically evil.
I think there's an continuing failure to understand development and growth, physical, psychological and social aspects. There's a failure to appreciate peer influence, the general Zeitgeist of "you do and be you" (spirit and thrust of the times), media influence, and the incompletely formed nature of child and adolescent identity.
I know this touches the sense of rights and not to cause harm, with knowledge of individual cases where the harm had been great and terrible by nonacceptance. But this isn't what the debate should be about. The exceptional cases should not make the rule. And there are empirical science questions to be answered. Such as the frequency of normal exploration in children and adolescents of gender identity which is then moved on from developmentally, roles of mental health conditions in the autism spectrum for example, also mood disorders and personality adjustment and disorder, social influences and social media influences.
Given that it's perfectly natural for individuals to have different levels of testosterone perhaps they should also have different bands/classes for athletes based on height, stride-length, lung capacity, and every other conceivable physical difference.
In what sense is this a "spectrum"? A spectrum of what? Sex or gender, or both? What are the two ends of the spectrum? Aren't LGBT ideal' types of sexual behaviour? (Difficult to see how 'trans' fits in). In which case should not an inclusive classificarion include chastity and heterosexuality? Or is sexual orientation to be differentiated from sexual behaviour?
I think "trans" is being used in different ways, some very wide, and some more narrow. The obvious solution is to define one's terms. I notice that Wiki describes an "umbrella" usage, meaning neither masculine or feminine, and even cross-dressers, so this is confusing. Eddie Izzard often describes himself as trans.
I generally agree with the rather sensible nature of your
remarks: genders are discrete categories, that within categories there are variations, and that gender categories are social or cultural constructs.
Categories, however, require definition, so the question arises as to whether the categories can maintain their definitional integrity while including the overwhelming proportion of cases. The danger of a limited number of categories is that their definition is too wide to be useful, or that an unacceptable number (however defined) of cases cannot be included. If the excluded cases fall into distinct clusters then there could well be a case for the creation of more categories. (I think there is a link between spectrum and discrete categories). On the other hand if the excluded cases are little more than random outliers then there seems less pressure to amend the categories.
There were many examples showing this in that article, including that of a man in his 70s who had fathered four children, who was found to have a womb when he had a hernia operation.
I don't have any problems with the thrust of this article. You will note that I have suggested earlier than sex is scientifically located in some sort of multi-dimensional space, and that there is a problem in moving from scientific fact to the social context. I though that the conclusion of the article was particularly instructive on the relationship between science and cultural norms (in this case a binary understanding of sex), and had the kind of ambivalent conclusion that I find attractive:
"So if the law requires that a person is male or female, should that sex be assigned by anatomy, hormones, cells or chromosomes, and what should be done if they clash? “My feeling is that since there is not one biological parameter that takes over every other parameter, at the end of the day, gender identity seems to be the most reasonable parameter,” says Vilain. In other words, if you want to know whether someone is male or female, it may be best just to ask."
Let's hope the respondent gives an honest answer!
Fluidity particularly appears to have been used descriptively, I think predictive usage isn't appropriate. Particularly with children.
Untreated gender dysphoria can wreak havoc in the affected individual's mental health, so as a general principle, the sooner it is properly addressed the better.
Like @quetzalcoatl I am starting to get an overwhelming sense of déjà vu from this thread, and I'm sure there's anything more I can say that hasn't been said before either by myself or someone else. I think reasonable people know that these issues involve major life decisions that people shouldn't be making lightly. Nor should anyone be forced down a road that isn't right for them. But as I say, untreated gender dysphoria is a destructive thing that ruins lives. And experience shows that appropriate early interventions can greatly improve outcomes for transgender people.