I keep getting this weird feeling now that every post is a repeat from several months ago. Maybe it's my brain having a misfit.
Isn't that what happens when one person strongly holds certain premises and wants to discuss implementation issues whilst taking those premises for granted ? Whilst other people dispute or want clarification of those premises ?
With basic disagreements unresolved, discussion will keep coming back to those basic points. Which maybe seem trivial and obvious to you, or aren't the interesting issue ?
How many genders do you think society should recognise ?
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?
...
How many genders do you think society should recognise ?
That's not even the most basic question. The first question is simply what is gender?
Followed by why is gender important to individuals? Why is the gender of an individual important to society?
Further questions: Does society have the authority to police gender expression? Why? To what end? Using what criteria? In what situations? What penalties or restrictions should be imposed on individuals expressing non-recognized genders? What rights or benefits are enjoyed only by the approved genders?
Kwesi wrote: »
» show previous quotes
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 have no problem with those who identify with any of these groups combining together to defend and advance their various interests. Why should I? My question is whether or not they were part of a spectrum, and, if so, what is the spectrum? The article you referred me to doesn't identify a spectrum, does it? (A spectrum being defined as a tool used to classify something in terms of its position on a scale between two points").
Curiosity, rather than reply to a specific point I'd like to link to this, which is a blogpost from a woman with an intersex condition. Saying things like "sex is a spectrum" implies that we are all on a point somewhere between "totally male" and "totally female", which is simply not true - in the vast majority of cases there is no ambiguity at all. Even most intersex conditions, or disorders of sexual development, do not result in ambiguity. Most of the problems with this is the use of language and what it implies. No one denies that there are intersex conditions. But saying that there are different sex classes as a result is dependent on what your definition of "sex" is.
(I also wouldn't want to be treated by a doctor who took this point of view: “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”. Sex is important for many medical treatments, and you don't treat people in accordance with their gender identity.)
And yet again, I come back to why this is relevant to transgender issues? The vast majority of transgender people do not have an intersex condition. The argument seems to be along the lines of: sex is a spectrum > therefore you can't define whether someone is male or female > therefore you can't segregate by sex > therefore the only thing that matters is what someone feels like.
Are we happy with a genderless society, where there is no segregation between sexes? Who does that benefit? Is there any potential harm as a result?
I would have thought that masculinity and femininity might form a spectrum, so that a woman might be slightly masculine or very masculine. OK, now someone will say this isn't gender.
@quantpole - that article is inaccurate, as sex determination is more complicated than just chromosomes, as you would realise if you had read the Scientific American article. That article ignores more recently discovered hormones, such as XN4, that pushes ovary development and reverses testicular development. And more hormones are being found as additional research is carried out.
In addition, we are beginning to understand that mosaicism is more common that we knew. There are lots of examples of mosaicism where cells from various sources are absorbed into bodies, affecting tissues and/or the whole body. Mothers transfer cells back and forth between the foetus and themselves and those cells persist. Research is looking at how those cells affect the body. as XY cells have effects on the host XX body and vice versa.
We are extremely unlikely to be 100% male or female.
I thought that intersex and transgender are often linked because they both show a blurring of hitherto firm boundaries between apparently clear-cut categories. It's a kind of postmodern disease, this is a joke.
I have read the article thanks, and I would come to pretty much the opposite conclusion. We are extremely unlikely to be anything other than clearly male or female.
I think that our insistence on labelling everyone as male or female is unhelpful: it comes up in several of the things I've read around this subject. The more I have read on sex determination the more I have found it understandable that many people struggle to fit into whichever arbitrary category they have been placed in because there are so many ways in which sex determination is not clear cut.
There also seems to be a bit of a circular argument going on in which it is said that XX or XY genes don't determine sex but the presence of any cells in your body with a different set of genes somehow makes you not 100% male or female.
I think that our insistence on labelling everyone as male or female is unhelpful
It depends what the purpose of such labelling is surely? I think that gender stereotyping is unhelpful, and for the majority of situations it shouldn't matter whether you are male or female. But if you think that women suffer from oppression then it is important to know the source of that oppression. The patriarchy isn't suddenly going to cease to exist because it is argued that sex is a spectrum.
And as the last few pages have been about women in sport - if you say sex is purely what the individual thinks they are then how will that not have an impact on elite female sport?
That Twitter thread is not saying anything I've disputed, and in fact says as a disclaimer:
Prompted by a few responses, I must add a caveat. This is simply an analysis of how well sex chromosomes match observed genitalia. Within that cohort, there will be newborns who have intersex anomalies not revealed by those data.
What I have been trying to say is that there are so many different steps in sex determination, ignoring the chromosomes, that it seems entirely reasonable that sex determination is not absolute in either direction. Whether the body is XY or XX (or any of the genetic intersex conditions), those organs are also affected by a range of hormones that switch on the body's organs (and will also affect the brain) resulting in a range of DSDs. It does not seem unreasonable to posit that some of the other things we are seeing in the population are also on this spectrum.
I think that our insistence on labelling everyone as male or female is unhelpful
It depends what the purpose of such labelling is surely? I think that gender stereotyping is unhelpful, and for the majority of situations it shouldn't matter whether you are male or female. But if you think that women suffer from oppression then it is important to know the source of that oppression. The patriarchy isn't suddenly going to cease to exist because it is argued that sex is a spectrum.
And as the last few pages have been about women in sport - if you say sex is purely what the individual thinks they are then how will that not have an impact on elite female sport?
But then part of the oppression of women is connected with being reified as women. But I think it is very radical to want to abolish sex/gender, maybe Judith Butler does, can't remember. Joking apart, I think there is a postmodern blurring of categories, which seems unstoppable, and it's impossible to say how far it will go. This reminds me of conservative websites, and the Vatican, "women got the vote and could own property, OK, then blacks started voting, OK, then gays came out, well, maybe, now we've got trans this and trans that, please Mr Trump, make it all go away".
But I think it is very radical to want to abolish sex/gender, maybe Judith Butler does, can't remember. Joking apart, I think there is a postmodern blurring of categories, which seems unstoppable, and it's impossible to say how far it will go. This reminds me of conservative websites, and the Vatican, "women got the vote and could own property, OK, then blacks started voting, OK, then gays came out, well, maybe, now we've got trans this and trans that, please Mr Trump, make it all go away".
Saying sex/gender is a big part of the problem when they are different things.
I don't think it's particularly radical to want to get rid gender. But it does depend on what you see gender is - it's a very woolly concept. A lot of feminists would see gender as a patriarchal social construct. Others would argue it is an innate feeling of femaleness or maleness. Either way I'd hope that pretty much everyone on here would agree that gender stereotyping is unhelpful.
It does not seem unreasonable to posit that some of the other things we are seeing in the population are also on this spectrum.
It sounds like you are saying that trans is a form of intersex. I think that's a very big leap. And many people with DSDs find it distasteful that their conditions (which can have a huge impact on them) are being used as a prop in trans discussions.
But I think it is very radical to want to abolish sex/gender, maybe Judith Butler does, can't remember. Joking apart, I think there is a postmodern blurring of categories, which seems unstoppable, and it's impossible to say how far it will go. This reminds me of conservative websites, and the Vatican, "women got the vote and could own property, OK, then blacks started voting, OK, then gays came out, well, maybe, now we've got trans this and trans that, please Mr Trump, make it all go away".
Saying sex/gender is a big part of the problem when they are different things.
I don't think it's particularly radical to want to get rid gender. But it does depend on what you see gender is - it's a very woolly concept. A lot of feminists would see gender as a patriarchal social construct. Others would argue it is an innate feeling of femaleness or maleness. Either way I'd hope that pretty much everyone on here would agree that gender stereotyping is unhelpful.
Well, I don't think gender is one single thing. This leads to confusion, of course. In the early days, gender roles were in the foreground, but this was followed by gender expression, gender identity, and gender performance, well, no doubt, I've left some out. In an academic context, you might provide a narrow working definition for a particular purpose, but of course, in informal discussion, we can't do that, so we tend to slosh around. On the positive side, we have a set of "family resemblances", to use Wittgenstein's phrase, which may be illuminating, (or not).
What is disconcerting is that some people use gender to refer to sex. Ah well.
I suspect that all kinds of sexuality, DSDs and trans are all biologically based, and may well be part of the spectra that surround sexuality, gender identity, gender expression, anatomical sex and libido. But the whole area is complicated, so many people are being discriminated against that they are dealing with their own facet of the argument rather than the wider issues. Currently bisexuality is not encountering positive attitudes and campaigning organisations are only recently beginning to add trans issues into their remit - Stonewall started campaigning for trans equality in 2015
Certainly, some trans people are convinced that there is a biological basis, Julia Serano, for example, who is a biologist. But it is mega-complicated. Her latest essay is on visibility, and its merits. This is of particular relevance for trans people, and "passing", i.e., not being obviously trans.
Biological basis. Social construct.
The idea that sex is a social construct and gender is a biological construct turns the thing completely around. >>convinced there is a biological basis<<
Not all that many people say that sex is a social construct, but Judith Butler argues that it is constructed via discourse. The problem with this is that everything is.
If we consider the biology, humans reproduce sexually. The system is XX/XY. A haploid X cell (a gamete) fuses with an X or a Y gamete, and this defines a biological male or female. There are rare variations of this where a gamete is XX and fuses with a Y and we get XXY. These are considered rare and genetic errors in biology. Genetic error: not adaptive. There are other reproductive systems, but this is a human one.
We have changed sexual expression in modern societies. By separating reproduction from sex, the possibility of discourse has broadened considerably. And we've created terminology to allow us to have the discourse. There argument that having sex in human societies has served purposes other than reproduction is a good one, that it is involved in bonds between people, helps manage other feelings such as anxiety and anger. There is evidence for these from comparative psychology (ethology, the study of other species, particularly primates, also some mammals). I think we're talking cultural issues when we talk of the discourse, not biology however.
That's not even the most basic question. The first question is simply what is gender?
Yes.
But rather than expecting anyone here to come up with a definition, I suspect a slightly more indirect approach might be more productive.
Are lesbians a gender ?
Are (RC) priests a gender ? (Being a social role with expectations of behaviour that relate to sex). If not, why not ? Why is a man in a dress in India considered a separate gender but a man in a cassock in Ireland not ?
Does society have the authority to police gender expression?
Do you mean government policing (seeking to enforce compliance with) statutes, or individuals policing (seeking to enforce compliance with) cultural norms ? Does the fact that the statute or norm relates to sex/gender make any difference ?
Are there facts in science within your understanding of it? Is everything discourse for you?
Thinking specifically of things like mitosis and meiosis, which are only discourse in that we've created terms to describe the observed phenomena. Do you agree that gametes are formed from the latter, meiosis, and are only very rarely other either a short one or a long one we label as #23, for convenience calling the one Y and the other X?
And that this chromosome, being either X or Y, is responsible for the sexual dimorphism of humans, i.e., that the one goes on to develop internal and external organs we call "female" and the other to develop those we call "male"?
And further, that these chromosomes activate differential mixes of chemicals within the body we call hormones, which cause what we term sexual maturity within puberty?
Are there facts in science within your understanding of it? Is everything discourse for you?
Thinking specifically of things like mitosis and meiosis, which are only discourse in that we've created terms to describe the observed phenomena. Do you agree that gametes are formed from the latter, meiosis, and are only very rarely other either a short one or a long one we label as #23, for convenience calling the one Y and the other X?
And that this chromosome, being either X or Y, is responsible for the sexual dimorphism of humans, i.e., that the one goes on to develop internal and external organs we call "female" and the other to develop those we call "male"?
Up to a point. In utero those sexual organs don't develop without the influence of a number of hormones, SRY, XN4 and more, plus whatever else has been discovered in the meantime. And those hormones work in opposition, turn on the development of either ovaries or testes or turn them off. But without those in utero hormones, the foetus doesn't develop any sexual organs.
And this is where the questions are beginning to arise.
And further, that these chromosomes activate differential mixes of chemicals within the body we call hormones, which cause what we term sexual maturity within puberty?
The above seem pretty firm to me. Do they to you?
This all starts in utero and post-natally, up to and including puberty, which also blurs the borders of sexual discrimination, so rather than having dimorphism there are other things happening.
In the physical aspects, dimorphism is what happens. To be clear, there are two basic body plans, one male and one female. There are variations within those two, but those two basic body plans exist. Other things are error. We do not have a continuum of body plans fading from male to female. We have categories, 2 of them, with variation within the two biological categories. There are some in between people, which is rare.
It has been attempted to argue from some varieties fish for example or barnacles, which may change biological morphology from male to female or the other way, as analogues for humans, but there's no evidence for this biological change within human morphology on the basis of a psychological/social identification to the sex which does not match physical morphology.
@quetzalcoatl Do you have a definition of anything within your ideas of discourse? How do we know anything in your view?
To be clear, there are two basic body plans, one male and one female. There are variations within those two, but those two basic body plans exist. Other things are error.
Plans? Errors? Those are value judgments inserted into what is presented as scientific descriptors. Plans implies that someone or thing "planned" them. Errors means they are wrong.
How about this: there are two majority basic body types. Variations from those are, um, variations.
From there I suppose you may want to argue that majority basic body types are plans that were planned by someone, and that variations are errors, but that is far from "clear".
Well, I don't think gender is one single thing. This leads to confusion, of course. In the early days, gender roles were in the foreground, but this was followed by gender expression, gender identity, and gender performance, well, no doubt, I've left some out.
That may be a clearer way to look at it.
Would you accept that there is no spectrum of gender roles ?
Whereas if by "gender identity" you mean a person's feelings about sex then clearly there is a spectrum of strength of feeling.
Well, I don't think gender is one single thing. This leads to confusion, of course. In the early days, gender roles were in the foreground, but this was followed by gender expression, gender identity, and gender performance, well, no doubt, I've left some out. In an academic context, you might provide a narrow working definition for a particular purpose, but of course, in informal discussion, we can't do that, so we tend to slosh around. On the positive side, we have a set of "family resemblances", to use Wittgenstein's phrase, which may be illuminating, (or not).
What is disconcerting is that some people use gender to refer to sex. Ah well.
I've yet to see anyone explain gender expression or gender performance that doesn't rely on stereotypes of male and female roles or behaviour.
Yes, people do often use gender when they mean sex (and vice versa).
I suspect that all kinds of sexuality, DSDs and trans are all biologically based, and may well be part of the spectra that surround sexuality, gender identity, gender expression, anatomical sex and libido. But the whole area is complicated, so many people are being discriminated against that they are dealing with their own facet of the argument rather than the wider issues. Currently bisexuality is not encountering positive attitudes and campaigning organisations are only recently beginning to add trans issues into their remit - Stonewall started campaigning for trans equality in 2015
There probably are biological factors. As well as social factors. As ever, knowing how much from each pot is very difficult to see. But what are consequences, and why does it matter?
Bisexuals seem to be getting the rough end of things definitely. I've seen people being told that it is transphobic to call yourself bi and it should be pansexual instead. Lesbians are being told that it is a fetish to only want to have sex with people who have female anatomy. The Stonewall "trans umbrella" is so wide that some transsexuals feel that they are no longer represented.
Well, I assume that people who call themselves gender fluid, non-binary, agender, genderqueer, and so on, are trying to avoid stereotypes. Having said that, I have limited acquaintance of such people.
It probably depends on the individual and what it means to them, certainly for non-binary. Gender fluid seems to be very stereotype based (e.g. Pips Bunce).
It matters because without recognition people are suffering, something else we discussed earlier in this thread, starting with this post on page 4.
Going back through to find the earlier discussion above, I found some other discussion, for example, this post from Marsupial which links to research about Atypical Gender Development and the Etiology of Non-conforming Gender Development, and another post above linking to research, both posted back on page 2
Human sexuality is made up of multiple components which transpire at different places in gestation. This is why androgen insensitive females (XY people who never developed male characteristics and for all intents and purposes are female) exist. To get your XY person with male genetalia who feels male requires a series of events, any of which could go the other way, although obviously the chances are greatest that you'll get an XY male who feels male. But it's hardly any surprise when you get something else, given how complex the whole damned system is.
When I was asking why does it matter, I was meaning about the biology of how sex develops, and how it relates to trans rights. As I said before, the thrust of your argument seems to be that trans is a type of intersex, though you haven't explicitly said so. Is that correct? And if so, by trans, do you mean the whole "trans umbrella" or just those with sex and/or gender dysphoria?
No, I'm not being that definite. I am saying that we don't fully understand the development of sexual discrimination, and the more we do know the more we understand that there are so many biological steps in different directions that it is unsurprising that we find variations. See those links above.
With that understanding, I'm suggesting that we listen to what we are being told and support people who are struggling with gender/sex/sexuality without judgement or prejudice against transgenderism, homosexuality or any of the other of these issues that have been causing this outbreak of judgementalism and prejudice (not saying that you are, but I've been rereading this thread and rediscovering incidences of such).
To be clear, there are two basic body plans, one male and one female. There are variations within those two, but those two basic body plans exist. Other things are error.
Plans? Errors? Those are value judgments inserted into what is presented as scientific descriptors. Plans implies that someone or thing "planned" them. Errors means they are wrong.
How about this: there are two majority basic body types. Variations from those are, um, variations.
From there I suppose you may want to argue that majority basic body types are plans that were planned by someone, and that variations are errors, but that is far from "clear".
No. This is biological and evolutionary. Don't put your thoughts into my words please. Nothing to do with any religion if that's your thought. The term errors in this context describes variation from the two biological sexes. Sexual dimorphism evolved for reproduction. Certainly humans and other animals use it for other purposes. But it doesn't escape the biology. There is no reproduction without as humans have no way of reproducing without the two sexes. Biologists speak of body plans as part of how they discuss anatomy.
The social and cultural developments we discuss have nothing to do with the biology and nothing to do with the human value judgements we make of them. The conjecture of transgender being biological had been expressed. I'd been hopeful someone might try to explain this. Can you do this?
There had been limited evidence that hormonal exposure to people with same sex attraction in the womb led to very slight physical difference (comparative length of fingers etc) and possible very small differences in the shape and function of the brain.
I imagine people are now looking for similar ‘biological bases’ for trans experience.
This assumes that there is something in your inner experience and consciousness of self, that tells you your sex (biological) and gender (social) - independently of your apparent secondary sexual characteristics and social learning. I don’t know what, if any, evidence we have of this. Given a) nobody grows up culture free and b) your brain changes shape and function in the course of your life in response to the environment and experience I doubt there is much.
It is possible to be shaped by experience, without choosing to be so. I think the argument between, is it biological or is it a choice, is therefore a massive red herring.
Also if your sense of your gender has been shaped by experience - it does not mean that it can be changed at will, yours or anybody else’s.
I've yet to see anyone explain gender expression or gender performance that doesn't rely on stereotypes of male and female roles or behaviour.
Clearly there are stereotypes of archetypally male and female behaviour. And if you want to say that most people's behaviour falls somewhere on a spectrum between these lots of the time, that's fair enough.
Maybe "gender" as a noun doesn't mean anything at all and we're better using it only as an adjective, meaning something like "relating to sex" ? (Where of course sex means maleness / femaleness rather than the act of intercourse).
If it's not effectively distinguishing biological M/F differences from cultural M/F roles, maybe this noun is serving no useful purpose at all and just confusing the issue ?
Gender presentation used to be, and to a certain extent still is, a way of signally non-verbally with whom you were able to and likely to want to reproduce, what secondary sexual characteristics you had and what social roles you were likely to aspire to and be permitted to fulfil.
It’s gradually losing its function.
People say you can just ask, which is true - but rather negates the point of non-verbal rule-of-thumb signals.
People say you shouldn’t assume and stereotype, but that does ignore why we have these psychological processes in the first place - which is basically so we don’t have to use a lot of cognitive effort to work things out from first principles in every single new circumstance.
You could introduce a social convention that everyone introduces themselves by name, pronoun & orientation on first introduction - but clearly we’re not there yet. (And you could reduce single sex facilities to religious & trauma exemptions only - but we’re not there yet either - most issues with toilets could be solved by a no-urinals-stalls only policy.)
There had been limited evidence that hormonal exposure to people with same sex attraction in the womb led to very slight physical difference (comparative length of fingers etc) and possible very small differences in the shape and function of the brain.
I imagine people are now looking for similar ‘biological bases’ for trans experience.
This assumes that there is something in your inner experience and consciousness of self, that tells you your sex (biological) and gender (social) - independently of your apparent secondary sexual characteristics and social learning. I don’t know what, if any, evidence we have of this. Given a) nobody grows up culture free and b) your brain changes shape and function in the course of your life in response to the environment and experience I doubt there is much.
It is possible to be shaped by experience, without choosing to be so. I think the argument between, is it biological or is it a choice, is therefore a massive red herring.
Also if your sense of your gender has been shaped by experience - it does not mean that it can be changed at will, yours or anybody else’s.
That's quite helpful. I've not been persuaded about biology and same-sex. That has seemed to me to be something about human rights to love whomever you choose, understanding that sexuality has meaning beyond biology, and that most of same sex attraction like opposite sex attraction is less about sex and more about relationship. "Red herring" as you note to separate them. Brain and other physiological changes occurring as a result of experience.
I also haven't felt that comparing same-sex attraction and transgender is helpful. Particularly because we have very good comparative models with other primates and other mammals that show that groups of animals show all sorts of same-sex behaviour and (trying not to anthropomorphize) seem to express affection and sexuality in something akin to what we as humans call love. I see the data from that as overwhelming re same sex. As a data-driven undertaking, I'm not seeing this with transgender. It could be, I suppose, that it will said that it is early days with transg and it might be forthcoming; unfortunately the data driven approach currently is obfuscated with immediate labelling as phobic, neanderthal, conservative, right wing, religious fundamentalist etc when questioning and asking for data.
It's absolutely necessary to take care clinically (medically, psychologically) of transgender people. A care provider does not have to agree about anything other than there is a human being who needs care and to provide it according to the accepted guidelines. As far as I can see - not working with this population except incidentally - that's what most in my jurisdiction do, and they refer onward to the relatively few who claim expertise, and they meet the medical and psychosocial needs as best as possible, suspending their personal opinions and concern re lack of systematic data. The respect for human dignity, rights and integrity of adult persons to live their lives as they wish being a paramount principle for health and psychosocial care providers. This differs when we have developmentally vulnerable children and concerned parents, which has been discussed earlier on the thread.
But what is the detriment you fear will happen if ‘vulnerable children’ change gender ? Basically, why does it matter, beyond their own ease of mind, what gender someone is ?
No. This is biological and evolutionary. Don't put your thoughts into my words please. Nothing to do with any religion if that's your thought. The term errors in this context describes variation from the two biological sexes. Sexual dimorphism evolved for reproduction. Certainly humans and other animals use it for other purposes. But it doesn't escape the biology. There is no reproduction without as humans have no way of reproducing without the two sexes. Biologists speak of body plans as part of how they discuss anatomy.
However mutations through variations in meiosis and mitosis and other mechanisms are a feature, not a bug. We would not evolve without this.
I'm not sure that causes matter. I remember when there was an obsession with causes for being gay, and in a way it was abusive and pathologizing. A lot of conversion therapists would get into causes for being gay, you were abused as a child, you had a distant father, blah, blah. It began to disappear when gays and lesbians began to speak for themselves, and said, we're here, listen.
Freud used to say, 'so what causes heterosexuality?', which was quite amusing.
Comments
Isn't that what happens when one person strongly holds certain premises and wants to discuss implementation issues whilst taking those premises for granted ? Whilst other people dispute or want clarification of those premises ?
With basic disagreements unresolved, discussion will keep coming back to those basic points. Which maybe seem trivial and obvious to you, or aren't the interesting issue ?
How many genders do you think society should recognise ?
LGBT stands for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trangender. So trans fits in just fine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT
Followed by why is gender important to individuals? Why is the gender of an individual important to society?
Further questions: Does society have the authority to police gender expression? Why? To what end? Using what criteria? In what situations? What penalties or restrictions should be imposed on individuals expressing non-recognized genders? What rights or benefits are enjoyed only by the approved genders?
I have no problem with those who identify with any of these groups combining together to defend and advance their various interests. Why should I? My question is whether or not they were part of a spectrum, and, if so, what is the spectrum? The article you referred me to doesn't identify a spectrum, does it? (A spectrum being defined as a tool used to classify something in terms of its position on a scale between two points").
This discussion started here and continued looking at the other materials involved.
(I also wouldn't want to be treated by a doctor who took this point of view: “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”. Sex is important for many medical treatments, and you don't treat people in accordance with their gender identity.)
And yet again, I come back to why this is relevant to transgender issues? The vast majority of transgender people do not have an intersex condition. The argument seems to be along the lines of: sex is a spectrum > therefore you can't define whether someone is male or female > therefore you can't segregate by sex > therefore the only thing that matters is what someone feels like.
Are we happy with a genderless society, where there is no segregation between sexes? Who does that benefit? Is there any potential harm as a result?
Fixed link code. BroJames Purg Host
In addition, we are beginning to understand that mosaicism is more common that we knew. There are lots of examples of mosaicism where cells from various sources are absorbed into bodies, affecting tissues and/or the whole body. Mothers transfer cells back and forth between the foetus and themselves and those cells persist. Research is looking at how those cells affect the body. as XY cells have effects on the host XX body and vice versa.
We are extremely unlikely to be 100% male or female.
It depends what the purpose of such labelling is surely? I think that gender stereotyping is unhelpful, and for the majority of situations it shouldn't matter whether you are male or female. But if you think that women suffer from oppression then it is important to know the source of that oppression. The patriarchy isn't suddenly going to cease to exist because it is argued that sex is a spectrum.
And as the last few pages have been about women in sport - if you say sex is purely what the individual thinks they are then how will that not have an impact on elite female sport?
What I have been trying to say is that there are so many different steps in sex determination, ignoring the chromosomes, that it seems entirely reasonable that sex determination is not absolute in either direction. Whether the body is XY or XX (or any of the genetic intersex conditions), those organs are also affected by a range of hormones that switch on the body's organs (and will also affect the brain) resulting in a range of DSDs. It does not seem unreasonable to posit that some of the other things we are seeing in the population are also on this spectrum.
But then part of the oppression of women is connected with being reified as women. But I think it is very radical to want to abolish sex/gender, maybe Judith Butler does, can't remember. Joking apart, I think there is a postmodern blurring of categories, which seems unstoppable, and it's impossible to say how far it will go. This reminds me of conservative websites, and the Vatican, "women got the vote and could own property, OK, then blacks started voting, OK, then gays came out, well, maybe, now we've got trans this and trans that, please Mr Trump, make it all go away".
Saying sex/gender is a big part of the problem when they are different things.
I don't think it's particularly radical to want to get rid gender. But it does depend on what you see gender is - it's a very woolly concept. A lot of feminists would see gender as a patriarchal social construct. Others would argue it is an innate feeling of femaleness or maleness. Either way I'd hope that pretty much everyone on here would agree that gender stereotyping is unhelpful.
Well, I don't think gender is one single thing. This leads to confusion, of course. In the early days, gender roles were in the foreground, but this was followed by gender expression, gender identity, and gender performance, well, no doubt, I've left some out. In an academic context, you might provide a narrow working definition for a particular purpose, but of course, in informal discussion, we can't do that, so we tend to slosh around. On the positive side, we have a set of "family resemblances", to use Wittgenstein's phrase, which may be illuminating, (or not).
What is disconcerting is that some people use gender to refer to sex. Ah well.
"Rethinking LGBTQ+ Visibility", online.
The idea that sex is a social construct and gender is a biological construct turns the thing completely around. >>convinced there is a biological basis<<
We have changed sexual expression in modern societies. By separating reproduction from sex, the possibility of discourse has broadened considerably. And we've created terminology to allow us to have the discourse. There argument that having sex in human societies has served purposes other than reproduction is a good one, that it is involved in bonds between people, helps manage other feelings such as anxiety and anger. There is evidence for these from comparative psychology (ethology, the study of other species, particularly primates, also some mammals). I think we're talking cultural issues when we talk of the discourse, not biology however.
But rather than expecting anyone here to come up with a definition, I suspect a slightly more indirect approach might be more productive.
Are lesbians a gender ?
Are (RC) priests a gender ? (Being a social role with expectations of behaviour that relate to sex). If not, why not ? Why is a man in a dress in India considered a separate gender but a man in a cassock in Ireland not ?
Do you mean government policing (seeking to enforce compliance with) statutes, or individuals policing (seeking to enforce compliance with) cultural norms ? Does the fact that the statute or norm relates to sex/gender make any difference ?
Are there facts in science within your understanding of it? Is everything discourse for you?
Thinking specifically of things like mitosis and meiosis, which are only discourse in that we've created terms to describe the observed phenomena. Do you agree that gametes are formed from the latter, meiosis, and are only very rarely other either a short one or a long one we label as #23, for convenience calling the one Y and the other X?
And that this chromosome, being either X or Y, is responsible for the sexual dimorphism of humans, i.e., that the one goes on to develop internal and external organs we call "female" and the other to develop those we call "male"?
And further, that these chromosomes activate differential mixes of chemicals within the body we call hormones, which cause what we term sexual maturity within puberty?
The above seem pretty firm to me. Do they to you?
Up to a point. In utero those sexual organs don't develop without the influence of a number of hormones, SRY, XN4 and more, plus whatever else has been discovered in the meantime. And those hormones work in opposition, turn on the development of either ovaries or testes or turn them off. But without those in utero hormones, the foetus doesn't develop any sexual organs.
And this is where the questions are beginning to arise.
This all starts in utero and post-natally, up to and including puberty, which also blurs the borders of sexual discrimination, so rather than having dimorphism there are other things happening.
It has been attempted to argue from some varieties fish for example or barnacles, which may change biological morphology from male to female or the other way, as analogues for humans, but there's no evidence for this biological change within human morphology on the basis of a psychological/social identification to the sex which does not match physical morphology.
@quetzalcoatl Do you have a definition of anything within your ideas of discourse? How do we know anything in your view?
Plans? Errors? Those are value judgments inserted into what is presented as scientific descriptors. Plans implies that someone or thing "planned" them. Errors means they are wrong.
How about this: there are two majority basic body types. Variations from those are, um, variations.
From there I suppose you may want to argue that majority basic body types are plans that were planned by someone, and that variations are errors, but that is far from "clear".
That may be a clearer way to look at it.
Would you accept that there is no spectrum of gender roles ?
Whereas if by "gender identity" you mean a person's feelings about sex then clearly there is a spectrum of strength of feeling.
I've yet to see anyone explain gender expression or gender performance that doesn't rely on stereotypes of male and female roles or behaviour.
Yes, people do often use gender when they mean sex (and vice versa).
There probably are biological factors. As well as social factors. As ever, knowing how much from each pot is very difficult to see. But what are consequences, and why does it matter?
Bisexuals seem to be getting the rough end of things definitely. I've seen people being told that it is transphobic to call yourself bi and it should be pansexual instead. Lesbians are being told that it is a fetish to only want to have sex with people who have female anatomy. The Stonewall "trans umbrella" is so wide that some transsexuals feel that they are no longer represented.
Going back through to find the earlier discussion above, I found some other discussion, for example, this post from Marsupial which links to research about Atypical Gender Development and the Etiology of Non-conforming Gender Development, and another post above linking to research, both posted back on page 2
And from page 3
With that understanding, I'm suggesting that we listen to what we are being told and support people who are struggling with gender/sex/sexuality without judgement or prejudice against transgenderism, homosexuality or any of the other of these issues that have been causing this outbreak of judgementalism and prejudice (not saying that you are, but I've been rereading this thread and rediscovering incidences of such).
No. This is biological and evolutionary. Don't put your thoughts into my words please. Nothing to do with any religion if that's your thought. The term errors in this context describes variation from the two biological sexes. Sexual dimorphism evolved for reproduction. Certainly humans and other animals use it for other purposes. But it doesn't escape the biology. There is no reproduction without as humans have no way of reproducing without the two sexes. Biologists speak of body plans as part of how they discuss anatomy.
The social and cultural developments we discuss have nothing to do with the biology and nothing to do with the human value judgements we make of them. The conjecture of transgender being biological had been expressed. I'd been hopeful someone might try to explain this. Can you do this?
I imagine people are now looking for similar ‘biological bases’ for trans experience.
This assumes that there is something in your inner experience and consciousness of self, that tells you your sex (biological) and gender (social) - independently of your apparent secondary sexual characteristics and social learning. I don’t know what, if any, evidence we have of this. Given a) nobody grows up culture free and b) your brain changes shape and function in the course of your life in response to the environment and experience I doubt there is much.
It is possible to be shaped by experience, without choosing to be so. I think the argument between, is it biological or is it a choice, is therefore a massive red herring.
Also if your sense of your gender has been shaped by experience - it does not mean that it can be changed at will, yours or anybody else’s.
Clearly there are stereotypes of archetypally male and female behaviour. And if you want to say that most people's behaviour falls somewhere on a spectrum between these lots of the time, that's fair enough.
Maybe "gender" as a noun doesn't mean anything at all and we're better using it only as an adjective, meaning something like "relating to sex" ? (Where of course sex means maleness / femaleness rather than the act of intercourse).
If it's not effectively distinguishing biological M/F differences from cultural M/F roles, maybe this noun is serving no useful purpose at all and just confusing the issue ?
It’s gradually losing its function.
People say you can just ask, which is true - but rather negates the point of non-verbal rule-of-thumb signals.
People say you shouldn’t assume and stereotype, but that does ignore why we have these psychological processes in the first place - which is basically so we don’t have to use a lot of cognitive effort to work things out from first principles in every single new circumstance.
You could introduce a social convention that everyone introduces themselves by name, pronoun & orientation on first introduction - but clearly we’re not there yet. (And you could reduce single sex facilities to religious & trauma exemptions only - but we’re not there yet either - most issues with toilets could be solved by a no-urinals-stalls only policy.)
That's quite helpful. I've not been persuaded about biology and same-sex. That has seemed to me to be something about human rights to love whomever you choose, understanding that sexuality has meaning beyond biology, and that most of same sex attraction like opposite sex attraction is less about sex and more about relationship. "Red herring" as you note to separate them. Brain and other physiological changes occurring as a result of experience.
I also haven't felt that comparing same-sex attraction and transgender is helpful. Particularly because we have very good comparative models with other primates and other mammals that show that groups of animals show all sorts of same-sex behaviour and (trying not to anthropomorphize) seem to express affection and sexuality in something akin to what we as humans call love. I see the data from that as overwhelming re same sex. As a data-driven undertaking, I'm not seeing this with transgender. It could be, I suppose, that it will said that it is early days with transg and it might be forthcoming; unfortunately the data driven approach currently is obfuscated with immediate labelling as phobic, neanderthal, conservative, right wing, religious fundamentalist etc when questioning and asking for data.
It's absolutely necessary to take care clinically (medically, psychologically) of transgender people. A care provider does not have to agree about anything other than there is a human being who needs care and to provide it according to the accepted guidelines. As far as I can see - not working with this population except incidentally - that's what most in my jurisdiction do, and they refer onward to the relatively few who claim expertise, and they meet the medical and psychosocial needs as best as possible, suspending their personal opinions and concern re lack of systematic data. The respect for human dignity, rights and integrity of adult persons to live their lives as they wish being a paramount principle for health and psychosocial care providers. This differs when we have developmentally vulnerable children and concerned parents, which has been discussed earlier on the thread.
However mutations through variations in meiosis and mitosis and other mechanisms are a feature, not a bug. We would not evolve without this.
Freud used to say, 'so what causes heterosexuality?', which was quite amusing.