Transgender

14041434546

Comments

  • Firenze wrote: »
    ISTM @Russ has just reworked the doctrine of Transubstantiation: the essence is one thing, the accidents another.

    I think gender identity has exploded behaviourism. This might claim that I can describe some aspects of your identity from the outside, thus, you have a penis, therefore you are male.

    This is excessively othering. But I think it used to be said of gays also, you have a penis, therefore you are a natural fit with women. It probably also used to be said of women, you have a womb, therefore your destiny is mothering.

    So somehow modernity sees a shift to inner experience, desires, identities. I am not defined by my penis/womb, and I refuse to be defined by you. Postmodernism, I suppose.
  • I think gender identity has exploded behaviourism. This might claim that I can describe some aspects of your identity from the outside, thus, you have a penis, therefore you are male.

    It's only othering if you then attribute other characteristics on the back of being male, otherwise it is simply an observation of someone's sex.
  • It depends on whether you think my identity is defined by you, or me.
  • No it doesn't. it depends on your definition of the word 'male'.
  • And "gender identity".
  • RussRuss Deckhand, Styx
    You're insisting on the term "gender identity". And trying to use it to mean at the same time your subjective feelings of gender and the objective reality of what you are. (Is "ontological" the right word here ?)

    You're a human being, like the rest of us. Being categorised doesn't mean that you are no more than a member of that category. Your body is objectively a certain height, and weight, with a certain skin colour, and is male or female. These are objective facts regardless of your feelings about them. But they're not necessarily the important things about you as a person.

    Trying to say that your feelings about your maleness / femaleness are your maleness / femaleness makes as little sense as saying that how tall you feel is your height.

    Such feelings may for some purposes be more important than your actual height, but they are not your height.



  • Russ wrote: »
    You're insisting on the term "gender identity". And trying to use it to mean at the same time your subjective feelings of gender and the objective reality of what you are. (Is "ontological" the right word here ?)

    You're a human being, like the rest of us. Being categorised doesn't mean that you are no more than a member of that category. Your body is objectively a certain height, and weight, with a certain skin colour, and is male or female. These are objective facts regardless of your feelings about them. But they're not necessarily the important things about you as a person.

    Trying to say that your feelings about your maleness / femaleness are your maleness / femaleness makes as little sense as saying that how tall you feel is your height.

    Such feelings may for some purposes be more important than your actual height, but they are not your height.



    I’m sure someone has already noted this somewhere up thread, but there’s a difference between sex and gender. Sex is male and female, with the associated bit and bobs. Sex is biological. Gender is the collection of attitudes, practices, and beliefs that constitute being a man or woman or genderqueer etc. at any time. Gender is societal. It’s a sociology, psychology, anthropology 101 distinction.

    When it comes to gender identity, your feeling about gender practices matters more than your sex.
  • Gender (identity) IS both internal and societal for me, a two way flow with acceptance as the conduit.

    To give a couple of examples both recent -

    I often wear transparent nail varnish when I am presenting as a "girly guy" ... men normally don't even notice (!!) but women almost always do - and in so many cases how they relate to you when they notice changes fast, and in nice ways.

    Similarly even if dressed as a girly guy i.e. tight jeans, some lovely but very feminine male shirts, and when I am smiling (guys just don't smile! ... it's not male, right?) I am amazed how many interactions i.e. smiles, eye contact, saying hello/hi that I get from women just walking down local streets. Even in busy London where we are super-unfriendly.

    AND to put the cat amongst the pigeons ... I would also add from my own experience that the percentage of apparently straight guys "interested" in trans is way (way!) higher than you might think 😉 ... and tbh personally I would still view them as straight and I KNOW they would too. Read into that as you will ...

    Nat
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate, Purgatory Host
    If you dress as a girly guy, you are almost certainly being read as a gay man by those you haven’t told otherwise.

    (In what way is smiling a gendered behaviour ?!?)
  • ECraigR wrote: »
    Gender is the collection of attitudes, practices, and beliefs that constitute being a man or woman or genderqueer etc. at any time.

    Perhaps, but bring up any of those things in a thread about the role or place of men and women in society and you’ll get at least a dozen people telling you there’s nothing inherently male or female about them.

    Which is it? That’s all I want to know.
  • Leorning CnihtLeorning Cniht Shipmate
    edited September 2019
    Russ wrote: »
    You're a human being, like the rest of us. Being categorised doesn't mean that you are no more than a member of that category. Your body is objectively a certain height, and weight, with a certain skin colour, and is male or female. These are objective facts regardless of your feelings about them. But they're not necessarily the important things about you as a person.

    Trying to say that your feelings about your maleness / femaleness are your maleness / femaleness makes as little sense as saying that how tall you feel is your height.

    You're making an assumption here, when you say "your body is objectively male or female", and that assumption is that that's all there is. When a trans woman says that she perceives herself as a woman with a male body, how do you know that there isn't some ontological reality behind that? Yes, she has XY chromosomes and was born with (and may or may not still have) a penis. But how do you know that that's the whole picture?
  • The other question is:Why does it matter if someone identifies as other than binary? WHy does it matter what the mechanism is?
  • Which is it? That’s all I want to know.

    My own knowledge of myself is certain enough that I don't need to be told by other people who or what I am. I appreciate that others might not be in the same position, but it doesn't bother me that I've assumed female roles while being a man, and it doesn't confuse me when I see women take on traditionally male roles. It just is. I'd echo lB's last statement: why does it matter if someone identifies other than binary? Certainly for me, it doesn't.
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate, Glory
    IMHO, people have an inner yin/yang balance that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with binariness or not, sexual preference, etc. It's whatever combo of feminine and masculine that a person has. Plus how those things are defined in the person's culture.
  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    (In what way is smiling a gendered behaviour ?!?)

    Women smile more than men in some countries, including the US and Canada, especially if they're white. (Source: https://news.yale.edu/2003/03/18/women-smile-more-men-differences-disappear-when-they-are-same-role-yale-researcher-finds)
    Men tell women, especially young women, to smile. If I had a buck for every time some random guy on the street told me to smile ...
  • I listened to an interesting talk from a research conference which was talking about the development of the sexed brain in the womb, here. The research was looking at brain activity under certain stimulae (such as reaction to pheromones), and seeing how trans people compared. The talk says that trans people's brains react more like the sex they feel aligned with.

    But then the idea of a male or female brain is pretty controversial. My understanding is that the brain is pretty plastic in how it develops, so it is very difficult to separate the nature vs nurture elements. It also raises the prospect of saying that you can diagnose people as transgender by doing MRI scans, which I imagine would be pretty controversial...
  • Robert ArminRobert Armin Shipmate, Glory
    "Men tell women, especially young women, to smile. If I had a buck for every time some random guy on the street told me to smile ..."

    You're still young to me Ruth! ;)
  • quantpole wrote: »
    I listened to an interesting talk from a research conference which was talking about the development of the sexed brain in the womb, here. The research was looking at brain activity under certain stimulae (such as reaction to pheromones), and seeing how trans people compared. The talk says that trans people's brains react more like the sex they feel aligned with.

    But then the idea of a male or female brain is pretty controversial. My understanding is that the brain is pretty plastic in how it develops, so it is very difficult to separate the nature vs nurture elements. It also raises the prospect of saying that you can diagnose people as transgender by doing MRI scans, which I imagine would be pretty controversial...

    I would be surprised if we ever got the point where (a) we understood neurological gender identity well enough, and (b) we could image the brain precisely enough, that we would prefer a brain image over an individual’s report of their experience. There are studies that have identified possible neurological components of gender identity (including a much older study of neurons in a part of the brain called the BSTc) but I don’t think anyone could say that any one thing we can see in the brain is “the cause” of the gender identity that individuals experience.

    I think some of the resistance to the idea of sexual differentiation in the brain arises out the idea that this means there is a monolithic “male brain” and a monolithic “female brain” - dimorphism rather than differentiation. It’s pretty clear that this is not the case. And also I think there’s this stereotype floating around that trans women are all hyperfeminine so that female gender identity becomes conflated with hyperfeminine gender presentation and gender roles. That’s also not the case. (As an aside, I think @ECraigR may be coming a bit too close to conflating these two things upthread, as @Marvin the Martian is perhaps implicitly pointing out.)


  • Marsupial, I certainly don't think it would be a good thing to use MRI scans to prove someone's identity, it was more a worry that it could go that way. Particularly if medical treatments are being administered (and especially so if such treatments are under insurance schemes). But that's a whole other area of medical ethics, which is a much wider topic.

    And yes, my understanding is that while generalisations can be made about the difference in brains between male and female, there is a wide variation still. So just because a brain has a characteristic that is more typically associated with a male, it doesn't make it a male brain. I guess it would be a bit like using height to determine what sex someone is. (But then the talk I linked to above did seem to be saying that certain aspects of the brain are more dimorphic than height.)
  • Just a note about neurological development. About age 25 for women, 27 for men. The brain continues to grow and develop until those ages. Which is why exposure to things like marijuana can harm development prior to those ages, and it's possible to learn unaccented languages when younger, not older. Implications for many things thought to be "born with".
  • As in I think I am a lesbian, but when my brain matures enough, I will like penis?
    There is little evidence that people mature out of non-binary identities. IME more people twig they do not fit the standard gender later in life than the reverse.
  • LeafLeaf Shipmate
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    I'd echo lB's last statement: why does it matter if someone identifies other than binary? Certainly for me, it doesn't.

    This is also my position. I cannot imagine why it would matter to me whether someone's gender presentation matched their genitals. Unless I'm that person's lover or doctor, it's none of my business.

    I'm not panicked about society's ability to reproduce (which IMO is a panic fuelling some of the anxiety around transgender issues.) I take the long view. People may get together and reproduce, or not. Societies rise and fall, and the kingdom of God is not co-terminous with any particular society anyway.
  • (Apparently it matters to England Athletics, too - I am classified as a Veteran Male for competition purposes)
  • Leaf wrote: »
    This is also my position. I cannot imagine why it would matter to me whether someone's gender presentation matched their genitals. Unless I'm that person's lover or doctor, it's none of my business.

    I don't think people in general are particularly bothered by how someone presents themselves. (Though there are of course knee-jerk reactionaries to anyone seen as being different.) It's really only when it's perceived as impinging on single sex areas where people have an issue. Sports is obviously the big one for that.

    Talking of which, Rachel McKinnon has a new paper out, in which she argues that "Biological restrictions, such as endogenous testosterone limits, are not consistent with IOC and CAS principles."
  • Marsupial wrote: »
    quantpole wrote: »
    I listened to an interesting talk from a research conference which was talking about the development of the sexed brain in the womb, here. The research was looking at brain activity under certain stimulae (such as reaction to pheromones), and seeing how trans people compared. The talk says that trans people's brains react more like the sex they feel aligned with.

    But then the idea of a male or female brain is pretty controversial. My understanding is that the brain is pretty plastic in how it develops, so it is very difficult to separate the nature vs nurture elements. It also raises the prospect of saying that you can diagnose people as transgender by doing MRI scans, which I imagine would be pretty controversial...

    I would be surprised if we ever got the point where (a) we understood neurological gender identity well enough, and (b) we could image the brain precisely enough, that we would prefer a brain image over an individual’s report of their experience. There are studies that have identified possible neurological components of gender identity (including a much older study of neurons in a part of the brain called the BSTc) but I don’t think anyone could say that any one thing we can see in the brain is “the cause” of the gender identity that individuals experience.

    I think some of the resistance to the idea of sexual differentiation in the brain arises out the idea that this means there is a monolithic “male brain” and a monolithic “female brain” - dimorphism rather than differentiation. It’s pretty clear that this is not the case. And also I think there’s this stereotype floating around that trans women are all hyperfeminine so that female gender identity becomes conflated with hyperfeminine gender presentation and gender roles. That’s also not the case. (As an aside, I think @ECraigR may be coming a bit too close to conflating these two things upthread, as @Marvin the Martian is perhaps implicitly pointing out.)


    Considering I didn’t mention gender identity or gender roles, I don’t know how I could be accused of conflating anything.
  • quantpole wrote: »
    Leaf wrote: »
    This is also my position. I cannot imagine why it would matter to me whether someone's gender presentation matched their genitals. Unless I'm that person's lover or doctor, it's none of my business.

    I don't think people in general are particularly bothered by how someone presents themselves. (Though there are of course knee-jerk reactionaries to anyone seen as being different.) It's really only when it's perceived as impinging on single sex areas where people have an issue. Sports is obviously the big one for that.
    I disagree completely. Impinging on single-sex areas is the reasoning used to attack non-binary, but the attacks happen outside of that. Attacks philosophical and physical.

  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate, Purgatory Host
  • ECraigR wrote: »
    Marsupial wrote: »
    quantpole wrote: »
    I listened to an interesting talk from a research conference which was talking about the development of the sexed brain in the womb, here. The research was looking at brain activity under certain stimulae (such as reaction to pheromones), and seeing how trans people compared. The talk says that trans people's brains react more like the sex they feel aligned with.

    But then the idea of a male or female brain is pretty controversial. My understanding is that the brain is pretty plastic in how it develops, so it is very difficult to separate the nature vs nurture elements. It also raises the prospect of saying that you can diagnose people as transgender by doing MRI scans, which I imagine would be pretty controversial...

    I would be surprised if we ever got the point where (a) we understood neurological gender identity well enough, and (b) we could image the brain precisely enough, that we would prefer a brain image over an individual’s report of their experience. There are studies that have identified possible neurological components of gender identity (including a much older study of neurons in a part of the brain called the BSTc) but I don’t think anyone could say that any one thing we can see in the brain is “the cause” of the gender identity that individuals experience.

    I think some of the resistance to the idea of sexual differentiation in the brain arises out the idea that this means there is a monolithic “male brain” and a monolithic “female brain” - dimorphism rather than differentiation. It’s pretty clear that this is not the case. And also I think there’s this stereotype floating around that trans women are all hyperfeminine so that female gender identity becomes conflated with hyperfeminine gender presentation and gender roles. That’s also not the case. (As an aside, I think @ECraigR may be coming a bit too close to conflating these two things upthread, as @Marvin the Martian is perhaps implicitly pointing out.)


    Considering I didn’t mention gender identity or gender roles, I don’t know how I could be accused of conflating anything.

    Sorry if I misunderstood. Given the context of the thread and the post you were replying to, I assumed you meant gender identity when you were talking about gender.
  • Marsupial wrote: »
    ECraigR wrote: »
    Marsupial wrote: »
    quantpole wrote: »
    I listened to an interesting talk from a research conference which was talking about the development of the sexed brain in the womb, here. The research was looking at brain activity under certain stimulae (such as reaction to pheromones), and seeing how trans people compared. The talk says that trans people's brains react more like the sex they feel aligned with.

    But then the idea of a male or female brain is pretty controversial. My understanding is that the brain is pretty plastic in how it develops, so it is very difficult to separate the nature vs nurture elements. It also raises the prospect of saying that you can diagnose people as transgender by doing MRI scans, which I imagine would be pretty controversial...

    I would be surprised if we ever got the point where (a) we understood neurological gender identity well enough, and (b) we could image the brain precisely enough, that we would prefer a brain image over an individual’s report of their experience. There are studies that have identified possible neurological components of gender identity (including a much older study of neurons in a part of the brain called the BSTc) but I don’t think anyone could say that any one thing we can see in the brain is “the cause” of the gender identity that individuals experience.

    I think some of the resistance to the idea of sexual differentiation in the brain arises out the idea that this means there is a monolithic “male brain” and a monolithic “female brain” - dimorphism rather than differentiation. It’s pretty clear that this is not the case. And also I think there’s this stereotype floating around that trans women are all hyperfeminine so that female gender identity becomes conflated with hyperfeminine gender presentation and gender roles. That’s also not the case. (As an aside, I think @ECraigR may be coming a bit too close to conflating these two things upthread, as @Marvin the Martian is perhaps implicitly pointing out.)


    Considering I didn’t mention gender identity or gender roles, I don’t know how I could be accused of conflating anything.

    Sorry if I misunderstood. Given the context of the thread and the post you were replying to, I assumed you meant gender identity when you were talking about gender.

    And re-reading your post, you did mention gender identity, so now I'm really confused...



  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    quantpole wrote: »
    Leaf wrote: »
    This is also my position. I cannot imagine why it would matter to me whether someone's gender presentation matched their genitals. Unless I'm that person's lover or doctor, it's none of my business.

    I don't think people in general are particularly bothered by how someone presents themselves. (Though there are of course knee-jerk reactionaries to anyone seen as being different.) It's really only when it's perceived as impinging on single sex areas where people have an issue. Sports is obviously the big one for that.
    I disagree completely. Impinging on single-sex areas is the reasoning used to attack non-binary, but the attacks happen outside of that. Attacks philosophical and physical.

    I was talking about the reaction of people in general. That is not to underestimate the harm that a minority of people can do.
  • quantpole wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    quantpole wrote: »
    Leaf wrote: »
    This is also my position. I cannot imagine why it would matter to me whether someone's gender presentation matched their genitals. Unless I'm that person's lover or doctor, it's none of my business.

    I don't think people in general are particularly bothered by how someone presents themselves. (Though there are of course knee-jerk reactionaries to anyone seen as being different.) It's really only when it's perceived as impinging on single sex areas where people have an issue. Sports is obviously the big one for that.
    I disagree completely. Impinging on single-sex areas is the reasoning used to attack non-binary, but the attacks happen outside of that. Attacks philosophical and physical.

    I was talking about the reaction of people in general. That is not to underestimate the harm that a minority of people can do.
    I think more people are bothered than you think. Just like racism, it is not hate or love, there is every variation in between. And the violent actors feel supported by the silence and the whispers as well as the shouts of hate.
  • Marsupial wrote: »
    Marsupial wrote: »
    ECraigR wrote: »
    Marsupial wrote: »
    quantpole wrote: »
    I listened to an interesting talk from a research conference which was talking about the development of the sexed brain in the womb, here. The research was looking at brain activity under certain stimulae (such as reaction to pheromones), and seeing how trans people compared. The talk says that trans people's brains react more like the sex they feel aligned with.

    But then the idea of a male or female brain is pretty controversial. My understanding is that the brain is pretty plastic in how it develops, so it is very difficult to separate the nature vs nurture elements. It also raises the prospect of saying that you can diagnose people as transgender by doing MRI scans, which I imagine would be pretty controversial...

    I would be surprised if we ever got the point where (a) we understood neurological gender identity well enough, and (b) we could image the brain precisely enough, that we would prefer a brain image over an individual’s report of their experience. There are studies that have identified possible neurological components of gender identity (including a much older study of neurons in a part of the brain called the BSTc) but I don’t think anyone could say that any one thing we can see in the brain is “the cause” of the gender identity that individuals experience.

    I think some of the resistance to the idea of sexual differentiation in the brain arises out the idea that this means there is a monolithic “male brain” and a monolithic “female brain” - dimorphism rather than differentiation. It’s pretty clear that this is not the case. And also I think there’s this stereotype floating around that trans women are all hyperfeminine so that female gender identity becomes conflated with hyperfeminine gender presentation and gender roles. That’s also not the case. (As an aside, I think @ECraigR may be coming a bit too close to conflating these two things upthread, as @Marvin the Martian is perhaps implicitly pointing out.)


    Considering I didn’t mention gender identity or gender roles, I don’t know how I could be accused of conflating anything.

    Sorry if I misunderstood. Given the context of the thread and the post you were replying to, I assumed you meant gender identity when you were talking about gender.

    And re-reading your post, you did mention gender identity, so now I'm really confused...


    Without accusing any particular person of any particular thing, ISTM there is a lot of talking around the subject. Omission is a language in itself, if not as easily deciphered.

  • I'm still here. Actually there is a lot of really good discussion on this thread looking back. Of course it gets heated, that's human.

    I don't self-identify as a Christian but I found this by the Evangelical Alliance (is that CoE?) interesting but a bit disingenous as a trans ... a few things stood out on how it is framed.

    https://www.eauk.org/assets/files/downloads/Transformed.pdf

    "Secondly, trans is used to describe those with a medical condition – gender dysphoria – and those who are part of a wider ideological movement"

    "The transgender ideological movement is heavily influenced by queer theory and prior ideological commitments about the pliability of gender. One does not need to experience dysphoria or have any intention of permanently transitioning to call oneself trans"

    "However, a person who describes themselves as non-binary rejects the categories male and female and/or see gender as a spectrum. If gender is a spectrum, not a binary, then everyone is trans. Or alternatively, there are no trans people."

    Polite question - who writes this kind of stuff?

    1. So if I suffer gender incongruence but not to the level of gender dysphoria, I can't identify as trans?

    2. If I don't have any intention of permanently transitioning ("transitioning" here is not defined so what does it mean ... hormones, facial surgery, breast implants, sex re-assignment surgery) I cannot be trans?
    Even though transitioning is a journey for each person, making choices along the way?

    3. Non-binary (or all trans?) trans cannot exists because the author is so narrow-minded that on a spectrum they cannot allow that many (most) people are at one extreme polar point or another?

    Tbh a nice American guy by the name of John MacArthur asserts I can't exist so the stuff above is great in comparison ... at least parts of the document read humanly even if "trans" is (imo anyway) being deliberately minimized to exclude a huge percentage of us.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEwLKnLZBvI

    To be fair, what I read/hear here is no less annoying and dismissive of the scope of being trans than some of the work and papers on "autogynephilia" by Anne Lawrence, Ray Blanchard which REALLY winds me up to the extent I have stopped reading it.

  • That is dreadful stuff. It sounds like the Anglican Church League here (think of the Jensens).
  • I'm still here. Actually there is a lot of really good discussion on this thread looking back. Of course it gets heated, that's human.

    I don't self-identify as a Christian but I found this by the Evangelical Alliance (is that CoE?) interesting but a bit disingenous as a trans ... a few things stood out on how it is framed.
    CofE is Church of England, so not them.
    https://www.eauk.org/assets/files/downloads/Transformed.pdf

    "Secondly, trans is used to describe those with a medical condition – gender dysphoria – and those who are part of a wider ideological movement"

    "The transgender ideological movement is heavily influenced by queer theory and prior ideological commitments about the pliability of gender. One does not need to experience dysphoria or have any intention of permanently transitioning to call oneself trans"

    "However, a person who describes themselves as non-binary rejects the categories male and female and/or see gender as a spectrum. If gender is a spectrum, not a binary, then everyone is trans. Or alternatively, there are no trans people."

    Polite question - who writes this kind of stuff?
    People trying to justify their position on non-binary without thinking themselves as bad. To be fair, they are not bad, even though their position causes harm.
  • Yes that EA stuff is dreadful.

    And at the same time Rachel McKinnon is joyfully celebrating the death of a young woman she disagreed with. And before anyone says, "Oh but that's just an individual, you can't judge a movement on the basis of one person's actions.", McKinnon is one of the most prominent people speaking on trans issues, and has been given very high profile media attention. The attacks that LilBuddha referred to do not only go one way.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    edited September 2019
    It seems she also celebrated the death of David Koch. She does not sound a very pleasant person at all.
  • I can see a lot of writing (secular and non-secular) that immediately skews the debate by pre-defining the trans condition or minimizing numbers - the EA doc seems to do both.

    I was recently reading "Men trapped in men's bodies" by Anne Lawrence (who is trans, and a clinical psychologist) which was superficially useful. It resonated with me until I realized her starting assumption is to pre-define all trans as homosexual or heterosexual males which I think is far from the truth - either in terms of gender identity or sexual identity. She only looks at trans who are or intend to fully transition.

    Once I fully saw this, the whole thing crumbles into the horror piece that Autogynephilia is ... I only really read this the last few days and can see this can be immensely damaging to many people.

    My gut feeling is she applies her own personal experience to all trans on that basis i.e. another form of putting people is neat boxes ... a form of control I guess (or wanting to feel in control). I know so many people who just don't fit into the predefined Autogynephilia narrative and of course some who probably do.

    Reading the changes from DSM IV to V I can see parallels with homosexuality being removed as a psychiatric abnormality/disorder in the 1970s but still being a "sexual orientation disturbance" until into the 1980s. The gender debate feels like we are in the middle of that i.e. gender dsyphoria itself is not a disorder but included to justify medical treatment and transition costs.

    As of now in DSM V transvestism (along with other essentially harmless kinks in the SM arena) can be classified as a paraphilic disorder in cases where "the presence of a paraphilia causes significant distress or impairment, or involves personal harm or risk of harm to others. Again I get it ... it's where homosexuality was in the 1970's ... but most, perhaps all of, that "significant distress" comes from non-acceptance from society, parents and so on.

    I'm pretty sure this has been covered in the forum before ... I can see our often diverse trans conditions get "pre-boxed" by just about everybody based on pre-conceptions ... which we challenge by our existence.

    The overriding truths I see are that everyone (clinicians, society, researchers, trans) are learning or relearning about trans and it's actually happening FAST, don't pre-judge people in general, and that we all need to be open minded and listen to each other.

    Nat
  • Marsupial wrote: »
    Marsupial wrote: »
    ECraigR wrote: »
    Marsupial wrote: »
    quantpole wrote: »
    I listened to an interesting talk from a research conference which was talking about the development of the sexed brain in the womb, here. The research was looking at brain activity under certain stimulae (such as reaction to pheromones), and seeing how trans people compared. The talk says that trans people's brains react more like the sex they feel aligned with.

    But then the idea of a male or female brain is pretty controversial. My understanding is that the brain is pretty plastic in how it develops, so it is very difficult to separate the nature vs nurture elements. It also raises the prospect of saying that you can diagnose people as transgender by doing MRI scans, which I imagine would be pretty controversial...

    I would be surprised if we ever got the point where (a) we understood neurological gender identity well enough, and (b) we could image the brain precisely enough, that we would prefer a brain image over an individual’s report of their experience. There are studies that have identified possible neurological components of gender identity (including a much older study of neurons in a part of the brain called the BSTc) but I don’t think anyone could say that any one thing we can see in the brain is “the cause” of the gender identity that individuals experience.

    I think some of the resistance to the idea of sexual differentiation in the brain arises out the idea that this means there is a monolithic “male brain” and a monolithic “female brain” - dimorphism rather than differentiation. It’s pretty clear that this is not the case. And also I think there’s this stereotype floating around that trans women are all hyperfeminine so that female gender identity becomes conflated with hyperfeminine gender presentation and gender roles. That’s also not the case. (As an aside, I think @ECraigR may be coming a bit too close to conflating these two things upthread, as @Marvin the Martian is perhaps implicitly pointing out.)


    Considering I didn’t mention gender identity or gender roles, I don’t know how I could be accused of conflating anything.

    Sorry if I misunderstood. Given the context of the thread and the post you were replying to, I assumed you meant gender identity when you were talking about gender.

    And re-reading your post, you did mention gender identity, so now I'm really confused...



    Apologies, I misread in haste.

  • Gee D wrote: »
    It seems she also celebrated the death of David Koch. She does not sound a very pleasant person at all.
    https://twitter.com/rachelvmckinnon
    I read her Twitter feed, which is maybe not a rounded view of anyone but she seems to have an amazing lack of basic human self awareness / empathy.

    Trans people can be as angry and twisted and have preconceptions as much or more than as anyone else ... including trans who are professors of ethics.

    For me she obviously uses her "ethics" as a shield to deflect that she's not a very nice person plus a sword that anyone who attacks her must be a "transphobe".

    We can probably use some better spokespeople, with more nuanced views.
  • Nat, the EA isn’t part of the CofE, it’s a parachurch UK organisation that embraces lots of different denominations. It’s supposed to be the umbrella organisation for all evangelicals, but the problem is as soon as evangelicals get too progressive/open/liberal, then they’re kicked out.

    See, for example, Steve Chalke, an influential Baptist minister, and an evangelical, but too liberal for the EA. The Oasis Trust, which he started, was kicked out of the EA after Chalke advocated same-sex marriage.

    link


  • "The singer went on to say: "I am at no stage just yet to eloquently speak at length about what it means to be non binary but I can't wait for the day that I am. So for now I just want to be VISIBLE and open."

    At last week's GQ Men of the Year Awards, Smith walked the red carpet wearing high heels, posting: "I'd never ever ever be able to be myself like this in front of the industry or anyone."

    That's a really cool story.

    I LOVE the heels and have days I feel like presenting JUST like but it also takes guts ... more "cross-over" than androgenous if you get my drift, serious statement.

    I'm not sure if it makes me somewhat non-binary or just feeling a bit lazy or both, sometimes I have to laugh at myself ... it really shouldn't matter! 😁

    I wonder if we will see a set of specific non-binary "presentations" becoming gender presentation norms in the long run (would take decades) to signal where you sit on a non-binary spectrum.

    Thanks, very encouraging
  • quantpole wrote: »
    Yes that EA stuff is dreadful.

    And at the same time Rachel McKinnon is joyfully celebrating the death of a young woman she disagreed with. And before anyone says, "Oh but that's just an individual, you can't judge a movement on the basis of one person's actions.", McKinnon is one of the most prominent people speaking on trans issues, and has been given very high profile media attention. The attacks that LilBuddha referred to do not only go one way.
    Not that I justify celebrating the death of an opponent in that manner, all attacks are not the same.
    When society as a whole attacks anti-trans people, when anti-trans suicide rates are higher than the national average and when anti-trans people are regularly beaten and killed, then maybe we can consider an equivalence.
  • Gee D wrote: »
    It seems she also celebrated the death of David Koch. She does not sound a very pleasant person at all.
    I'd be lying if I said I was in any way sad that the bastard had died. I'd be lying if I said I did not think the world a better place without him and will not be sad if his brother soon joins him.
    I did not celebrate his death, it did not make me smile, nor happy in the slightest.
    But I cannot help thinking that my reaction is not too far down the road from hers.
    Koch did direct harm to the environment, Koch did indirect harm by fighting against climate awareness.
    He was not Hitler, but he actively did bad things.
  • LouiseLouise Epiphanies Host
    quantpole wrote: »
    Yes that EA stuff is dreadful.

    And at the same time Rachel McKinnon is joyfully celebrating the death of a young woman she disagreed with. And before anyone says, "Oh but that's just an individual, you can't judge a movement on the basis of one person's actions.", McKinnon is one of the most prominent people speaking on trans issues, and has been given very high profile media attention. The attacks that LilBuddha referred to do not only go one way.

    This passed me by at first because I didn't get the context and didn't realise who you were talking about.

    'She disagreed with' on its own here strikes me as problematic if we are talking about the late Magdalen Berns. If someone made a YouTube career out of advocating racism and self-identified as a 'racist' in their own words, then we surely would consider that to be an important part of the context before attacking a PoC for not observing the usual social niceties about them?

    As for David Koch, I don't think we can even begin to quantify how many poor or vulnerable people will die because of his lavish funding of climate change denial before we start on anything else he's done.

    I don't know much about Rachel McKinnon and whether she is a nice person or not (which is often a very gendered way of attacking women with opinions which differentiate them from a doormat) but I do find it interesting that this context was left out.
  • Louise wrote: »
    quantpole wrote: »
    Yes that EA stuff is dreadful.

    And at the same time Rachel McKinnon is joyfully celebrating the death of a young woman she disagreed with. And before anyone says, "Oh but that's just an individual, you can't judge a movement on the basis of one person's actions.", McKinnon is one of the most prominent people speaking on trans issues, and has been given very high profile media attention. The attacks that LilBuddha referred to do not only go one way.

    This passed me by at first because I didn't get the context and didn't realise who you were talking about.

    'She disagreed with' on its own here strikes me as problematic if we are talking about the late Magdalen Berns. If someone made a YouTube career out of advocating racism and self-identified as a 'racist' in their own words, then we surely would consider that to be an important part of the context before attacking a PoC for not observing the usual social niceties about them?

    As for David Koch, I don't think we can even begin to quantify how many poor or vulnerable people will die because of his lavish funding of climate change denial before we start on anything else he's done.

    I don't know much about Rachel McKinnon and whether she is a nice person or not (which is often a very gendered way of attacking women with opinions which differentiate them from a doormat) but I do find it interesting that this context was left out.

    Well, if you want the context then how far back do you go? Should you also mention Rachel McKinnon has written about how to break through the "cotton ceiling", which is exactly the concept that Magdalen Berns was railing against?

    And there is one thing being happy that someone has died. But normally people would tend to feel a bit guilty about that and keep it to themselves. Posting GIFs of grave dancing isn't just "not observing the usual social niceties".

    This isn't a one off - she's also said that she wants transphobes to die in a grease fire. Is that OK too? Are the images going round on twitter of an anime character holding a gun with the caption "Kill terfs" ok? Are they justified because they are oh such awful people? Bear in mind that to McKinnon such extreme people like.....Martina Navratilova.....are "terfs" for opposing transwomen competing against women. (And as I pointed out above, McKinnon thinks transwomen should be able to compete with no restriction on hormone levels.)

    And I agree Nat, having McKinnon as a spokeperson does not help trans people. Mainly because sports is one of the areas that most people are going to say "hang on, that's not fair". And also because she is an awful person. There are loads of awful people around, but generally they aren't given the time of day. I wouldn't care about McKinnon if she wasn't being given such exposure and glowing write ups in the media. Similarly with Yaniv, who is pretty much as obvious a crank as you can get. And yet amazingly is getting defended in Pink News.
  • Louise wrote: »
    As for David Koch, I don't think we can even begin to quantify how many poor or vulnerable people will die because of his lavish funding of climate change denial before we start on anything else he's done.

    I think there's a considerable difference between not mourning a death on the one hand and rejoicing in it on the other. What you've put forward are good reasons for not mourning.
  • Hate begets hate. Always does. Why do you expect trans to be any more above this basic human tendancy than any other group?
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    edited September 2019
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Hate begets hate. Always does. Why do you expect trans to be any more above this basic human tendancy than any other group?

    I did not think much of the dancing in the streets which greeted Margaret Thatcher's death either.
  • Gee D wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Hate begets hate. Always does. Why do you expect trans to be any more above this basic human tendancy than any other group?

    I did not think much of the dancing in the streets which greeted Margaret Thatcher's death either.

    No, but it happened, and it wasn't surprising.
Sign In or Register to comment.