Transgender Discussion Thread III: Vote in our poll!

[Mechanisburg]

Well, this is how I would address it. The "you" in the following wall-o-text is a generic you, aimed at the n-th Internet asshole saying this stuff.

Cracks knuckles

Like most other "arguments" against the existence of transgender people, the "if we allow people to identify [...]" argument hinges on a fundamental misunderstanding, wilful or otherwise, of what the words being used and the phenomena being considered actually mean. There's also a huge undercurrent of "fuck morphological freedom" and "liar liar pants on fire", but I'll address that later.

The word "identify" is misused. In that context it means "to recognize" - similar to how it would be used inside the phrase "I identified that bug in the code and addressed it". There was not a deliberate attempt to insert the bug, or to warp one's worldview towards one including a bug; it was, simply, and it was recognized as such.



"I identify as a woman" is a bit more complex than that, admittedly. It is a shorthand for a lot of things - "I feel uncomfortable with male physical traits", "I feel uncomfortable with my genitals", "I feel like having female primary and secondary characteristics would make me happier", "I strongly believe I have traits which are conventionally associated with women", "I would like to be called by a conventionally female name and by female pronouns".

All of these - which also reflect the diagnostic criteria for gender dysphoria in the DSM-V - come together to a simple "I identify as a woman": I recognize my feelings are in fact similar to those of cis women (women, cis or trans, usually don't appreciate much not having breasts, being hirsute, losing their hair and being called sir), and unlike those of cis men (men don't usually want to get rid of their beard so much they'd be willing to pay for laser; nor they usually want breasts, or to be called she).

In any case, this identity has not been created ad-hoc. This set of traits is not in contrast with reality, like people "identifying" as 21-yo to drink alcohol, or as 80-yo to get a pension, or as attack helicopters to make use of an old, stupid, and transphobic meme. You are 15; you spent 15 years being alive. This much can be known with relative ease; but information about gender identity cannot be gathered easily. The discomfort I felt growing up whilst my body was being deformed cannot be conveyed directly.

This does not mean I'm lying, for whatever reason you might concoct.

This "you are making it up" because you can't imagine someone feeling like that? It's the same as the "you are making it up" people with depression, anxiety, PTSD get to hear - and it's what keeps the mental health stigma afloat and kills thousands of people each year.

Why would I lie about being depressed? It's not because I'm lazy and am looking for excuses to not work; it's because I'm at the end of my rope, both literal and figurative, and asking for help.

Why would I lie about being transgender? It's not because I want to see women naked in a locker room. It's not because I want to rape them in a public bathroom. It's not because I get my jollies off to wearing panties. It's not because I want to be with men.

This has nothing to do with what you believe my reasons are; your projections, your failure of empathy, your unwillingness to consider me as a person and not a walking stereotype whose traits you learned from late nights "freak" shows, your wilful ignorance of the matter despite your unfettered access to the biggest knowledge base ever created - those are on you.

The fact your arguments only exist because of the widespread, poor understanding of what gender identity and sex actually are is just... sad.

The first is not psychological, it's neurological. It's what makes cis men with gynaecomastia get breast removal; it's what makes cis women with hirsutism get hair removal. The latter is not chromosomal, nor based only on genital status - sex is an aggregate of every sexual characteristic, and certainly not as clear-cut as "Y/no Y" (which actually matters very little after the initial differentiation of the gonads). It can be changed.

And if you insist on calling a trans* person male or female, despite the fact gender has nothing to do with sex - hell, some Italian slang for penis and vagina has the former being gendered female and the latter male - insisting your complete lack of knowledge of all things biology somehow overrides the reality of neurology and the changes wrought to the body by HRT and surgery, well...

You don't have a leg to stand on to call other people delusional, or making shit up.

And if you ignore the very real benefits of transition, and the very real dangers of gender dysphoria, to make a shitty joke about something you don't understand nor actually want to understand...

You don't have a leg to stand on to call yourself rational, or not hateful.

Or, TL;DR: identify means to recognize, not "to make up". I recognized I am a woman, would feel better with a conventionally female body, and am finally fixing my body to align it with the organ containing the whole of my being.

But TL;DRs are no fun and I have a lot of time on my hands.

That... was pretty epic. Thanks for the kickass reply comrade I always like to get the views of the people who it effects rather than claim I am somehow standing for them... I mean, after all, that is the difference between asking what a group needs and telling them what they need. Yeah, most of them seem to be smug assholes that claim an understanding of biology and semantics surrounding the terminology "sex" and "gender", yet know neither. Having studied biology on both the micro and macro scale, half the shit they say is like "yeah... that doesn't really support your argument". I mean, yeah, DNA doesn't change in the chromosomes... but gene expression does, hormone levels do (which act to increase or decrease gene expression), nucleosome remodelling does, as well as the levels of various other transcription factors in the body. Their arguments suffer the same fatal flaw time and time again - they are too simplistic, and make use of ONE characteristic as the "thing in itself"; it falls flat when you consider how complex the interactions the many systems in the cell, tissues, and organs work. metabolism is third-year biology in university for a reason, and even those courses are not enough to cover ALL interactions.

TL;DR gg re :^)

Thanks, but now that I go back I realize I got more than a bit sidetracked.

Yes, they are very fond of bringing their little knowledge of biology up, but pointing out just how little they know is usually useful, especially if the rest of the forum participants pride themselves on being rational. I like to start enumerating all the chromosomal abnormalities that exist, asking them if they believe every one of them is a sex by itself or if 46,XY-predominant mosaic women who gave birth to children are in fact men.

A better way to address this "if we allow people to identify as a gender where do we put the limit" is to drive home the fact that dysphoria is distressing, is neurological, exists beyond their stupid "oh so it's just mental, think male thoughts", and that

1. no-one gets to allow/disallow anyone to do anything unless it can be shown it's objectively bad and not just something that makes some people uncomfortable;
2. "allowing" gay people to get married has yet to lead to people marrying their cats, or cars, or paedophilia being made legal and encouraged;
3. dysphoria is an actual thing, and transition has been proven times and times again to be effective in its treatment;
4. being trans-age or trans-organic (think Apache helicopter dolts) has neither been proven to exist outside places where edgy teens gather to play with oiled slides, nor effective treatment for it has been researched.

Therefore, in the face of this, objections to identifying as male/female despite one's assigned gender, and taking steps almost a century of research showed to be very effective despite extreme levels of discrimination is either deeply ignorant and misguided at best, or disingenuous and hateful at worst.

[Mattopilos II]

That... was pretty epic. Thanks for the kickass reply comrade I always like to get the views of the people who it effects rather than claim I am somehow standing for them... I mean, after all, that is the difference between asking what a group needs and telling them what they need. Yeah, most of them seem to be smug assholes that claim an understanding of biology and semantics surrounding the terminology "sex" and "gender", yet know neither. Having studied biology on both the micro and macro scale, half the shit they say is like "yeah... that doesn't really support your argument". I mean, yeah, DNA doesn't change in the chromosomes... but gene expression does, hormone levels do (which act to increase or decrease gene expression), nucleosome remodelling does, as well as the levels of various other transcription factors in the body. Their arguments suffer the same fatal flaw time and time again - they are too simplistic, and make use of ONE characteristic as the "thing in itself"; it falls flat when you consider how complex the interactions the many systems in the cell, tissues, and organs work. metabolism is third-year biology in university for a reason, and even those courses are not enough to cover ALL interactions.

TL;DR gg re :^)

Thanks, but now that I go back I realize I got more than a bit sidetracked.

Yes, they are very fond of bringing their little knowledge of biology up, but pointing out just how little they know is usually useful, especially if the rest of the forum participants pride themselves on being rational. I like to start enumerating all the chromosomal abnormalities that exist, asking them if they believe every one of them is a sex by itself or if 46,XY-predominant mosaic women who gave birth to children are in fact men.

A better way to address this "if we allow people to identify as a gender where do we put the limit" is to drive home the fact that dysphoria is distressing, is neurological, exists beyond their stupid "oh so it's just mental, think male thoughts", and that

1. no-one gets to allow/disallow anyone to do anything unless it can be shown it's objectively bad and not just something that makes some people uncomfortable;
2. "allowing" gay people to get married has yet to lead to people marrying their cats, or cars, or paedophilia being made legal and encouraged;
3. dysphoria is an actual thing, and transition has been proven times and times again to be effective in its treatment;
4. being trans-age or trans-organic (think Apache helicopter dolts) has neither been proven to exist outside places where edgy teens gather to play with oiled slides, nor effective treatment for it has been researched.

Therefore, in the face of this, objections to identifying as male/female despite one's assigned gender, and taking steps almost a century of research showed to be very effective despite extreme levels of discrimination is either deeply ignorant and misguided at best, or disingenuous and hateful at worst.

Tfw people use "biology" to suggest sex is based on chromosomes but then you point out there are more than two possible sets of chromosomes so they move the goalpost to mean the phenotype is what matters but then you suggest that makes no sense or else many genetic diseases aren't real or passable because the phenotype isn't expressed so they are wrong so they continue to move goalposts as if a game of football was being played on a highway

[United Muscovite Nations]

Thanks, but now that I go back I realize I got more than a bit sidetracked.

Yes, they are very fond of bringing their little knowledge of biology up, but pointing out just how little they know is usually useful, especially if the rest of the forum participants pride themselves on being rational. I like to start enumerating all the chromosomal abnormalities that exist, asking them if they believe every one of them is a sex by itself or if 46,XY-predominant mosaic women who gave birth to children are in fact men.

A better way to address this "if we allow people to identify as a gender where do we put the limit" is to drive home the fact that dysphoria is distressing, is neurological, exists beyond their stupid "oh so it's just mental, think male thoughts", and that

1. no-one gets to allow/disallow anyone to do anything unless it can be shown it's objectively bad and not just something that makes some people uncomfortable;
2. "allowing" gay people to get married has yet to lead to people marrying their cats, or cars, or paedophilia being made legal and encouraged;
3. dysphoria is an actual thing, and transition has been proven times and times again to be effective in its treatment;
4. being trans-age or trans-organic (think Apache helicopter dolts) has neither been proven to exist outside places where edgy teens gather to play with oiled slides, nor effective treatment for it has been researched.

Therefore, in the face of this, objections to identifying as male/female despite one's assigned gender, and taking steps almost a century of research showed to be very effective despite extreme levels of discrimination is either deeply ignorant and misguided at best, or disingenuous and hateful at worst.

Tfw people use "biology" to suggest sex is based on chromosomes but then you point out there are more than two possible sets of chromosomes so they move the goalpost to mean the phenotype is what matters but then you suggest that makes no sense or else many genetic diseases aren't real or passable because the phenotype isn't expressed so they are wrong so they continue to move goalposts as if a game of football was being played on a highway

The absence or presence of a part of the Y Chromosome (I forget which part) is what makes one a male. Absence of it makes one a female.

[Mattopilos II]

Tfw people use "biology" to suggest sex is based on chromosomes but then you point out there are more than two possible sets of chromosomes so they move the goalpost to mean the phenotype is what matters but then you suggest that makes no sense or else many genetic diseases aren't real or passable because the phenotype isn't expressed so they are wrong so they continue to move goalposts as if a game of football was being played on a highway

The absence or presence of a part of the Y Chromosome (I forget which part) is what makes one a male. Absence of it makes one a female.

Phenotypically, yes. However, there are differences depending on the chromosomes past that. It comes down to gene expression. Hell, even the phenotype is affected when you have different combinations.

[United Muscovite Nations]

The absence or presence of a part of the Y Chromosome (I forget which part) is what makes one a male. Absence of it makes one a female.

Phenotypically, yes. However, there are differences depending on the chromosomes past that. It comes down to gene expression. Hell, even the phenotype is affected when you have different combinations.

Yes, but that part of the Y chromosome is absolutely necessary to possess male phenotype. The presence of genetic disorders existence doesn't really mean there are more than two sexes.

[Mattopilos II]

Phenotypically, yes. However, there are differences depending on the chromosomes past that. It comes down to gene expression. Hell, even the phenotype is affected when you have different combinations.

Yes, but that part of the Y chromosome is absolutely necessary to possess male phenotype. The presence of genetic disorders existence doesn't really mean there are more than two sexes.

I think you that it is necessary to produce very specific characteristics associated with males, such as the development of the penis and such. Thing is, much of the phenotypes can be developed by hormone treatment... i.e. gene expression of previously not expressed genes. So, again, I think you are looking at a very specific part of the chromosome, not the whole picture. And, as I have said, it kinda does means there is more than two sexes, given the definition, currently, is based upon chromosomes, not phenotype alone.

[Grenartia]

Tfw people use "biology" to suggest sex is based on chromosomes but then you point out there are more than two possible sets of chromosomes so they move the goalpost to mean the phenotype is what matters but then you suggest that makes no sense or else many genetic diseases aren't real or passable because the phenotype isn't expressed so they are wrong so they continue to move goalposts as if a game of football was being played on a highway

The absence or presence of a part of the Y Chromosome (I forget which part) is what makes one a male. Absence of it makes one a female.

Incorrect. Try again.

[United Muscovite Nations]

The absence or presence of a part of the Y Chromosome (I forget which part) is what makes one a male. Absence of it makes one a female.

Incorrect. Try again.

The second one doesn't actually contradict me, if you read the article, it's a disorder in which the part of the Y chromosome I am referencing is accidentally placed onto the X Chromosome.

[Vassenor]

Tfw people use "biology" to suggest sex is based on chromosomes but then you point out there are more than two possible sets of chromosomes so they move the goalpost to mean the phenotype is what matters but then you suggest that makes no sense or else many genetic diseases aren't real or passable because the phenotype isn't expressed so they are wrong so they continue to move goalposts as if a game of football was being played on a highway

The absence or presence of a part of the Y Chromosome (I forget which part) is what makes one a male. Absence of it makes one a female.

It's always fun when people cling to biological essentialism to justify their bigotry.

[UCE Watchdog of the Puppets]

Incorrect. Try again.

The second one doesn't actually contradict me, if you read the article, it's a disorder in which the part of the Y chromosome I am referencing is accidentally placed onto the X Chromosome.

"The absence or presence of a part of the Y chromosome"- the Sex-Determining Testis Factor gene to be precise- "is what makes one a male".
Those dudes have it but on their X chromosome.
therefore, q.e.d. dudes according to that definition unless you will warpspeed to a redefinition of said definition?

[UCE Watchdog of the Puppets]

The absence or presence of a part of the Y Chromosome (I forget which part) is what makes one a male. Absence of it makes one a female.

It's always fun when people cling to biological essentialism to justify their bigotry.

Doggedness is something to be marveled at, yes.

[Mechanisburg]

Phenotypically, yes. However, there are differences depending on the chromosomes past that. It comes down to gene expression. Hell, even the phenotype is affected when you have different combinations.

Yes, but that part of the Y chromosome is absolutely necessary to possess male phenotype. The presence of genetic disorders existence doesn't really mean there are more than two sexes.

<sarcasm>
Because biology is absolutely that simple, perfectly binary even in the real world, and CAIS/PAIS/many zany wyrdnesses unto 46,XY-predominant genotype avec the SRY gene in 96% of the genome are not a thing. It's so sad the science will have to be revised thanks to your input - boy, Schoenhaus won't be happy to know that person managed to prestidigitate a baby into being whilst making the team think she actually had a female phenotype.
</sarcasm>

$ git log
commit d6cd1e2b00b503a81132a23b2025920577f84e37
Author: Mechanisburg <mechanisburg@noreply.users.nationstates.net>
Date:   Tue Jun 6 10:17:00 2017 +0200

    Forgot stuff about how that person faked birth, add it whilst I grab some coffee.

[New haven america]

The absence or presence of a part of the Y Chromosome (I forget which part) is what makes one a male. Absence of it makes one a female.

It's always fun when people cling to biological essentialism to justify their bigotry.

And proceed to not be very good at biology...

[Grenartia]

Incorrect. Try again.

The second one doesn't actually contradict me, if you read the article, it's a disorder in which the part of the Y chromosome I am referencing is accidentally placed onto the X Chromosome.

Oh, look! Shifting goalposts!

[Vassenor]

So it seems actually getting the first bit of my referral done wasn't as much of a weight off as I thought it would be.

[United Muscovite Nations]

The second one doesn't actually contradict me, if you read the article, it's a disorder in which the part of the Y chromosome I am referencing is accidentally placed onto the X Chromosome.

Oh, look! Shifting goalposts!

It's not shifting the goalposts. I never said the Y Chromosome had to be present, merely the genes on that portion of the Y Chromosome.

[Philjia]

So it seems actually getting the first bit of my referral done wasn't as much of a weight off as I thought it would be.

The length of the wait is daunting, but you just need to take things one day at a time.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Oh, look! Shifting goalposts!

It's not shifting the goalposts. I never said the Y Chromosome had to be present, merely the genes on that portion of the Y Chromosome.

You need to decide whether you've really abandoned this strict materialist thing or not.

[United Muscovite Nations]

It's not shifting the goalposts. I never said the Y Chromosome had to be present, merely the genes on that portion of the Y Chromosome.

You need to decide whether you've really abandoned this strict materialist thing or not.

>arguing with materialists by using a non-materialist argument
Hmm, you really wonder why I don't do this?

[The Serbian Empire]

Discovered that my scalp issues may vanish or worsen dependent on if (a. it's androgen driven psoriasis or (b. related to moisture content. Spiro the most common anti-androgen is known to make urination more frequent.

[Vassenor]

Well the election result has me worried that the state of healthcare and anti-discrimination is going to get worse.

[Salandriagado]

Well the election result has me worried that the state of healthcare and anti-discrimination is going to get worse.

This is actually pretty much a maximally shit result in the short term: Tory NHS-screwing, and DUP general insanity.

[Mattopilos II]

You need to decide whether you've really abandoned this strict materialist thing or not.

>arguing with materialists by using a non-materialist argument
Hmm, you really wonder why I don't do this?

Problem is for a materialist, you are oversimplifying biology for your own benefit, and forgetting all that has to happen for characteristics to form and the likes. You are selecting a single thing and calling that "sex" or the reason for it.
Pls practice a more methodological materialism :^)

[Khalisako]

Discovered that my scalp issues may vanish or worsen dependent on if (a. it's androgen driven psoriasis or (b. related to moisture content. Spiro the most common anti-androgen is known to make urination more frequent.

Spiro makes ya' piss lakes.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Well the election result has me worried that the state of healthcare and anti-discrimination is going to get worse.

This is actually pretty much a maximally shit result in the short term: Tory NHS-screwing, and DUP general insanity.

The lame cuck Tory-Terrorist coalition is less able to pursue anything even marginally controversial than the previous government.

This is much better than an outright Tory majority or even a wafer thin Labour one liable to collapse at any moment leading to a swing back to the Tories. As far as results go, it's far from maximally shit if your main foci are the NHS and social liberalism.

You're catastrophizing an okay result into some kind of imminent attack. Things went relatively well, you are permitted to smile!