The Trans Discussion

[Reginald Ret]

To fucking clarify for the one or two who seem to have a terribly unclear impression of what I have said so far:

1. Yes, I think the experience of being transgender is real.
2. No, I don't think it's a disorder, outside of the social sense. In other words, it is not a pathology.
3. Yes, I think it is probably biological.
4. NO, I STILL don't think it's a disorder.
5. I think that the feeling of "being in the wrong body" is largely if not entirely due to social constructs, much like any other form of body dysmorphia.
6. I think that gender identity exists on a spectrum, much like sexuality.
7. Fuck off, that STILL DOESN'T MAKE BEING TRANSGENDER INHERENTLY A DISORDER.
8. I'm not opposed to body modification if that makes people happy.
9. I am opposed to a cultural norm that tells people that they MUST modify their bodies in order to be recognized as the gender they identify as.

Would anyone else like to try their hand at telling me what I really think and why I think it?

Those are my views as well.

[Faust]

I don't have any strong opinions on it other than the the transitioning process being traumatic and grossly lacking in what the physiological changes can accomplish. 

It wont happen in my lifetime but roll on the day that the transgender woman gives birth.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

I do think that the popular idea that some people are born into the "wrong" body is entirely socially programmed; you would have to believe in a soul or spirit that is generated separately from our material existence in order to think that one could innately have been misplaced into the wrong kind of body, and I don't believe in that (Cartesian duality, as our old friend what's-his-name would have pointed out). The mind is an emergent property of the body, and therefore the body you HAVE generated the mind you have.

That isn't the only way to interpret the vague phrase "born into the wrong body". That's merely a description of people's experience. I think you're reading way too much into it as a bit of a straw man to rationalize your beliefs.

There is no necessary condition of Cartesian dualism to explain the phenomenon. Whether people believe that is what is happening is really besides the point. If trans people all explained their condition in terms of the supernatural, would that in have any bearing on whether there is a genetic, physical cause for their strong need to change their sex organs?

Isn't it conceivable that there is a structure in the brain and body of transgendered individuals that creates this powerful sense of having the wrong sex organs? It's entirely possible for trans people to have physical causes for the need to physically transition that fit within the paradigm of the mind being an emergent property of the body.

I think you are trivializing the power of cultural context on human experience, in addition to just generally being kind of needlessly insulting.

The cultural context is powerful, I agree, and of course it plays a strong role in most everything we do. What I mean by "merely a description of a person's experience" is how we generally afford people generous poetic license in how they talk about their life.

I know this is a very touchy subject and I don't intend to insult but I believe you're wrong here.

If I recall correctly, you have lumped trans people's struggle in with those who claim they are non-human animals or mythical beings born in the wrong body and ridiculed the lot as examples of Cartesian dualism. In the latter cases, Cartesian dualism is a legitimate critique. But applying it in terms of trans people seems profoundly insulting, especially when you agree that sex and gender occur along independent spectrums.

Perhaps I'm misremembering previous posts. I otherwise agree with what you're saying. I especially appreciate your comment about social pressure requiring sexual reassignment surgery before we respect the gender people present themselves as—that's an excellent point.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I do think that the popular idea that some people are born into the "wrong" body is entirely socially programmed; you would have to believe in a soul or spirit that is generated separately from our material existence in order to think that one could innately have been misplaced into the wrong kind of body, and I don't believe in that (Cartesian duality, as our old friend what's-his-name would have pointed out). The mind is an emergent property of the body, and therefore the body you HAVE generated the mind you have.

That isn't the only way to interpret the vague phrase "born into the wrong body". That's merely a description of people's experience. I think you're reading way too much into it as a bit of a straw man to rationalize your beliefs.

There is no necessary condition of Cartesian dualism to explain the phenomenon. Whether people believe that is what is happening is really besides the point. If trans people all explained their condition in terms of the supernatural, would that in have any bearing on whether there is a genetic, physical cause for their strong need to change their sex organs?

Isn't it conceivable that there is a structure in the brain and body of transgendered individuals that creates this powerful sense of having the wrong sex organs? It's entirely possible for trans people to have physical causes for the need to physically transition that fit within the paradigm of the mind being an emergent property of the body.

I think you are trivializing the power of cultural context on human experience, in addition to just generally being kind of needlessly insulting.

The cultural context is powerful, I agree, and of course it plays a strong role in most everything we do. What I mean by "merely a description of a person's experience" is how we generally afford people generous poetic license in how they talk about their life.

I know this is a very touchy subject and I don't intend to insult but I believe you're wrong here.

If I recall correctly, you have lumped trans people's struggle in with those who claim they are non-human animals or mythical beings born in the wrong body and ridiculed the lot as examples of Cartesian dualism. In the latter cases, Cartesian dualism is a legitimate critique. But applying it in terms of trans people seems profoundly insulting, especially when you agree that sex and gender occur along independent spectrums.

Perhaps I'm misremembering previous posts. I otherwise agree with what you're saying. I especially appreciate your comment about social pressure requiring sexual reassignment surgery before we respect the gender people present themselves as—that's an excellent point.

Yes. You are misremembering previous posts. I have said that I don't believe that anyone is literally "born into the wrong body", and I may indeed have made a comparison to thinking that one is "really" something else entirely, but it sounds like you read a whole  lot into that.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

It's a very common logical trap for people to interpret someone they disagree with on a small measure as taking an extreme position, even when they're not. It's something I run into a lot when I say something like "Please stop using false arguments to defend the value of GMO, it's not "just like hybridization" or the methods used to induce seedless varieties" and the immediate reaction I get is "ZOMFG ANTI-GMO ACTIVIST GTFO HIPPIE".

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

You seem intent on defining transgender as some kind of pathology. I disagree. I don't actually care if you think I'm wrong, so we can leave it at that.

[Roly Poly Oly-Garch]

It occurs to me to put it like this: Caitlyn Jenner can not be a woman in a man's body, because she is a woman and therefore her body must be a woman's body--medically altered or otherwise.

[Cainad (dec.)]

It occurs to me to put it like this: Caitlyn Jenner can not be a woman in a man's body, because she is a woman and therefore her body must be a woman's body--medically altered or otherwise.

Poignant!

[hooplala]

It occurs to me to put it like this: Caitlyn Jenner can not be a woman in a man's body, because she is a woman and therefore her body must be a woman's body--medically altered or otherwise.

I like this. 

[The Johnny]

I was discussing this with my mentor recently... what can be more brutal than mutilating your genitals?... for sure theres a very intense feeling or passion at play... castration on one hand has a lot at play with men with relation to family relationships (ever heard of castration compkex and oedipus?) and virilization of women i dont even know...

We concluded that its a hugely complex phenomena that can only be approached clinically, that is to say, on a case by case basis on a deep level... i wonder if there has been research like this? about said groupality

When you talk about mutilating genitals, ie. surgery, you are talking about changing the physical appearance of sex, not about gender.

Yeah i was talking about transexuals... i need to read more about ops original case, since i assumed it was transexual not transgender... bbl rereading thread.

Transsexual at this point is kind of an outdated term. Transgender can mean people who have altered their body physically (through surgery or hormones or both) and those who haven't.

Regardless of accuracy the definitions i know of and use, are:

Transvestite: that dresses in a manner or style that does not coincide with its cultural norms for given genital sex
Transgender: that either identifies or acts in a manner not corresponding to their genital sex
Transexual: that has changed thru surgical means its genital sex.

And I dont understand why transexual is an outdated term, since then we are eliminating the possibility that there are people that change their genital sex for reasons other than their gender identification. One might assume those dont exist, but its still very possible.

I did a quick lookup and Transexual is defined and commonly used as a synonim for transgender, but from an etimological and roots it doesnt make sense to me, probably because in spanish we do make the distinction of "transgenero" and "transexual".

[The Johnny]

And well, speaking specifically about transgender behaviour:

We have culturally created divisions on how a man and a woman are supposed to act and behave, which is kinda silly, im sure it has some practical uses and facilitations, at a parallel with its toxic political and power consequences for women... the problem is that fragmentating human emotions and behaviour into "male and female" is that it limits the spectrum of emotions and agency of each individual to a detriment, the main manifestation being passive women and insensitive men (main detriments being an issue that others might think differently than myself, whatever).

TL;DR: arbitrary gender divisions make for incomplete humans that are not socially permitted to use the whole spectrum of their emotions.

And speaking specifically about transvestism:

Its a type of compulsion that is strong enough to transgress social norms in given moments... we also have subcultures that like to dress differently or people that make body modifications such as piercings, expansions or tattoos which are all a matter of self-perception and modifying ones appearance to the will of oneself... most people prefer a more conventional or bland look because they are themselves conventional or bland, or because they fear social retribution for showing an intimate or personal part to society which can be judgeded or disliked... businesssmen dress in suits and clean-cut styles, because they wish to express aesthetics that reflect order and professionalism, etc.

TL;DR: its aesthetical preference, fuck the man, dude.

[Sung Low]

It doesn't go into depth, but http://www.bu.edu/news/2015/02/13/review-article-provides-evidence-on-the-biological-nature-of-gender-identity/

The researchers conducted a literature search and reviewed articles that showed positive biologic bases for gender identity. These included disorders of sexual development, such as penile agenesis, neuroanatomical differences, such as grey and white matter studies, and steroid hormone genetics, such as genes associated with sex hormone receptors. They conclude that current data suggests a biological etiology for transgender identity.

According to the researchers the article does have some limitations due to the small numbers of individuals studied and therefore conclusions should be drawn with caution.  Safer recommends that further research focus on specific biologic mechanisms for gender identity.

Also

TL;DR: arbitrary gender divisions make for incomplete humans that are not socially permitted to use the whole spectrum of their emotions.

Yeah, fuck that. It's like that phrase 'man-up'.

Any qualities that I can think of that would help me 'man-up' are qualities found in women as well.

Person-up, maybe?

[The Johnny]

The problem is that people confuse "biological basis" and "should be" as a type of neo-phobia to anything... funny that its always conveniently selective... prolonging our lives is anti-natural but here we are with the most profitable companies being pharmaceuticals, etc.

[Q. G. Pennyworth]

I was discussing this with my mentor recently... what can be more brutal than mutilating your genitals?... for sure theres a very intense feeling or passion at play... castration on one hand has a lot at play with men with relation to family relationships (ever heard of castration compkex and oedipus?) and virilization of women i dont even know...

We concluded that its a hugely complex phenomena that can only be approached clinically, that is to say, on a case by case basis on a deep level... i wonder if there has been research like this? about said groupality

When you talk about mutilating genitals, ie. surgery, you are talking about changing the physical appearance of sex, not about gender.

Yeah i was talking about transexuals... i need to read more about ops original case, since i assumed it was transexual not transgender... bbl rereading thread.

Transsexual at this point is kind of an outdated term. Transgender can mean people who have altered their body physically (through surgery or hormones or both) and those who haven't.

Regardless of accuracy the definitions i know of and use, are:

Transvestite: that dresses in a manner or style that does not coincide with its cultural norms for given genital sex
Transgender: that either identifies or acts in a manner not corresponding to their genital sex
Transexual: that has changed thru surgical means its genital sex.

And I dont understand why transexual is an outdated term, since then we are eliminating the possibility that there are people that change their genital sex for reasons other than their gender identification. One might assume those dont exist, but its still very possible.

I did a quick lookup and Transexual is defined and commonly used as a synonim for transgender, but from an etimological and roots it doesnt make sense to me, probably because in spanish we do make the distinction of "transgenero" and "transexual".

I only feel comfortable talking about this particular aspect of the matter because I've been working on the style guide for the news project, and so I ended up looking up the GLAAD guidelines for journalists. The page is here: http://www.glaad.org/reference/transgender

[Don Coyote]

To fucking clarify for the one or two who seem to have a terribly unclear impression of what I have said so far:

1. Yes, I think the experience of being transgender is real.
2. No, I don't think it's a disorder, outside of the social sense. In other words, it is not a pathology.
3. Yes, I think it is probably biological.
4. NO, I STILL don't think it's a disorder.
5. I think that the feeling of "being in the wrong body" is largely if not entirely due to social constructs, much like any other form of body dysmorphia.
6. I think that gender identity exists on a spectrum, much like sexuality.
7. Fuck off, that STILL DOESN'T MAKE BEING TRANSGENDER INHERENTLY A DISORDER.
8. I'm not opposed to body modification if that makes people happy.
9. I am opposed to a cultural norm that tells people that they MUST modify their bodies in order to be recognized as the gender they identify as.

Would anyone else like to try their hand at telling me what I really think and why I think it?

No, but can I say I agree with you, especially points 2, 4, 7, and 9?