Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Changing one's sex

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Nothing's irrelevant.

Nicky, you seemed to be suggesting "if norms exist, they exist for a reason". My example was saying that if we introduced a concept for "what black people do", but reality was exactly the same, then there is no basis to introduce the concept. Anything supposedly confirming the concept is only a result of society enforcing a norm. Your consideration was irrelevant because we know for a fact there is nothing that black people do -because- they're black.

 

Gender is like that I think. And anyway, I don't think most trans people say they're trans because they ignore or use "opposite" gender behaviors. Transgender is a broader thing, transsexual is when the person has surgery to alter their sex.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hardly find such a topic worth discussing but this:

Transgender is a broader thing, transsexual is when the person has surgery to alter their sex.

statement from Louie is interesting.

Has anyone here heard of a person who "changes their sex" ( removed the physical evidence of their sex) who didn't also consider themselves to be the "gender" they are pretending to be by having the operation?

In other words, who chops off their male equipment but considers themselves male in gender nonetheless ?

Edited by Plasmatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Highly recommended: "Delusions of Gender: How Our Minds, Society, and Neurosexism Create Difference" by the feminist neuroscientist Cordelia Fine, who does a good job of destroying myths about innate gender difference. There is also Anne Fausto-Sterling’s earlier "Myths Of Gender: Biological Theories About Women And Men," which is great for anyone who thinks "metaphysics" or "waging a war on reality" prevents someone from having something besides a distinct male or female gender identity. Modern research has shown that gender is more of a continuum, where there are people who don't fall into one of two predetermined categories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would anyone anywhere argue for just two gender categories? "Effeminate man" isn't a newly-coined term. On the other hand, it's very obvious that cutting up your genitals does nothing to affect maleness or femaleness, which is the "metaphysical" part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Suppose I "feel" I have more in common with dophins than I do with humans...

I see your point, but there's something that I don't think carries over exactly. If you removed your hands or feet, life would be objectively much harder for you. That would clearly hurt you.

However, with a few trivial exceptions, our sex organs are good for one thing- sex. So if we say that one type of genitalia is best (even for a certain person) we must necessarily say what's best for sex. While this is, in principle, the same sort of question as whether it's good to have hands, I don't believe that I have enough information to properly generalize about it. I'm open to hearing what you think, but I'd like to hear the reasoning behind any positive assertions about it.

Specifically, there are some things we can do to ourselves that would be harmful (like trying to become a dolfin) and some such things that are helpful (like vaccinations); what is natural is not always good.

If you know of some fact which makes sexual alterations objectively good or bad then I'm all ears.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the other hand, it's very obvious that cutting up your genitals does nothing to affect maleness or femaleness, which is the "metaphysical" part.

If "male" and "female" do not primarily refer to what we've got under the hood (regardless of how we got it) then what do they refer to?

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2046, the title alone doesn't inspire... Can you summarize her argument on gender and "how the mind and society creates difference" (the definition of social subjectivism)

Why would that would be "the definition" of social subjectivism? What's your argument for that? Here you have a very dense collection of scientific research that collects data going back very far debunking notions that gender differences are largely biological, why would that be subjectivism? If something is based on conventions, stereotypes, biases, traditions, mistaken notions, etc., that would be an objective fact, not a subjective one. Do you think the title implies something like "the existence of penises and vaginas are created by the mind and society" because that's the only way your statement could make sense. Just get the book if this topic interests you, the first one is actually very approachable despite it being very well academically sourced. Don't put the philosophical cart before the scientific horse. If research in various fields shows that your concept of gender is flawed, then one ought to change that concept, not conclude a priori that it can't be metaphysically so.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the other hand, it's very obvious that cutting up your genitals does nothing to affect maleness or femaleness, which is the "metaphysical" part.

You know, actual transgendered individuals... which is what we are talking about here... would beg to differ with that statement. Might even find your characterization of "cutting up" the gentitals, as if it were some kind of needless mutilation, to be quite ignorant and offensive.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would anyone anywhere argue for just two gender categories? "Effeminate man" isn't a newly-coined term. On the other hand, it's very obvious that cutting up your genitals does nothing to affect maleness or femaleness, which is the "metaphysical" part.

1) It's not "cutting up" as the surgery is intended to preserve sexual sensation. Some people specifically avoid surgery because it can be risky.

 

2) Your physical traits are important to your sense of self, even though the physical trait doesn't determine your psychology in a significant way. Changing your physical traits is less important, but it does matter. Otherwise, anyone who has plastic surgery is "assaulting" reality. It's like saying "slicing your breasts open does nothing to affect self-identity". But a person getting breast reduction may easily say "the breasts don't cause my identity crisis - I'm putting my body in a shape that I'd prefer".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2046, the title alone doesn't inspire... Can you summarize her argument on gender and "how the mind and society creates difference" (the definition of social subjectivism)

No it isn't. Rand defined it as "'the view that it is not the consciousness of individuals, but of groups, that creates reality". Groups don't create reality or truth, no. But groups can create social norms that people respond to in daily life. Not all norms are objective, some are totally subjective. Societies CAN create arbitrary differences. To suggest norms MUST be valid by virtue of existing is social subjectivism - society declaring it to be so makes it so, thereby creating reality in its image. The "difference" in the title, if I remember the author correctly, refers to arbitrary or invalid differences created by society. Those differences are "how males think" and "how females think", but those differences aren't really there - sometimes, the putative difference is terrible analysis of stats by scientists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, actual transgendered individuals... which is what we are talking about here... would beg to differ with that statement. Might even find your characterization of "cutting up" the gentitals, as if it were some kind of needless mutilation, to be quite ignorant and offensive.

As you knew when you replied with this, I don't agree with those transgendered individuals.

 

1) It's not "cutting up" as the surgery is intended to preserve sexual sensation. Some people specifically avoid surgery because it can be risky.

Intent isn't execution. But before specifics of the surgery are discussed, the question that should be asked and answered definitively is, "Does the surgery achieve its purpose?" If not, at minimum it's pointless and risky to cut up your body. I use "cut up" or "chop up" on purpose, by the way, because I think it's disturbing to talk about it casually, and I also think it's ridiculous how some people get offended when you call it what it is: chopping up. The fact is, the surgery doesn't change someone's sex, doesn't change how they feel about their own gender being mismatched with their body, messes up their sexual pleasure, and adds bizarre and endless new body upkeep. Why isn't this non-option brushed aside as nonsense?

 

If "male" and "female" do not primarily refer to what we've got under the hood (regardless of how we got it) then what do they refer to?

As Louie noted, yes, genitals play into how you feel about yourself. I should have been more specific, and was referring to the gender "fix" for which the transgendered are seeking. But genitals isn't everything that makes up a physiological gender. And, crude knife-and-stitches surgery certainly doesn't cause you to become a different gender.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both 2046 and Louie have completely missed my point and created strawmen as a result.

2046 said:

Why would that would be "the definition" of social subjectivism? What's your argument for that? Here you have a very dense collection of scientific research that collects data going back very far debunking notions that gender differences are largely biological, why would that be subjectivism?If something is

Here you are equivocating between two different senses of subjective. A epistemically subjective fact can be ontologically objective. My preference for blondes is subject to my values but it is a objective fact that I prefer them.

The statement that gender is "based on conventions, stereotypes, biases, traditions, mistaken notions, etc., that would be an objective fact, not a subjective one." is an agreement that gender is epistemically subjective. That is exactly what I claimed the title suggests.

Louie said:

No it isn't. Rand defined it as "'the view that it is not the consciousness of individuals, but of groups, that creates reality". Groups don't create reality or truth, no. But groups can create social norms that people respond to in daily life. Not all norms are objective, some are totally subjective. Societies CAN create arbitrary differences.

Even when you quote Rand you can't figure out what she is saying. As I pointed out to 2046 above, you are making my point for me. Your, 2046's and the authors point is that gender is a socially subjective creation with no ontological basis. Institutional facts can be objective. What you all are claiming is that gender is an unobjective institutional fact making it a cultural bromide of sorts.

Social subjectivism is not just about the question of wether all of reality is in the head of a group.

Edit:

2046 said:

Don't put the philosophical cart before the scientific horse. If research in various fields shows that your concept of gender is flawed, then one ought to change that concept, not conclude a priori that it can't be metaphysically so.

This is a misguided statement. Philosophy is always the horse in terms of hierarchy.

What you want to say is that one ought not be an armchair scientist making claims about special science topics as if they were philosophical. But I am not doing that.

Edit both of you made a mountain out of very little information of my view on this topic.

Edited by Plasmatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Louie said:

Even when you quote Rand you can't figure out what she is saying. As I pointed out to 2046 above, you are making my point for me. Your, 2046's and the authors point is that gender is a socially subjective creation with no ontological basis. Institutional facts can be objective. What you all are claiming is that gender is an unobjective institutional fact making it a cultural bromide of sorts.

Social subjectivism is not just about the question of wether all of reality is in the head.

I... did you even read my post? Institutional rules and norms CAN be objective, I didn't say otherwise. You made no claim as to if these norms have an objective basis, but I know you support them, so it looks like you're saying all norms are objective, and always will be objective. But that would be social subjectivism! To say they reflect facts of reality, when they are ideas created by society! Clearly, -by your own description just now-, all I'm  saying is that gender is unobjective. Where is anyone being a social subjectivist? I literally described how the book isn't.

 

Philosophy is always "the horse", yes, but you are reasoning with a priori justification. It's like saying the four humors are justified a priori by philosophy, therefore modern medicine is a lie created by Obama to sell us universal healthcare. Start by observation, with science being "advanced" observation. But doing otherwise leads us where we started - is gender valid? If so, how so? Either way, it shows how transgenderism isn't inherently irrational.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Louie said:

I... did you even read my post? Institutional rules and norms CAN be objective,

1st strawman: I did not say that you deny the possibility of objective social norms.

2nd strawman

I didn't say otherwise. You made no claim as to if these norms have an objective basis, but I know you support them, so it looks like you're saying all norms are objective, and always will be objective

You don't "know" what I think because I have not said what I think. Your conclusion that I think all norms are objective is your own ridiculous assumption based on your presumption of something I never said.

But that would be social subjectivism! To say they reflect facts of reality, when they are ideas created by society!

Good thing I never said such a stupid thing! Your belief that I did is your subjective creation....

Clearly, -by your own description just now-, all I'm saying is that gender is unobjective. Where is anyone being a social subjectivist?

I have clearly stated that the books title and your and 2046's description of the book, is claiming that gender is an unobjective social convention and that is what "social subjectivity" is. I clearly am stating that the notion that gender is an unobjective social creation-institutional fact is to call this unobjective norm an instance of social subjectivism.

I am not saying that you, 2046 and the author claiming that gender is a socially subjective fact-cultural bromide makes you a social subjectivist! That is what you and 2046 erroneously presumed I meant.

Louie said:

Philosophy is always "the horse", yes, but you are reasoning with a priori justification. It's like saying the four humors are justified a priori by philosophy, therefore modern medicine is a lie created by Obama to sell us universal healthcare. Start by observation, with science being "advanced" observation. But doing otherwise leads us where we started - is gender valid? If so, how so? Either way, it shows how transgenderism isn't inherently irrational.

More ridiculous strawmen based on your presumptions. Nowhere did I reason apriori to justify any claim. I asked a question to clarify what the title suggested about the book. You presumed I was calling the author a social subjectivist.

By that logic Ms. Rand would be a social subjectivist for calling Kantians supporters of social subjectivsm. A non sequitor.

Edited by Plasmatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And, crude knife-and-stitches surgery certainly doesn't cause you to become a different gender.

Why not?

I'll grant that none of the procedures today do, in the sense that you're using "gender"; at least not completely.

And yeah; they're truly horrific to contemplate, but so is a vasectomy and I think we can agree that it can be a perfectly rational choice.

And the way you phrased that doesn't seem like it's referring to today's procedures; it sounds like something much more fundamental than that.

If so then why not?

Edit:

As a matter of fact, I think it could be objectively demonstrated that having a vasectomy- deliberately changing your own body, in a way directly contrary to its natural state, for no purpose other than your own enjoyment- is completely consonant with the Objectivist ethics.

What I'm not sure of yet is whether a sex-change operation can actually make someone happy in the long-term, or not. I think it should hinge on that.

Edit edit:

Which I can see to be what you're driving at (whether it can actually make anyone truly happy); it just didn't seem like a big enough thought for its own post.

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The answer to "Why not?" is "Because it doesn't." Like I said earlier in the thread, if something is discovered which truly works and doesn't leave you worse off like surgery currently does, such as a body transplant, then by all means, do the human thing and improve yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The answer to "Why not?" is "Because it doesn't." Like I said earlier in the thread, if something is discovered which truly works and doesn't leave you worse off like surgery currently does, such as a body transplant, then by all means, do the human thing and improve yourself.

 

Who decides whether something like this kind of surgery leaves you "worse off"?  Worse off than what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1st strawman: I did not say that you deny the possibility of objective social norms.

Then don't say I don't understand the quote - failing to understand the quote would make someone a social subjectivist. That would be a failure to understand not all norms are subjective.

 

"Your conclusion that I think all norms are objective is your own ridiculous assumption based on your presumption of something I never said."

I'm remembering related conversations about gender. Anyway, I explained how it's about various parts of gender differences are socially subjectivist. Sorry, but now I have no idea what you're trying to say. You said I "can't figure out" what the Rand quote means when in fact your explanation of the right interpretation is what I said with different words...

"That is what you and 2046 erroneously presumed I meant."

In a detailed discussion like this, you need to write more clearly then (your sentence structure before suggested the BOOK is socially subjectivist, not that the book claims GENDER is socially subjectivist to some degree). The apparent disagreement comes from the awkward sentence.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not metaphysically, but we have to make the distinction epistemologically.

Nothing's irrelevant, epistemologically. Epistemology is the theory of knowledge, and there isn't anything that shouldn't be known.

otherwise we could never know one thing until we knew everything.

You need to classify things as irrelevant, to be able to know something?

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hardly find such a topic worth discussing but this:

statement from Louie is interesting.

Has anyone here heard of a person who "changes their sex" ( removed the physical evidence of their sex) who didn't also consider themselves to be the "gender" they are pretending to be by having the operation?

In other words, who chops off their male equipment but considers themselves male in gender nonetheless ?

The distinction is in the other direction. Trans-gendered is a broader category than trans-sexual, not the other way around.

There are biological men who choose to be women (as far as gender), but have no desire to try and become biologically female (because they know it's impossible, among other things).

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who decides whether something like this kind of surgery leaves you "worse off"? Worse off than what?

Anyone who chooses to judge the facts! The transgendered, you, or me. I listed in my post the facts I consider most important.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...