Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

On Transgender / Transsexualism

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Still a man that wacked their parts off. Not a girl.

This is initially what I was getting at. You can be socially accepted as a woman, but you are, and always will be, genetically male. There is no way to change this. It is reality. Turning the male sex organs inside out and adding female cosmetic appointments does not change the fact that you came from an X and Y chromosome, not XX. Do transgender individuals accept this and realize that they are merely trying to be "as close" to the sex they feel inside? I think some need gender reassignment surgery in order to "feel" entirely like the sex they think they are and others do not. Again, it appears to come down to an individuals idea of what constitutes gender. But those that feel they do need surgery, are they trying as hard as they can to evade the fact that they were born male?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 113
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Let's talk about another philosophical subject: evasion. I think it's obvious to everybody that LP (and his idolateurs) knows nothing about biology despite the fact that he felt the need to talk

To something in the first paragraph of Jackethan's post, the part about just wanting to act like some sort of stereotype, I've come across examples of some like that and some that aren't. One of my ol

IntellectualAmmo, That picture really should come with a warning you know. I can't unsee that.

Turning the male sex organs inside out and adding female cosmetic appointments does not change the fact that you came from an X and Y chromosome, not XX.

You do know the Y chromosome usually carries the genetic coding for a male, but not always, right? There are plenty of well documented cases of XY females and XX males. There are such things as androgen insensitivity syndrome and other genetic conditions that render an XY or XX a moot point. Not to mention anomalies like XXY or XYY combinations.

Link to post
Share on other sites
But those that feel they do need surgery, are they trying as hard as they can to evade the fact that they were born male?

I think that's a question for scientists to answer. If the condition is caused by some anomaly in the development of the brain, I don't see how it could be evading reality. If, on the other hand, it's some form of psycological issue, then it would be a different matter. I don't know which is the case, and from the article on wikipedia it seems that the science is not conclusive enough.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You do know the Y chromosome usually carries the genetic coding for a male, but not always, right? There are plenty of well documented cases of XY females and XX males. There are such things as androgen insensitivity syndrome and other genetic conditions that render an XY or XX a moot point. Not to mention anomalies like XXY or XYY combinations.

If I did, I would have used something else to validate my point of biological sex B) This was some of the ever-useful knowledge they left out of my public high-school texts. I'm beginning to think nothing they taught me is true. Thanks though. I'll have to re-examine my premise then.

What else is used to show biological sex (besides sex organs)? If chromosomes can't always be accurate then what can?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think I may have been confused on what you mean by 'sex determining gender'. Can you give a specific example, hypothetical or actual, of how it is true?

The process of formation of the concepts "male" and "female" is complicated, but I can give a simple example of how those concepts are applied in everyday life to verify the premise that sex determines gender. When a baby is born the first thing that everybody asks is, "is it a boy or a girl?" How do they know? They do not do a test of the baby's chromosomes, ask it how it feels, or do an MRI scan of its brain. They simply examine its genitalia.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Feet are actually proportionate to a person's height. A person's arm span is just about the same as their height and your foot is the same as the distance of your elbow to wrist. (Go ahead and check it out on yourself if you want for some confirmation of this.) So, a male and female of the same height should have the same size feet pretty much. Males only typically have larger feet because they are typically taller, but there are people born male who end up being shorter and people born female that end up taller anyway. Not sure, this is a guess, but there may be some fairly standard hand to height ratio too since the arm spam is so closely tied to height. As for the adam's apple: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chondrolaryngoplasty

These are all approximations, they do NOT necessarily apply to individual cases. My roommate and I have the same size feet (we can wear the same shoes comfortably, and do sometimes), and I'm 4 inches taller than he is with longer arms, even though he has long arms for his height (he has a long torso and short legs--kinda cute and stubby.) I also have significantly larger HANDS than he does, even though our FEET are the same size. Not everyone has exactly the same proportions. It is a fact.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The process of formation of the concepts "male" and "female" is complicated, but I can give a simple example of how those concepts are applied in everyday life to verify the premise that sex determines gender. When a baby is born the first thing that everybody asks is, "is it a boy or a girl?" How do they know? They do not do a test of the baby's chromosomes, ask it how it feels, or do an MRI scan of its brain. They simply examine its genitalia.

I may have thought you meant 'sexuality determines gender', though you seem to mean one's genitalia (their sex) then implies their gender. For me that sounds redundant, gender-identity is probably a better way to phrase the term 'gender' (and if that is precisely what gender is supposed to mean, then I just used the term incorrectly as I suspect). If you mean it that way, as I think you do, I'd still say 'sex does not determine gender'. I can elaborate further depending on your response to this.

Edited by Eiuol
Link to post
Share on other sites
I may have thought you meant 'sexuality determines gender', though you seem to mean one's genitalia (their sex) then implies their gender. For me that sounds redundant, gender-identity is probably a better way to phrase the term 'gender' (and if that is precisely what gender is supposed to mean, then I just used the term incorrectly as I suspect). If you mean it that way, as I think you do, I'd still say 'sex does not determine gender'. I can elaborate further depending on your response to this.

To add some meat to this (no pun intended), I think that sex determines gender because of the importance of sexuality. The reason why men and women are raised differently, i.e. given distinct gender roles -- why we ask if the baby is a boy or a girl -- depends primarily on the importance of sexuality in life. This relates to the concept of transgender as follows: a transgender person will have male or female genitalia, but because of their other contrary attributes (e.g. brain structure, hormones etc.) will not be able to pursue the value of sex according to their gender. So although genitalia will initially determine one's gender, if it is subsequently discovered that the person has mixed attributes to the detriment of their sexual functioning, then another concept is needed and that concept is "transgender". But also because of that, it would be inappropriate to regard a transgender person as "male" or "female", because they are neither -- unless and until medical treatment resolves the problem.

I would not use the term "gender identity" because I think that that is redundant. What "identity" does the phrase "gender identity" refer to? It refers to gender.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If I did, I would have used something else to validate my point of biological sex :confused: This was some of the ever-useful knowledge they left out of my public high-school texts. I'm beginning to think nothing they taught me is true. Thanks though. I'll have to re-examine my premise then.

Highschool science education is highly simplified, and in many cases rigght down simplistic. At that I had an excellent highschool chemistry teacher, but even she never explained why a carbon-carbon double bond is weaker than a carbon-carbon single bond.

What else is used to show biological sex (besides sex organs)? If chromosomes can't always be accurate then what can?

That's a very good question, isn't it?

The basic genetic blueprint for all mammals, including humans, is female. If you administer estrogen and other "female" hormones to any male mammal, it will develop mammary glands and, depending on the species and age, other secondary female characteristics. The mammary glands won't produce milk because the male lacks the hormonal infrastructure to make them work. But if you then administer prolactin and other hormones, they will produce milk.

What turns the normal XY embryo male is testoterone, the "male" hormone (I use the quote marks because while sex hormones vary by sex, theya re present in both sexes). The male fetus, as it develops, produces testoeterone in small amounts from its developing testicles and adrenal glands. This also means if you administer testosterone and other "male" hromones to a female, it will develop male characteristics, such as an enlarged clitoris and, in humans, facial hair and thickening of overall body hair.

So, in some cases there are anomalies. Some otherwise normal XY people are insensitive to andorgens ("male" hormones). They produce testosterone in-utero, but don't react to it. Such people do not develop a penis, their testicles remain witin the body (exactly where a woman's ovaries would be) and, since they produce small amounts of estrogen, will develop as females.

The XXY combination is rare, but it happens. Such people tend to be of subnormal intelligence and somewhat ambiguous sexual characteristics, but I'm not sure of the details. I think the condition is called Hutchinson-Gilford syndrome, but I may be wrong.

There are other kind of anomalies that lead to people born without discernible sexual organs. In such cases the common medical practice used to be to surgically build a vagina and to use hormone replacement therapy at puberty and for life, raising the kids as girls. There were some very tragic outcomes from these kinds of practices.

Finally there's a vast are of just plain ignorance when it comes to the human brain. We just don't know enough about it, yet, to determine whet makes a male brain and what makes a female brain. Small influences in-utero can have large consequences later in life. Genetic abnormalities remain to be discovered.

Point is for the vast majority of the people looking at their genitals at birth, or at their last gene pair (XX or XY) tells you what they are. But for a small percentage the normal rules simply don't apply. So it would be wrong to dismiss the transgendered due to the kind of chromosomes they have, and in some cases the kind fo genitals they were born with.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I would not use the term "gender identity" because I think that that is redundant. What "identity" does the phrase "gender identity" refer to? It refers to gender.

I actually cannot come up with what that "identity" would refer to. In my opinion, that suggests a distinction between the terms 'sex' and 'gender' is unnecessary, meaning that only the term 'sex' really tells you any useful information.

"The reason why men and women are raised differently, i.e. given distinct gender roles -- why we ask if the baby is a boy or a girl -- depends primarily on the importance of sexuality in life."

Given gender roles? What importance would a gender role even serve? A gender role has nothing to do with sexuality.

Edited by Eiuol
Link to post
Share on other sites
In my opinion, that suggests a distinction between the terms 'sex' and 'gender' is unnecessary, meaning that only the term 'sex' really tells you any useful information.

I think you're on the right track. But wait ...

A gender role has nothing to do with sexuality.

I think that this statement is palpably absurd. If not for sexuality, the concepts "male" and "female" would not exist (except perhaps in the science of medicine). We simply wouldn't care about what type of genitalia a baby has if it weren't for the importance of sexuality in life. Sexuality is the root of the concepts "male" and "female"; more than any other single thing, it explains why those concepts are needed. Otherwise, we'd effectively have a single neuter gender applied to everyone (again, save for the field of medicine where it might make a difference). Having a penis would be no more significant than having large feet.

Can you give an example of a gender role that does not fundamentally depend on sexuality? The classic criteria of judging manhood, for instance, is the act of (or desire for) penetrative heterosexual sex. If you say "working with tools", I'll be obliged to explain how that also fundamentally depends on sexuality and the discussion could get really (or at least somewhat) interesting.

Edited by Seeker
Link to post
Share on other sites
Can you give an example of a gender role that does not fundamentally depend on sexuality? The classic criteria of judging manhood, for instance, is the act of (or desire for) penetrative heterosexual sex. If you say "working with tools", I'll be obliged to explain how that also fundamentally depends on sexuality and the discussion could get really (or at least somewhat) interesting.

"Working with tools" certainly is a gender role, and it is arbitrarily assigned to men. I do not see how that has any relation to sexuality. It might only relate in the sense of "it's something men tend to do," and since most men are heterosexual, those who follow a gender role tend to be heterosexual. But following such a role, or enjoying working with tools, would not be an indicator at all of what the sex someone is attracted to. I would say a gender role fundamentally depends on norms that are based on nothing more than tradition and stereotypes.

Edited by Eiuol
Link to post
Share on other sites
"Working with tools" certainly is a gender role, and it is arbitrarily assigned to men. I do not see how that has any relation to sexuality. It might only relate in the sense of "it's something men tend to do," and since most men are heterosexual, those who follow a gender role tend to be heterosexual. But following such a role, or enjoying working with tools, would not be an indicator at all of what the sex someone is attracted to. I would say a gender role fundamentally depends on norms that are based on nothing more than tradition and stereotypes.

Well, working with tools is a demonstration of power and competence. Women tend to prefer powerful, capable men as their sexual partners. Gender roles that demand the male demonstrate power and competence are therefore not arbitrary and indeed are rooted in sexuality. Furthermore, it is precisely the sexual abnormalities of transgendered individuals that render those stereotypes inapplicable to them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, working with tools is a demonstration of power and competence. Women tend to prefer powerful, capable men as their sexual partners.

I would say both of those ideas are based on tradition. That women tend to prefer powerful, capable men only suggests a long-held tradition. A man who likes sewing or a woman who likes cars suggests nothing about their sexuality. I sorta understand what you're getting at, but these are only traditions we're talking about.

Edited by Eiuol
Link to post
Share on other sites
I would say both of those ideas are based on tradition. That women tend to prefer powerful, capable men only suggests a long-held tradition.

They may be traditions, the point however is that these ideas, norms, traditions, etc. are rooted in sexuality, contra your assertion that "a gender role has nothing to do with sexuality". My point was that, but for sexuality, our concepts of gender would serve no purpose and would not even exist; that one's sexual characteristics, objectively ascertained, are the fundamental basis for making a determination of one's gender and hence, are the objective criteria for determining whether a person is "transgender". I am defending the concept of transgender as objectively valid, and saying that sexuality is why the concept is relevant and needed at all. Perhaps the best way to phrase it is that sexual characteristics determine sexuality and gender.

Link to post
Share on other sites
They may be traditions, the point however is that these ideas, norms, traditions, etc. are rooted in sexuality, contra your assertion that "a gender role has nothing to do with sexuality". My point was that, but for sexuality, our concepts of gender would serve no purpose and would not even exist; that one's sexual characteristics, objectively ascertained, are the fundamental basis for making a determination of one's gender and hence, are the objective criteria for determining whether a person is "transgender". I am defending the concept of transgender as objectively valid, and saying that sexuality is why the concept is relevant and needed at all. Perhaps the best way to phrase it is that sexual characteristics determine sexuality and gender.

Gender roles are justified on a false basis of sexuality. They are not characteristics of a sex or sexuality. I cannot legitimately link concepts of gender roles to sexuality. Can you really tell me you know anything about the sexuality of a woman who likes working with cars? As I said before, I'm not even sure the concept of 'gender' is important, though of course the concept of 'sex' is. This is kind of a tangent here, I know, since this does not directly relate to any argument about transgenderism.

Edited by Eiuol
Link to post
Share on other sites
Gender roles are justified on a false basis of sexuality. They are not characteristics of a sex or sexuality. I cannot legitimately link concepts of gender roles to sexuality. Can you really tell me you know anything about the sexuality of a woman who likes working with cars? As I said before, I'm not even sure the concept of 'gender' is important, though of course the concept of 'sex' is. This is kind of a tangent here, I know, since this does not directly relate to any argument about transgenderism.

Legitimate concepts of masculinity and femininity do exist. See, for example, the entry on Femininity at the Ayn Rand Lexicon: "For a woman qua woman, the essence of femininity is hero-worship—the desire to look up to man. ... the object of her worship is specifically his masculinity, not any human virtue she might lack. ... It means that she never loses the awareness of her own sexual identity and theirs. It means that a properly feminine woman does not treat men as if she were their pal, sister, mother—or leader."

At a minimum, the classic example of a man's desire for penetrative sex is a gender role that you cannot seriously argue "is justified on a false basis of sexuality".

To be sure, many historical gender roles have been false and damaging - no one here contends, for instance, that women shouldn't have the right to vote. To say that some gender roles are justified is not to say that all are justified.

At the same time, I don't think that one can entirely dismiss the concept of gender. In a social context, men and women seeking sexual partners have a legitimate interest in knowing who can and cannot fulfill the act. Men and women must be able to identify one another as such. Moreover, norms like wearing clothes that accentuate one's physical beauty, e.g. dresses for females, are entirely appropriate in that they recognize and emphasize that value. The examples are as numerous as the topic is complex, so I will just close by saying that it is precisely the gender roles that are legitimately justified for men and women that may likewise affect transgendered persons most significantly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
'all men think with their genitals.'

Off-topic, but I have to laugh. I finally realized that this is just what boring women say about the men who are actually willing to talk to them. In that case, "all men who are actually willing to talk to you are thinking with their genitals, because you're boring, and they'd have no other reason".

So I see why loads of women would say this.

hahahaha

more seriously:

So - gender is a social trait, sex is a sexual trait (I mean, the act, how you pee etc.), so what do your genetics ge categorize under? If someone has XY they are? XX? This is the problem with transgender. People want to be like the other gender's norm socially, and therefore adopt its sexual traits. Does this mean genetics are relevant only to health issues - and have no necessary bearing on identity? Do you see what I mean? Or do genetics determine identity in some way. Is your thought process or mood or values such that they can be generally correlated into a gender category based on real genetic differences?

I think transgender people ought to be able to be called a different sex, and have 'F' or 'M' switched on their driver's license (awkward using the bathroom otherwise). But not on their birth certificate!!! That's what I can't stand in the whole debate!!! You can't change the facts of your birth for social reasons!!! You can't waltz around and have nobody ever know that you aren't a girl when you once weren't. Sure, most people don't have to know, but the birth certificate thing is a little over the top for me. PC over reality.

Link to post
Share on other sites
So - gender is a social trait, sex is a sexual trait (I mean, the act, how you pee etc.), so what do your genetics ge categorize under? If someone has XY they are? XX? This is the problem with transgender. People want to be like the other gender's norm socially, and therefore adopt its sexual traits. Does this mean genetics are relevant only to health issues - and have no necessary bearing on identity? Do you see what I mean? Or do genetics determine identity in some way. Is your thought process or mood or values such that they can be generally correlated into a gender category based on real genetic differences?

Genetics would only determine your identity insofar as they mean you *must* do something in a particular way, such as how your body processes sugar. This falls under health issues as you said. Not necessarily health issues, but anything related to physical traits. These are things that cannot be changed due to your own volition and also affect how you need to live your life. Anything else about one's identity is chosen. Can you elaborate on what you mean by "social trait"? It comes across as collectivist-sounding and something of an anti-concept.

Gender as a social trait may be a good way to think about it, and also makes me lean more towards gender being an unimportant concept. You only really need the concept of sex to help determine sexuality.

I think transgender people ought to be able to be called a different sex, and have 'F' or 'M' switched on their driver's license (awkward using the bathroom otherwise). But not on their birth certificate!!! That's what I can't stand in the whole debate!!! You can't change the facts of your birth for social reasons!!! You can't waltz around and have nobody ever know that you aren't a girl when you once weren't. Sure, most people don't have to know, but the birth certificate thing is a little over the top for me. PC over reality.

Really the whole point is what does it *mean* to be a man or a woman? To me, being a man or woman wouldn't need to be much more than what your sexual parts are. Does it really matter much, though, what your sex on your birth certificate says? It doesn't even matter for the parents, beyond what's going to happen during puberty. Of course you shouldn't change things for social reasons - it's secondhanded - but that doesn't mean you cannot make the same changes for rational reasons.

Relating that to transgenderism, I wonder about how people *identify* themselves as a particular sex. I would be inclined to say there is something in the brain the produces a certain "feeling" of being a certain sex. In this sense, gender may be a valid concept, but only as a sensation. Please note I'm not suggesting anyone is born with *knowledge* of being a certain sex, only that gender could be thought of as a sensation much like proprioception. Of course, that would require science to prove.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...

*** Merged topics. - sN ***

 

 

I know things like this have come up in other topics but as I am addressing a specific facet I thought it best to start a new topic. Sorry if it wasn't correct to do so.

Recently in France "gender identity disorder" (aka trans-sexualism) was declared to no longer be diagnosed as a mental disorder.
http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/20...tory_in_France/

Now for the record I have no problem with homosexuality or with trans-sexualism but I find this to be a disturbing sop to politically correct sensibilities.
There seems a trend these days to call things illnesses that are not (sorry I am calling bullshit on sex-addiction) and refusing to call things disorders that are.

The nature of trans-sexualism is that the person's conception of themselves does not match the actuality of their physical being.
If feeling like you need to have vital parts of yourself manipulated with hormones, drugs and often with genital mutilation to be at peace I would safely say that is a disorder.

In the US it has recently been announced that persons living as a gender they were not born with can have their passport gender changed officially- even if they have not undergone gender reassignment surgery. I see some obvious issues with this.

So, the nature of this post is not to discuss whether being a trans-sexual is "right" or "wrong" but rather the shift of the medical/mental/political powers changing the very nature of what we consider to be disorders.. and where that leads.

Assuming of course that anyone has any interest.

Edited by softwareNerd
Merged topics
Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it not absurd to say that you "feel" like a gender that aren't. How would you know what femininity feels like if you have never been a woman.

Either A) Femininity has nothing to do with being a woman biologically, in which case gender reassignment surgery (with all the therapy involved with it) is way to time consuming and expensive to justify.

Or :huh: Femininity is directly related to being biologically female, in which case I see a major problem with someone claiming that they feel that way without having actually experienced it (akin to me saying that your shirt looks sort of X-Ray colored).

(Feel free to switch femininity and biologically female with masculinity and biologically male)

I think it is a mental disorder.

I don't think it makes them bad people or irrational. I just feel bad for them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The nature of trans-sexualism is that the person's conception of themselves does not match the actuality of their physical being.

If feeling like you need to have vital parts of yourself manipulated with hormones, drugs and often with genital mutilation to be at peace I would safely say that is a disorder.

Actually, the nature of trans-sexualism is that the actuality of a person's physical being has mixed attributes, and manipulation is an attempt to bring these attributes into harmony one way or the other. I would safely say that the attempt to do so is not a disorder.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, the nature of trans-sexualism is that the actuality of a person's physical being has mixed attributes, and manipulation is an attempt to bring these attributes into harmony one way or the other. I would safely say that the attempt to do so is not a disorder.

This makes no sense. Would you examine a person with an infected appendix and then conclude an appendectomy is not a disorder?

Edited by Grames
Link to post
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...