R
Rau
Guest
Not being a geneticist, I can’t name it. But it is not changeable (I believe).
- Status
H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
Male.
Wait. Hold on sometimes I forget…
Let me check…
yup male.
Wait. Hold on sometimes I forget…
Let me check…
yup male.
E
Estevao
Guest
This
My sex is male. “Gender” is an ideology constructed by a charlatan, John Money, whom you can read about here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer
J
Joie_de_Vivre
Guest
The fundamental issue here is that there is not a definition for sex that works in all cases.
With sex if we define it by chromosomes then what about CAIS people? They think, act and look like females from birth, but they have a Y chromosome. If we go by genitalia at birth then what about ambiguous cases which it’s not entirely determinable. Historically doctors modified them to look like one or the other, does that mean the doctors changed their sex from one or the other? What if the family and doctor choose wrong and that’s not psychologically how the person is? Is that person still ambiguous or are they the sex that was they were assigned? If they are the former, can they chose to be one of the sexes if they have surgery so they look like that? If they can then what about people about people who were clearly one sex at birth, but from an early age they display behavior typical of the other sex? Do we force them to behave like the one that they can’t? What if their personality is so far on the wrong side that they basically can’t for a sustained period of time? What about the ones that can pull it off for sustained periods of time, but it causes profound psychological pain? There have been a number of cases where a biological male is so distressed by the incongruity of body and mind that they amputate their penis and myriads who have come rather close.
Honestly I think it’s a no win scenario, there are no solid lines without exceptions that we can draw.
R
Rau
Guest
Understood, but you are pursuing a different line of discussion. I was not declaring that one’s sex is always clear and definitive - only that the use of the word “gender” as a synonym for “sex” may be innocent, and not a euphemism as 1ke suggested (it was her comment that kicked of this branch of the thread…)
I agree that the meaning of “sex” is unclear and indistinct in some cases.
E
Estevao
Guest
Just because we can’t easily classify every single person in as male or female, it doesn’t follow that these concepts don’t exist, or are “fluid” or really just “gender roles”.
Exceptions such as the ones you list in fact serve to solidify the concepts we are trying to classify them as. The reason why these cases are so interesting to us is that we are puzzled at how we can classify them as men or women. However if this clear-cut distinction between men and women did not exist, we would never wonder as to whether a certain person like those you describe is a man or a woman.
These cases do not allow us to do away with the concept of sex all together, and create the concept of “gender roles” and the like, such as people like John Money, the creator of gender ideology, applied to David Reimer to disastrous effects.
R
Rau
Guest
I agree with you. The uncommon cases that Joie mentions does also serve to demonstrate that our makeup as healthy men or women is rather more complex than it might have first appeared!
J
Joie_de_Vivre
Guest
I wasn’t arguing that they didn’t exist, merely that the line is rather blurry.
The case of David Reimer strongly supports the idea of ingrained gender identity which lends credence towards transgender people.
Using the word gender to effectively refer to the sex of the mind more or less is useful because gender identity and one’s genitalia can be very much incongruous. It’s not an altogether new usage for it as there have been cases of it being used in a fairly close if not the same way going back more than four centuries.
T
thequietsinger
Guest
I hadn’t noticed that before. Anywho, female right here!
(P.S. Can I have a piece??)
E
ela2
Guest
Female
and you?
and you?
P
phil_at_dayboro
Guest
Well… Last time I checked, yep,still male,
Have always been fascinated by the opposite gender,but wouldn’t swap for the world,
I guess a good sideline topic would be to ask, what is there about the opposite gender that may be interesting to observe, , not physical features, but emotional or method of thinking,
But that should be a title for a new thread,
This thread is basically started as a head count,
R
Rin
Guest
Indeed.
I’m getting the impression that the vast majority of people (at least those who are not educated when it comes to gender identity conditions), upon hearing or seeing the word “transgender”, immediately think “gender deconstructionism”.
Everyone: Transgenderism proves that our gender can’t be changed. No matter how much the person tries to change, tries to be normal, the incongruence and dysphoria returns. It is set from birth. There is a reason why some of the most hysterical anti-transgender bullies are radical feminists; the very existence of transgender individuals goes against everything the gender deconstructionist ideology stands for. It is not simply about wanting to wear a dress (or the other way around), it is about the brain reacting adversely to the hormones produced by the gonads. The person would be dysphoric even if stranded on an island, naked and alone.
There are people who, upon finally coming to terms with their condition and deciding to visit a gender therapist, enter the office with numerous psychiatric diagnoses and multiple, heavy drug prescriptions (which again often don’t work as expected). It is not uncommon that after a few months on hormone replacement therapy, they can be taken off all those drugs, and have their diagnoses removed. This is the reality about treating transgenderism - hormone therapy works miracles in the individuals who need it, and any amount of therapy or other drugs will be futile. Transgenderism is primarily a hormonal imbalance caused by a birth defect, and has nothing to do with ideology of any kind.
In addition, other languages have had specific terms for “brain sex” all along. And in any case, language is not static, and the invention of new terms or changed use of existing terms to describe phenomena not previously existing in the language is very common. Catholicism is full of what once was neologisms - we invented some terms and hijacked others. Yet I see few people refuse to use the word “ecclesia” because it originally referred to those who could vote in Greek city states (if I remember correctly). Even “dead” languages are updated when necessary; Church Latin being perhaps the best example, since it is being maintained for curial documents. Insisting on preserving some random state of the English language is simply not intellectually viable.
R
Rau
Guest
If hormonal therapies work well, why do people go in for “gender reassignment surgery”?
A
adawgj
Guest
Male
S
SMGS127
Guest
With all due respect, that’s like asking why a patient with a surgically removable tumor would have radiation therapy if they already removed the tumor. Some medical treatments involve multiple steps. The medical treatment for transsexualism is the same way: hormones to bring most of the body into congruence with their gender, surgery to complete the process.
Though on this topic, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a topic with less information from the Vatican that militants in the Church have demanded everyone follow their opinion on, regardless what the Church says. Ultimately, I think science will prove the biological nature of transgenderism and the Church will accept it as legitimate (though marriage/dating is still tricky). This really feels to me like the heliocentrism of our age: the topic everyone thinks they’re right on, no matter what anyone else thinks, until they’re proven wrong by science.
Personally, I think the Vatican is incredibly wise not to wade into this topic right now. I think others should exercise the patience of the Vatican and stop rushing to judgment of a real, medical disorder. I see way too many “wow they’re confused” or “believe what I believe or else!” from people with no attempt to learn about the issue.
Anyways, commentary over. To the OP: I’m female
.
R
Rin
Guest
That would be several reasons depending on the person I think. But among the most common are:
- Still having genital dysphoria; hormone therapy alleviates the gender dysphoria greatly also in these cases, but not completely. Surgery is reported to resolve the situation entirely in many individuals (obviously there is no longer a penis to be dysphoric over), so while hormonal treatment is the most important, surgery is still seen as having great value in some cases. Some women are able to feel “complete” without surgery, some simply don’t. There is no standard solution.
- Sexual function. While the Church recommends celibacy for transgender people, we have to realize that most people who go through treatment will not follow this, either because they aren’t Catholic to begin with, or because they have been alienated from the Church because of people’s behavior. Or maybe they’re not even alienated from the Church, but simply don’t listen to Her teachings about sexuality; just like 99% of my very cisgender (and even otherwise conservative) Catholic friends. Some individuals are fine with having sex as a woman even with a (largely non-functional and shrunk due to lack of testosterone) penis, and you’d be surprised at the amount of heterosexual men who are fine with their girlfriend being pre- or non-op, too. But for some trans women, it simply doesn’t work - either because they’re not attracted to the kinds of sex possible without female sex organs, or because the dysphoria is so strong they can’t be around someone naked in their pre-op state.
- Practical reasons. Using a men’s locker room in gyms etc. as a trans woman can be extremely dangerous. Yet, few genetic women would be fine with having a woman with a penis in their locker room. In addition, things like wearing a bikini is a hassle (though not impossible). Surgery fixes such practical problems. Yet, I doubt any doctor would write a referral letter to surgery purely based on such reasons - dysphoria, lack of sexual function or other significant therapeutic value would be required.
So basically the conclusion is that while surgery in some cases has significant therapeutic value, hormone therapy is not only tenfold as important, but increasingly seen as something that shouldn’t be unnecessarily delayed. Surgery, on the other hand, should not be done until the patient is completely sure and not in danger of regretting the procedure.
Lastly, I’m focusing on trans women here; surgery is still in its infant stages for trans men. They in general have better results on facial appearance and so on, but they kind of pulled the short straw when it comes to genital reconstruction, at least until (non-embryonic) stem cell research gets a breakthrough.
R
Rau
Guest
Thanks for the informative answer. I misunderstood the intent of the hormonal treatment, thinking that a man “feeling” like a woman took the hormones to change his “feeling” (brain) to cause it to align with his body. That would seem a nice solution, but presumably not something medical science can deliver.
Is there any prospect in sight of detecting (in the womb?) the emergence of this problem and arresting it at the time?
S
SMGS127
Guest
Unfortunately not. We will soon be able to allow parents to “choose” the physical genitalia of their children (immoral obviously, but I felt like mentioning it), but we have not been able to isolate why physical genitalia sometimes are differentiated differently than the brain. All that science has been able to determine so far is that, through autopsies, the brains of transgender individuals are discongruent with their birth genitalia, even adjusted for hormone exposure as adults.
Edit: also, rereading the post I wrote earlier today from my phone, I realize that it could probably be construed as discussing you, which I guarantee you it was not. Only the first paragraph was in response to you. I apologize if you took any offense; I consider you a very reasonable poster from the posts of yours I’ve seen Rau.
P
phil_at_dayboro
Guest
Now that wasn’t so hard was it,at least you didn’t need reams of detail to look in your shorts
R
Rin
Guest
I should perhaps have specified that - it’s easy to forget this is not an everyday subject for most people. But yes, hormone replacement treatment is, in addition to the psychological effect, done to feminize (or masculinize, in the case of trans men) the body. The physiological changes are a bit dependent on age and genetic makeup, but the psychological changes are more or less universal. In the cases where treatment is needed, at least; if HRT is not needed, the person will generally feel horrible on it. Thankfully the psychological changes occur long before any irreversible physiological changes, which is what has caused the clinical development to not unnecessarily delay treatment. Generally, it will sort itself out, since those who do not need cross-sex hormones will quit before permanent change happens.
While a solution that brings the brain in alignment with the body might sound nice at first (believe me, most would probably have wanted it in some dark moment), the consequences would probably be drastic. From what little we know about the gender-differentiated structures in the brain, there is reason to believe the entire personality would change. In a sense, it could amount to “death of personality” (for those who have watched Babylon 5), where the old personality is erased and replaced. This is of course all speculation, and to my knowledge, there is no research for such a “cure” going on. Changing the structure of the brain is a lot more difficult (and dangerous) than changing the body and hormonal makeup, so as you say, it is (at least probably) not something medical science can deliver. And it would probably be unethical anyways.
Not that I’m aware of. But there could be many reasons for the “wrong” hormonal exposure which happens to “misgender” the brain (unless it is the body which is misgendered, even though it is differentiated before the brain? After all, the brain is more important in determining who we are than the body is. Chicken and egg…), and it could be caused by factors in the mother as well as the fetus. Stress during pregnancy has been shown to affect these things, as could probably some chemical substances or other external factors. Then there could be things in the mother’s genes which affect her pregnancies (transgenderism has a high comorbidity with autism, for example - some speculate that they share factors in their genesis), or things in the genes of the fetus. This is all unknown as of today - the only thing we know with a degree of certainty is that there are observable differences in transgender individuals, whose brains match their identified gender instead of their birth sex, and we know these differences are developed due to hormonal exposure during pregnancy.
I’m sorry to say reality isn’t as fine, dandy and neatly ordered as we were told when we were kids. “Looking in one’s shorts” may be sufficient in the vast majority of cases, but still, for a significant amount of the population, the shorts content is either ambiguous (intersex) or incongruent with the brain (transgender). Snide remarks or sticking one’s head in the sand won’t really change this.
However, this thread probably wouldn’t have evolved like it did if it weren’t for a subset of the conservative population’s propensity for going off on a tangent whenever they see the word ‘gender’ being used in its non-grammatical meaning. I’m not really too keen on these transgender threads, which is why I never start them. I do however participate in them when they come up, since I know a bit about it and hence feel a duty to educate. But I’d be very happy if said subset didn’t take every chance they see to make a jab at transgender people. Sadly, I don’t see that development happening anytime soon.
Lastly, I am female. And as others have said, why not post a poll? Then you could easily see the results and ignore the debate
- Status