It very much can be. This is unfortunately a necessity in psychiatry and psychology a lot of the time. People don't always make the most reliable reports (and this is not necessarily on purpose!)
That's not what it's saying at all, at least in my reading, and certainly not what I am saying. The point is about trying to develop models that describe groups of people. Of course not everyone is going to correspond exactly to them, but they are useful heuristically.I despise how it basically says "no how you feel is incorrect, I know how you feel better than you do"
The ETLE theory is somewhat Freudian-adjacent, I'll admit. But it is a compelling way to describe the experiences and the behaviors of a large cross-section of trans-identifying males. The pattern shows up again and again.It's the same kind of sex obsessed weird theories Freud came up with and insisted were right in the face of obvious contradicting reports.
No it doesn't judge any feelings as "wrong" (I am not sure if you mean "wrong" in terms of veracity, or of morality though. It doesn't really do either.)Transsexuals believe they're really the opposite gender than they were assigned at birth (this is again where the sex gender word difference becomes annoyingly pedantic since either fit here).
Calling them "homosexual transsexuals" along with various things you've said as well, presupposes that those feelings are wrong [...] We don't have any idea really how gender identification works in the brain. So how can we possibly presuppose these stupid theories like Blanchard seems too?
I didn't mean it meant he was right. I meant that he is not unsympathetic to trans-identified people.Also, that it's Blanchards life work doesn't mean he's right. It means he has every reason to refuse to believe he's wrong.
Fair enough. I'll stick with "androphilic/gynephilic", "person with dysphoria," "TiM/TiF" (identity with reference to natal sex), and "FtM/MtF" (medical intervention, or perhaps even a lot of cosmetics.) These are not always especially well-liked when compared with "transwoman/man" by the people in question but they are descriptive and objective. Terminology here is an absolute minefield and I hate getting bogged down in arguments about it. Same with pronouns, which I will endeavor to avoid entirely in this context so as to neither confuse nor offend. Journalistic style guides and the like are of no use because they value political correctness over all.By knowing they offend people, and using them anyway when you don't have to. That's rude and disrespectful.
And it sure didn't seem precise to me. Calling transgender women attracted to men homosexuals is NOT what I would call precise. I would call it quite confusing. But that's because you're refusing to mentally classify them as female and I'm not.
If you wanna be precise, maybe stick to the androphilic gynophilic terms. Define them at first if you're concerned people might not be familiar with them. And then it's clear and isn't disrespectful.
Given the ongoing predjudice against gay people in many cultures, I think the hypothesis that social pressure, including pressure within families could result in an effeminate gay man finding it less stressful to identify as a woman in some circumstances.
Actually the other way around. TiM/TiF = trans-identified (natal) male (who identifies as female), without any reference to having undergone intervention or even trying to pass. Or even dysphoria/dysmorphia for that matter. Just identifying as the opposite sex. Note that a TiM is a "trans woman" and a TiF is a "trans man." See what I mean about confusing terminology?
Depends on what you mean by "mentally ill." Trans-identified people interface with the medical system in that they seek out medical intervention in order to make changes to their physiology (hormonally and cosmetically.) This wasn't the case for homosexuals. When they were interfacing with the medical system it was simply because homosexuality was pathologized. Medical science doesn't really need to have an opinion on homosexuality, but very much has to have an opinion on transsexuality and it's origins. It is be irresponsible to give these interventions out to all comers (as is frequently done now) as there is dramatic overlap with mental illness, from personality disorders which are highly comorbid to outright psychosis which can outright masquerade as gender dysphoria. This as I mentioned was the origin of Blanchard's typology. It is not as if he was seeking out transsexuals and pathologizing them. They were seeking him out for medical intervention and he, basically by necessity, developed categories to describe them.I meant wrong as in "your feels are because you're mentally ill".
We did it with the gays too, we presupposes that their feelings were mental illness and that the fundamentally right and absolute reality was that men are attracted to women and women to men.
With time we realized that no, it's just a natural variation isn't a mental illness at all.
This is exactly what's being done now with transsexuals. Presupposing they're wrong.
I could talk about epistemological and nosological problems in psychiatry all night, and have. (n.b. Blanchard is a psychologist, though.) I've made a lot of effortposts on the subject over on BL over the years. While the broad questions are topical, they are nonetheless "off topic" to the question at hand. But you seem to be fixing on the idea of "believing patients are wrong." Certainly, Blanchard presupposes that a TiM is not in any ontological sense female nor will he become one by identifying as she and even undergoing medical intervention. Not only are there various ways of trans-identifying that don't presuppose this either, but it's entirely irrelevant to the question of the patient's self-report of their other experiences.Also, you can't have this both ways. You can't say that patients can't be trusted about how they report their feelings but also that this model is valid because it describes observations...that are made in large part via self reporting.
You weren't replying to me, but HSTS-type TiMs are notably more often encountered in communities and ethnic groups that are less accepting of homosexuality, so...maybe?You're saying that some gay men are so bullied and discriminated against... That they decide the solution is... To be go around identifying as women? Is that really what you're sincerely telling me?
This is fucking huge and a particular problem in young TiFs, and young TiMs too but most especially in young TiFs who theretofore were either lesbian or merely GNC. I will make a post about them exclusively maybe tomorrow as I have been giving the adult TiMs all my attention so far. I will try to talk about minors at some point too in their own right, too.This possibility becomes more likely when you think about the increasingly inviolate status trans people have in Western culture and the very strong activism towards non cis-conforming children and youth in both the education system and the medical system. Throw in the incentive of being trans making one ‘special’ in our increasingly victim-oriented culture and it would seem ‘coming out’ as trans is not necessarily a dangerous or risky thing to do.
The phenomenon of social contagion in teenagers, especially teenage girls is well studied. In my own research I have looked at how it influences youth suicide. Which it does. If it is powerful enough to encourage young people to attempt suicide it is surely a reasonable hypothesis that it may encourage them to adopt particular sexual and/or gender identities.
Absolutely. But it's nigh-on impossible to do so even for serious scientists, due to the pressure from advocacy groups, which form a sometimes-opaque nexus with extremely outsize influence and money, much of which is derived from a small group of very wealthy TiMs like Jennifer (born James) Pritzker. Some interesting discussion of this here, here, and here, and that's just a brief look. This has lead the modern "social justice" movement to adopt the TRA agenda in an extreme, rapid and totally inorganic way (often to the detriment of other marginalized groups like women and LGB people.) I'll try to talk about this later, too.In the absence of much science, I think it should be possible to posit hypothesese such as these without in any way discriminating against or demeaning transgender people.
Basically showing disrespect to the preferences of transgender people by refusing to refer to them by their preferences.
This is an appealing notion, but ultimately a platitude. "It costs nothing to change the words we say?" Sure, it's no particular effort to change the words we use, but in this case, I'm choosing my words rather deliberately to convey meaning that is lost if I use the "politically correct" ones. This is particularly a pernicious problem in situations like social research and in the medical field. In more ordinary social contexts, it might matter less.we had a meeting at work recently. among other things, i'm on our documentation team and the meeting was about using more inclusive and accessible language in various places: product help docs; communication with customers; internal communication; etc.
one of my coworkers said: "we just need to remind ourselves that it costs nothing to change the words we say, and it may mean everything to someone else."
it resonated with me.
There is absolutely a requirement to have a model if you are going to intervene medically. The medical system is not and should not be a vending machine for patient preferences.And yet, psychiatrists pathologized them anyway. So that excuse is bullshit. There is no requirement because of that to have the insane models proposed by blanchard.
I think you're reading too much into the connection between "gynephilia" and "autogynephilia." An autogynephile (a natal male who sexually fetishizes the idea of being a woman) is not an autogynephile because he is trans-identified and gynephilic. (Yes, once again the terminology leaves something to be desired.) That's not the reason the category was developed. The category of autogynephilia was designed to accomadate an observed pattern of TiMs who exhibited similar fetishistic preoccupations, largely but not entirely identical with what the DSM-IV called Transvestic Fetishism (now Transvestic Disorder, which Blanchard published a paper about as a part of the lead up to the DSM-V.) Blanchard published his typology before either but apparently the DSM-III still had Transvestic Fetishism as a diagnosis with broadly similar criteria. To wit (cf. genderpsychology.org, this is the DSM-IV):I'm not saying it entirely doesn't exist. I'm saying suggesting that if you're a transsexual, and happen to be attracted to women, that that's the explanation, is retarded. I simply do not believe that all transsexuals can be categorized on the basis of their sexual preferences as either attracted to themselves as women or homosexual men with internalized homophobia.
The label (n.b. not diagnosis) of HSTS is, yes, exclusively for androphilic TiMs in Blanchard's original formulation, and that of AGP for gynephilic ones, but this is not the only or even the most striking difference. Notwithstanding this and the bold part above, these two types of individuals, drawing in broad strokes, have vastly divergent reasons for cross-sex identification and gender non-conforming behavior which aren't identical to their sexual orientations. In today's world which is more accepting of homosexuality and has less fixed gender roles, one can probably find gynephilic but effeminate TiMs who resemble the HSTS standard, and androphilic TiMs who have AGP characteristics. Sexual orientation isn't the most important part of the descriptive value of these labels.The paraphiliac focus of Transvestic Fetishism involves cross-dressing. Usually the male with Transvestic Fetishism keeps a collection of female clothes that he intermittently uses to cross-dress. While cross dressed, he usually masturbates, imagining himself to be both the male and the female object of his sexual fantasy. This disorder has been described only in heterosexual males. Transvestic Fetishism is to be diagnosed when cross-dressing occurs exclusively during the course of Gender Identity Disorder.
Transvestic phenomena range from occasional solitary wearing of female clothes to extensive involvement in a transvestic subculture. Some males wear a single item of women's apparel (e.g., underwear or hosiery) under their masculine attire. Other males with Transvestic Fetishism dress entirely as females and wear makeup. The degree to which the cross-dressed individual successfully appears to be a female varies, depending on mannerisms, body habitus, and cross-dressing skill.
When not cross-dressed, the male with Transvestic Fetishism is usually unremarkably masculine. Although his basic preference is heterosexual, he tends to have few sexual partners and may have engaged in occasional homosexual acts. An associated feature may be the presence of Sexual Masochism. The disorder typically begins with cross-dressing in childhood or early adolescence. In many cases, the cross-dressing is not done in public until adulthood. The initial experience may involve partial or total cross-dressing; partial cross-dressing often progresses to complete cross-dressing.
A favored article of clothing may become erotic in itself and may be used habitually, first in masturbation and later in intercourse. In some individuals, the motivation for cross-dressing may change over time, temporarily or permanently, with sexual arousal in response to the cross-dressing diminishing or disappearing. In such instances, the cross-dressing becomes an antidote to anxiety or depression or contributes to a sense of peace and calm.
In other individuals, gender dysphoria may emerge, especially under situational stress with or without symptoms of depression. For a small number of individuals, the gender dysphoria becomes a fixed part of the clinical picture and is accompanied by the desire to dress and live permanently as a female and to seek hormonal or surgical reassignment. Individuals with Transvestic Fetishism often seek treatment when gender dysphoria emerges. The subtype with Gender Dysphoria is provided to allow the clinician to note the presence of gender dysphoria as part of Tranvestic Fetishism.
And insisting that they are born as and can somehow become female is what, exactly? It's certainly the way they wish to be spoken of in terms of not causing offense. But it flies in the face of all reality and takes some real contortions in order to have it make sense at all. Now, referring to someone using their preferred name and pronouns is one thing, but starting to invent a whole ontology of gender is a very different one.And insisting that transexuals are what they were born as and always will be is quite obviously offensive, unnecessary medically, disrespectful, and unproven.
I can agree with gender as a social construct (something that you "perform") to an extent and to an extent only. Now, going beyond that, it is very different to say that males and females have different roles in society more or less thrust upon them at birth than it is to say that by virtue of self-identification, you can in some essentialistic way be the opposite to that which you were assigned. In a way, that's more essentialist than saying that gender isn't a social construct. That is the claim of the transgender ideology that I particularly contest. Saying "I am a woman because I identify [or feel, see myself, etc.] as such" is a very different thing than saying "I am a feminine man and that is OK." The former actually can and often does take a dark turn into rather misogynistic places (a metaphorical "woman suit") while the latter is relatively unencumbered by them. To speak to this, often you will find few people more concerned with gender roles than trans-identified people, who often develop a performative presentation which is almost a caricature of the social constructs surrounding the other sex. One often counters an AGP-fetishistic view of women that is actually extremely regressive.I disagree based on medical sociology and the concept of gender as a social construct rather than a biological one.
Me too tbh.Ill reply to the read of this post later I want a break after this.
I think we've been here already in this thread so I don't think we need to continue this part of the discussion.It's a definition. One that doesn't have a solid all encompassing answer.
I don't necessarily have a problem with adults getting prescribed the hormones or even the surgeries they want. I hope by saying "adults" you're agreeing with me that children are another matter. Not anyone who walks in from the street should be able to access these interventions though as trans-identification is frequently comorbid with a variety of psychiatric conditions. Assessment is definitely needed. In Blanchard's heyday there were much more restrictive conditions (having to live as the opposite sex for an extended period of time, being at least relatively passable, and, generally speaking, being HSTS and not AGP.) Those days are long gone though and I'm not sure if that's entirely a good thing, but that's were we are, anyway.Also, there is absolutely NO need to have a crazy perverted model to treat transsexuals. You don't need a model at all.
You need to get your head out of your ass, let people do what they want, provided they're adults and comprehend the risks and are able to appreciate dangers to their health.
No, natal male and natal female are very obvious categories. My only "giant asterisk" was that Intersex doesn't mean anything in the conversation, which I think is entirely reasonable.We had the conversation but you were never able to come up with a definition of male and female that doesn't end up with giant asterisks to make it work.
The idea, I guess, was that they didn't want to sort of "strand" anyone perpetually looking like an ugly dude in bad drag. I'm not saying this is a criterion I'd return to. That passing aesthetic judgment on your patients is kinda creepy is definitely not the least of my reasons why.Also, they had to be passable.. Before they got help being passable? Wtf kinda retarded psychiatrist logic is that?
I did not say bullied. But I have read some literature suggesting that some parents (Particularly fathers) in certain communities may find it easier to deal with ‘born in wrong body’ - a medical issue, than ‘is same-sex attracted’ - potentially a religious or moral issue.Let me just read that back to you, you're saying that some gay men are so bullied and discriminated against... That they decide the solution is... To be go around identifying as women?
Is that really what you're sincerely proposing to me?
That if you're gay in America you should transition because then you'll be more accepted..
No, it's really remarkably simple if you aren't using extreme edge cases (intersex conditions, e.g. cases of male or female sex which are pathologically expressed due to very rare chromosomal conditions) to try to make a point in an argument that they have no bearing on whatsoever (trans-identification.) While a favorite tactic of the trans lobby, it's intellectually dishonest.Rofl. Dude. If your definition is "it's a male when they're born with a penis, and a female when they're born with a vagina.. Except for when that doesn't work".
Your definition blows.. Lol.
Same with "they're a male if they have xy sex chromosomes and female if they have xx, except when that doesn't work for any of a variety of reasons". That's not a good definition.
What exactly makes someone male or female "in reality". Give me a definition that doesn't include any instances of saying "except for these arbitrary exceptions because it doesn't work without them".
The mistake is trying to apply these cases to transsexualism (except in the case you mention below which I'll get to.) They are categorically different. This is an imperfect analogy because race is not an objectively essential category in the same sense that sex is an objectively essential category (not at all), but nobody would consider a Black albino to be White, even though the "Black vs. White" racial dichotomy at least in America is fairly binary. Albinism and intersex conditions are both birth defects of a sort. They do not impact social categories which they may have a passing resemblance to.Intellectual dishonesty is ignoring the edge cases.
The edge cases are why such a definition doesn't work.
Soo, how does it actually break down in your mind with intersex people. Say they are genetically male yet born and brought up physically female, which are they, female or male?
Now this is relevant to trans issues. In fact, a lot of the early work on "sex reassignment" surgeries actually had to do with this. John Money was and remains highly influential in the whole way we think and speak about trans issues. He got his start in that arena working with intersex patients. The tragic case of David Reimer resembles what you are talking about, although he was not intersex. Surgical errors during his circumcision lead to him having incomplete male genitalia. Dr. Money convinced his parents to allow him to surgically reconstruct a pseudo-vagina ("neovagina," which you can't really properly create in [if at all] a child let alone an infant--see the experience of Jazz Jennings) and also hormone therapy. (Perhaps of note, Reimer's parents were religious with conservative views of gender roles. This is not the same as the situation with homosexuals that I and @Atelier3 have noted, but it is food for thought.) Dr. Money also engaged in highly suspect (to say the least) "rehersals" of sexual activities with Reimer in the receptive role, also having him pose for sexualized photographs. The supposed purpose of this (which may have been outright pedophilia) was to encourage "female" sexual development. Dr. Money highly publicized the case as evidence that "gender identity" was not correlated to natal sex. Unfortunately David realized he was not female and then lead a troubled life culminating in his suicide. This is one case (although there have been similar) but is definitely worth referring to in the current debate around imposing "transition" on children.What about children who were born male and reassigned to female at birth? We used to do that a lot with children born with ambiguous genitals. If they go on to identify as female? Are they female? If they go on to reject their reassigned sex, are they male? We're they male all along? Which? And on what basis do you say which.
Given how much I've written about it, it seems insanely complicated, and I open myself up to your accusation that I'm throwing a bunch of qualifications onto the issue of biological sex, but I'm really not. I outright like to discuss things, even tangentialities, in detail, but I can sum up what I'm saying simply: Biological sex is the presence or absence of a Y chromosome, period. Intersex conditions are just that, "conditions." GNC/GD issues are the ones at play in the trans debate, not biological sex issues.I'll admit I'm concerned you're gonna avoid this question entirely and come back again with "oh well all those cases that break my definitions don't count and they can be uhh.. Iunno. Whatever I guess". In which case I'm just gonna point it out for the intellectual dishonesty it is. There's nothing scientific or intellectually honest about a model w ere you just happily ignore part of reality that doesn't confirm with it as edge cases you don't wanna have to think about. My point here is that what makes someone male or female is clearly complicated and on a spectrum and it makes SOOO much more sense along with being profoundly less arrogant and offensive to just adhere to their identification.
If I am reading you right here, you're saying that the AGP/HSTS category is a problem because it excludes a category of trans-identified persons who express traits of neither and merely feel an essentialistic "gender identity" that is divergent to their natal sex, and you seem to be implying that this may be the majority. Based on my research, I disagree with that implication in particular.You're probably right that some people identify as trans for reasons that can't truly be said to be that they just honestly feel they're the wrong sex. But pointing to their existence and acting like they make up the entire community of a large and diverse group of people is just doing what you've been doing above again, which is ignoring anything that doesn't fit into your model as an edge case.
It is all a moving target. I guess you are saying that the only descriptive model we need is "gender identity," "women in men's bodies" and "TWAW/trans women are women." I disagree wholeheartedly. It's just not a model I believe in, because I don't accept the idea of an essentialist "gender identity." This I actually have in common (along with a number of things) with the "gender-critical feminists" (their term.) I do believe that gender is to a certain extent "performative" and "constructed." It is not an essential characteristic that boys play with a certain type of toys and girls play with another. It is not even essential that men are the leaders of a society: matriarchal societies exist, but they are rare (I believe there are fairly obvious biological reasons for this, but still, this points to the "social construction" of "gender" itself.) You can't have your cake and eat it too: gender cannot be simultaneously socially constructed and essentialistic. The "TWAW" narrative falls short here. Effeminate men and masculine women exist, and the majority of them are not trans-identified (but in our society today, many of them are being actively encouraged to be, especially the latter, cf. "Where Have All The Butches Gone?") Trans identity is something more than that. As to what it is, we are left with descriptive models as I have said.THAT is what intellectual dishonesty is. Having a model you know can't actually describe everything and yet insisting, even to people's psychological harm, that it's true. It's.. Well I think that's actually pretty damn disgraceful. Not because it's intellectually dishonest, which it is, but because you bring harm to other people in doing it.
I'm quite confident. I also do not believe that any of this hurts anybody. I am not suggesting that anyone go out and beat or harass trans-identified individuals, something which has only recently begun to elicit sympathy and be considered a "hate crime." I'm not suggesting any kind of suppression of trans-identified people, either, although I am suggesting more of what they would call "gate-keeping," but this is for the sake of the many troubled individuals who undertake "transition" without full understanding of what will happen, or with the false idea that it is a "magic bullet" for their difficulties in life (the latter is something about which I'll have significantly more to say when the conversation turns to TiFs and ROGD.) I am not suggesting that trans-identified individuals should have fewer rights in society in any way, although I do believe that we cannot responsibly treat them as their self-identified gender in all situations in society or medicine. This should be obvious, but the current gender ideology sees it as a form of oppression.If your belief will hurt other people, maybe I'm just a bleeding heart but I think you have a responsibility if you're gonna argue for it to really and properly think about it and make sure you're entirely confident about every element of your belief.
What @alasdairm said about referring to people as they wish to be referred to comes in here. In a clinical setting, as well as a social one, it is polite and costs nothing (or close to it) to refer to someone by a chosen name or even by chosen pronoun. It is a bit thornier when talking about people in settings where accuracy is important, and--this always made me think--one rarely refers to another person by a third-person pronoun in that person's presence, which brings me to my next point regarding clinical situations. In psychiatry (and in medicine generally) clinicians deal with people who believe all sorts of things, ranging from people with different religious beliefs to people who are outright delusional (which, n.b., is a different phenomenon to trans-identifying, although people can have delusions of being the opposite sex while in a psychotic state which are not the same as trans-identification.) One has to make do and make certain accomodations. Generally one does not outright argue with a delusional patient nor does one get into theology with a patient with different religious opinions. In no way shape or form does this mean that one has to agree with the patient. Only to show them respect and decency. And in psychiatry in particular but also in medicine generally there are times in which opinions contrary to the patient's will be discussed among providers or entered into the patient's medical record.Not just as a health professional, but as a human being. Of course doing it as a mental health professional isn't just irresponsible id say it borders on ethical negligence.
I am not going to get into this can of worms to any great extent at this point other than to say it should be entirely obvious that a natal male has an advantage in sports due to things like bone density, etc. even in cases where free testosterone levels approach that of a natal female. The only reason you do not see TiMs dominating every category they are allowed to in female sport is because there simply are not enough TiMs to do it. I'm not saying that any natal male could beat talented natal females, but if both are serious, there is no question whatsoever (the US National Women's Soccer Team, the very height of their sport, have routinely lost to high-level teams of adolescent boys. That Billie Jean King, at 29, beat Bobby Riggs, at 55, at tennis was an utter aberration and Riggs is even strongly suspected of losing on purpose.)This is why I refuse to give an opinion about trans people in sport until I actually know that they have an advantage (in the case of transgender women). Because saying they shouldn't be allowed is obviously going to be hurtful and I feel a responsibility to be sure my opinions would actually be correct.
Yes, words hurt. Above I was not speaking about harassment or denigration of any kind. What I said was:OK that's a huge post and I'm about to get some sleep so I'll have to go over it later. I'll just quickly say this. It floors me that anyone even remotely involved or experienced with mental health would suggest that just because there's no physical violence that nobody is being hurt.
Words hurt. Words can be far more devastating than physical injury.
I am referring to "critical discussion of the transgender phenomenon" which is very much not about being hurtful. It can be about (as I go on to say) expressing opinions about these issues that people will not agree with. The objection can be made that I am expressing views (which I am) and passing judgment (which I'm not) about things that I have not experienced and that I don't have a right to do that. This is bogus. If mere description of certain facets of the transgender situation, and a bit of more-or-less neutral analysis of the same, offends, then I'm comfortable saying it's not my problem. As I mentioned above, I am not going to get into an argument with an actual trans-identified person (much less a patient of mine) about their own experience and identity.In terms of mere discussion being hurtful, I am sure that many will consider some of what I say to be so. It is not meant to be, and should not be. Critical discussion of the "transgender" phenomenon...
Female for what purpose? I'll try to reiterate this once more, and then I think we should really table this discussion. You are talking about a very specific type of intersex condition (one out of a broad category.) I am not terribly well-versed in intersex conditions. I think you are talking about complete androgen deficiency or something very like it. This (chromosomally male) individual does not have internal female organs, but the outer body is pretty much indistinguishable from a female (the vagina ends abruptly in a "pouch.") She (which I'll be OK saying) will be raised and socialized as female. The condition will typically even be missed at birth. By and large for most purposes and for all or nearly all social purposes (except, of course, reproduction) she will "be" female. Nonetheless, in a strictly technical sense, "she" has XY chromosomes and a developmental anomaly which has physical consequences for her (her internal anatomy is different and she will have elevated risks for certain conditions like testicular cancer. She has internal testicles instead of ovaries.)And as for sex being a binary.... It's just not. I mean correct me if I'm wrong but I assume that if someone if born physically female but with a y chromesome where that chromesome is either damaged and didn't function properly or the persons body doesn't respond to androgen. I assume you accept that that persons female, no?
You mention two cases where during fetal development changes happen, but the baby is born one sex or the other. Thus, not a spectrum. The two (rare) cases you mentioned involved a process but one which results in one or the other in a binary. Process does not mean spectrum. Very, very rare intersex conditions exist where sex is not obvious. I say "not obvious" because nonetheless every individual has a male or female sex. In these hypothetical cases, and in our case with CAIS, you are still identifying them as male or female. Not something in between. Whether using external criteria or chromosomal criteria, sex remains a binary and not a spectrum. The development of our XY woman above is still the interrupted and pathological development of a male.If not I think I'll just leave this discussion cause as I said earlier I can't take people seriously if they deny even that.
But assuming you accept that, that means you accept that sex in fetal development is a process where a fetus, starting off physically female as all fetuses do, is masculinzed by male hormones.
How is that not a spectrum?
If a fetus starts physically female and gradually become male in fetal development, during which any number of things can go wrong, how can it possibly be a binary? That makes no sense.
I'll have to ask you to read my post again, I actually very specifically said that gender identity disorder is not delusional in the traditional psychiatric sense. (However, psychotic patients can have delusions of being the other sex which resolve when the psychosis resolves. This is a different matter unless the patient in question winds up receiving some kind of "gender affirming care" which in this case is actually going to be harmful. This is a rare scenario that I mention only for the sake of completeness, but it is one that I have seen clinically. Obviously we did not try to enact any "transition" for the psychotic patient, but I worry about what would happen now.)A delusion as I feel you must be well aware, is when someone's internal experience of reality is significantly disconnected from what is actually being seen by them. Such as someone believing people are spying on them for no good reason [...] Believing they're the wrong sex is NOT a delusion. They're fully capable of comprehending their situation, they understand what they want to do to resolve their issues. That's not delusional.
"Brain sex" is controversial to say the least. A recent interesting book is The Gendered Brain, which argues against intrinsic differences in the brains of the sexes and attributes observed differences to brain plasticity and environmental factors. Some studies have shown observable differences in scans of the brains of trans-identified individuals, and even that they resemble the opposite sex, but this begs the same chicken-and-egg type question, and the jury is still out on the intrinsic nature of any serious functional and organic differences between the brains of males and females anyway.Why is it so hard to believe that the brain itself might really express sexual dimorphism in a way that the brain itself has a sex. Why is it so hard to believe that someone who thinks they're supposed to be female when they were born male or vice versa isn't just another type of intersex.
Why assume that it is possible? By "it" I mean that there is a specific feature of the brain that "holds" and determines one's "gender identity" which sometimes for no discernable reason is incongruent with natal sex. I do not believe this exists and would require very good evidence to change my mind.Until we really understand how the whole brain works, how is it anything less than an arrogant presumption to assume that's not possible?
"Gender" vs "sex" is a slippery differentiation. I don't like the term "gender" to be honest. Nouns have gender. People have sexes. A more useful term, "gender performance" can be masculine or feminine, and can vary over time, and is not necessarily a correlate of natal sex. The slipperiness comes in when we give it a particularly fixed and essential ontological implication, "gender identity" apart from either "gender performance" or "sex." Identity does get complicated, though. You do get TiFs who identify as specifically feminine men, and the inverse (very anecdotally I'd say the "trans softboi" as they call it is more common than the "trans butch.")I agree with you that this probably doesn't describe a lot of transgender people (assuming this is in fact the case I mean) I agree that from what I've seen there probably is an element to which this is also a social trend. But that doesn't preclude it being a social trend in top of a real condition like I describe above.
Your whole arguments just have this huge vibe of arrogance to them. Insisting that you KNOW what gender is in spite of you constantly having to shew away exceptions to your belief system.
There are absolutely trans-identified persons who are fairly well-adjusted members of society. They are probably in the minority, but they are out there. I also will readily admit people who exist outside of the HSTS/AGP dichotomy or even who's trans-identity might be less contingent on androphilic vs gynephilic issues and more internal, a feeling of being "born in the wrong body" leading to gender dysphoria. A sort of longing to be the other sex and the belief that in doing so one will be more comfortably embodied and "at home."I on the other hand do not know. I do not know if the brain has a gender and if it can be different to the rest of the body. But I do know that there are transsexuals out there that seem to be quite normal people other than that they feel they were born in the wrong body.
You just haven't been to "that part" of the internet, clearlyAnd yet... There's seemingly almost noone out there who seems to think tthey were born the wrong race or the wrong species.
Here's the rub, I think. Whether we should respect their "wishes." You're right that it shouldn't really matter what the etiology of trans-identification is in terms of how we act towards the individuals concerned. All people deserve dignity and respect. Trans-related issues become a thornier problem when trans-identified persons demand "affirmation" beyond simple respect. This can be as simple as requesting people use different pronouns or get more complicated with issues around bathrooms and sports and everything else that is so frequently in the news today.So why is the wrong gender so much more common? I think I'd be a fool not to at least consider that their feelings might represent exactly what they say they're feeling. Not when we don't know nearly enough to rule it out. And frankly. Even if they're wrong. And the brain has no gender. And it's simply that for some psychological reason or whatever they feel more comfortable as a different sex. So what? I don't see why that really matters and why I still shouldn't respect their wishes.
Good morning. Hope it finds you well. Always fun having an antipodeal conversation, isn't it? Wreaks havoc on sleep, but "I cherish my intercontinental friendships." Hope you wont keep me up to late this time. Trans issues really do seem to bring it out in people, don't they? Thanks for putting up with my tangential writing style (and I hope other people read this and get something from it too.)Alrighty this time bed first reply later.
I have never worked in any job as an adult that wasn't about helping people and I spend a great portion of my off time doing the same with 12-step groups and stuff like that. I'm with you here. I like your formulation of an "advocate for people who seem to need an advocate." I've got my street credentials too, and I don't lack sympathy for the trans-identified who as I've said I have limited experience with clinically but who I've certainly encountered and tried to do my very best for.Funny thing is, well to me I mean, I don't really consider myself a trans advocate or a LGBT advocate. Id call myself a human advocate, and more specifically an advocate for people who seem to need an advocate. I believe in helping people. That's why I'm still on bluelight after all these years and still keep a presence on the recovery forums.
Disagree. Example: medications can affect members of different races differently. What do you do when someone of mixed race shows up, which is common, unlike intersex individuals. What to do then?race is not an objectively essential category in the same sense that sex is an objectively essential category
One tries. Assumption of objectivity in patient care is a tad arrogant. And possibly leads one down the road of good intentions.One just keeps that separate from patient care.
Okay.That Billie Jean King, at 29, beat Bobby Riggs, at 55, at tennis was an utter aberration and Riggs is even strongly suspected of losing on purpose.
Intersex individuals are placed into a world where gender expectations are binary for babies and most children. How they are raised and how well that matches their own perception of sex and, particularly, gender is relevant to any discussion where gender is an issue.I still don't see the relevance to the trans debate
You admit you have little contact with this community in your work, and it might behoove you to be careful about using terminology that is freely used by members of the community, but is not perhaps as appropriate for someone outside the community to use. Watch your language, in other words. Thanks."trans softboi"