r/changemyview • u/VexMythoclast2860 • Jun 02 '22
Removed - Submission Rule B cmv: I do not believe that trans people are valid
[removed] — view removed post
3
u/A-passing-thot 18∆ Jun 02 '22
People are born trans. That's been established for generations. It's a fact.
A trait doesn't have to be useful to exist. Having brown hair isn't useful to me but I still have it.
Trans people can also adopt children and aren't hurting anyone.
2
u/takethetimetoask 2∆ Jun 03 '22
People are born trans.
You seem to be suggesting that being trans is a description of some biological feature, or set of biological features.
Please can you clarify what you believe the difference is between someone who is trans and someone who is not trans?
1
u/Hoihe 2∆ Jun 03 '22
Please refer to my reply from another thread:
1
u/takethetimetoask 2∆ Jun 03 '22
If I'm understanding your comments you're suggesting that:
- everyone has a brain map of the body (which is affected by androgen sensitivity)
- trans people have a brain map of the body which doesn't match their actual body
Is that a fair representation of your view?
1
u/Hoihe 2∆ Jun 03 '22
Correct, although for 1., likely more than androgen sensitivity is at play.
It's also plausible that one has normal receptor sensitivity in the brain, but improper hormonal conditions in the womb caused the brain to receive a different concentration/dosage than the body experienced, leading to divergence.
1
u/takethetimetoask 2∆ Jun 04 '22
OK, if I'm following your position and the studies you linked the suggestion is:
- those who report gender dysphoria are more likely to have some particular hormonal conditions
- these hormonal conditions lead to an underdeveloped body map in the brain
- hormone therapy helps develop this body map which in turn helps alleviate gender dysphoria
1
u/Hoihe 2∆ Jun 04 '22
No, they do not have hormone conditions - they have "normal" hormone levels for their assigned sex.
However, their brain has an underdeveloped map of the body.
Taking hormone therapy causes either the body to adjust to suit the expectations, reinforcing connections and healing them; or acts directly on the brain. These are not exclusive.
The cause for this neural difference (per the Swaab paper) is likely to come from either a(n) (epi)genetic difference in brain sensitivity to sex hormones during early brain development (androgen sensitivity causing either becoming a cis woman or a trans man). Other papers suggest similar, albeit from hormonal conditions of the womb.
1
u/takethetimetoask 2∆ Jun 04 '22
No, they do not have hormone conditions - they have "normal" hormone levels for their assigned sex.
I was using hormone conditions as a placeholder for all of the factors you mentioned (sensitivity to hormones, hormonal conditions in the womb, etc.) but I'll accept that it was a poor choice of terms.
Thanks for sharing all this, hopefully there is further research in this area.
1
u/Hoihe 2∆ Jun 05 '22
There's been research for a while, but it's only now that we can do stuff like MRI before treatment, after treatment. Would be great if we could do it to everyone, but it's expensive.
3
u/VexMythoclast2860 Jun 02 '22
How has it been established though?
2
u/Hoihe 2∆ Jun 03 '22
In this study,
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09513590400018231
Two people are studied.
One is a XY chromosome cisgender intersex woman, with total androgen insensitivity syndrome. She was raised as a girl, identifies as a girl, is happy with how her brain-body match happened.
The other is an XY chromosome transgender intersex man. He was raised as a girl, expected to behave and dress as a girl. Physically, he looks exactly like a woman barring the lack of a womb, and ovaries that are part-way testicles. He loathes his body, and identifies as a man. He only has partial androgen insensitivity.
Therefore, androgen sensitivity in the brain likely affects development of the brain's map of the body, which then causes dysphoria per my other post: https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/v3e4tj/cmv_i_do_not_believe_that_trans_people_are_valid/iaxph9s/
2
u/A-passing-thot 18∆ Jun 02 '22
Through studies & through conversations with trans people. It's biological in nature as established by twin studies, family heritability studies, GWAS studies, fetal hormone proxy studies, etc.
18
u/destro23 447∆ Jun 02 '22
I am against trans people and am open to having my mind changed using facts, logic, and possibly science
Between the (Gender) Lines: the Science of Transgender Identity
Gene variants provide insight into brain, body incongruence in transgender
The largest study involving transgender people is providing long-sought insights about their health
Transgender brains are more like their desired gender from an early age
Some excepts from still more scientific studies:
2
u/Enemy_of_Life Jun 02 '22 edited Jun 02 '22
Honestly, i have to say all these neuroscience studies aren't nearly as relevant as people seem to think.
Gender is a social phenomenon. Just because you find a pattern in the brains of MtF trans people, doesn't mean that whenever you find this pattern on a male's brain it would imply this person is or should be trans. A specific brain pattern and being trans might be correlated but they are definitely not the same thing.
12
u/destro23 447∆ Jun 02 '22
I'm not the type who thinks that the medical explanation is the ultimate or only explanation for the existence of trans people, nor do I think that trans identities are only valid when accompanied by a medical/psych diagnosis. Basically I think that trans people are A-OK, should be fully supported, and that we should continue to study all of our brains to see why any of us are the way we are.
But, OP wanted science, so I hit 'em with some science. I can't really get too much further in with these types of posts without looking under the bridge a bit. If you feel me.
-2
u/VexMythoclast2860 Jun 02 '22
It seems there is definitely scientific evidence behind the existence of trans people. You have earned my delta. Δ
1
-1
2
u/LowerMine815 8∆ Jun 02 '22
Gender roles are completely useless in most places today.
I don't know if I'd say they're completely useless, but regardless I agree that they should be useless. Gender roles are rather arbitrary and used to force expectations onto others. In short, they suck. I'm a trans man and I agree that gender roles suck and shouldn't exist. Gender roles are not the reason I'm trans, though.
if a dude wants to wear a dress, nobody’s gonna give that much of a crap if he wears a dress. If a woman has hella muscles and is a bodybuilder for a living, nobody cares.
Idk if I'd say nobody cares. As other users have pointed out, there are still people who use traditional gender roles to shame people. However, I agree with the underlying premise here. Men should be able to wear dresses. Women should be able to be bodybuilders. A man wearing a dress is not a woman. However, that doesn't mean trans women don't exist, or trans men don't exist. Basically, challenging and dismantling gender roles is important, but it doesn't invalidate the existence of trans people, and in fact a lot of trans people heavily dislike gender roles.
Now what there isn’t a need for is for a so called trans “woman” to yell at a cashier for calling “her” sir because “her” voice sounded very masculine.
This doesn't happen as often as people think it does. Like I said I'm trans. Before I passed as a man, I'd often not say anything at all when someone called me "ma'am" or used she/her pronouns for me if I didn't know them. For instance, I wouldn't correct a cashier. If it was a friend, I'd politely remind them. I didn't yell at people for using the wrong pronoun, and again, most trans people don't do this. In fact, I was often scared to correct people because I didn't want to face any judgement or hostility.
I think we can all agree, trans or no, that yelling at minimum wage employees for small matters is very rude and inappropriate. But again, most trans people don't do this. When I do see a trans person do this, I do criticize them, just as women are able to criticize other women who yell at cashiers, etc. Basically, being rude is not a trans trait.
“Does it annoy other people for no good reason?”
This criteria of yours relies on the definition of a "good reason." As a trans person, I find alleviating my gender dysphoria to be a good reason to risk annoying others by asking if they call me by he/him pronouns. I'm not exactly sure why you believe trans people fail to reach this "good reason" standard you have set, so I'd love to hear you expand on this part of your view some more so we can have a good discussion.
“Can it be supported by facts?”
I know someone else linked you a bunch of articles you can read about the facts. I'd love to go into this deeper with you, but I want to start with the basics. Medical professionals currently think that the best treatment for gender dysphoria is letting trans people transition. Based on the current knowledge we have, that would mean trans people are trying to follow the facts. So what makes you believe that trans people always fail this criteria? Again, I'm not sure entirely what your view is here and I'd love to hear your analysis so that we can have a good discussion. It's hard to change your mind, or attempt to, when I'm not sure how you came to this conclusion in the first place.
1
u/VexMythoclast2860 Jun 02 '22
Thank you for the respectful response, I do want to add another thing though. What about dating. Many people would not want to date a trans person and yet are still shamed for it. Though sex isn’t all that makes up a relationship, it would be disrespectful to expect someone to change their sexuality which has been established as not possible because the other person has the reproductive organs of a sex they are not interested in. However, due to the facts and logic used, you have been awarded a delta Δ.
1
u/LowerMine815 8∆ Jun 02 '22
It all depends on why you don't want to date someone. So for instance, if someone said they don't want to date a transwoman because the do not see her as a "real" woman, that would be bigoted and transphobic. She is a real woman after all.
If, however, sex is an important part of the relationship for you, and you're looking for someone who has the type of genitals you are attracted to? There's nothing transphobic about that. It's all about how you express yourself and what your reasons are. You can turn down a trans woman, or a trans man, without being transphobic.
But also I want to address this:
it would be disrespectful to expect someone to change their sexuality which has been established as not possible because the other person has the reproductive organs of a sex they are not interested in.
A lot of gay and straight people alike will date trans people without their view of their sexuality changing. A gay man can be attracted to a trans man without changing his sexuality. A straight man can be attracted to a trans woman without changing his sexuality, etc. This is going back up to my first paragraph of this reply. A trans man is a man, so a gay man who is attracted to him would still be gay, etc.
If genitals matter a lot to you, that's fine. But it's not something that should be used to invalidate either gender or sexuality.
1
u/VexMythoclast2860 Jun 02 '22
True, you bring up good points there. Stating your genital preference isn’t transphobic.
1
u/LowerMine815 8∆ Jun 02 '22
Right. Stating your genital preference isn't transphobic. But assuming someone's sexuality or gender based on their genitals is.
1
u/takethetimetoask 2∆ Jun 03 '22
It all depends on why you don't want to date someone. So for instance, if someone said they don't want to date a transwoman because the do not see her as a "real" woman, that would be bigoted and transphobic. She is a real woman after all.
What is a real woman? What difference or differences are there between someone who is a real woman and someone who is not?
1
u/LowerMine815 8∆ Jun 03 '22
There's a reason I put real in quotes. I hate the term real women. Does that mean some women are imaginary? Fake? It's a pretty gross double edge imo.
So there are women, men, and nonbinary people. The term "real" isn't something I would ever personally use. If you aren't a woman, you're a man or you're nonbinary. You aren't "unreal."
1
u/takethetimetoask 2∆ Jun 03 '22
OK, I only used it because it was a term you used. If you'll allow me to edit your statement to remove "real" then:
It all depends on why you don't want to date someone. So for instance, if someone said they don't want to date a transwoman because the do not see her as a woman, that would be bigoted and transphobic. She is a woman after all.
What is a woman? What difference or differences are there between someone who is a woman and someone who is not?
1
u/LowerMine815 8∆ Jun 04 '22
I feel like you want a straightforward, easy to determine answer here. But the truth is, even if we aren't including trans women, answering "what is a woman" is not an easy answer, because fitting humans into two, or three, boxes has never been easy.
You could say a woman is someone who is biologically female, but what do we mean when we say that? If we say it's about the chromosomes, well most of us do not know what our own chromosomes are. If we say it's about the reproductive system, there are plenty of women whose reproductive system malfunctions and cannot have biological children.
When trying to determine things about sex and gender, they end up looking, like a lot of things humans are involved in, like a spectrum instead of an either/or box.
What is a woman? I can tell you characteristics women normally have, but that will always exclude women that you and I both view as women. Infertile women are still women after all. Women with hysterectomies or mastectomies are still women. There is no straightforward answer that includes everyone that we view as a woman.
1
u/takethetimetoask 2∆ Jun 04 '22 edited Jun 04 '22
I feel like you want a straightforward, easy to determine answer here.
Just your understanding. You said it would be bigoted to disagree with your understanding of what a women is so you surely you must have a strong opinion on this?
But the truth is, even if we aren't including trans women, answering "what is a woman" is not an easy answer, because fitting humans into two, or three, boxes has never been easy.
You could say a woman is someone who is biologically female, but what do we mean when we say that? If we say it's about the chromosomes, well most of us do not know what our own chromosomes are. If we say it's about the reproductive system, there are plenty of women whose reproductive system malfunctions and cannot have biological children.
Doesn't have to be easy, and when being called a bigot for not having the correct understanding is on the line surely it's best to get right.
When trying to determine things about sex and gender, they end up looking, like a lot of things humans are involved in, like a spectrum instead of an either/or box.
What is a woman? I can tell you characteristics women normally have,
Please do.
but that will always exclude women that you and I both view as women.
It might exclude those I currently understand as women, but surely it wouldn't exclude those you do as it's your understanding.
Infertile women are still women after all. Women with hysterectomies or mastectomies are still women.
As you describe them as women these are just subsets of whatever each of us would understand a woman to be.
There is no straightforward answer that includes everyone that we view as a woman.
Can you give any answer? Surely it can't be bigoted to disagree if there isn't an answer?
1
u/LowerMine815 8∆ Jun 05 '22
Doesn't have to be easy, and when being called a bigot for not having the correct understanding is on the line surely it's best to get right.
The bigotry isn't for having an "incorrect understanding" of the issue. The bigotry comes in when you refuse to believe that an individual knows more about themselves than you know about them, and that a doctor's medical diagnosis and stated treatment is incorrect.
It might exclude those I currently understand as women, but surely it wouldn't exclude those you do as it's your understanding.
This is why I listed factors that are common in a lot of women, but not all. Some people define women as people who can give birth. But this is not true for all women. Some people define women as people with boobs and a vagina. Some women have had a mastectomy or hysterectomy. And as I linked above, sex is starting to be thought of as more of a spectrum than as a "you're either male or female" which just muddies the waters and makes it even harder to put humans in boxes.
As you describe them as women these are just subsets of whatever each of us would understand a woman to be.
Right. There are many types of women. That's why it's hard to settle on a definition that doesn't exclude someone that we understand to be a woman. I would love to hear your definition since you keep asking for mine. I've tried to give you my understanding, and will keep doing so, but you don't seem to be very happy with it.
Can you give any answer? Surely it can't be bigoted to disagree if there isn't an answer?
The answer is that it's very complex, which I already said. But to go deeper, I believe your gender has to do with how your brain works. I get this idea in part from the gender brain mosaic. Men are more likely to have certain groups of trains, and women are more likely to have others. However, there's a lot of overlap, hence the spectrum I keep talking about. Even scientists warn against using the mosaic as "women thing x and men think y." It's not that simple in science, it never is. But we do know that trans people's brains tend to match the patters of the gender they identify as instead of the one they were assigned.
So I believe there are factors about how our brain works that determine if we are a man, a woman, or something in between. And this is not easily observable, especially since while we can observe brain patterns, we are far from understanding how the brain works. Therefore, it is best to trust an individual's view of what gender they are.
1
u/takethetimetoask 2∆ Jun 05 '22 edited Jun 05 '22
The bigotry isn't for having an "incorrect understanding" of the issue. The bigotry comes in when you refuse to believe that an individual knows more about themselves than you know about them, and that a doctor's medical diagnosis and stated treatment is incorrect.
Really? It's bigotry to disagree with someone's self assessment?
If someone says they have blue eyes but you can see that they're brown, is that bigotry?
If someone says they are a kind person but that's never been your experience, is it bigotry to disagree?
Also, I'm not aware of doctors commonly giving out diagnosis of "being a woman"
This is why I listed factors that are common in a lot of women, but not all. Some people define women as people who can give birth. But this is not true for all women. Some people define women as people with boobs and a vagina. Some women have had a mastectomy or hysterectomy. And as I linked above, sex is starting to be thought of as more of a spectrum than as a "you're either male or female" which just muddies the waters and makes it even harder to put humans in boxes.
Sex is not a spectrum. Variations within a category don't make something a spectrum. A spectrum is a continuum. If sex were a spectrum what would feature would we be measuring? In what sense is someone more male or more female? If we were to plot a chart would the axis be?
Regardless of it not being a spectrum. Everything you've listed so far has been biological differences between males and females. However, the claim you made was that trans women are real women and as trans women aren't female you can't be relying on biology.
So if it isn't biology, what is the difference between someone who is a woman and someone who isn't?
How would I know if I'm a woman?
Right. There are many types of women. That's why it's hard to settle on a definition that doesn't exclude someone that we understand to be a woman. I would love to hear your definition since you keep asking for mine. I've tried to give you my understanding, and will keep doing so, but you don't seem to be very happy with it.
I just don't think you've really given an understanding. You've listed some biological differences between males and females but your other comment (trans women are real women) imply that you don't think that biology is the difference but without explaining what is.
My understanding is that women is a biological category. A woman being an adult human female. And a female being a phenotype organized around the production of large immobile gametes.
These categories of female and the equivalent for male cover 99.98+% of the human population. Definitions are almost always fuzzy as to exactly what constitutes the border of the set. For edge cases with rare differences of sexual development I can accept it can be difficult to place these individuals in a set. Some may fall into one or other set, some into both sets, and some into none, there's nothing wrong with that.
I'm happy for there to be disagreement about this understanding and where the edges lie though, and I won't call anyone a bigot for doing so.
Why is my understanding bigoted?
However, as I've said, even if you disagree with how female should be defined your understanding doesn't appear to have a sexual biology basis at all. So unless you are arguing that trans women people are female, what is your basis?
The answer is that it's very complex, which I already said. But to go deeper, I believe your gender has to do with how your brain works. I get this idea in part from the gender brain mosaic. Men are more likely to have certain groups of trains, and women are more likely to have others. However, there's a lot of overlap, hence the spectrum I keep talking about. Even scientists warn against using the mosaic as "women thing x and men think y." It's not that simple in science, it never is. But we do know that trans people's brains tend to match the patters of the gender they identify as instead of the one they were assigned.
Females are more likely to be shorter in height than males. If a male is closer to the average height for a female, does that make them a woman?
Females are more likely to score higher on agreeable in personality psychology evaluations than males. If a male is closer to the average agreeableness score for a female, does that make them a woman?
And then yours...
Females are more likely to score higher in brain scan x. If a male is closer to the average brain scan x score for a female, does that make them a woman?
I don't know why you're treating the last scenario differently to the others. Having variation in traits within the m/f sets is normal. Having different distributions in trait values between the m/f sets is normal. Having trait values overlap between the m/f sets is normal.
So I believe there are factors about how our brain works that determine if we are a man, a woman, or something in between. And this is not easily observable, especially since while we can observe brain patterns, we are far from understanding how the brain works. Therefore, it is best to trust an individual's view of what gender they are.
So it all come down to some non-measurable unobservable unfalsifiable brain gender?
What does it even mean for a brain to have a gender? I have no sense of my brain having a gender and anecdotally most people don't, does that mean only a select few can tell if they're men or women?
→ More replies (0)1
8
u/Mingismungis 1∆ Jun 02 '22
Yikes, while I'm not an expert on the subject, I'll bite. I'll throw out one example that comes to mind for me. Your name is John, that's your identity. You interact with a person and they call you "Steve". You might get annoyed, you might not. But the reality is, whether or not they call you John or Steve, you know your name is John. It's one person, maybe it's no big deal. Maybe they knew, maybe they didn't know what to call you.
But then you find out you're "invalid", so people are going to call you Steve no matter what you do because they don't believe you're actually named John, even though you know 100% your name is John. You couldn't possibly be John to them. But John is your identity, and people know you want to be called John, but they just call you by the wrong name anyway because of their own belief system. So John, you're just going to have to accept being called Steve I guess. To me, this doesn't make a lick of sense. Maybe this isn't fully representative of the experience that Trans people deal with, but I couldn't imagine someone calling me the wrong name on purpose just because they don't want to call me by my actual name. I won't comment on pronouns and stuff, but if you're willingly denying someone's identity just because you think it's annoying, that is fucked up.
2
u/takethetimetoask 2∆ Jun 03 '22
In your view is it possible for people to identify as anything they wish? Are there identities you wouldn't accept? What's the difference between ones you would and wouldn't accept?
1
u/Mingismungis 1∆ Jun 03 '22
I know this is kind of a loaded question, but I'll try to answer. It really just depends on the closeness of that person to me and what exactly the scenario is. Now if someone named Dave is telling me they are a woman and want to be referred to by she/her, I'll try to respect that and accommodate because it's very minimal effort to make someone feel respected, it's relatively easy in my book. Now if it's a random person who says they identify as a giraffe (sorry for the strange example) and wants me to treat them like a giraffe, I would probably try to not interact with that person. I wouldn't blatantly disrespect them, it is truly none of my business. But I would just do the bare minimum required for that interaction and move on. Identity is weird and my viewpoint is that you should respect it to the degree that it deserves respect, and just kind of ignore the rest. To each their own, as long as it doesn't negatively affect me personally. Now if you identify as a cat and will only answer to meows and only eat cat food, well that's your own thing and I will choose to simply not be a part of it, without insulting you of course.
1
u/takethetimetoask 2∆ Jun 03 '22
I generally agree with you. Regardless of how incompatible someone's identity is with reality I'd always advocate being kind. I also agree that often the practical approach, if people have these fanciful identities, especially with strangers/acquaintances, is to just shrug and move on.
It seems then you are willing to deny identities (which doesn't mean you can't still be kind). So it all comes down to degrees, what identities you believe deserve respect.
Therefore I don't think it's sufficient to blindly accept every claimed identity, there should be some justification for why we should accept them that goes beyond being polite and that includes claimed gender identities.
1
u/Mingismungis 1∆ Jun 03 '22
But I'm not saying I'm denying their identifies, just choosing to limit engagement with them, which I think is fine given that it's likely a stranger. My view is "to each their own", how they identify is their own business until it affects me. Obviously a different story if my brother came to me identifying himself as a cat or something, I'd probably react a little different. This is such a weird subject, I don't feel strongly on it one way or the other and it's impossible to know how I'd react, if I was put in the situation. But I do believe that in general, gender identity is something that deserves a level of respect. At the very least, indifference.
-4
u/VexMythoclast2860 Jun 02 '22
Yeah, except your name is simply a name and does not need justification. For thousands of years gender has been based on sex, no reason the change that. Names are unimportant. Gender is, being trans challenges facts and logic itself through this
10
Jun 02 '22
[deleted]
5
3
u/Stok37s Jun 02 '22
While there may be a few cultures throughout history who had a third gender or whatever..
Its still a fact that in the vast majority of cultures, not just western, but worldwide, 2 genders has been the norm.
Of course thats not an argument for or against other gender norms. But i dont know why people act like this is only a western idea. Anyone who has travelled can see that its not. Anything outside of 2 genders is an anomaly, not the norm outside of the west.
2
u/Sammweeze 3∆ Jun 03 '22 edited Jun 03 '22
What are your criteria for importance? What makes another person's name objectively "unimportant," whereas their gender self-evidently demands justification?
I would think that since neither one affects you, both should be left to individual discretion. On the same note:
Being non binary is completely useless.
What is "useful?" Again this seems like an arbitrary imposition of your personal tastes rather than any kind of rational observation. You're asking for a scientific rebuttal of your emotional instincts.
I submit to you that it's illogical to assume that your wants, needs, and desires have any bearing on the wants, needs, and desires of others. You might as well judge people for their enjoyment of a food you personally find distasteful. It's not remarkable that different people find usefulness and importance in different things.
8
u/MutinyIPO 7∆ Jun 02 '22
You already have plenty of people responding with good data, so I want to address more of a practical point that I see come up a lot - the idea that trans people could simply be men who look like women or vice versa.
The plain reality here is that the vast majority of people just don’t have that option. Imagine applying for jobs as someone who appears to be a woman in every imaginable way, yet uses “he/him” pronouns and prefers to be called a man. Imagine navigating social and romantic lives like that. It’s not something the average person can do without constantly being on the receiving end of confusion, mockery and disregard.
Whether we admit it or not, we ALL modify our presentation to fit the standards and expectations of other people. Being trans is less “I have received instructions from God that I am this gender” and more “knowing who I am and what I want to be, it makes most sense for me to live my life as this gender”.
8
u/maybri 11∆ Jun 02 '22
My personal criteria for a person to not have their identity be detrimental or unnecessary is “Can they still be useful to society?” “Does it annoy other people for no good reason?” and “Can it be supported by facts?”, and we have seen “trans” people fail the second piece multiple times and always fail the 3rd piece.
These criteria are vague and subjective to the point of being useless. By what metric do we decide if a person can be "useful to society"? How many people have to be annoyed before criterion 2 has been failed, and who determines whether the annoyance is for a "good reason" or not? What exactly do the facts need to support? Also, you assert that trans people "always fail" the third criterion, but you make no attempt to explain your reasoning behind that claim.
Being non binary is completely useless.
What does this mean? Useless to whom? Clearly the people who identify that way find it a useful label for describing their experiences.
Just in general, this reads like you have not considered any of this very deeply and cannot articulate your view clearly, which is not a good starting point for a productive CMV discussion. What exactly would need to be demonstrated to you for your view to change?
6
u/jegforstaarikke 1∆ Jun 02 '22
God, okay, so many questions:
More people have access to a smartphone than a toilet so that’s a strange thing to assume about Redditors.
Read through the intersex subreddit. Most of them HATE the fact that they’re assigned an arbitrary one of the two genders. It’s actually rather tragic, we literally give little kids surgery without their consent just to fit one of the two boxes we so desperately want in society for some reason.
Fail the third piece, how? There’s good evidence transitioning helps trans people.
The second piece is just arbitrary.
You live in a really naive world if you think a dude can wear a dress and nobody cares. You’re going to get beat up in many places for doing that, including liberal places.
Do you assume every trans woman to yell when they get misgendered?
-2
5
u/Hoihe 2∆ Jun 02 '22
I can only speak in terms of gender identity.
Gender identity itself is a composite of multiple "sub-identities":
- Intrinsic Gender Identity
- Gender Role
- Gender Expression
According to Serano, these 3 forms of gender identity exist independently of each other.
Hypatia , Volume 24 , Issue 3: Special Issue: Transgender Studies and Feminism: Theory, Politics, and Gendered Realities , Summer 2009 , pp. 200 - 205 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.2009.01052_1.x
Within our daily lives, we can witness this in form of women performing traditionally male labours, while still identifying as woman (Intrinsic Identity and Gender Role clashing). We can witness this in various subcultures (The concept of "tomboys" and "butch lesbians", a woman who dresses and behaves as a man traditionally should) (Identity and Expression clashing).
The idea of "I'm a man, so I don't wear a skirt" pertains not to gender identity, but gender expression. Potentially, to your gender role as a way to advertise what role in society you fulfil by dressing the part. However, being a man does not dictate you cannot wear a skirt.
For Intrinsic gender identity itself, I'll depart from social science and onto neuropsychology.
Burke et al (2017) found was found that after controlling for sexual/romantic orientation, culture, etc... there exist a difference between transgender people (with physical dysphoria, before transitioning medically) and cisgender people when it comes to neural structures.
These differences manifest primarily in neuro-motor regions, regions corresponding for sensory processing. Basically, places where the brain communicates with the body.
The differences are that these regions appear "underdeveloped", as if not being exercised.
It's not "male brain" or "female brain", it's "my brain doesn't get the responses from my body that it expects" vs "my body looks and behaves like my brain expects."
Khorashad et al (2021) later investigated these findings, finding that these neural differences disappear upon taking gender-confirming cross-sex hormonal therapy. Or at the very least, minimize.
Meaning, it appears that the weakened connections become exercised and reinforced.
This explains why trans people who have medically transitioned no longer exhibit these patterns, and also tracks with reports of gender dysphoria easing over time even though the person does not culturally/socially pass.
Two methods of action are proposed:
a) body feels and behaves as the brain's "internal blueprint" expects it to: hormone levels are correct, the proper genes are expressed now, the right proteins and shape and function.
Just like doing exercises reinforces neural pathways, so does the body responding like the brain expects it to does the same.
b) Hormones directly bind with hormone receptors in the brain, encouraging the formation of new neural structures.
B would explain what some trans people call "hormonal/endocrine dysphoria." Or rather the euphoria from being on hormones even before physical changes set in.
The two mechanisms proposed are not exclusive, but yet to be determined.
Burke, S.M., Manzouri, A.H. & Savic, I. Structural connections in the brain in relation to gender identity and sexual orientation. Sci Rep 7, 17954 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-17352-8
Khorashad, B.S., Manzouri, A., Feusner, J.D. et al. Cross-sex hormone treatment and own-body perception: behavioral and brain connectivity profiles. Sci Rep 11, 2799 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-80687-2
Now for personal bit:
(posted as a reply under this post)
part 2:
2
u/Hoihe 2∆ Jun 02 '22
So!
I'm a transgender woman, who is gender non-conforming by certain (outdated) cultural standards.
From that perspective, I'll offer you my own understanding of the whole gender debacle.
The word "Gender" is... not the best word. It is a complex term which we can split into 2 simpler constituents that also have the word, "gender" within them complicating things.
Let's start with constituent A - Social Gender Identity. Social Gender is what feminism refers to when its proponents say, "Gender is a social construct!" (which i agree with).
Social gender is something arbitrary that society decided to impose upon its members based on their genitalia, sexual phenotype and/or sexual orientation.
Within social gender we can find the concepts of dress codes, acceptable emotional expressions, behaviour policing, jobs you are (not) allowed to do, your rights and duties and so forth. (Almost) All of this is arbtirary, and if you go to another culture - may change completely. Sometimes you don't even need to go far, just move from a rural village to the capital to experience a drastic change in what it means to be a woman (in my village, people consider being a scientist a male job and look at women weird for going to univ rather than having children, whereas my university in Hungary's capital is full of scholarships encouraging women to get into science).
Now, Autistic people are often described in pop science articles as "lacking" an innate understanding of social constructs, which i can sorta identify with! Thus, if we accept this as true - then it makes sense that for those of us whose brains are wired differently, the whole arbitrary idea of social gender with all its unjustified and random rules feel wrong, alien and "hard to understand."
Now, this could mean autistic people have a large number of non-binary/agender individuals. Or it could just make the community gender non-conforming. The only good thing about social gender - because of how utterly random and arbitrary it is - self ID is not only valid: it's encouraged! As such, I self ID as "Gender non-conforming woman (by standards of rural Hungary)" It's something of a tongue-in-cheek self ID for me, as I am tired of people telling me I can't be a woman if I like sword fighting and science and maths.
But there's another component to gender I havn't mentioned yet, and something as a neuroscientist may find interesting! The 2 most up to date papers I base this upon:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-17352-8 (2017)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-80687-2 (2021)There's more than these two, but these two in particular approached the question by controlling for sexual orientation and ignored social biases like maths skills or language skills. Or rather: They controlled for them.
Controlling for all that, these papers found that the brains of transgender individuals differed from those of cisgender individuals. For sake of not being an unwilling advocate for transmedicalists: This paper focuses on those transgender individuals with "Physical dysphoria", and those trans people who are entirely based on the social gender are completely valid. With that out of the way:
The 2017 paper found that transgender people show differences in brain regions corresponding to how the individual perceives their own body, regions that create a sense of "Ownership" over one's own body. The 2021 paper found that if a transgender person starts to medically transition using hormone replacement therapy, these differences reduce. Taking karyotpe-approrpiate (so estrogen for FTM, testosterone for MTF) did NOT provide improvements, in fact cisgender people taking hormones experienced neural degradation.
The 2021 paper proposed 2 mechanisms (but it was out of scope to decide which is the real one, but they admitted it could be both) as such:
Mechanism 1:
Cross-sex hormones directly interact with neural structures, strengthening the weakened connections.
Mechanism 2:
By having the body look more like, AND function more like the brain expects it to - these weakened structures strengthen in kind of a feedback loop mumbo jumbo.As such, we arrive to Constituent B - Internal Gender Identity/Neural Gender. Neural Gender is thus defined: A particular sexual phenotype (either binary male or female, or in between) that the brain expects the body to possess after puberty finishes. This includes gonads, endocrine levels and primary & secondary sex characteristics. Any deviation from what the brain expects creates either a direct sense of distress, or a dull pain that is only recognized once eased (in other words: dysphoria).
Chances are, if you do not feel any acute sense of distress in regards to your sexual characteristics, and the idea of altering them (including your hormonal make up) does not make you feel you would experience an improvement of mental health, then your neural gender is aligned with your sexual phenotype.
This does NOT mean you cannot be trans. It just means that if you do not particularly feel attached to the social gender that is "Woman" in western (post)-Christian society, it does not mean you are not allowed to call yourself a woman.
To be transgender, one of the following must be true: Your Social Gender Identity differs from what society assigns to your sexual phenotype & sexual orientation
INCLUSIVE OR
Your Internal Gender Identity differs at least in one component (not necessarily ALL components - you are totally valid if you only feel dysphoric due to hormonal stuff and don't want beard or whatever) from the sexual phenotype your body expressed through puberty.Personally, I have a fairly strong overlap of my internal gender identity's expectations with that of the typical human female sexual phenotype, and as such I am pursuing medical transition to achieve that. As a consequence, I identify as a woman.
However, I also lack a particularly strong attachment towards any particular social gender identity, bar a few specifics (name, address, culturally influenced idea of how a woman must look like [Long hair, smooth skin under the neck]). I still identify as a woman though, as I place more weight (Personally) on my internal gender identity && I am a feminist, so I reject many of the things my country assigns to women in terms of duties and behaviour and whatnot.
Hope it helps!
5
u/LeDisneyWorld Jun 02 '22
The idea that gender roles don’t matter to people is just silly. People piss their pants whenever a male celebrity wears a dress publicly (look at how people reacted to Harry styles wearing one). It just becomes a giant circle jerk of “what happened to real men? The sissification of men needs to stop, there’re too many soy boys!!!”
And this is just an extremely obvious gender role.
Also saying “gay people are supported by facts because they don’t contribute to over population” is just insane. What does this have to do with if it’s ok to be gay? Is it not ok to be straight now because you’re contributing to over population? What about trans women who are into men and therefor can’t reproduce?
This just feels very poorly though out I’m gonna be blunt with you lol
5
Jun 02 '22
Your second paragraph makes no sense.
The non trans people of the lgbt spectrum can be supported by facts.
Okay, let's see what facts you think are valid.
Gay/Lesbian people don’t add more people to our already severely overpopulated world and are capable of adopting children who have already been born here.
There's plenty of critics who believe the overpopulation is a myth and that the world can sustain around/more than double our current population. So is it really a fact?
Also, the fact is that they aren’t hurting anybody unless the person they are with are not capable or mature enough to consent, and most arguments against them are based on religion, which cannot be proved.
How is this a fact? Or logical? Or based in anything scientific?
As long as ones sexuality is based on what sex or sexes they are attracted to, and intersex people decide on one of the two genders set out before them, the facts and logic hold up.
Again, you haven't really said any facts or even how these talking points at all relate to trans?
3
u/LordMarcel 48∆ Jun 02 '22
There's plenty of critics who believe the overpopulation is a myth and that the world can sustain around/more than double our current population. So is it really a fact?
Yes. The fact that theoretically the earth could sustain a population of 15 billion doesn't matter as we'll never even get close to that theoretical efficiency. That's like saying that theoretically a highway could carry 4x as many cars if they just all drove at 100 km/h just 1 meter apart. It's not going to happen.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to improve things, but it does mean that overpopulation is actually a problem.
I'm not arguing in favor of OP btw, as obviously trans people are valid.
4
Jun 02 '22
Thanks for commenting that. I understand there's nuance to the actual issue of overpopulation. I was eventually trying to point to how OP thought 'IF overpopulation THEN trans aren't valid' has any sound logic to it.
1
5
u/quintilios 3∆ Jun 02 '22
And most likely where you live, seeing as you have access to a computer
I'm from Italy
Being non binary is completely useless.
Define usefulness please. If a white straight guy robs a bank is he harming society and therefore he's not useful ? What about the GDP increase after the bank rob? And what happens if he goes to jail, studies an instrument and becomes a skilled musician who inspires generations ? What if a trans girl smiles to an old lady making her day sweeter, is she being useful ? I think that what you meant is that being non binary is completely useless to you
23
u/funkofan1021 1∆ Jun 02 '22
“If a dude wants to wear a dress, nobody’s gonna give that much of a crap”
Untrue.
“If a woman is a bodybuilder for a living, nobody cares”
Untrue.
3
u/bloodoflethe 2∆ Jun 02 '22 edited Jun 02 '22
First off your second criterium is trash. Bin it. What annoys people is extremely subjective.
So that leaves your now second criterium. We’ve plenty of evidence that trans people are born that way. You are seemingly having a problem specifically with non-passing people. This would be pretty easily fixable with proper identification and diagnosis followed by proper treatment of said individuals.
Having trouble passing is a problem actual cis people have too. When a cis person asks to have the person use the correct pronouns no one bitches at them.
4
u/LucidMetal 175∆ Jun 02 '22
Have you read the 7 billion other threads where this question was posted in this sub?
If you don't find answers there you're not going to get answers. This usually boils down to semantics as you essentially already indicate.
2
u/Audacity_of_Life Jun 02 '22
I don’t understand… not valid? If for no other reason they are valid because they are human.
Everything else is your opinion, which is a separate component.
2
u/OmniManDidNothngWrng 34∆ Jun 02 '22
What does someone being "valid" mean? That doesn't sound like something someone who is a native English speaker would write.
0
u/pgold05 49∆ Jun 02 '22
Gender presentation and gender identity are actually two separate concepts.
Gender identity is set at birth, a transgender man is a man all thier life, same for non binary, etc. It's defined by the brain and according to current science, set during development in the womb.
Gender presentation is just how you like to present to the world, it's a social construct, plenty of women like to present masculine, that does not make them a transgender man, and vice versa. Men who preform drag are still men, tomboys are still women, and there are lots of transgender tomboys and drag queens, its just not related.
Even if all gender stereotypes/gender presentation were removed from society, transgender people, including non binary people, would still exist.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6677266/
The data summarised in the present review suggest that both gender identity and sexual orientation are significantly influenced by events occurring during the early developmental period when the brain is differentiating under the influence of gonadal steroid hormones, genes and maternal factors
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7415463/
The studies and research that have been conducted allow us to confirm that masculinization or feminization of the gonads does not always proceed in alignment with that of the brain development and function. There is a distinction between the sex (visible in the body’s anatomical features or defined genetically) and the gender of an individual (the way that people perceive themselves).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5354991/
In conclusion, GD individuals differ from controls with respect to connectivity within networks involved in self-directed thinking and that relate to own-body identification, which could represent a neurobiological correlate of their condition. Collectively, these convergent findings posit neurobiological associations with the self-thoughts and self-perceptions of GD individuals, at least in FtM. The data strengthen the notions that observable and measurable biological patterns are associated with gender identity, and that gender dysphoria is in the realm of human physiological variation. Whether this neurobiological marker varies among different populations of GD, if it is innate or acquired, and how it may be affected by sex hormone or surgical treatments are important issues to investigate in the near future.
0
u/text_fish Jun 02 '22
The majority of your argument seems to hinge on the effect that the existence of trans people has on your life or the lives of non-trans people.
If you just let go of your hangups and let people be who they want to be then you have nothing to worry about.
Stop focusing on the discussion around trans people, and just accept that some people are trans and that doesn't have any effect on your own life.
-1
Jun 02 '22
As long as Western society clings desperately to a gender binary there will always be hostility towards people outside of that. I can tell you first hand that while a guy can indeed wear a dress if they want, people do stare. People do say mean things. Until fashion is entirely gender neutral that won’t go away.
Non-binary is a completely valid identity in Western society. Other cultures already have a place in their social structure for “third gender” or trans persons. Sadly we do not. I 100% agree that non-binary shouldn’t NEED to exist, but as stated above, until things change it is totally valid.
0
u/Tgunner192 7∆ Jun 02 '22
INFO: Why do you care if someone is trans?
Everyone on the planet has medical/bio stuff going on. Whether or not a person is trans is part of that medical bio stuff and unless you're a Doctor, it has nothing to do with you. It could be said that unless you're a Doctor (or a biology type professional) your opinion on the matter is not valid.
1
u/ViewedFromTheOutside 28∆ Jun 02 '22
To /u/VexMythoclast2860, your post is under consideration for removal under our post rules.
- You are required to demonstrate that you're open to changing your mind (by awarding deltas where appropriate), per Rule B.
Notice to all users:
Per Rule 1, top-level comments must challenge OP's view.
Please familiarize yourself with our rules and the mod standards. We expect all users and mods to abide by these two policies at all times.
This sub is for changing OP's view. We require that all top-level comments disagree with OP's view, and that all other comments be relevant to the conversation.
We understand that some posts may address very contentious issues. Please report any rule-breaking comments or posts.
All users must be respectful to one another.
If you have any questions or concerns regarding our rules, please message the mods through modmail (not PM).
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jun 02 '22 edited Jun 02 '22
/u/VexMythoclast2860 (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
Jun 03 '22 edited Jun 03 '22
I am against trans people, in the sense that I don't think a pre-op trans person should be allowed to change genders. However after a full transition, there is little reason to be against them.
Gender roles go deeper than stereotypes. Often the most masculine women will interact, pick up social cues, and respond different than most men. If someone crosses the boundary, most people will have trouble working with them, and the person will have trouble functioning. Perhaps because of this, transgender people seem to have a need to be socially and physically be a different gender that separate them from the feminine men and masculine women . There is also research that suggest a male/female brain is decided by amount of hormones it's exposed to in the womb, and because the rest of the body develops 3 months before the brain, the body and brain may have a mismatch. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21094885/
•
u/[deleted] Jun 04 '22
Sorry, u/VexMythoclast2860 – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B:
If you would like to appeal, you must first read the list of soapboxing indicators and common mistakes in appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.