The Transgender Issue

SpanishCavsfan said:

Seriously, how the fuck is someone going to cite the DSM V, then disagree with it being medical consensus when they were JUST USING IT TO PROVE THEIR POINT. ESPECIALLY WHEN IT'S PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION. HOW MUCH MORE CONSENSUS DO YOU NEED? Is there another big psychological group of trained professionals I don't know about?

Click to expand...

It's definitely an odd bit of reasoning.

gourimoko said:

I don't think anyone is "ducking" this point.

You wrote two posts that I just read this morning that I said I planned on responding to; but in that response I was going to point out that no one here is speaking for the transgender community. So, I'm not sure why it is that you're asserting their position.

Click to expand...

Because you have expressly argued that we should define gender based on how they choose to identify themselves:

gourimoko said:

I just want to be clear here...

However, in a society that is polar with respect to gender, and in one where we need to fit transgender people into one gender or the other (many societies choose to go alternative routes); then I think it makes sense to identify a person based on their gender identity rather than their sexual organs - particularly considering one has more intrinsic value than the other for most people.

Click to expand...

Either you actually believe that, or not. If you do, then you're tossing any kind of biological objectivity right out the window, and agree it should be just based on personal choice. If you don't believe that, then you've changed your position from the immediately preceding quote.

SpanishCavsfan said:

Seriously, how the fuck is someone going to cite the DSM V, then disagree with it being medical consensus when they were JUST USING IT TO PROVE THEIR POINT. ESPECIALLY WHEN IT'S PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION. HOW MUCH MORE CONSENSUS DO YOU NEED? Is there another big psychological group of trained professionals I don't know about?

Click to expand...

The DSM V is the consensus of those who drafted and voted upon it. That does not mean that even a majority of mental health professionals in general support it.

Further, people are again misusing the DSM by considering it a forensic document. It's purpose is not to come up with objective truth, but rather as a tool to treat people. And if you read the drafting notes/arguments, they made the change because the prior language of "gender disorder" was deemed offensive, and therefore considered to be unhelpful to patients. So citing to it as an example of what reality is constitutes a misuse of the document.

The Human Q-Tip said:

Doesn't it seem a bit strange to you that you're reluctant to provide a definition of the word that is at the centerpiece of this entire discussion?

Click to expand...

It's been defined numerous times on the last several pages including this one.

The Human Q-Tip said:

And no, it's a very useful conversation to have. I want to continue using "male/female/man/woman/boy/girl" based on biological sex, and I've defined that.

Click to expand...

That's your prerogative.

The Human Q-Tip said:

You want to have those terms apply to "gender", but refuse to define what "gender" even means.

Click to expand...

I think many of us are willing to accept medical and scientific opinions on this matter rather than our own personal opinions, whatever those may be.

Remember, you had asked me (and I didn't know if you were serious), why it is that you should accept scientific understanding over your own personal views?

The Human Q-Tip said:

It would appear to me that if you cannot define the term meaningfully, then my argument must be correct.

Click to expand...

But it has been defined; quite a few times. And with that said, it makes no sense to assert the truth of your argument based on another person's inability to define a term in a manner in which you're not willing to accept. That's irrational.

The Human Q-Tip said:

So you're saying that the only possible definitions are circular? Define "male". Define "female". Why is that so freaking much to ask??

Click to expand...

Has this not already been done numerous times? I defined "gender" culturally, biologically, and again by simply citing the Wiki - I'm not sure how/why you're arguing that this hasn't been done?

Maybe there is a disconnect here that I'm missing?

The Human Q-Tip said:

I'm asking you for your definition. How is it tedious to provide a usable, concise definition? You don't like my definitions, so fine. State what the alternative your alternative is.

Click to expand...

It's been done up-thread. Do you disagree with the definitions I've posted? I don't think many would disagree with the Wiki, right?

The Human Q-Tip said:

And to be clear, I've had this conversation elsewhere, and it curiously always stops at this hurdle with people not wanting to define the terms clearly. And I'm being sincere here -- I truly do not understand what it means to "identify as a man" or "identify as a woman", apart from biology.

Click to expand...

Do you understand that the human brain controls gender identity? That the physical structures and physiological of the brain control how we individually identify both our sex and gender?

The Human Q-Tip said:

Because you have expressly argued that we should define gender based on how they choose to identify themselves

Click to expand...

I haven't said this in these terms; I've stated that gender is defined biologically, in the brain, and that sex is manifested chromosomally (causing organs to form and develop).

I think you're asking now about gender recognition; which is distinct from the truth of identity itself. And with that then yes, I would argue that the only real way to identify another person's gender is by implying it based on their actions, appearance or asking them.

With both of these statements, I would reject the notion that most transgendered people choose to be transgendered. And since we're wanting to be exact in our words here; I want to make it clear that I don't know anyone who has ever chosen to be transgendered nor do I think that's the correct way of framing the argument given it's not representative of the realities of being transgendered.

The Human Q-Tip said:

Either you actually believe that, or not. If you do, then you're tossing any kind of biological objectivity right out the window, and agree it should be just based on personal choice. If you don't believe that, then you've changed your position from the immediately preceding quote.

Click to expand...

I'm starting to think that you're not really following along with the understanding that gender identity is a physical process of the brain; it's not something you choose to do.

Hmm... let me ask you an aside, for clarification; do you think people are "born gay" or that they choose to be gay?

The Human Q-Tip said:

The DSM V is the consensus of those who drafted and voted upon it. That does not mean that even a majority of mental health professionals in general support it.

Further, people are again misusing the DSM by considering it a forensic document. It's purpose is not to come up with objective truth, but rather as a tool to treat people. And if you read the drafting notes/arguments, they made the change because the prior language of "gender disorder" was deemed offensive, and therefore considered to be unhelpful to patients. So citing to it as an example of what reality is constitutes a misuse of the document.

Click to expand...

So to recap, you cited it when it was proving your point, but now that everyone has called you out on your extreme misuse of it, you have to discredit it. Everyone and their mother could have seen that coming.

Edit: when you were citing the DSM for yourself what were you trying to prove by doing so? I guess that might be a helpful question to ask.

My son is 2.

He seems to be surprisingly sensitive to other kid's feelings, can be somewhat sensitive emotionally and throws tantrums like a usual 2 year old.

He also almost never cries when he is injured physically and he beats the shit out of me physically, with his favorite game being "tackle," which basically means football without a ball. We tackle each other pretty hard.

He does punch me in the balls a lot, which is not good.

I am not transgender, but @bushwick_bill might be.

How likely is my son to be transgender eventually?

@Hydroponic3385

Notorious said:

I agree on all counts. So why this big push to make the new pronouns law? I'm not ok with that.

Click to expand...

I'm still not sure how that would actually impact my life at all on a daily basis. The only example I can think is that, if my workplace hired a transgender person, I'd have to refer to them by their pronoun of choice. In which case, who the fuck cares? I'd do that anyway if a coworker requested it.

I can't pretend to speak for trans people, as I don't know any personally, but it seems to me that most of them just want to be treated like human beings and accepted for who and what they are. The sad part to me is that laws appear to be necessary for that to happen to begin with.

The Oi said:

My son is 2.

He seems to be surprisingly sensitive to other kid's feelings, can be somewhat sensitive emotionally and throws tantrums like a usual 2 year old.

He also almost never cries when he is injured physically and he beats the shit out of me physically, with his favorite game being "tackle," which basically means football without a ball. We tackle each other pretty hard.

He does punch me in the balls a lot, which is not good.

I am not transgender, but @bushwick_bill might be.

How likely is my son to be transgender eventually?

@Hydroponic3385

Click to expand...

The Oi stumbles into the truth. Now if he could only manage to stumble into a vagina, he'd be set.

The dirty little secret here is exactly what you just said -- that things like sensitivity, how you like to dress, talk, act, etc. are not dictated by whether or not you are a "man" or a "woman". Is a tomboy still a girl? Was Richard Simmons still a man? People can act however they wish, dress however they wish, without being a different gender.


ETA: To add the "not"

SpanishCavsfan said:

So to recap, you cited it when it was proving your point, but now that everyone has called you out on your extreme misuse of it, you have to discredit it. Everyone and their mother could have seen that coming.

Edit: when you were citing the DSM for yourself what were you trying to prove by doing so? I guess that might be a helpful question to ask.

Click to expand...

What?! Did you even read the post where I first mentioned the DSM? I wasn't citing it because it was authoritative -- I was pointing out that it wasn't, and I did that in the context of other people having previously cited to it in this thread as being authoritative. Here's my actual post:

The Human Q-Tip said:

That is a matter of medical opinion, and there is a lot of disagreement as to that point. As I pointed out months ago, the DSM changing "disorder" to "dysphoria" was not based on any actual changes in the condition, or changes in understanding of the condition, but rather on political pressure from transgender people.

Click to expand...

In what universe is that me saying that the DSM should be trusted as a forensic tool? I was pointing out that there was a lot of dissent to making that change.

Cavatt said:

Well how do you enforce it then? Are you personally checking underpants?

Click to expand...

How do I "enforce"...what? In the vast majority of cases, it doesn't matter. When you bump into someone on the street, whether they are actually a male or female really doesn't matter.

You don't know if a trans woman and a man are the same biologically or not.

Click to expand...

What do you mean by a "man"? I'm sincerely confused given the way some people are advocating different understandings of that word.

The Human Q-Tip said:

What do you mean by a "man"? I'm sincerely confused given the way some people are advocating different understandings of that word.

Click to expand...

He likely means a cis-male.

Remember, these terms, definitions, have been posted.

gourimoko said:

With that said, here's the top paragraph from Wikipedia; reading it, I totally concur with this definition so I think we can start from here:

"Gender is the range of characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between, masculinity and femininity. Depending on the context, these characteristics may include biological sex (i.e. the state of being male, female or an intersex variation which may complicate sex assignment),

Click to expand...

Okay, I'm generally fine with that definition, a usable definition of "masculinity" and "femininity" is required. Although I would point out that as is common in more controversial Wikipedia topics, this first definition can easily contradict the second, and lead to opposite results. In other words, Wikipedia is not giving a single, clear definition. Rather, it is simply listing different definitions for the word "gender".

sex-based social structures (including gender roles and other social roles)

Click to expand...

Bingo!! That is exactly my point, and that's the one that should be discussed to see if it is a sufficient justification to change the meaning of male/female/man/woman/boy girl

or gender identity.[1][2][3] Some cultures have specific gender roles that can be considered distinct from male and female, such as the hijra (chhaka) of India and Pakistan."

Click to expand...

Using the word to define the word is bogus, and we're not in India or Pakistan anyway. So we're left with what is behind door No. 2.

I'm going to add something here to see if I can convey my point more clearly. You have previously noted that "male" and "female" are binary/polar terms. You also have stated that you have misgivings about whether "gender" is, in fact, binary or polar, and that it may actually be more of a continuum. And in terms of how "gender" has been defined even in your Wikipedia example (the second and even third referring to roles in society), I'd tend to agree. "Gender" is not binary/polar at all. It is a continuum.

It seem not only misleading, but irrational, to redefine binary terms and use them to describe something that is not binary. In contrast, given that the vast majority of the population does fall within the binary biological/reproductive sexual division, it would make sense to continue using those binary terms to describe characteristics that are, in fact, binary.

gourimoko said:

He likely means a cis-male.

Remember, these terms, definitions, have been posted.

Click to expand...

If we're going to define "men" as being "cis-male", I'm fine with that.

The Human Q-Tip said:

If we're going to define "men" as being "cis-male", I'm fine with that.

Click to expand...

No, that'd be pointless; that's essentially your original definition of 'man' up-thread.

I'm saying that what @Cavatt likely meant by "man" was cis-male, although he could also have meant what sex organs they had at present.