A liberal's discomfort with trans-gender
Unlike some people bothered by the trans-gendered, I wasn't raised in a "Mad Men" world, and I don't pine for it. I was raised in the feminist backlash against a "Mad Men" world: we watched "All In the Family" after dinner, and I nearly memorized the album "Free To Be You And Me". I was brought up to believe that your physical sex should have no bearing on your choice of toys, occupations, social and economic roles, clothing, etc.
Which leaves me puzzled when I hear of people who decide they "should have been born male" or "should have been born female". Why should it matter, for any purpose other than excretion and sex? (Two activities in which, combined, I expect to spend perhaps 1% of my life, leaving 99% for activities that have nothing to do with the shape of my sex organs.)
I took Home Economics in junior high school, because I liked cooking and wanted to do it better, and because I didn't know much about sewing but thought a competent person should. I knew I would be teased for it -- I already got a lot of abuse, and accusations of being "gay", for the twin crimes of being small and smart -- but I thought it was the right and brave thing to do. If I were in junior high school today and made the same choice for the same reasons, would I be diagnosed with gender dysphoria and advised to consider hormone treatment or even surgery? If, furthermore, I were exploring my teen-aged sexuality and found some attraction to other boys, would that seal the diagnosis? I certainly hope not!
When trans people win the battle to change their sex and be accepted in society as their new sex, it tells me we lost the war: your physical sex does determine your role in society after all. The trans movement seem to me to be working very hard to escape from prison... so they can check themselves into a different prison, when I would have preferred to raze both prisons to the ground.
To use a different metaphor, gender reassignment strikes me as a hardware solution to a software problem. I have a spreadsheet program and need a Web browser, so instead of installing a Web browser, I change the CPU to one which interprets the instructions of a spreadsheet program as those of a web browser. It just seems terribly inelegant and inefficient.
Mind you, I'll fight vociferously for your right to declare yourself male or female, and be treated as such; see here and here. But I'm deeply disappointed at your need to do so.
Comments, particularly from transgendered people and their loved ones, are welcome: I don't understand the motivations, and I really want to.
Which leaves me puzzled when I hear of people who decide they "should have been born male" or "should have been born female". Why should it matter, for any purpose other than excretion and sex? (Two activities in which, combined, I expect to spend perhaps 1% of my life, leaving 99% for activities that have nothing to do with the shape of my sex organs.)
I took Home Economics in junior high school, because I liked cooking and wanted to do it better, and because I didn't know much about sewing but thought a competent person should. I knew I would be teased for it -- I already got a lot of abuse, and accusations of being "gay", for the twin crimes of being small and smart -- but I thought it was the right and brave thing to do. If I were in junior high school today and made the same choice for the same reasons, would I be diagnosed with gender dysphoria and advised to consider hormone treatment or even surgery? If, furthermore, I were exploring my teen-aged sexuality and found some attraction to other boys, would that seal the diagnosis? I certainly hope not!
When trans people win the battle to change their sex and be accepted in society as their new sex, it tells me we lost the war: your physical sex does determine your role in society after all. The trans movement seem to me to be working very hard to escape from prison... so they can check themselves into a different prison, when I would have preferred to raze both prisons to the ground.
To use a different metaphor, gender reassignment strikes me as a hardware solution to a software problem. I have a spreadsheet program and need a Web browser, so instead of installing a Web browser, I change the CPU to one which interprets the instructions of a spreadsheet program as those of a web browser. It just seems terribly inelegant and inefficient.
Mind you, I'll fight vociferously for your right to declare yourself male or female, and be treated as such; see here and here. But I'm deeply disappointed at your need to do so.
Comments, particularly from transgendered people and their loved ones, are welcome: I don't understand the motivations, and I really want to.
no subject
To use a different metaphor, gender reassignment strikes me as a hardware solution to a software problem.
I think that covers it perfectly.
No one can change genders/sex. It's a biological impossibility. DNA determines if you're male or female, and that can't be altered any more than you can alter the color of your eyes or how tall you are.
People who claim to be or wish to be the opposite of what biology and reality says they are are deeply mentally ill. They need help to get their thinking in alignment with reality.
What they don't need is people agreeing with their delusions. And what the rest of us don't need is them shoving their views down our throats day and night, DEMANDING we agree with their delusions, and changing laws in order to make the world around them conform to their delusions.
no subject
But people can alter the color of their eyes and how tall they are -- either temporarily, with contacts and heel lifts, or permanently, with surgery. Likewise, people have changed their "visible" sex temporarily (with makeup and cross-dressing) for thousands of years, and permanently (with surgery and hormones) for decades.
One can reasonably argue that those aren't real sex changes, because they don't change the chromosomes. That implies defining sex in terms of chromosomes, not in terms of external genitalia or clothing or occupation or social roles or checkboxes on birth certificates. Which is fine with me -- but if you define it that way, and acknowledge that the other things may not match cleanly, then you lose the justification for most rules that treat males and females differently. (And of course it doesn't tell you what to do with people whose chromosomes are neither XY nor XX, or chimeras whose chromosomes are different from one part of the body to another -- but those are fairly rare conditions.)
People who claim tomatoes are not a fruit, in contradiction to what biology and reality say, are deeply mentally ill, and need help to get their thinking in alignment with reality.
In both cases, why does it matter? If I have XY chromosomes and call myself "female", or if I call tomatoes a vegetable, what harm does it do to me or anyone else, other than perhaps losing a few points on a biology test?
The reason it matters which gender pigeonhole I say I'm in is that society associates lots of other things with that choice: if I tell you my gender, you can guess at my clothing, my aggressive and nurturing qualities, my occupation, etc., thus saving you the trouble of checking which of those attributes I really have. In the Feminist Paradise, those associations wouldn't exist, so there would be no need to put myself in one category or the other. My doctor and I would care about my chromosomal sex, for purposes of predicting what medical problems I'm likely to have, but nobody else would.
Part 1 of 2
Superficially. But not in actuality.
Likewise, people have changed their "visible" sex temporarily (with makeup and cross-dressing) for thousands of years, and permanently (with surgery and hormones) for decades.
Again, superficially. No amount of pumping the body full of hormones or cutting off/adding on body parts actually changes a person's chromosomes. It's just an outward change. It's no different than people having surgery to try to be a parrot or a dragon. (Two real life/real people instances I did find on YouTube. Sorry, I am sick with a cold right now and don't have energy to go seek them out.)
One can reasonably argue that those aren't real sex changes, because they don't change the chromosomes.
Well, yes. That's exactly my argument.
That implies defining sex in terms of chromosomes, not in terms of external genitalia or clothing or occupation or social roles or checkboxes on birth certificates.
That's just basic biology. A hundred years from now, if Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner's remains are examined, they will show this was a male.
Which is fine with me -- but if you define it that way, and acknowledge that the other things may not match cleanly, then you lose the justification for most rules that treat males and females differently.
I'm not sure what you mean. Treated differently, but in what way? Men and women ARE different. Even leaving genitalia aside, men and women have different physical abilities, they think differently, they view the world differently, they make different choices in life, etc.
Why should that be viewed in any way as a negative thing? Men and women have different strengths and weaknesses, and these are meant to compliment one another.
It's not that much different than acknowledging that one person has an aptitude for music and another person has an aptitude for science. One is not better than the other. They're different strengths and skills, that's all. Both are valuable.
(And of course it doesn't tell you what to do with people whose chromosomes are neither XY nor XX, or chimeras whose chromosomes are different from one part of the body to another -- but those are fairly rare conditions.)
Those are difficult situations. But as you say, they are rare. It's never a good idea to form public policy on the basis of the very rare examples of this or that.
(Continued)
Re: Part 1 of 2
I don't see the distinction. If I have leg surgery and end up an inch taller or shorter than before, I am actually an inch taller or shorter than before. If I have an eye transplant from somebody with blue eyes, I actually have blue eyes after the transplant. Or are you prepared to define height and eye color genetically too, ignoring the actual distance from feet to head or the actual color of the eyes in your head?
How true is this, really? Yes, an average man is taller and stronger than an average woman, but the tallest 25% of women are taller than the shortest 25% of men, and the strongest 25% of women are stronger than the weakest 25% of men (at a guess). And even that difference is probably as much nurture as nature.
The same goes for "world view", "life choices", etc. There's so much variation within each sex, and so much confounding effect from cultural expectations, that knowing only someone's chromosomal sex doesn't tell you much about their world view or life choices.
That's true in our current society, but does it need to be? Would society be happier and freer if it weren't a big deal? What if people were evaluated based on their individual strengths and weaknesses, rather than the strengths and weaknesses assumed based on their sex?
Yes, they know what equipment they have below the waist, and how to excrete using that equipment without making a mess. Eventually, they'll probably learn how to use that equipment to have sex. But do those anatomical lessons have any essential connection with the rest of the traits we associate with "boy" vs. "girl"?
Re: Part 1 of 2
Then I can't think of what else I can say to you. The fact that you choose to compare so-called "sex change surgery" with either superficial changes like contacts/heel lifts or even some kind of surgery to make someone taller, (I haven't see eye color surgery), shows me you don't seem to understand basic biological facts.
Every cell in the body is either male or female. That't be altered. So any changes one does to the outward body does not change the reality of what they are - no matter how much they "feel" or wish this or that, no matter how much they demand others agree with it, no matter how many laws they push to alter society to fit their feeings/wishes.
One cannot become the opposite sex of what biology has determined they are, any more than someone can become a wolf or parrot or tree or any other thing.
That's just... reality.
Re: Reality
I pointed out that people CAN change their eye color or how tall they are, either temporarily or permanently, so equating those things doesn't strengthen your argument.
You replied that these were only "superficial", not "actual" changes.
I replied that a "superficial" change to height or eye color IS an actual change to height or eye color -- it's not genetically heritable, but anyone who looks at you will say you're such-and-such height or such-and-such eye color, which is what matters 99% of the time.
You have a choice:
* define a trait purely in terms of genetics, in which case you get to draw the conclusion that it can't be changed with current medical technology, OR
* define it in terms of appearance and behavior, in which case you get to use it as a basis for legally distinguishing men and women. (I claiim that height and eye color are in the latter category.)
You don't get to do both at once unless you can also prove that the genetics determine the appearance and behavior, and can't be overridden by surgery, hormones, etc.
(As I understand it, people studying this issue use the word "sex" for the chromosomal definition, and "gender" for the appearance-and-behavior definition.)
If chromosomal men taking female hormones consistently lose this trait and gain that trait, it tells me those traits weren't determined directly by the chromosomes but by the hormones -- which implies that a chromosomal man who, for whatever reason, wants to change from this trait to that can do it by taking female hormones. No, this doesn't change the chromosomes, and it's not heritable, but it changes what the world sees (and what s/he sees in the mirror), which is what matters 99% of the time.
What's the essential difference among the following:
* taking opposite-sex hormones to change your appearance and behavior;
* taking same-sex hormones to change your appearance and behavior;
* taking vitamin and protein supplements to change your appearance and behavior;
* going on a diet or an exercise regimen to change your appearance and behavior;
* taking nap to change your appearance and behavior?
Re: Reality
No, it's not. It's a superficial change. You can sew on rabbit ears to a human head. (At least, hypothetically.) They would be permanently attached to the person's head. But that would not make the human into a rabbit.
As I said, you cannot change your DNA. It is either male or female.
(Sorry, time is limited. That's as far as I can go.)
Re: Reality
No argument, at least with today's medical technology. The argument is over to what extent your DNA determines the rest of your life. Does having XY chromosomes necessarily mean you have to have all these other characteristics associated with "maleness"?
Re: Reality
First of all, I've never heard of this done. Second, it doesn't matter because it's not an equal comparison.
Every cell in the body is either male or female. Period.
People CANNOT change from male to female or female to male. PERIOD.
That's biology. That's reality.
Re: Reality
Well, no. You've argued that someone's chromosomes determine their sex. But that just means any technology that comes along that changes chromosomes will "really" (i.e. as you have defined it) change someone's sex.
Genetic surgery is a technology on the edge of becoming real. It's the use of engineered viruses to edit the genes – yes, all the genes in all the cells – of a living organism.
So let us say, for the sake of argument, that in twenty years it is possible to change an XX person to XY.
Where does that leave your argument?
Somehow I think you won't be fine with transgender people, just so long as they all get genetic surgery. You don't actually care, do you, whether sex is defined genetically, just so long as (you think) it invalidates someone's claim to be some sex you don't want them to be.
Your actual agenda is that you don't want people to "change" sex. It's far more important to you, isn't it, that once you (think you) know someone's sex, that you're never told you're wrong about it. You very badly want people's sexes to be permanent, and that's why you like the idea of genetically determined sex: because you like to think of genes as unchangeable.
When you say "CANNOT", what you really mean is "SHOULDN'T". Because you don't like it.
Re: Reality
LOL! Judgmental, much? Who in the blazes do you think you are, claiming you know what my "agenda is?
You hear me and you hear me well. Sex/gender is determined by your DNA. That can't be changed. People who think they are or wish to be the opposite sex are deeply mentally ill. People like you who promote this mental illness are doing them a disservice in the name of "love".
You will not push it on me. You will not continue to push this delusion on society. You will not destroy children with it. Do you hear me? Good.
Re: Reality
From the tautology that one's genetic sex is determined by one's genetics, you've drawn the conclusion that one's gender in society is also determined by one's genetics, because you equate "sex" with "gender", and other people in this discussion don't. Do you have evidence that genetic sex and social/performative gender are, fundamentally and essentially, the same thing?
People who think they are or wish to be the opposite sex are deeply mentally ill.
There are people in this discussion far more qualified than I to discuss the definitions of "mentally ill," but I'm guessing you mean it in the sense of "not aware of or accepting of the real world." (With which brush one could paint almost anyone with whom one disagrees, but never mind that.) Anyway, it presupposes the other axioms that I mentioned. If those axioms don't turn out to be true, and you continue to refuse to accept that fact, then the "mental illness" is in you, not the trans.
Of course, disagreements don't necessarily mean one person or another is "mentally ill." If I like spinach and you don't, we can both go along with our lives, and even be friends. Even if you think the sky is blue and I think it's purple, it's probably a harmless delusion on the part of one of us, and we can both go along with our lives and even be friends. If someone has XY chromosomes but "looks" female to all appearances and goes by the name Christine, does that in any way harm you or anyone else?
You will not push it on me. You will not continue to push this delusion on society. You will not destroy children with it.
OK, that clarifies what we're really talking about. The existence of trans people is an affront to you, and therefore to society, children, and cuddly puppies. You are Standing Up for Decency and What's Right, Defending the Downtrodden and Oppressed, and all that noble stuff, like Don Quixote and the windmills. Problem is, like Don Quixote, you haven't shown that anybody is actually oppressed by the existence of trans people (other than you personally being squicked-out), so you have no imprisoned maiden to rescue. Your crusade serves no purpose except to make you feel like a crusader.
The other side in this debate also views itself as Standing Up for Decency and What's Right, Defending the Downtrodden and Oppressed, and all that noble stuff. The difference is that LGBT people really do routinely get fired from jobs, beaten up, and even killed for being LGBT, so there is someone to rescue.
Re: Reality
I haven't either, intentionally, but somebody who has surgery to correct a congenital leg-length difference is likely to end up either taller or shorter than (s)he started. Likewise, I haven't heard of intentional eye-color-change surgery, but if I needed an eye transplant and the best available donor happened to have blue eyes, I would end up with different-colored eyes than I started with. The point is that for all practical purposes except genetic heritability, the patient would now "really" have shorter legs or different eye color than before.
it doesn't matter because it's not an equal comparison.
Of course not; it's a reductio ad absurdum of your claim that a visible change that doesn't modify the genes isn't a "real" change. I'm trying to demonstrate that accepting that claim in its entirety leads to ridiculous conclusions, so something must be wrong with the claim.
Every cell in the body is either male or female. Period.
Agreed, with the rare exceptions we've already discussed.
People CANNOT change from male to female or female to male. PERIOD.
That follows logically if you also assume two additional axioms:
The first of these axioms is true with current medical technology, but could easily be false in twenty years (as
The second of these axioms is the main question at hand It may be so obvious to you as to not need stating, but it is not obvious to me or to some other people in this discussion. It's why I proposed that reductio ad absurdum: if you believe that your genetics determine your "real" gender, do you also believe that your genetics also determine your "real" height and eye color? The latter is obviously ridiculous, so the former should probably be questioned.
Do you have any evidence for this second axiom that might convince somebody who doesn't already believe it?
Part 2 of 2
Are you really going to use such an example? Whether tomatoes are fruits or vegetables, or whether people think they're one or the other, is not a big deal in the world.
But do you really think that whether a person is male or female is not a big deal? Not just to the person, but to society as a whole? It's the foundation for a human being's entire identity. Most people learn at least the basic idea of whether they are a boy or a girl by the time they are potty trained. Obviously, they don't know much at this stage. But at least they are learning the categories and which one they are. As a side issue, that's why mommies and daddies are important. That's how children learn what being male and female is all about.
The reason it matters which gender pigeonhole I say I'm in is that society associates lots of other things with that choice: if I tell you my gender, you can guess at my clothing, my aggressive and nurturing qualities, my occupation, etc., thus saving you the trouble of checking which of those attributes I really have.
Well, certain things are generally true about men and women in these categories. Clothing is a superficial thing and can change depending on culture. (And even then, there are expectations for what is male or female clothing.) But men are generally bigger, stronger, more aggressive than women. Women are generally better at multitasking than men. Men are generally more driven in their work pursuits than women. Women are generally more emotional than men. Why should any of these differences be seen as a bad thing? Men and women each have different strengths and weaknesses. They are meant to balance each other out.
There are some generalizations. Not every single person fits every single category. But that's a far cry from saying that men and woman are exactly the same and interchangeable, except that they have these superficial body differences. It's just not so. Men and women are deeply, markedly different, and not just in their physical bodies.
Ask yourself why people who have lost a parent in their childhood or never knew one of their parents for whatever reason have such a deep longing to know that parent that is missing from their lives. They could have had a wonderful mother or father and other family members who did everything in their power to love that child and give them a good home. But that child as he or she grows up will still desperately long for that mother or father they lost or never knew.
Men and women are just... different from one another. And in very deep, significant ways that perhaps we can't even quite put into words.