![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
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.
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?