Difference between Gender and Sex
"the state of being male or female." according to Websters Dictionary, this is "Gender".
"either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and many other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions." According to Websters Dictionary, this is "Sex"
Whats the difference? And what do you think of this issue in the American society vs other countries?
P.S.
I prompt this question because I have an acquaintance that loves to shove that fact that "gender doesn't exist, and neither does men or woman" she is gay and a proclaimed feminist. It has always annoyed me that she loves to shove this in peoples faces, and so I just wanted to know if her proclamations are based on fact? Or just a deranged individual looking for attention.
"either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and many other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions." According to Websters Dictionary, this is "Sex"
Whats the difference? And what do you think of this issue in the American society vs other countries?
P.S.
I prompt this question because I have an acquaintance that loves to shove that fact that "gender doesn't exist, and neither does men or woman" she is gay and a proclaimed feminist. It has always annoyed me that she loves to shove this in peoples faces, and so I just wanted to know if her proclamations are based on fact? Or just a deranged individual looking for attention.
Comments (143)
Then there is the psychological identity or sexual identification one has.
Gender could be taken to be a psychological state whereas sex could be taken to be the physical features but I don't think these terms are understood or used exclusively in that sense. The whole issue has become somewhat complicated of late.
The following are the 58 gender options identified by ABC News:
Agender
Androgyne
Androgynous
Bigender
Cis
Cisgender
Cis Female
Cis Male
Cis Man
Cis Woman
Cisgender Female
Cisgender Male
Cisgender Man
Cisgender Woman
Female to Male
FTM
Gender Fluid
Gender Nonconforming
Gender Questioning
Gender Variant
Genderqueer
Intersex
Male to Female
MTF
Neither
Neutrois
Non-binary
Other
Pangender
Trans
Trans*
Trans Female
Trans* Female
Trans Male
Trans* Male
Trans Man
Trans* Man
Trans Person
Trans* Person
Trans Woman
Trans* Woman
Transfeminine
Transgender
Transgender Female
Transgender Male
Transgender Man
Transgender Person
Transgender Woman
Transmasculine
Transsexual
Transsexual Female
Transsexual Male
Transsexual Man
Transsexual Person
Transsexual Woman
Two-Spirit
Loosely, sex refers to the person's biological sex organs and gender refers to how the person sexually identifies themselves.
Gender isn't a psychological "state.' it's an identity of each person they have 24/7 unless it changes. That's like saying being Gay or Straight are psychological states. They're not.
But let's say, "I'm straight" that's not something that's gonna change, I'm either straight or I'm not. So I don't understand why it would change. Is it based on the weather? "it's sunny today, so I like men", "it's rainy today, I like pots" I feel as though people, like my acquaintance in the OP, who openly state that gender is fluid, is like saying that weather doesn't have its purposes. I believe Weather, much like our gender, are set so that you know what to call rain, or wind, or storm, just as you call male or female or "both".
Quoting prothero
Thank you for that, made me chuckle
Of course it can change. Many Gay people thought they were Straight for a long time and even married and had children before they realized they were Gay and became actively Gay.
It's not so much that I disagree, it's just more of I don't fully understand
Quoting John Harris
I just meant for me personally
Then you must think your being Straight or Gay is a psychological state, since that could change over time, too. So, you are misusing the term "psychological state."
But we weren't just talking about you personally, so you were wrong to correct me.
I was making an example of myself, I wasn't making a metaphorical person up, I was literally saying that I'm straight, and that is not going to change
Don't lie. Above you are clearly criticizing my claim that if gender is a psychological state, being Gay and Straight are, too....and not just you. Because I certainly wasn't just talking about you.
I am afraid you need to expound or elaborate on that. People often change their mind (psychological state) over time, especially younger people, about their gender identification, many do not.
And stop with the ad hominem attacks; they're very childish.
Gender is a social construct of gender (sex) identity. Gender identity means identifying as a [gender]. Now we have to define gender to understand that and we notice we are in a loop of circular reasoning. This is because in the past identifying as a male for example could be defined through sex.
Now we have made a distinction between the concepts of sex and gender, which leaves gender with no definition.
All non-cis-gender people have that in common that they define themselves through masculine and feminine gender roles, but all cis-gender people don't.
What we can conclude from this is that we can't define the experience of identifying as some gender, unless we deny the person's right to identify as male/female while breaking the gender roles.
This is because when we realized that gender roles are artificial we should have admitted we should get rid of them, not classify people based on them.
With caution and trepidation (heated reactions out there) may I mildly suggest that 58 gender options is bullshit.
This multiplication of categories represents nothing but self-absorbed snow-flakery. "I am so very unique and singularly unusual--and I speak for the community of [blank] like me..." It's a very recent phenomena and I don't think there is any rational reason to accept it at face value. I doubt very much whether 99.9% of the people claiming to be transsexual women, as opposed to transsexual females, as opposed to a trans women as opposed to trans females... blah blah blah, can coherently explain the difference. Then there are terms like Neither, Neutrois, pangender, and so on.
I rest my objections on the understanding that physically we are not unlike the rest of the animal kingdom. We are either male or female, or there is something abnormal. We can not transcend biology very far. An xy male can pretend to be an xx female; he/she can take hormones, have surgery to add or subtract parts, change his/her gait, his/her habits, his/her hair, his/her weight, and so on, but he has not become a female. He is a man acting as if he were a woman.
And, by the way, I don't object to his/her doing that. If it makes someone happy, great. But I don't have to believe their sex has actually changed.
What I am willing to accept is that there is a
straight, bisexual, and gay male and female sexual template.
There are people who have (quite possibly irrational but deeply held) beliefs that they exist outside the straight/bisexual/gay male and female template.
Within the template, there are many ways that people can find sexual fulfillment. It isn't any sort of a straitjacket.
Aside from sexual specific behavior, men and women can take on each other's socially defined roles and perform them satisfactorily: men can fix cars, feed babies with a bottle, be a soldier and kill people, be a nurse and take care of people, (and so on and so forth) and so can women. They may not like doing the opposite gender's job, and they don't have to like it.
There are a small number of people who have chromosomal abnormalities whose bodies have not developed normally. The fact of abnormality should not be taken as a mark of inferiority. People who are born deaf, for example, are abnormal -- they aren't inferior.
I disagree about sexual orientation. Asexuality and pansexuality at least exist. Whether attraction towards trans people is a sexual orientation or a fetish is arguable.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that John Harris thinks of psychological states as things like being happy or sad or excited, whereas prothero thinks of psychological states as including things like being an introvert or a fan of football.
Well it isn't a physiological state, so I suppose it must be a psychological state.
But there seems to be a conflation in the thread of sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender. Which is par for the course, particularly when an all male discussion is happening. And that is because the male identity is so closely bound up with a strong concern about what one does and wishes to do with one's sexual organs. So much so, that it is still somewhat controversial to claim that gay men are real men. And the controversy illuminates the difference between sex and gender, which is roughly that one is physiological condition, and the other is a role, associated with that condition.
Of course it's a physiological state; it's deeply tied to one's body and physical brain.
I never limited it to this once.
No, there is no controversy. Gay men are real men; only deluded and/or hateful homophobes think otherwise.
You're wrong. Prothero also erroneously thinks of physiological states, such as gender, as psychological states.
Once you add body to brain, every state is physiological, and the distinction between physiological and psychological collapses. Which makes both your question and your answer meaningless.
No, your answer was meaningless and nonsensical, since you can't establish being Gay or Straight doesnt' come from one's body, so either has to be physiological. My adding the brain, part of the body, to that doesnt' change that, even in the traditionally physiological sense.
If you're saying that they're physiological, not psychological, then you're also drawing a distinction between physiology and psychology.
Or if you want to say that psychology is a subset of physiology then if something is psychological then it's also physiological.
No, I know what I mean quite well; what I want to find out is what you mean when you say being Gay or straight is not psychological. You claim to disagree with the distinction I made and which side of it the phenomena fall, and that is rather confusing.
Well, you did claim that unenlightened "erroneously claim[ed] Gay and Straight are psychological, not me.". So you seem to be saying that you disagree with this claim that it's psychological. I guess that means you have an uphill argument ahead of you.
I've read your posts:
Quoting John Harris
Quoting John Harris
Quoting John Harris
Quoting John Harris
Yes, they're not just psychological states. As I said, they're both psychological and physiological. That's one you read poorly.
Quoting John Harris
Again, not just psychological states. As I said, they're both. That's two you read poorly.
And that's the third you read poorly. You really don't get the difference between a psychological state and a psychological and physiological state, do you?
You didn't say that it isn't just a psychological state. You said it isn't a psychological state. My reading was accurate. If anything, your writing was poor, as you missed out an essential word.
As above.
As above.
If something is both psychological and physiological then it's psychological. Just as if someone is both British and a man then he is British.
But I'm curious; what sort of thing is psychological but not physiological?
Oh my. When someone says something is a psychological state, they are saying it's just that. And that's what I said it wasn't. So, again you read all my posts poorly.
And it's clear you're just trolling me now because I (rightly) left our last discussion, and that's not a good thing for a moderator to do. So, again, you and I are done. Try to read my posts better next time.
Try to write your posts better next time. Or stop with the back-tracking and just admit to making a mistake. One of the two.
Quoting John Harris
If someone erroneously claims that triangles aren't shapes, and wants to say that something is a triangle but not a shape, then it wouldn't make sense to respond with "it isn't a triangle, it's a shape". The correct response is "triangles are shapes".
So if someone erroneously claims that the psychological isn't physiological, and wants to say that something is psychological but not physiological, then it wouldn't make sense to respond with "it isn't psychological, it's physiological". The correct response is "the psychological is physiological".
I would say that preferences are generally psychological rather than physiological, which is to say that they are states of mind. Sexual orientation is rather similar to preferences for chocolate - which you did not respond to earlier. For example, some lovers of milk-chocolate would never touch plain, whereas others will 'make do' with plain if milk is unavailable. Similarly, some heterosexuals will make do with homosexual relationships in sexually segregated prison, whereas others will not. In both cases, a change of circumstances changes orientation, where a change of physiology is unlikely to be happening. But this is on the understanding that changes of brain state at a certain level of subtlety below gross trauma are called 'psychological'.
But it is you who cannot (or will not) say what your question or your answer mean.
And that's your biased opinion with no backup for that. Firstly, that means you, if you are Straight, could turn gay at any time if someone was able to plant that thought in your mind, and nobody changes their sexuality that way. Secondly, your use of chocolate undercuts your argument since all of our sense preferences are partially physiological since our bodies particular taste buds, noses, eyes et al shape our preferences. So, you've just argued that our sexual preferences are psychological and physiological.
Sorry, these prisoners don't become Gay, they just take the best sexual option they can get, just like masturbating doesn't turn one--at least most--into manosexuals. And you have no idea if a physiological change happens when people do change sexualities. It's as if you have no idea that changes in the physical brain and body can affect things without people picking up the connection
And it is proper to include physical changes or effect-causing elements in the brain as part of physiology, since that is different than discussing psychological thought. I'm surprised you didn't know that.
This isn't true at all. Where exactly did you learn this?
No, I've said many times since I've made it clear that sexuality is both psychological and physiological.
These are abnormalities, not the norm. The same can be said about being gay or trans. We can always find exceptions to the norm in pretty much everything, but this doesn't take away from the fact that there are norms and that we owe our specie's continued existence to the norm. These conditions don't mean that they should be categorized as a separate sex or gender. They are simply mutations that crop up as a result of faulty gene copying and one's upbringing. We don't categorize other people as normal based on them missing toes or fingers, being born conjoined, or any other abnormality that one can be born with, and we even attempt to fix people born with abnormalities. What makes one's sex/gender abnormality different?
First off, sexual preferences (gay, straight, homosexual, lesbian) are neither a gender identification nor a physical sexual feature of the body. These individuals identify gender wise (usually) with their bodily physical sexual characteristic, there is just a sexual behavioral preference.
I do not wish to imply sexual preferences or gender identity are entirely a matter of conscious choice but instead they have to do with deep seated subconscious emotional drives and preferences.
I used the term "psychological state" as a factor in both gender identity and sexual behavioral preference and that was attacked but I have yet to see a viable alternative.
Without getting into a mind body discussion about sexual preferences and gender identity being entirely determined by neural circuits, hormones and neuro transmitters (as opposed to visible physical sexual characteristics) I still use "psychological" until someone offers a better terminology.
Actually, we owe our species' survival (and current existence) to random mutations. That's how evolution via natural selection works.
The problem is with the ambiguous terms "normal" and "abnormal". The definition of "abnormal" here is "deviating from what is normal or usual, typically in a way that is undesirable or worrying".
So it's important not to equivocate and argue that if something isn't normal in the sense of not being common then it's abnormal in the sense of being undesirable or worrying. Unfortunately it's a fallacy that many commit, trying to argue that because most people are cisgender and heterosexual then it is wrong to be anything else.
First of all, this is wrong, and you need to attach to a link, because it looks like you're making this up. Sexuality is not just a gender identification and, while not a "feature", it is definitely tied to the body and its genetics.
Again, you're making this up. Where do you get this stuff? You exclude the body again, which goes against current scientific and medical consensus.
No, it wasn't attacked; it was shown to be wrong, and the medical and scientific community considers it to be wrong. And I offered a correct alternative: sexuality is always tied to the body, so it is not just a psychological state, but always both a physiological and psychological aspect of the self.
I just did.
But what you haven't said at all, despite many polite requests, is what you mean by 'psychological'.
Quoting John Harris
I learned it while at university studying psychology. Where did you learn the opposite?
Sure I have, in my bold quote below Now it's your turn to do so.:
No, I don't think so. But feel free to provide a link to back it up. I learned at university studying biology, and there are many levels below gross trauma that are physiological and not labeled just psychological
If the question is: does it originate in the psyche, genetics, or environment... I don't think anybody knows. Maybe it's part of everybody's potential and it's just latent in straights.
An appropriate scientific or medical reference would be welcome.
Since when does psychology not include the brain and mind?
The real issue here is whether such behaviors and gender roles are a matter of choice or not. I am perfectly happy to concede I do not regard them as free choices one makes voluntarily or that can be changed through therapy or counseling.
I do not mean to advocate for this many gender options (and there seems to be some conflation of gender identity and sexual preference or behavior in the list). I just posted it to show where social media and political correctness have brought us. I think probably a much smaller number of categories would suffice for gender identity. I am not sure 59 categories would suffice for sexual behaviors especially if one started specifying various fetishes, BDSM and such. I think both gender identity and sexual preferences are not free conscious choices but rather have much deeper subconscious correlates (physiologic) and motivations/emotions (psychologic) if one wishes to pretend they are separate categories.
wiki
It's a long article, and worth a look, but just from this almost definitional fragment, one can see the beginnings of an oppositional morality, such that because men are dominant, women ought to be submissive. Thus the male virtues are vices in females, and vice versa. This can only be a broad generalisation, and societies are not homogeneous. Still for a woman to be called manly or a man to be called effeminate tend to be seen as insults.
Here'a another fragment:
[quote=wiki]In another study of gender stereotypes it was found that parents' stereotypes interact with the sex of their child to directly influence the parents' beliefs about the child's abilities. In turn, parents' beliefs about their child directly influence their child's self-perceptions, and both the parents' stereotypes and the child's self-perceptions influence the child's performance.[111]
Stereotype threat is being at risk of confirming, as self-characteristic, a negative stereotype about one's group.[112] In the case of gender it is the implicit belief in gender stereotype that women perform worse than men in mathematics, which is proposed to lead to lower performance by women.[113]
A recent review article of stereotype threat research related to the relationship between gender and mathematical abilities concluded 'that although stereotype threat may affect some women, the existing state of knowledge does not support the current level of enthusiasm for this [as a] mechanism underlying the gender gap in mathematics'.[114]
In another study, Deaux and her colleagues found that most people think women are more nurturant, but less self-assertive than men. and that this belief is indicated universally, but that this awareness is related to women's role. To put it another way, women do not have an inherently nurturant personality, rather that a nurturing personality is acquired by whoever happens to be doing the housework.[/quote]
It would be interesting to see how this nurturing persona plays out in shepherds and the like, as well as straightforward domesticity.
The generic term for masculine virtue is 'virility'. "Virility (from the Latin virilitas, manhood or virility, derived from Latin vir, man) refers to any of a wide range of masculine characteristics viewed positively. Virile means "marked by strength or force". (wiki again)
The feminine equivalent is 'fertility' which virtue she shares with a good piece of real-estate.
@Bitter Crank Can you say something from your experience about the roles of 'butch and 'fem', which I understand are sort of mirror gender roles in the homosexual community? Or am I hopelessly out of date?
The real issue here is you are excluding the rest of the body as factors in gender, and that is wrong.
No, gender is also a question of being, body, and self-awareness.
Again, you forget the rest of the body, which are factors in one's gender.
1) OK no problem
2) Let's get rid of the templates
3) Let's make a whole lot more templates
I think 3 is the least feasible.
Some homosexual boys and men display stereotypical masculine affect, style, and public behavior. They are "virile", they are macho, the are mechanics, soldiers, executives, etc. (or... butch). Some homosexual boys and men display less or much less stereotypical masculine affect, style, and public behavior. What they display ranges from toned-down masculine affect, style, and behavior to definitely feminine affect, style and public behavior (or... fem). Their occupational roles generally skew somewhat toward more stereotypical female jobs.
"Butch" and "fem" may or may not transfer very well to private sexual behavior. Sometimes the public presentation carries over to the private presentation, and sometimes it is reversed. (And there are all sorts of gradations).
Some guys who are divas at the bar turn out to be pile drivers in bed, and some guys who are toughs on the street turn out to be pussies in bed. (But not always: sometimes the diva and the tough don't switch to opposites.)
Many (most?) people accept the idea that sexual orientation is 'assigned' rather than 'chosen'. I suspect that the affect and style, maybe the public presentation of one's sexuality may also be more assigned rather than chosen. A lot of behaviors are like fetishes -- they seem to be present (in some form) from a very early age, and they seem to be more or less unyielding to change.
But... whatever affect, style, or public presentation men have, gay men and straight men have different sexual orientations, have consistently different object choices in sex partners (one same sex, the other opposite sex), and this pretty much stays the same for life.
Is that what you were looking for?
I didn't think you were advocating for the long list.
This is very well said.
I am a little confused about how you are using the word "gender" here, which parts of the body determine gender in your view? Are you separating "gender identity" from "secondary sexual characteristics"?
I am also a little confused about why you feel the need to separate "physiologic" from "psychologic" as one seems to always accompany the other?
I guess the question would be assigned by what? Not that anyone knows.
I gave you no reason to be confused. How do you define it?
That's an odd question to ask. If they're not separate in some way, why are they two different words instead of one?
No, we don't know--but there are some clues about what might be happening in pre-natal development. For instance, gay men tend to have older brothers. The effect of bearing several prior males may change something in the pre-natal environment. Perhaps there is a hormonal difference in the womb at some point that makes a difference. Genes? Antibodies? Right -- no body knows for sure.
There are, in fact, a lot of factors that apparently influence pregnancy outcomes that are not understood, or not well understood.
Only by ignorant people. The AMA and association of psychiatrists all recognize gender as also being physiological (tied to the body). And thanks for showing you know the difference between psychological and physiological.
You're just ranting now. I never said the brain wasn't involved or that mental states weren't tied to brain states. And since you're just lying about what I said now, I wont' be reading any more of your posts on this thread.
Yes, that's interesting. As if the private and public personas may be the same or opposed. I suppose I was wondering to what extent it is a self-conscious performance of heterosexual norms, and to what extent it is 'involuntary' in he way that straights come to feel that they absolutely 'are' the roles they have been assigned. My very limited experience of the public persona is that it tends to be somewhat of an impoverished exaggerated cartoon of 'real' gender roles, but that may bey own confusion and failure to see a really different spectrum that does not entirely relate to straight gender roles in the first place? Or is it that the whole performance aspect is a hangover from the days when everything had to be hidden, and covertly signalled.
And then I'm trying to relate this in my own mind to Eldridge Cleaver's discussion of the intersection of race and gender in Soul on Ice, about the hyper-masculine black man and the ultra-feminine white woman. But that is probably too complicated and controversial for this thread.
I want to go back to the opening post for a moment.
"The state of being male or female". One might presume they are talking about sexual or reproductive organs not gender identity?
"divided on the basis of their reproductive functions" again seems a reference to sexual or reproductive organs not gender identity?
APA: What is the psychological meaning of the term "transgender"? How is it different from — and related to — the term "sexual orientation"?
Bockting: "Transgender" refers to having a gender identity that differs from one’s sex assigned at birth. "Gender identity" refers to the basic conviction of being a man, woman or other gender (e.g., bigender, genderqueer, gender questioning, gender nonconforming). "Sexual orientation" refers to one’s sexual attraction, sexual behavior and emotional attachments to men, women or both
Bockting: Some transgender people do transition and others do not. Transition is not for everyone. Transition refers to a change in gender role.
The DSM-5 [the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, published by the American Psychiatric Association] no longer lists “gender identity disorder” as a diagnosis but instead refers to “gender dysphoria.” Why and how did this come about, and what is the difference between the two terms?
Bockting: "Gender dysphoria" is a term that reflects more accurately than gender identity disorder when an individual is distressed about a conflict between their sex assigned at birth and their gender identity/role.
END
"sex assigned at birth" with no mention of sexual or reproductive organs? This is inclusive of chromosomal abnormalities and ambiguous or duplicate genitalia and other reproductive organs.
I think this is where a lot of the confusion arises. What exactly does a transgender man mean when he says that he's a man despite not having a penis? I know that @Harry Hindu has claimed that such people have a mental disorder, thinking that they're something they're not. But I think such a claim falsely assumes that the transgender man believes that he has a penis. For the most part, that's false. He recognises that he doesn't have a penis, hence identifying as a transgender man rather than a cisgender man. It must then mean that the transgender man doesn't believe that being a man means having a penis, which makes the accusation of having a mental disorder mistaken. At best you could claim that the transgender man is either misappropriating or misunderstanding the term "man", which really does just mean "a person with a penis", in which case the dispute is a trivial one over proper language use.
Quoting unenlightened
And I think this shows that it is too simplistic to claim that being a man just means having a penis, given that accusing people with penises of not being (real) men is something we've all probably heard (along with accusing such people of being women). Clearly we have this notion of manhood and womanhood that isn't reducible to one's sex organs.
He means exactly that: he's a man...regardless of having a penis or ever having one. Many men have been castrated or even had their penises removed through injury, illness, or punishment. That didn't change them into women.
This is ugly transphobia, goes against modern medical views of transsexuality, and doesn't deserve re-mentioning.
Not necessarily, since some transgender men actually go through the trans-op process and do feel that is necessary for their manhood. Other transgender men do not.
As I've shown this isn't the case at all, and treating transsexuality as a mistake in perception is also transphobic as it treats their sexual selves, sexual identities, and sexualities as just a mistake. They are not misunderstanding or misappropriating anything.
The major reason I am participating in the thread is to try to improve my use of language in this area.
The difference between Gender and Gender Identity seems to parallel Sex and Sexual Identity in terms of common usage. The loose use of the term gender or gender identity being "determined by the body" is also confusing.
That doesn't explain what he means when he says that he's a man. That just repeats that he says that. The relevant question is "what does it mean to be a man?".
I was just being simplistic.
Quoting John Harris
My example was of the latter man.
Quoting John Harris
I'm not saying that transsexuality is a mistake in perception. I'm saying that the best argument someone like Harry Hindu can make against transgenderism is, for example, that the correct definition of "man" is "has a penis" (again, just being simplistic) and so anyone who doesn't have a penis and who claims to be a man is either misappropriating the term "man" or misunderstands its true meaning.
But as with my reply to unenlightened above, I don't subscribe to the notion that the terms "man" and "woman" are simply references to sexual organs.
No, it doesn't, you asked this specific question and I answered it:
Your question wasn't "what does it mean to be a man" so youre just shifting the goalposts. One doesn't have to have a clear idea of what it means to be a man to confidently make the claim "I am a man." Sometimes they just know they are one and that's all they need.
No, he can't since that is an incorrect claim and is a terrible argument. The fact you're trying to help a transphobe best phrase his transphobia isn't encouraging in a moderator.
Quoting John Harris
Asking what someone means when they claim to be a man is asking what it means (to them) to be a man. Coupled with your posts from before, I think you have a literacy problem.
I didn't claim it to be correct.
No I'm not. I'm pointing out that his accusation of a mental disorder is mistaken and that the only case you can make against a transgender person (rightly or wrongly) is that they're misusing gender terms. As I've said, I think that this argument would be wrong because gender terms aren't reducible to sex organs, but I can see why someone might think that they are. Certainly as a child I thought that the terms "male" and "female" just referred to physical features, especially sex organs.
No, it isn't. It's asking them what it means to them personally to be a man, not what it means to be a man generally; many don't know or care about that. So, I know--from this post and your past ones--you have a literacy, and a maturity, problem.
Of course you are, and you just did it again by saying one could make a case transgered people are misusing gender terms, when that isn't a valid case at all. The fact you think it is reveals some latent--or maybe not latent--transphobia in you as well.
It's valid if the conclusion follows from the premises, which it does. Of course it isn't sound because one of the premises is false. Which is exactly what I've said.
A false non sequitur ad hominem.
No, the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises, since they aren't misusing gender terms and you haven't shown they have. But thanks for proving what I said about your (not-so-latent) transphobia.
Sorry, you can't start crying about ad hominems when you started the slinging of them, yourself. And it was neither false nor a non-sequitur, as your post above proves. And since I don't engage transphobes, I won't be reading any more of your posts, period
Ciao.
P1. "man" means "has a penis".
P2. So-and-so claims to be a man but knows that they don't have a penis.
C. So-and-so is misusing the term "man".
It's valid and the second premise is true. But it isn't sound because the first premise is false.
The fact that you think that the argument isn't valid because the conclusion isn't true shows that you need to (re)visit logic 101.
Quoting John Harris
Wasn't crying, was (correctly) accusing.
It's false because I'm not a transphobe. It's a non sequitur because me being a transphobe doesn't follow from me saying that the above argument is valid.
It would be nice to separate sexual physical characteristics: penis, vagina, etc form the physiology of the brain as well.
Maybe we can create a 59th gender option called: separatist... lol
We can change our sex really and therefore gender, physically by taking the right hormones, having the genitals and other physical features modified. What the transsexual desires can become literally the way they are, they are not limited to subjective desire..
You can replace cock and balls with a hooha? TIL, maybe.
Since 99.999% of gay men are born of and raised by heterosexual men and women, we can assume that those were the first roles they were exposed to during the period of personality formation as children. Heterosexual roles may not be all over the map, but they do vary some from person to person, place to place.
What a person (male, female, gay, straight) discovers that they have become when they are old enough to think about it in depth is pretty much fixed. It isn't that changes can not be made, but it is hard to redesign one's personality.
Yes, I guess so. A very good friend of mine told me recently that s/he has been taking hormones to become a women and is now going on a 2 year program to do the full make over.
The interesting part is that s/he continues to be attracted to women, so s/he is transforming into a lesbian.
S/He says he has been depressed for years, but since taking the hormones s/he is no longer depressed.
Sexual reassignment surgery.
It's probably too complicated, and it's been a very long time since I read Soul On Ice.
The half-dozen transsexuals that i know who take hormones and gained some facial hair and a bit more leanness; or breasts and more roundedness; and got a new wardrobe and a new name seemed happier after they did this than before. And, as I said earlier, I have no objection to someone carrying out some or all of these these procedures if they are happier for doing it.
I just don't agree that they changed from men into women, or from women into men. Medical procedures aided and abetted their imagination, and made it possible for them to pretend more effectively. 42 year old Jack who is now 42 year old Jill share the same brain, the same pre-surgical history, the same genetic make up, the same body (even if Jack's penis is now part of Jill's vaginal pouch).
Manliness and womanliness are package deals (so to speak) that include being embodied in a certain kind of body, having certain chromosomal arrangements and genetic characteristics, having certain organs, having inclinations that fall within a general range, and so on.
That doctors assist patients in "changing their sex" doesn't make it a fact that they have changed sex. Doctors do a lot of things because patients want things done, have the money to pay for the procedures, and the procedures fit into the standardized professional rules.
People are quite willing to have scalpels carve their flesh--enlarging, reducing, enhancing, augmenting, tightening, loosening, lifting, lowering, removing, or adding to features. The person may be happier with an enhanced butt, bigger or less pendulous breasts, a more pendulous penis, less lard around the middle, and so on. Some of what people have done resembles reupholstering more than health care. People also take hormones on their own to get the kind of bodies they want from spending vast amounts of time in a gym and being very careful to stay thin.
I don't disagree, I too think that something of the original sexual physical orientation remains, it makes the new gender reality possible.
Grayson Perry is a very talented potter, a transvestite and a very insightful person. He won the 2003 Turnner Prize. He accepted it in drag, as his alter ego Claire. His wife (a psychiatrist) and his daughter were in attendance. S/he also met the Queen, there was no big deal, it was not discussed
Grayson says that now he is expected to show up in drag, which he indicates kinda takes the edge off being in drag. Obtaining his notoriety has robbed him of his mystery. People are part of the fantasy. how people want to be perceived. The mystery 'thing' interested me.
Anyway, I told my friend I would support him as long as s/he does not become a drama queen.
That is a very clear way of expressing things. There is a package called normal whereby if you have a penis then you have short hair, wear trousers, have a beard, like to fuck women are competitive, aggressive, unemotional, analytical read maps, go hunting, get drunk, watch football, avoid romantic comedies except when trying to pull, and so on and on, with variations according to culture and class.
Failure to conform is deviance, and deviance is punished.
Of course now we are all liberal, we don't mind all sorts of deviance, and if you want to watch romantic comedies - knock yourself out, and we'll all support you - as long as you don't become a drama queen or call my identity into question by trying to kiss me or something, or expect the state to support your deviant identity.
Quoting Cavacava
What he has been robbed of is the transgressive thrill; talented artists are admitted to the upper classes (almost) and therefore allowed to be 'eccentric'.
Way back in prehistory, when I was a lad, one of the complaints about us hippies growing our hair was that "you can't tell if they are men or women". And this was important to real men, because you might accidentally try and get off with another man and that would make you a deviant, and at that time, a criminal. It's still a notorious danger of the ladyboys; real men have to be careful in Thailand.
All of which is a long-winded way of pointing out that identities inter-relate, and your deviance is a threat to my normality. Of course we have reached the point where normality has absorbed liberality, and intolerance is the new deviance, which is a thrill for some philosophers ... being a homophobe is regarded with exactly the same intolerant horror and instant punishment that used to directed at homosexuals. And that is why the world is a much happier and more moral place than it used to be. ;)
What I have said is that they have a somatic delusion - which is a delusional belief that there is something wrong with your body - as in you are in the wrong one - similar to believing that you have an alien arm that isn't part of you, or doesn't seem to obey your mental commands. A trans simply has the delusional belief that they have the wrong body as a whole as being a man is more than just having a penis, it is also a lack of breasts, less ribs, hair growing on the face, etc.
For one, those with body dysmorphic disorder tend to either imagine or exaggerate a perceived flaw. This isn't the same as, say, being a brunette but hating the colour and preferring to be blond. Of those transgender men who are uncomfortable with their body, it isn't that they're imagining that they have a penis or don't have a vagina, but that they recognise that they have a vagina but don't want one, and so it is more comparable to hating the colour of your hair (albeit there's likely to be more anxiety than in the case of hair colour).
Secondly, not all transgender people are uncomfortable with their body. Plenty of transgender women have no desire to transition via surgery and hormones. They're more concerned with things like perceived gender roles, clothing, labelling, and other social aspects. Do you have an argument-from-evolution against those born with a penis preferring to wear high heels and dresses and being referred to using the pronouns "she" and "her", but who are happy with their sexual organs, or are these not the transgender people you're talking about?
I don't think that's exclusively concerned with body issues, though, which is what Harry was discussing.
It's also worth pointing out that the APA clarifies that "gender nonconformity is not in itself a mental disorder. The critical element of gender dysphoria is the presence of clinically significant distress associated with the condition", and there's evidence that the distress is caused (or at least enhanced) by social stigma, rather than some inherent biological problem.
So the problem isn't with transgender people but with the twats who treat them poorly.
It would seem to me that if a person is comfortable with his or her body, doesn't want to change it, doesn't want to take estrogen or testosterone, doesn't want plastic surgeries performed, etc. then they are not not gender dysphoric, don't have a gender identity disorder, are not transgender, but are instead social justice warriors and politically fussy people specializing in gender terminology.
I understand what you mean when you say "they haven't changed their sex or gender", but isn't that really only relevant if we're going after a scientific understanding of human biology?
There's a huge perceived controversy over what the definition of gender is, and it all stems from a very simple and misunderstood issue that gets conflated with many others: ought we refer to transgenders with the gender they present as?
One side is confused into thinking that in order to refer to a MTF transsexual as a woman (or to convince people to do so) we need to alter our scientific understanding and definition of what gender is. A typical reaction to this is to then point to things like chromosomes and bone density in order to preserve our current scientific understanding. (sometimes they go further and say things like "suicide rates stay the same among pre and post-operation trannys, therefore they should not transition" or "would you indulge the delusions of someone who thought they were Napoleon Bonaparte or who wanted to cut their arm off?").
The way forward between sides is for the reactionaries (aside from the realizing that they're not doctors licensed to issue medical prognoses for gender dysphoria) to point out that they don't have an issue referring to people by the gender they present as (which would adequately assuage any/all bleeding heart liberal types). Jordan Peterson got famous not because he refused to use people's preferred pronouns, but because he refused to use people's made up pronouns (ze, xey, quay, etc...). The SJWs simply need to clarify their argument (it's about ethics, not biology): we can formally and informally refer to transgenders by their preferred gender without actually impacting our scientific understanding of sex/gender.
The truth here seems simple to me: people with gender dysphoria who transition aren't able to change their chromosomes, genetics, and many of the gender specific features which genes predefine, but genes do not necessarily predefine what gender someone desires to be (which is what gender dysphoria involves). "Catering" to transgenders by referring to them as the gender they're presenting as is a politeness, a courtesy, and a laudable effort not to emotionally injure someone who already has enough emotional hurtles before them. (Although, of course, at all times we reserve the right to just insult people).
Like professor Peterson I do also draw the line at made up pronouns (if someone cannot be happy with "they" then they can fuck off)...
There is one additional point of confusion that I think should be acknowledged:
For some reason (and you might be well aware of this) it's politically correct to hold the position that "gay people are born gay", and it seems to stem from some twisted and backward attempt to not hold gays inherently accountable for being gay (i.e: if it's genetic then we cannot balme them). While it's true that people can be born on a spectrum of hormonal predispositions, it is still necessary to be exposed to and learn about the objects of our sexual desire. Essentially what we become attracted to is learned rather than genetically programmed, but there is this myth out there that basically would suggest there is "gay gene". When it comes to gender dysphoria, a popular meme states "I am a male/female who was born in the wrong body" and similarly this could lead to the incorrect assumption that gender dysphoria is genetic and therefore it is the chromosomes themselves which are "disordered" rather than the rest of the genome. Our misguided fear that our environment might impact our sexual development in these ways has us shoving our head in the sand in this respect...
No. What I was referring to specifically was a somatic delusion as that was the words I used and is plain to see to anyone paying attention.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusional_disorder
Quoting MichaelWhat does it mean for them to recognize that they have the wrong genitalia? Do they mean that they were born in the wrong body, or that their mental state doesn't match their physical state? Which is it that is actually wrong - their mental state or their physical state?
Yes, and somatic delusions can be further distinguished:
I didn't say anything about them having the wrong genitalia. I said that they don't like what they have and would prefer something else, similar in kind (if not in degree) to not liking the colour of their hair, or the shape of their nose, or whatever.
And even though who do talk about having the wrong genitalia, it's not like they're claiming that they have some genetic abnormality, or that time has been re-written and what should have happened has been changed, or whatever nonsense you might think. It's just another way of expressing their discomfort with and dislike of what they have.
It's not the same to compare not liking your hair color to not liking your genitalia and wanting to remove it. It's more comparable to not liking the arm attached to your shoulder and want to cut it off. Unfortunately, society has made it okay to cut off genitalia because you don't like it, but good luck in finding a doctor to cut off your arm that you aren't comfortable with.
That comparison might be apt if one was talking just about removing one's genitals, and not of changing one's genitals. In the latter case it's more comparable to rhinoplasty.
But even if I were to accept the comparison, you have to look at why it is a problem to have one's arm removed, and whether or not this reason holds in the case of changing one's genitals. If it doesn't then it's a false analogy. I would say that removing one's arm is a problem if it would reduce the quality of your life (and, conversely, would be a good thing if it saves your life, as in the case of necessary amputations). Does this reasoning hold in the case of changing one's genitals? I don't think so. In fact, the reverse is true; those who successfully undergo the desired surgery have a better quality of life, given the improvements to their mental health.
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5)
Rant follows.
Ought we take the DSM-5 as gospel truth?
Since 1952, DSM-1 has been revised several times (a committee is probably working on DSM-6). Each time it gets bigger. Occasionally a malady is dropped, but mostly maladies are added and elaborated upon. Question: Is the DSM a work of science entirely, or is there an element of fiction in the book, fanciful embroidery around a small hard nub (or nut) of craziness? Certainly, therapists need to get paid and the DSM provides handy codes for insurance companies. The more codes, the more opportunities to get paid. (Oh, surely a profession as rock solid as mental health wouldn't make things up for mere pecuniary reasons, would they? Maybe there is a code in the DSM for highly educated and self-interested persons who imagine disorders in their customers that aren't really there?)
Not very long ago, (1970) homosexuality was a listed disorder. The psychoanalytic thinking at the time was that homosexuality was caused by overly close mothers and overly distant fathers, or some such thing. The diagnosis had a warm, moist, Freudian feel to it. My first attempts to understand myself involved Kinsey, on the one hand, and some psychoanalytic texts on the other. The psychoanalytic take on my disorder was not very flattering.
Well, then in 1972 or 1973 the APA up and changed it's mind. (There were lobbyists; they didn't do this in their sleep.) A spate of books was on offer at bookstores, like "The Healthy Homosexual" by George Weinberg. He coined the term "homophobia" in 1965. So, queers are fine now. One joke about gay marriage is: "Of course gays should marry. They have a right to be as unhappy as everybody else."
Once upon a time, transsexuals were extremely rare. A 1950s Danish comedian/pianist, Victor Borge, said in one skit that "In Denmark we have three sexes: male, female, and convertible". This was in response to Christine Jorgensen, a soldier from the Bronx, becoming the first publicly known transsexual in the US in 1952.
Then Miss Jorgensen, now Ms. Jorgensen.
The varieties of transsexualism have multiplied among the dividers (the "each of us is different" crowd). I'm more in the combiner crowd ("we're all much more alike than different"). I'm sure that there will be more categories of gender dysphoria in the future, because the APA committee is stacked with dividers. They especially like unique identifiers.
It could change at some point in the future. Just as homosexuality has had its reputational ups and downs, gender dysphoria might also. Oh no! Help! It might be scaled back!
Look at depression: the numbers of people diagnosed with depression is absurd (or tragic, I can't decide which). My sense of the world is that a lot of people are very unhappy because of their life circumstances, and if they could change their circumstances, they'd be a lot happier.
Antidepressants (prescribed by the train load) help people drag themselves through their drab, wretched lives, but they tend not to make people happy. That's because most of these people don't have a mental health condition which can be treated. It's because they have drab wretched lives which could be made better, but that means change, and change is difficult. Really difficult, sometimes. So, doctor, please write another Rx so I don't kill myself or somebody else.
Temporary end of rant. Exit here.
"As the darkly cloaked druidic figures encircled the arcane obsidian altar, the tallest among them stepped forward and opened the DSM that lay atop it's jagged surface..."
It actually bothers me how commonly people will just appeal to "it's in the DSM!" right before they compare transgenders to war-amps and "otherkin".
It's a somatic delusion they say, "you wouldn't indulge someone who wanted to chop their arm off would you?".
Where are they getting this from? I've heard the same things repeated so many times I'm convinced they all share the same source...
Indeed transsexuals have been around, and indeed they were a good deal more rarefied in the past (at least it seems this way) than they are today. Most transsexuals throughout history probably would have kept their heads down and went completely under the radar though, so it's really hard to even say how common gender dysphoria is outside of our current social norms. The stakes were much higher in the past of course; the possibility of being lynched would have prevented many would be cross-dressers and transsexuals from even attempting it. But, in modern times, we seem to be lauding the phenomenon to such a degree that I think a few too many folks are wandering or being ushered through this newly widened social orifice.
When adults make decisions about their future, even if those decisions come with significant risks, we don't always have ethical grounds to intervene (especially if there is reason to believe that as a treatment transitioning can improve their quality of life) but how might our ethical considerations change when it comes to children who desire to transition? Since many (perhaps most) children cannot grasp the full extent of what it means to transition, how can they possibly consent? (personally, I'm of the position that prior to puberty children should be allowed to express themselves, but the seriousness of prescribing hormone blockers must require some sort of robust medical assessment to accompany it, and I'm not so sure that our clinicians are up to snuff yet). Here's a fascinating documentary about the subject (I really love Louis Theroux's documentaries). Hormone blockers at very early ages and eventual hormone doses at the age of puberty can drastically increase the efficacy of a person's transition, but the younger the decision is made for a child to transition, the greater the risk that, as Louis puts it, "they get it wrong".
I am going to watch it. Before I do, I'll express the opinion that young children should not be encouraged to pursue ideas whether they are actually boys or girls. And certainly not punished, either, for talking about it. Child guidance or child welfare workers should not, and parents should not do this either. As for adolescents taking steps to effect a transition from one gender identity to the other, no on that too, without overwhelming evidence that it will help. Rather than getting on the band wagon, parents and therapists would be better employed helping the child understand that maybe these feelings don't have to be acted upon (while they are in first grade, fCs.).
ICD is the International Classification of Diseases, the current version is 10.
Instead one gets paid for the CPT code (current procedural terminology), what one does.
A bill to an insurance company pairs a ICD10 code with a CPT code. Does not matter if you are counseling a schizophrenic, a depressive or a gender dysphoria, the payment for a given amount of time spent in psychotherapy is the same. So there is little advantage to the provider of having tons of diagnosis codes to choose from. The proliferation of diagnosis codes has more to do with research, treatment evaluation and tracking the incidence of a given diagnosis in the population. True some CPT and ICD10 pairings will be rejected as the treatment does not fit the disease.
Mental health providers do not create diagnoses to lure new patients into their offices.
Generally speaking they are plenty busy without resorting to such tactics. In general most mental health patients are voluntarily seeking counseling or treatment (except for court ordered or other emergency interventions). It is society's approach to sexual behavior that generates plenty of stress, anxiety and depression that keeps mental health providers busy. Granted historically the mental health community regarded homosexuality as a condition in need of treatment or correction but I would say the mental health community is way ahead of society in general at this point and is leading rather than retarding progress.
In all classifications systems there are splitters and lumpers but the ICD10 and the DSM5 represent a group effort, a hierarchical structure and an effort to aid research and epidemiology.
The most common ICD10 codes submitted to insurance for payment
ICD 10 Codes For Depression
DSM 5 Code ICD-10 Description
309.0 F43.21 Adjustment Disorder, With depressed mood
ICD 10 Codes For Anxiety
DSM 5 Code ICD-10 Description
300.02 F41.1 Generalized Anxiety Disorder
ICD 10 Codes For Adjustment Disorder
DSM 5 Code ICD-10 Description
309.28 F43.23 Adjustment Disorder, With mixed anxiety and depressed mood
ICD 10 Codes For Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)
DSM 5 Code ICD-10 Description
309.81 F43.10 Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
CPT Code Footnote(s) Description
90791 1 Psychiatric diagnostic evaluation
90792 1,3 Psychiatric diagnostic evaluation with medical services
90832 2 Psychotherapy, 30 minutes with patient and/or family member
90833 2,3 Psychotherapy, 30 minutes with patient and/or family member when performed with an evaluation and management service
90834 4 Psychotherapy, 45 minutes with patient and/or family member
90836 3,4 Psychotherapy, 45 minutes with patient and/or family member when performed with an evaluation and management service
90837 6 Psychotherapy, 60 minutes with patient and/or family member
90838 3,6 Psychotherapy, 60 minutes with patient and/or family member when performed with an evaluation and management service
90839 6 Psychotherapy for crisis; first 60 minutes
90840 2 each additional 30 minutes
90846 4 Family psychotherapy (without the patient present)
90847 4 Family psychotherapy (conjoint psychotherapy) (with patient present)
90849 4 Multiple-family group psychotherapy
90853 4 Group psychotherapy (other than of a multiple-family group)
ICD10 codes having to do with sexual behaviors
F64 Gender identity disorders
F64.0 Transsexualism
F64.1 Dual role transvestism
F64.2 Gender identity disorder of childhood
F64.8 Other gender identity disorders
F64.9 Gender identity disorder, unspecified
• Deviation (in)
sexual F65.9
fetishism, fetishistic F65.0
• Fetishism F65.0
sexual F65.9
bestiality F65.89
erotomania F52.8
exhibitionism F65.2
fetishism, fetishistic F65.0
transvestism F65.1
frotteurism F65.81
masochism F65.51
multiple F65.89
necrophilia F65.89
nymphomania F52.8
pederosis F65.4
pedophilia F65.4
sadism, sadomasochism F65.52
satyriasis F52.8
specified type NEC F65.89
transvestism F64.1
voyeurism F65.3
Psychological and behavioural disorders associated with sexual development and orientation
Note: Sexual orientation by itself is not to be regarded as a disorder.
F66.0 Sexual maturation disorder
The patient suffers from uncertainty about his or her gender identity or sexual orientation, which causes anxiety or depression. Most commonly this occurs in adolescents who are not certain whether they are homosexual, heterosexual or bisexual in orientation, or in individuals who, after a period of apparently stable sexual orientation (often within a longstanding relationship), find that their sexual orientation is changing.
F66.1 Egodystonic sexual orientation
The gender identity or sexual preference (heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or prepubertal) is not in doubt, but the individual wishes it were different because of associated psychological and behavioural disorders, and may seek treatment in order to change it.
F66.2 Sexual relationship disorder
The gender identity or sexual orientation (heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual) is responsible for difficulties in forming or maintaining a relationship with a sexual partner.
F66.8 Other psychosexual development disorders
F66.9 Psychosexual development disorder, unspecified
Fear that scientific understanding will be destroyed is founded in doing science backwards, as if we were describing or understand bodies by finding a sex category ( "male" and "female" ), which then allowed us to see the presence of various physical features like chromosomes or bone density.
Science doesn't work like this. In the observation or description of the body, we begin with the body, not some extra logical/identity order ("male", "female" ) which then determines when certain bodily features occur. The supposed disaster is absurd because in the unmooring of "male" and "female," it was never descriptions of the body at stake, only the identity and ethics of categorising bodies we do observe.
The "SJWs" already know the scientific (by this I mean accurate description of bodies) understanding isn't at stake or threatened. Their point is what most people consider the "scientific understanding" is not actually a scientific account of bodies, but rather categorisation and ethic for sorting bodies which might be observed (and one which denies, rejects and discriminates against trans identity).
People like Peterson aren't defending a scientific understanding of bodies. They are protecting an identity and ethic of essentially sorting bodies (which may or may not be described) in categories of "male" and "female," which then masquerades as "scientific understanding."
"SJWs" have been clarifying their argument is about ethics and identity for decades . People like Peterson just don't see it because they equate their essentialist ethic and identity with understanding of bodies.
It's simply not true. Just because someone is sorted into the "female" category, it doesn't prevent us from describing they have a penis, an absence of breasts, certain chromosomes or a particular bone density. We can even make such descriptions without using a gender of sex category at all.
Ah ha! So, I was wrong about that. ¥@#&!¢? Thank you for popping my error bubble. So, if it isn't used for payment, then what good is the DSM?
Now after.
Quite interesting, but qualms...
Little pre-school or kindergartener Camille (birth name Sebastian) is totally convinced she is a girl. She wears little girls clothing. Camille didn't drive to Target by herself and pick up her outfits. Someone aided and abetted the child's wardrobe selection. There was a lot of talk between interviewer and parent, therapists and parents, with Sebastian present. Was the child's self-narrative her own, or was she constructing her self-narrative from fragments of conversation with her parents?
No one asked her this, but I wonder what Sebastian's/Camille's parents wanted before they knew the sex of their child.
Sebastian's/Camille's future seems on track to be treated as soon as possible.
It's worth noting that puberty blockers, estrogen, and testosterone have some known side effects in adults (not all of them desirable) and there has been very little research into the effect of administering hormones to adolescents that affect bone density, brain development for the last 10 years of neural completion age 15 to 25), or health in general. These drugs haven't previously been prescribed to adolescents (say 10 years ago) so the prescribers don't know what effect they might have.
The therapists think that they can identify children as early as 18 to 24 months age who think they are "the wrong sex in the body". Do they need their heads examined?
Dr. Rosenthal is an endocrinologist (appropriately in many ways) but not a psychotherapist. His psychotherapeutic side-kick, (name?) was asked about risks of encouraging, or assisting these young people to make the transition. Her response: “the one risk we have is holding them back.” I'm not so sure about that.
Here is a PBS FRONTLINE take on young transsexuality.
Quoting Michael
...and this is why I asked earlier in the thread, "what do they mean when they say that they are uncomfortable with their genitalia?" You ignored the question which made me believe that you thought it was relevant. Now you seem to be saying it isn't.
Do they think that they are in the wrong body, or what? To say that you are uncomfortable with your genitalia as opposed to your arm indicates that you are uncomfortable with your gender/sex - which is a defining quality of who we are as a person and influences how we think (women and men have different amounts of various hormones as well as different sex organs). All humans have arms, but not every human has the same genitalia. Our genitalia is one of those things that distinguishes us from other humans and can drastically influence how we behave and think. So to say that one is uncomfortable with their genitalia is to say that they are uncomfortable with themselves as a whole and that they apparently wish to be someone else, not a different version of themselves, because if they were born with different genitalia, odds are that they would still have the same problem, because the problem isn't in their genitalia, it is in their brain.
Yes, the drug manufacturers are enjoying a golden age as doctors over diagnose depression, AD, etc. Anti-depressants are one way of dealing with life's problems, but so is creating delusions. People with delusions have them as a means of looking over life's bad parts. Delusions make the delusional feel better about life and allow them to continue on living. Religion is basically a mass delusion - one held by many as a means of dealing with the fear of death and the unfairness in the world. It is reinforced by the many who also hold the same delusion, and even popularized.
There are those that even have the issue of not getting enough attention. They didn't receive the necessary amount of attention as a developing child, or maybe received to much, and now, as adults, they crave it and will do virtually anything to get it. Some will even do unconventional or immoral things just to get attention. The attention transexuals receive is enticing to those with this problem. Some will do anything for attention. This may even explain the degrees of transexualism - where some actually go through and change their genitalia, while some simply cross-dress. Some are more gung-ho about their delusion, while some aren't willing to go all the way with their belief, as some are merely doing it for the attention it brings while some actually believe themselves to be the opposite sex than what they were born as.
This supports the idea that it is a delusion. The delusional get easily offended if you question the truth of their belief (both the religious and transsexuals share this trait) and if you act in a way that supports their delusion (such as agreeing with them and performing a sex change on them) then they believe that this supports their delusional belief. This is why the religious congregate together - to be with others that share the same delusion - which reinforces their belief in the truth of the delusion. When doctors share your delusion and the rest of society shares it, then that makes everything better.
There's a tricky political minefield surrounding this subject (this doc was released in 2015 when the conflict was less pronounced) but I do tend to agree with your sentiment here. When the parents and the (well paid?) clinician were openly stating the facts about who Camille really is with her sitting right beside them I was somewhat disturbed by their inability to consider the impressionability and intelligence of their child. Kids might look like they are playing obliviously but if you mention their name they will certainly listen, and they aren't stupid enough for it all to go above their heads.
In the progressive rush to help children transition, we might be ironically limiting their freedom to choose by boxing them into a particular gender identity with constant reassurance, clothes, toys, etc...
Quoting Bitter Crank The risk of unalterable change is what concerns me most in all this, especially since the desire to be socially progressive is perhaps leading to reckless over prescription...
Quoting Bitter Crank They're reaching so far beyond the cutting edge of behavioral and neurological scientific theory that it's astounding.
Quoting Bitter Crank
A meme circulating the debates on this subject is "the suicide rates stay the same" (although most people who post it don't know which suicide rates are being compared). What it actually refers to is the fact that bottom surgery (surgical alteration of the genitals) does not lead to a statistically significant reduction in suicide rates among transgender individuals. Whether or not transitioning on the whole leads to a reduction in suicide is utterly not known, as gathering statistics on people with gender dysphoria who choose not to seek treatment or act on it is far too difficult. What information we do gain in this statistic is clouded by the host of spurious factors that could cause suicide which are shared by all transgenders regardless of whether or not bottom surgery has occurred (it could be that what causes them to have high suicide rates doesn't have to do with the current state of their genitals, but instead their experience in society).
What the endocrinologist's sidekick certainly doesn't know is how much harm they might be causing by offering an authoritative prognosis of hormone blockers to a child who may come to change their mind. The younger the child is the less they comprehend about the long term ramifications of their decision (and about everything really), so they have less capacity to decide and consent for themselves.
I suspect that if you start treating a 1-2 year old as the opposite of their gender (regardless of which child) then there's a good chance they will conform to the identity thrust upon them...
Question: Would it have helped me develop if my parents had been like the intrusive-manager parents in the documentary? (It would have helped me, certainly, if my mother had been less hysterical about childhood sex play. It would have helped her a great deal if she had been able to deal with sexuality and fertility before we were all born.)
Answer: Almost certainly not. The medical/psychological understanding of those decades, and the probable interventions which were likely were not to be wished for. But I don't want to knock my parents too much. They both did as well as they could with limited resources and a large family, and it was not bad.
Most people probably do not have "ideal" childhoods managed by "perfect parents". They muddle through and none-the-less manage to put respectable adult lives together when the time comes. (Of course, we all know people who decidedly don't manage.) The transsexuals I have known were also putting adult lives together, and their gender identity was one among several issues they had to cope with.
Yes. I remember it as deeply creepy :)