Can you really change your gender?

Reply to Purple Pond

Vaginas and penises are a start.

Reply to Purple Pond
Gender as a biological state vs Gender as a learned social role. We have no choice of biological state but we can choose social roles. There are different senses to the word `Gender` but it can have the same referent.

I have an anecdote from a f2m transexual I used to work with. He kept an eye on the number of times he was interrupted in conversation as a function of the pitch of his voice - which was being decreased by the hormones. Pitch went down, so did the interruptions.

I had to collect a bunch of data from students and staff at the university, I collected from him and asked if I could record a little * in the gender column of the spreadsheet to signify that they were currently going through gender reassignment therapy. They said 'yes, of course, there are probably lots of biological differences between me and a typical male relevant to the study - and that should be controlled for'. Not that I could've seen any trend from a single data point. So for the purposes of the analysis, I included him as a him, then excluded him, then included him as a her to see if there were any differences - there weren't any, no effect sizes large compared to the noise.

How much gender matters depends a lot on the questions you ask. And if you're tactful and respectful, your requests don't go into the expected prejudice box that reactionary ideology paints as already existent and unavoidable.

Reply to Purple Pond One can change their gender, but not their sex. The person who goes to extreme lengths to change their body do so for a number of reasons, but one's sex is locked in and won't ever change. In light of this, the modern contention has been the growing emphasis on gender rather than sex in determining the degree of maleness or femaleness in a person. Doing so creates its own set of problems, but at the same time, I take no issue with calling a transgender person by their preferred pronouns, say, but they are still biologically a man, woman, or intersex.

Quoting Noble Dust

Vaginas and penises are a start.

There is a tribe in South America where all children are girls. In the early teens, when puberty strikes, around half of all children start to grow penises.

There are ultimately very few differences between the sexes and in most areas there is more variation within a gender than there are differences between genders.

In the West there are a small but significant number of children born of indeterminate sex, and many have suffered the indignities of surgery that have assigned them in the direction counter to their eventual innate feelings upon reaching puberty.

Sexual orientation in terms of attraction preference seems to be natural, and beyond the sensible choice of individuals. Homosexuality seems to be perfectly natural. And many people seem to exist on a spectrum of attraction in scale and towards both sexes in different degrees.

Some species are capable of changing sex during their lives, whilst others can have characteristics of two genders.

Given these observations I do not think it possible to argue for gender indelibility on naturalistic grounds.

The idea that the possession of a vagina or a cock must mean you have to comply with what is a socially defined status in not arguable on naturalistic or scientific grounds.

Quoting Purple Pond

A man can go through extreme measures to look more feminine, including surgery, but he's still a guy. He still has an XY chromosome.

Quoting Noble Dust

Vaginas and penises are a start.

So what of someone with XY gonadal dysgenesis? They have XY chromosomes but female genitalia (albeit with streak gonads rather than ovaries or testes).

Man? Woman? Both? Neither?

Then there's XX male syndrome, where the person has XX chromosomes but male genitalia.

And a number of other sex chromosome disorders.

Quoting Mr Phil O'Sophy

Do these children still have wombs when this happens? do they have wombs and then they disappear? or do they not have wombs even thought they are determined as female at birth, and it turns out they were always male, the process just took longer to develop?

It's 5?-Reductase deficiency:

Although the external genitalia can sometimes be completely female, the vagina consists of only the lower two-thirds of a normal vagina, creating a blind-ending vaginal pouch. Because of normal action of Müllerian inhibiting factor produced by the testes in utero, individuals with 5-ARD lack a uterus and Fallopian tubes. Thus, they would not physically be able to carry a pregnancy in any event. Even with treatments such as surrogate motherhood, female infertility is caused by the lack of any ova to implant in a surrogate mother.

Quoting Michael

So what of someone with XY gonadal dysgenesis? They have XY chromosomes but female genitalia (albeit with streak gonads rather than ovaries or testes).

Man? Woman? Both? Neither?

The person you described would be sexually ambiguous.

What of a person who was XY and had a normal penis? Man? Woman? Both? Neither?

Quoting Mr Phil O'Sophy

How common are these?

1:20,000 males.

Reply to Mr Phil O'Sophy I didn't say that.

Reply to Mr Phil O'Sophy What should be called into question is the notion that "man" and "woman" refer to some dichotomous 'essence' that people have. I'm not an essentialist, and would instead follow Wittgenstein's line of thinking when he asks "what is a game?" The words "man" and "woman" have a use in our language, and although traditionally they may have been used with reference to external genitalia (at birth), and then later perhaps sex chromosomes, times have changed and with it their use (and so meaning). These days they're often used to refer to a self-selected identity, which although admittedly makes for gender to be an abstract rather than concrete thing, is ultimately harmless and nonsensical to argue against.

Language traditionalists only really have a point if the new use entails unsuccessful communication (for example if I choose to use the word "dog" to refer to cats without informing you), but I don't think that holds at all in this case.

Quoting Mr Phil O'Sophy

Traditionally, they also related to ones social role.

Sure, which is a point in favour of the transgender person who identifies with the female social role despite having male genitalia or the male social role despite having female genitalia.

Quoting Mr Phil O'Sophy

I thought the argument of trans was that they were born that way and it wasn't a choice? To say its a self-selected identity undermines that argument.

By "self-selected" I didn't mean to suggest that it's chosen on a whim, or by weighing up some pros and cons. I meant that it isn't determined by physiology but by personal psychology.

Quoting Michael

Language traditionalists only really have a point if the new use entails unsuccessful communication (for example if I choose to use the word "dog" to refer to cats without informing you), but I don't think that holds at all in this case.

What is a male dog?

Quoting Purple Pond

There is no real sex change

The title says gender. Which one do you want to debate?

Quoting Buxtebuddha

One can change their gender

Person's gender can change but no one can change their gender out of their free will.

Quoting Mr Phil O'Sophy

I wasn't suggesting that you said it was chosen on a whim. To say self-selected, however you want to dress it, is to say that it is determined by a choice. A selection infers there was a number of things to choose from, and the one which was 'self-selected' was the one which was ultimately chosen. Ergo, by using such language you are suggesting it is related to free will, and not determined.

Then you're misunderstanding me, because that's not what I meant. What I'm saying is that their gender isn't determined by their genitals or their chromosomes or by whoever wrote their birth certificate. It's determined by their individual self/personality.

Quoting Mr Phil O'Sophy

Not if you say that the social roles derived from capability and general interest which are determined a great deal (although not completely) by biology.

Could you give an example, because this really isn't clear.

Quoting Hanover

What is a male dog?

We're talking about gender, not sex, and I don't think animals have genders. Your leading question is a red herring.

The points here are clear: There is biological identification and personal identification of sexuality, each with its own purpose, yet then there is political battling over who gets use of the word "woman" or "man." Calling an XY biological man a woman because he feels womanly is politically correct, but it does, of course, blur the distinction between an XY woman and an XX one.

Reply to Michael Does gender have to be an entirely social structure? I know people like to think the biological sex has nothing to do with personality and there's no psychological side to it, but if we choose the definitions to words by their usage, I think gender could be described as non-physical sex. As a dog owner I can confirm that male and female dogs have different personalities.

Reply to Michael I think you have to hold otherwise, as the common view is that transexuals are born that way. Since some animal species do have male/female specific traits and roles, you'd have to assume some wouldn't keep to those roles and would vary.

Quoting Mr Phil O'Sophy

Being female, generally leads to more openness, less aggression, being more agreeable, etc (

Really?

Quoting BlueBanana

Person's gender can change but no one can change their gender out of their free will.

What?

Quoting BlueBanana

As a dog owner I can confirm that male and female dogs have different personalities

Quoting Mr Phil O'Sophy

I can also confirm this. I think you can say the same about wild dogs as well (so the claim they are socially constructed here doesn't hold).

Nobody is saying that personalities are socially constructed, so I don't understand why this is being brought up.

What I'm talking about is gender. The World Health Organization defines gender as "refer[ring] to the socially constructed characteristics of women and men – such as norms, roles and relationships of and between groups of women and men. It varies from society to society and can be changed. While most people are born either male or female, they are taught appropriate norms and behaviours – including how they should interact with others of the same or opposite sex within households, communities and work places".

It's not really the sort of thing that makes sense to apply to animals. Animals just have whatever sexual organs they have and the associated behaviours.

Quoting Michael

What I'm talking about is gender.The World Health Organization defines gender as "refer[ring] to the socially constructed characteristics of women and men – such as norms, roles and relationships of and between groups of women and men. It varies from society to society and can be changed. While most people are born either male or female, they are taught appropriate norms and behaviours – including how they should interact with others of the same or opposite sex within households, communities and work places.

Yeah and that's what I'm thinking might be incorrect. The human behaviours that are typical to specific gender but do not have a sociocultural but rather a biological basis should, in my opinion, be classified under gender, not sex. By that definition, animals other than humans do have a gender.

Quoting Buxtebuddha

What?

It's similar to personality. You can't make the decision to be someone else than you are = you can't change your gender.

Quoting Purple Pond

What makes a man a male and a woman a female? [...] I'm not trying to be bigoted or transphobic but I just don't understand why we call a man who merely looks and acts like a woman a female.

It's become customary to make a firm distinction between gender and biological sex. According to that usage, gender is a cultural construct that is not fully determined by biological sex.

We should also distinguish sexual orientation from both terms. A person's biological sex and sexual orientation are in principle independent of each other, and neither term fully determines the person's gender.

It's sometimes said that a particular transgender biological male "self-identifies as female", or that a particular transgender biological female "self-identifies as male". Ordinarily what's indicated by the phrase "self-identifies as _____" is the gender, not the biological sex. In some cases gender and sex coincide, for instance when a biological male self-identifies as male.

There's a relevant difference -- a difference pertaining to gender and biological sex -- between a biological male who self-identifies as female and a biological female who self-identifies as female. The difference is also relevant to the sexual orientation of others: Some people are sexually attracted to biological females who self-identify as female but not to biological males who self-identify as female; some people are sexually attracted to biological males who self-identify as female but not to biological females who self-identify as female.

Accordingly, we might distinguish between gender in a narrow sense, perhaps restricted to something like the gender a person self-identifies as; and gender in a broad sense, which includes a conception of the biological sex and sexual orientation of the person, in addition to the "narrow" gender with which the person self-identifies. This is a clunky way of speaking, but I'm not aware of a more convenient vocabulary in use to make this important distinction.


Perhaps it's not the conceptual distinction between gender and sex that perplexes you, but rather the attitude, increasingly widespread in our time, that each speaker is somehow morally obliged to adhere to the gender terminology preferred by each other person when referring to others.

Each of us is a free speaker. The fact that one uses particular terms to speak about oneself, and requests or demands that others follow suit, does not in itself oblige the others to follow suit. Some of us may prefer to use terms like "she" and "he", "male" and "female", to indicate biological sex instead of gender, despite conflicting habits and preferences in other circles. I would argue that this is a reasonable principle of usage, and should not in itself be considered a symptom of bigotry. Such a choice is in the first place a matter of taste and personal preference, though it has much broader moral implications, from questions of manners to questions of political and cultural activism.

Quoting Michael

We're talking about gender, not sex, and I don't think animals have genders. Your leading question is a red herring.

This seems a reasonable line of response to Reply to Hanover's question about the gender of nonhuman animals like dogs. I suppose it's splitting hairs, but I might prefer to say that our conception of their gender is limited to a conception of their sex and sexual orientation, in other words, so far as we know they have gender in the "broad sense" but not in the "narrow sense" indicated above.

I suppose the expectation that motivates this sort of view is that dogs don't have conceptual capacities sophisticated enough to "self-identify" in the relevant way or to recognize a distinction between sex and gender in themselves or in other dogs.

Quoting BlueBanana

It's similar to personality. You can't make the decision to be someone else than you are = you can't change your gender.

You're still completing missing the distinction between sex and gender. Whatevs.

Reply to Buxtebuddha Wouldn't you agree that sex is biological and gender is sociocultural?

Quoting Purple Pond

Just because we can't put in words the "essence" of a male or female doesn't mean there aren't specific characteristics that the constitute them.

But the fact that we find it difficult to express the essence of many things, sex and gender included, can also mean that there are not specific, essential features of these things. Rather they may be labels applied to sets whose elements have a family resemblance that is not necessarily transitive to each other.

Because of this, these labels are inherently vague. There will always be ambiguities and exceptions to the general "rule of thumb" - as you said, there are some women who cannot give birth. There are also men who lack a penis. What is the defining feature? Is it the biological organs? Is it the behavior? Is it the genetic chromosomes? Is it the appearance?

I think it is important to also remember that many of these labels are historical. What defines "womanhood" comes from the previous usage of the word. Sometimes these labels are very useful - for instance, I think the labels "male" and "female" are useful in medicine, psychology and sociology. The ethical question seems to be whether the inevitable marginalization of the ambiguity and exception is justified by the utility of these labels. I'm not sure what the answer is, if there is a satisfactory answer. Sometimes I think this issue will never be resolved because there is no way to resolve it. Hence why people who choose to support one side of the issue tend to shout a lot.

Reply to Cavacava Social roles are things like sons, daughters, students, teachers, etc. How can someone choose their social role when it is a physical relationship with others? How is gender a social role if it can't be chosen, rather it is a physical relationship?

Reply to Harry Hindu You played yourself. Social roles can't be chosen, gender can't be chosen, no contradiction.

Quoting BlueBanana

Wouldn't you agree that sex is biological and gender is sociocultural?

Biological sex is objective, gender is subjective.

Reply to Mr Phil O'Sophy
yes we all start with wombs. But for most of us sexual differentiation takes place before birth.

Quoting Buxtebuddha

Biological sex is objective, gender is subjective.

I agree. An individual still can't make a decision out of their free will to change their gender, just like they can't change their sexuality for example, or opinion or feelings about anything.

Reply to BlueBanana Gender is subjective, therefore people choose their gender.

Reply to Buxtebuddha Doesn't follow. Everything I listed is subjective. Self identity in general is subjective but you don't choose it.

Quoting Mr Phil O'Sophy

do you object? I said generally, and I do hold that their will be exceptions. but for the most part I'd say testosterone leads to a decrease in these traits, and so the less testosterone you have, the more these traits increase. As women generally don't produce testosterone, it would follow that they would be much more open, less aggressive, and more agreeable than their male counterparts.

I'll acknowledge that the biological variations between men and women can result in personality variations, but I disagree that it is obvious what those are because many traits are socially created, like agreeableness. In fact, your comments suggest you're from a culture more traditional than mine.

Quoting BlueBanana

I agree. An individual still can't make a decision out of their free will to change their gender, just like they can't change their sexuality for example, or opinion or feelings about anything.

If your opinion can't be changed, then are you here just to hear yourself talk?

Quoting BlueBanana

Doesn't follow. Everything I listed is subjective. Self identity in general is subjective but you don't choose it.

I've not followed anything you've said so far. If gender is subjective, then it is decided upon by the subject - i.e., the person. If a person, thus, decides that they are this gender over another, they have then chosen what their gender is.

Quoting Hanover

If your opinion can't be changed, then are you here just to hear yourself talk?

Opinions can be changed, but a person can't just decide to change their own opinion.

Reply to Buxtebuddha Are you claiming people choose all of their subjective opinions and views? Or just gender? Is what you're saying that you could right now choose to be the opposite gender - not just act like that, claim to identify as that gender, take that social role, but actually believe that that is who you are? What about your subjective views on politics, can you just choose to believe in any extremist movements beliefs - and, again, not just that you could physically write their beliefs on your keyboard, but can you right now choose to truly believe in any extremists' claims?

Quoting BlueBanana

Are you claiming people choose all of their subjective opinions and views? Or just gender? Is what you're saying that you could right now choose to be the opposite gender - not just act like that, claim to identify as that gender, take that social role, but actually believe that that is who you are? What about your subjective views on politics, can you just choose to believe in any extremist movements beliefs - and, again, not just that you could physically write their beliefs on your keyboard, but can you right now choose to truly believe in any extremists' claims?

Yeah, I guess. If I believe something, I believe in it. Still don't know what you're trying to say, frankly.

Reply to Buxtebuddha

So why do you identify as whatever gender you identify as?

Reply to BlueBanana That question is separate from not choosing to identify one way or the other.

Reply to Buxtebuddha It is, but I'm asking it anyway.

Reply to BlueBanana Well, that was the point in asking those questions.

This reminds me of the "Crying Native American" PSA, where the Native American cries as a result of seeing pollution everywhere. The actor wasn't really a Native American, but an Italian-American and he never admitted that he was anything other than a Native American. He lived with them lived as one of them and took on their causes. Did that make him a Native American?

Quoting Mr Phil O'Sophy

Its pretty much 99% of the worlds population that have coinciding gender and sex. that would suggest a pretty good correlation between the two.

Actually the Kinsey report places homosexuality at closer to 10%. Social pressure to suppress these feelings can reduce full expression to around 1-2% though.

Quoting Mr Phil O'Sophy

gender and sex

There are more than 2 genders. At least five I think.

Reply to Harry Hindu

How can someone choose their social role when it is a physical relationship with others? How is gender a social role if it can't be chosen, rather it is a physical relationship?

Gender is the range of characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between, masculinity and femininity. Depending on the context, these characteristics may include biological sex (i.e., the state of being male, female, or an intersex variation), sex-based social structures (i.e., gender roles), or gender identity. People who do not identify as men or women or with masculine or feminine gender pronouns are often grouped under the umbrella terms non-binary or genderqueer.

Wikipedia

As I said the word 'Gender' has multiple senses.

Quoting Cavacava

As I said the word 'Gender' has multiple senses.

I was responding to this line of yours:
Quoting Cavacava

We have no choice of biological state but we can choose social roles.

None of your multiple senses of "gender" can be chosen.

Reply to Harry Hindu

The only sense of gender that can't be chosen is the one you are born with.

Quoting Cavacava

The only sense of gender that can't be chosen is the one you are born with.

So why do you choose your gender to be whatever it is?

So, transgenders have a choice in what they are, or the way they interpret what they are? It seems to me that society determines how they interpret what they are. Are they mentally ill, or really a woman in a man's body (whatever that means)?. Do we seek medical help for them or reinforce their belief in being a woman in a man's body (whatever that means)?

Reply to Harry Hindu Reply to BlueBanana

More like a compulsion, I think.

Reply to Buxtebuddha If gender can be chosen through a conscious decision, why do transgender people choose to be the gender they are, even though that leads to them being discriminated (among other cons)?

Reply to Cavacava Okay, then there is no choice. Thank you.

Reply to Harry Hindu :down:

"Like" is metaphorical...

Reply to Cavacava Then you need to learn how to use metaphors. Why would you use a term that implies that you don't have choice as a metaphor for the sense that you do?

Reply to Harry Hindu

No you need to learn how to read...tks

Reply to Cavacava No, that really was a terrible metaphor.

Reply to Cavacava You need to learn how to use words to express what you mean in a coherent way.

Reply to BlueBanana Reply to Harry Hindu

No surprises here guys

Reply to Cavacava Ok, explain your thoughts. Gender is a decision, and not a compulsion, but you say it's like a compulsion. If it's not a compulsion but a decision, how is it like a compulsion?

Quoting BlueBanana

Ok, explain your thoughts.

You would have thought that he would have done so by now, if he really could. :wink:

I have found that many people on these forums tend to engage in ad hominem attacks and/or become more and more vague when they realize that what they've been saying is just wrong.

Reply to BlueBanana

Well I am not transgender, but I have a good friend going through a transition right now taking hormone therapy. He is in process of becoming a she and she tells me that she felt for a long time that something was out of wack with her life as a man, she decided, along with therapy to do the transition, she is about 6 months down a 2 year road to full transition.

Reply to Cavacava Exactly. She decided to go through the transition because she felt like that was who she was, not because she decided to feel like a woman.

The transition isn't what defines her gender, it's not what makes her a female person. Those are defined by her self-identity, by who she feels she is. She can make the conscious decision to express her gender through the transition, but not about her feelings.

Reply to BlueBanana

Yes I agree that she realized that was who she is, but she still had to make the choice and a very serious commitment to make this realization possible...her gender choice is a choice because she is assuming a role that she will manifestly play on the social stage, one that 'she' could not realistically play as a man.

Quoting Cavacava

but she still had to make the choice and a very serious commitment to make this realization possible...

No, she had to make a very serious commitment to make her practical applications and expressions of her identity possible. She can make the decision only about the gender roles she'll assume. If she'd chosen otherwise, to tell herself the lie that she was a man, it'd've still been a lie because her true feelings wouldn't have been changed.

Reply to BlueBanana

She didn't have to make a choice to stay the way she was. Many people lead lives of quiet desperation yearning to be what they could be yet remaining the way they are, only a few are strong enough to go against similar societal norms.

Quoting BlueBanana

Those are defined by her self-identity, by who she feels she is.

Quoting Cavacava

Yes I agree that she realized that was who she is

Can't people be wrong in identifying themselves? Can't people misinterpret their mental states? I gave the example of the Italian-American believing that he was a Native American. Does their belief make them what they are, or does your physical relationship (his genetic relationship with his family) with others make you what you are?

What about anorexia? People with anorexia believe that they are overweight an engage in physical activities to counter that belief. We see anorexia as a disorder and treat it as such. How is this any different from someone that believes that they are a woman in a man's body?

What does it even mean to feel like a woman in a man's body? Are they saying that their soul is female and they are in a male body? Are we talking about souls being placed in the wrong body, a mental illness, or what? If we can't get at what it is that we are actually talking about, then we simply don't know what it is that we are talking about.

There also seems to be confusion between being transgender and transsexual. If someone engages in changing their physical body (hormone replacement, removing the penis, etc.), they are changing their sex, not their gender. If they don't change their body, rather they change the way they behave (like what they wear), then that would be transgender (changing behaviors as opposed to changing your body). So, Cavacava, your friend would be a transsexual, not a transgender, so your example doesn't apply to gender.

You sound dangerously like this discussion is going to a rather transphobic direction, but anyway:

Quoting Harry Hindu

Can't people be wrong in identifying themselves?

Sure they can, but my point is that those feelings of feeling like a woman would've existed in their subconsciousness.

Quoting Harry Hindu

I gave the example of the Italian-American believing that he was a Native American. Does their belief make them what they are, or does your physical relationship (his genetic relationship with his family) with others make you what you are?

I don't think his claim was that he was ethnically a native american, but just culturally.

Quoting Harry Hindu

How is this any different from someone that believes that they are a woman in a man's body?

Whether one is obese is determined by physical facts, gender is not.

Quoting Harry Hindu

What does it even mean to feel like a woman in a man's body? Are they saying that their soul is female and they are in a male body? Are we talking about souls being placed in the wrong body, a mental illness, or what?

It's about the sociocultural gender roles, or one's inner/subconscious or conscious desires to identify with a certain set of them even if one doesn't make the conscious decision to express those desires.

Quoting BlueBanana

If gender can be chosen through a conscious decision, why do transgender people choose to be the gender they are, even though that leads to them being discriminated (among other cons)?

This question is still separate from your original, which doubted that one chooses their gender. Choosing their gender and why they choose their gender are two different things.

Quoting BlueBanana

You sound dangerously like this discussion is going to a rather transphobic direction, but anyway:

Strange that it isn't consisered anorexia phobic when we tell an anorexic that they aren't fat.

You sound dangerously close to committing an ad hominem fallacy.

There is no phobia or dislike of trans people, anymore there is any phobia or dislike of anorexics. There is simply the desire to get at the root of the problem, just like we do with anorexia.

Quoting BlueBanana

I don't think his claim was that he was ethnically a native american, but just culturally.

He never made that distinction.

Quoting BlueBanana

Whether one is obese is determined by physical facts, gender is not.

I was talking about anorexia. It is a neurological condition where they believe that they are fat and that drives their behavior of forcing themselves to vomit and engaging in excessive exercise. This is no different than someone believing that they are a woman in a man's body and that drives their behavior dressing like one and performing sex changes.

In the natural world one's behavior is determined by one's sex. There exists sexual dimorphism throughout nature. And the differences in physiology lead to differences in Behavior. Because females in most species have to use the most time and energy to rear the young they are more choosy and picking their mates. Seahorse males are the ones that carry Young and become choosy when picking a mate.

Quoting BlueBanana

It's about the sociocultural gender roles, or one's inner/subconscious or conscious desires to identify with a certain set of them even if one doesn't make the conscious decision to express those desires.

It's about how you were raised most likely, as that can have serious consequences on your inner/subconscious or conscious desires to identify with a particular group.

How does a man even know what it is like to feel like a woman to say that they are actually a woman in a man's body, and vice versa?

Reply to Harry Hindu

Quoting Harry Hindu

Strange that it isn't consisered anorexia phobic when we tell an anorexic that they aren't fat.

Quoting Harry Hindu

How does a man even know what it is like to feel like a woman to say that they are actually a woman in a man's body, and vice versa?

I was always wondering how to approach this topic without being accused of being trans-phobic. I feel bad that people (including yourself) have to deal with these issues because it undermines any possible conversation to be had and squashes curiosity for fear of being labeled in a negative light. : ( I have a friend that admitted to me that they "have felt like a women" for most of their life. I wanted to ask: How do you know what that "feels like". How could I question someone's "feelings"? Is there a point in doing that? Most people I have known, "just know", whatever that means. The question of why always stops somewhere it seems. "I like this feature in a person, I like that type of candy, I love this color the best!"
"Why? Why? Why?" , I would ask. "I just do!", they respond. -______-/

Quoting Harry Hindu

It's about how you were raised most likely, as that can have serious consequences on your inner/subconscious or conscious desires to identify with a particular group.

I like this point. I can firmly say that I could care less what 'gender' I identify with, and that probably has to do with how I was raised. I was born as the male sex. Wouldn't change and don't care. I don't care if others do what they want either. I was never forced to be one gender or another, my parenting was a mixed bag as to not have "normal male/female" role models and they never said no when I exhibited behaviors that were male or female. I started to see these roles in school and never really cared for them. I feel that many people put way too much importance in these constructed "realities". "Realities" that are formed from the interplay between wanting to be respected for your feelings/actions and the lack of understanding from most of those around you. Thus, many are forced into picking a side in order to avoid alienation. In the case of trans individuals we are stuck stuck with either trying to get the world around them to understand them and see them as normal, or "helping them change their feelings" to better match the dichotomy we want them to see. Most trans individuals (at least implicitly) agree with the "idea of gender" and want to fit in to one of those groups, they just have ended up in a different body because of psychology reasons (formed by the environment, hormones, genetics, et cetera). When they are even judged for wanting to try and fit in to those genders, feelings of alienation develop. Alienation in humans usually leads to depression and suicidal tendencies, something the trans community has the most of any of the LGBTQ+ members.

The side of me that asks the question above is the side of me that is skeptical about the idea of gender as it is. Just like I want the society to accept trans people I also want trans people to care less about what they are with respect to the black and white way the society wants to seem them as . I don't care. I can act and do what I want. I can ask a guy for a "feminine" hug, I can play "manly" sports and enjoy brotherhood. Why are and why should these things be tied to identities? In my opinion, the answer lies in the fact that it is very very beneficial for us to have clear cut groups that simplify the world for us. Along those same lines, it is also easier to rationalize your feelings through changing yourself to fit in those groups (surgery or gender change), then to just not care about those groups in the first place.

Quoting Buxtebuddha

This question is still separate from your original, which doubted that one chooses their gender. Choosing their gender and why they choose their gender are two different things.

So why am I not allowed to ask different questions?

Quoting Harry Hindu

I was talking about anorexia.

So was I. One can't be an obese anorexic. Anorexia is partly defined by whether one is obese.

Quoting Harry Hindu

He never made that distinction.

So why assume he was talking about etnicity?

Quoting Harry Hindu

In the natural world one's behavior is determined by one's sex.

And humans cannot be claimed to be entirely natural anymore. We have sociocultural structures. We have the mental capacity to think objectively about ourselves and understand abstract ideas and describe them linguistically.

Quoting Harry Hindu

How does a man even know what it is like to feel like a woman to say that they are actually a woman in a man's body, and vice versa?

Just a guess but they probably don't know for sure that they are feeling about it the exact same way. Like when you're a part of any subculture, you don't know everyone else in that group is feeling the same way about their identity within that group, but you srill know you identify with that sjbculture and feel like you're a part of it.

Reply to Mr Phil O'Sophy Probably because when we look at sex and gender as random events in probabilistic maths we see they aren't independent events.

Quoting BlueBanana

So was I. One can't be an obese anorexic. Anorexia is partly defined by whether one is obese.

You don't know what you are talking about:

DIAGNOSTIC CRITERIA

To be diagnosed with anorexia nervosa according to the DSM-5, the following criteria must be met:

Restriction of energy intake relative to requirements leading to a significantly low body weight in the context of age, sex, developmental trajectory, and physical health.
Intense fear of gaining weight or becoming fat, even though underweight.
Disturbance in the way in which one's body weight or shape is experienced, undue influence of body weight or shape on self-evaluation, or denial of the seriousness of the current low body weight.

https://www.nationaleatingdisorders.org/learn/by-eating-disorder/anorexia


Quoting BlueBanana

And humans cannot be claimed to be entirely natural anymore. We have sociocultural structures. We have the mental capacity to think objectively about ourselves and understand abstract ideas and describe them linguistically.

Whether or not humans cannot be claimed to be entirely natural anymore is a point of contention for another thread. Every species has a specialty that enables it to survive in unique ways.

Quoting Harry Hindu

I was talking about anorexia. It is a neurological condition where they believe that they are fat and that drives their behavior of forcing themselves to vomit and engaging in excessive exercise. This is no different than someone believing that they are a woman in a man's body and that drives their behavior dressing like one and performing sex changes.

It is different. Someone with anorexia sees themselves as fat, despite not being so, whereas a transgender woman doesn't seem herself as having female genitalia (else she'd identify as a cisgender woman). A transgender person, unlike the anorexic, has an accurate perception of their body.

There's an article here by a transgender person explaining the difference between body dysmorphia and sex (and gender) dysmorphia:

Those who suffer from body dysmorphia have a disconnection between the reality they are perceiving and how that perception is recognised in their brains. They look in an ordinary mirror, but for them, the result is something like we might imagine a funhouse mirror to look. There is an inability to recognise the body for what it is. Features seem distorted, and flaws (real or imagined) are perceived as much much worse than they are (if they even exist, and if they're even flaws in the first place).

...

[Sex dysphoria] can't be a form of body dysmorphia, because the issue is not a processing error between the reality of physicality and how that physicality is understood internally by the mind. There is no failure to see the body as it is. The issue is something else.

So body dysmorphia is when you think your body is other than it really is whereas sex dysmorphia is when you think your body should be other than it really is.

Quoting Harry Hindu

Disturbance in the way in which one's body weight or shape is experienced, undue influence of body weight or shape on self-evaluation, or denial of the seriousness of the current low body weight.

Um... thanks for repeating?

Quoting Harry Hindu

Whether or not humans cannot be claimed to be entirely natural anymore is a point of contention for another thread.

No it's not if you bring it up to back up your point. You can't make a claim and then claim I'm off-topic and should make a new thread when I refute it.

Quoting Mr Phil O'Sophy

why not? what else are we? Super-natural?

Is technology supernatural?

Quoting Mr Phil O'Sophy

if they aren't independent events that implies they are causally related then?

Sharks aren't ice cream trucks in disguises. That's a possible explanation, and the gender roles as social constructions are another one.

Quoting BlueBanana

Opinions can be changed, but a person can't just decide to change their own opinion.

We can't decide to "want to change", but we can "want to change" and we can change. This idea supposed that we don't initiate our feelings -- we don't 'decide' to feel something. We just start feeling it, then we have to call it something.

I have changed my opinion about transgenderism. I used to think it was real. In the last couple of years I started to doubt that it was real and began thinking it was probably delusional. I didn't decide that I wanted to change my opinion. What I decided was not to trust the testimony of transgendered people about their experiences.

Whether the decision to distrust testimony was voluntary, I don't know.

Quoting Mr Phil O'Sophy

A bit disingenuous to say 'some'. lol

Perhaps you're not familiar with the use of the word "some" in elementary logic. That's the sense of the word I intended, and the sense I often intend when I use that word.

Perhaps you're using the word "disingenuous" in a way I'm not accustomed to. I assure you I meant what I said in earnest.

Quoting Mr Phil O'Sophy

Its pretty much 99% of the worlds population that have coinciding gender and sex. that would suggest a pretty good correlation between the two.

Do you have a citation to support that rather precise statistical claim?

I agree it seems a vast majority. What does that have to do with the points I've made? So far as I can see it's a conceptually irrelevant bit of emphasis.

Quoting BlueBanana

No it's not if you bring it up to back up your point. You can't make a claim and then claim I'm off-topic and should make a new thread when I refute it.

I did - in the sentence after the one you quoted.

Quoting Michael

So body dysmorphia is when you think your body is other than it really is whereas sex dysmorphia is when you think your body should be other than it really is.

Then it comes down to my question of how they know that their body is something other than it should be. How do they know what the opposite of sex feels like to say that their body should be like that?

Quoting Harry Hindu

I did - in the sentence after the one you quoted.

Read that part of this discussion again.

Reply to Bitter Crank

Quoting Bitter Crank

I have changed my opinion about transgenderism. I used to think it was real. In the last couple of years I started to doubt that it was real and began thinking it was probably delusional. I didn't decide that I wanted to change my opinion. What I decided was not to trust the testimony of transgendered people about their experiences.

It is definitely "real" in the sense that there are people that think they are not expressing their personalities through the gender they are currently. There is also enough evidence to suggest they are "born with it". I still don't know why it matters if they want to be a man if they were women. Gender is a social construct anyways. Sex is a different story all together.

Quoting yatagarasu

It is definitely "real" in the sense that there are people that think they are not expressing their personalities through the gender they are currently. There is also enough evidence to suggest they are "born with it".

I agree that people who claim to be transgendered are quite sincere in their belief that something is amiss with their personal identity and sexual self image. I don't think they are cynically making it up. However, the explanation they have settled upon is not necessarily true. They very well may be born with whatever problem it is that they have, but their gender being misidentified may not be the real problem.

All that I can say for sure, based on what I have observed among transgendered people I have known, is that they want to live a different kind of life. Changing one's official gender, wearing different clothing, getting a new name, and changing one's appearance is a way of living a different kind of life. The means at hand (changing gender) may solve a real problem, but maybe doesn't solve the possibly non-existent stated problem (of gender)>

I would liked to have lived a different kind of life too. Changing my gender, as it happened, wouldn't have accomplished anything for me, but I can understand the intense desire TO BE SOMEBODY ELSE. In the long run, I don't think this is a healthy solution. Changing the person one is can be very healthy; becoming someone else may not be healthy.

If transgendered people are totally wrong about what ails them, that doesn't mean that they should be scorned or abused. They clearly have a real enough problem, and it shouldn't be judged harshly. On the other hand, we are not obligated to take their interpretation as the literal truth of the matter.

I defer to transgendered people as to how they wish to be addressed (up to a point) and i am not embarrassed to be seen in public with them, even if they look perfectly ridiculous (which some do early in their new practice). I also won't tell them they are quite deluded, whatever I think. I'm not their therapist and don't have that kind of relationship with any transgendered.

Reply to Bitter Crank

Good points. Don't really have any contentions with what you said. But I would like to add that, the issue is that the prejudice against them is probably a good percent of the issues they have psychologically. If the counter movement weren't so malicious it would be much easier to get to core of everything. Like I said in a previous post, I think that making the issue about gender doesn't really change anything (like you said as well), and that I don't care for the idea of gender. Sexual dimorphism is different but the idea of gender and the expectations that come with identifying as a particular one is complete nonsense to me.

Quoting BlueBanana

I did - in the sentence after the one you quoted. — Harry Hindu

Read that part of this discussion again.

Huh? I'm willing to have whatever conversation you want - anywhere - at least until the mods start deleting posts for being off-topic (like they have deleted mine for being off-topic). You just need to make more sense.

Here is the sentence I was referring to:
Quoting Harry Hindu

Every species has a specialty that enables it to survive in unique ways.

My point was that you are engaging in anthropomorphism by claiming that humans are somehow special or separate from nature because of their physiology (big brain) and behavior (which their big brain drives). Humans are just as natural as everything else in the universe. If the universe itself is natural, then how is it that one of its constituents isn't?

Quoting Michael

So body dysmorphia is when you think your body is other than it really is whereas sex dysmorphia is when you think your body should be other than it really is.

With more time to think on it. It really isn't any different. They both believe that something is wrong with their body, which falls under the umbrella of a somatic delusion.

Quoting yatagarasu

There is also enough evidence to suggest they are "born with it".

People are born with mental disorders. I also mentioned that it has to do with how they were raised. Is there a study on trans people and how they were raised, like how their parents treated them as they developed (cross-dressing them, etc.). And at what point does a child actually choose his gender as opposed to it being chosen for them by their parents in how they treat them and interact with them?

Quoting Harry Hindu

With more time to think on it. It really isn't any different. They both believe that something is wrong with their body, which falls under the umbrella of a somatic delusion.

A somatic delusion is where you think that your body has certain (abnormal) characteristics that it doesn't actually have. This isn't the case for the transgender person (unless they also have a somatic delusion). The transgender person (where they believe that they were born in the "wrong" body) believes in something like (for the male-to-female transexuals) the feminine essence concept of transsexuality. They believe that they have a female mind, spirit, soul, or personality, and that this kind of mind, spirit, soul, or personality "belongs" in a female body.

This view on "essence" might be false, but it isn't a somatic delusion.

Reply to Michael Believing that you belong to another body is saying that your body is wrong.

Quoting Harry Hindu

Believing that you belong to another body is saying that your body is wrong.

But it's not to have a somatic delusion. You're stretching the psychiatric definition, given the ambiguous language in saying that one's body is wrong.

Reply to Michael Do transgenders have a problem with their hair color, eye color, skin color, etc.? Is it only their sex organs? It's not that they want to belong to a different body. It's that they want to have different sex organs.

Quoting Harry Hindu

It's not that they want to belong to a different body. It's that they want to have different sex organs.

I know. But that's not a somatic delusion. A somatic delusion is where you wrongly think that your body is infested with parasites, or that you're overweight when you're actually underweight.

It would be a somatic delusion if someone with male genitalia actually believes that they have female genitalia, and so wrongly considers themselves a cisgender woman. But that's not how it is for the transgender person.

Reply to Michael Then they are confusing their mental state and/or behavior and their sex. Again, how do they know what it feels like to be the opposite sex?

Quoting Harry Hindu

Then they are confusing their mental state and/or behavior and their sex.

Nobody confuses their mental state and/or behaviour with their genitals.

Quoting Michael

Nobody confuses their mental state and/or behaviour with their genitals.

I don't know, I can think of a few footballers who do.

Quoting Mr Phil O'Sophy

Isn't saying a body is deceased saying something is wrong with body? or the body not being as it should?

Yes, but the reverse isn't true. The illness is specifically in believing that you have a disease you don't have, which isn't the case for the transgender person.

Quoting Mr Phil O'Sophy

Only because it seems you have arbitrarily decided that if someone thinks they are something other than their body is, that means they are correct in saying so.

No I'm not. I'm saying that the psychiatric definition of somatic delusions doesn't cover cases like transgenderism. It covers cases of thinking that one has some disease or abnormality that one doesn't, or exaggerating some flaw that one does have.

Can a man really know what it feels like to be a woman?

If the feminine essence concept of transsexuality is correct then they can, because being a woman does not depend on having female genitalia. So the fact that they don't know what it feels like to have female genitalia doesn't entail that they don't know what it feels like to be a woman. They do know what it feels like to be a woman because they are women (albeit with male genitalia).

The issue is that you seem to equate gender with sex despite the fact that there is a distinction.

Reply to Harry Hindu

Quoting Harry Hindu

People are born with mental disorders. I also mentioned that it has to do with how they were raised. Is there a study on trans people and how they were raised, like how their parents treated them as they developed (cross-dressing them, etc.). And at what point does a child actually choose his gender as opposed to it being chosen for them by their parents in how they treat them and interact with them?

I believe I already addressed this. Gender is a social construct so it is the interplay of "being born" with the tendency towards being confused about your gender and the environment influencing them. It's a choice because they could choose let it bother them or not. I don't think most people consciously choose it anyways. Most just "go with it" based on the influences of their parents and those around them. So I'm not sure if there is a real distinction to be made. When you feel like a "women" but you are sexually a man that is when you see an issue. That feeling comes from looking at the gender expectations and feeling like you "fit" into to that better.

Reply to Mr Phil O'Sophy
Quoting Mr Phil O'Sophy

What evidence is this if you don't mind me asking? It would be interesting to have a look over that.

This is a twin study about trans twins that are dizygotic vs monozygotic twins.
http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/2010to2014/2013-transsexuality.html

A study that compared human stria terminalis neuron count in trans individuals vs cis individuals. Chung, WC; De Vries, GJ; Swaab, DF (2002). "Sexual differentiation of the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis in humans may extend into adulthood". Journal of Neuroscience. 22 (3): 1027–33.

Follow up study https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0018506X06001462?via%3Dihub

Another follow up study to the first https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09513590400018231

There are a bunch more. Interesting stuff. Pretty dense though. And that is from someone that is actually in the field. : / Which leads me to think that this makes conversation impossible because most can't be bothered to actual look through the material. Thankfully most of it isn't put behind a paywall... Let me know what you think. All I know is that hormones are a POWERFUL thing.

Quoting Michael

This view on "essence" might be false, but it isn't a somatic delusion.

Somatic: An individual believes that he or she is experiencing physical sensations or bodily dysfunctions, such as foul odors or insects crawling on or under the skin, or is suffering from a general medical condition or defect.
- https://www.psychologytoday.com/conditions/delusional-disorder

Somatic type: delusions that the person has some physical defect or general medical condition
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusional_disorder

Does the transgender find themselves suffering from a physical defect? If not, then why do they attempt to change themselves physically, by going to a physician, to feel "better"?

A better example would be believing that you are Elvis reincarnated and you dress and behave like him. You even go have a sex change (if you were a woman) and plastic surgery to look like him. When people try to tell you that you might be taking this to far, you berate them for being trans-Elvis-phobes.

Quoting Harry Hindu

Does the transgender find themselves suffering from a physical defect?

No. The issue is one of incongruence between their gender identity and their biological sex, not in believing that they have some illness or physical defect. You're just taking advantage of ambiguous language. Transgenderism isn't the sort of condition that psychiatrists are talking about when they talk about somatic delusions.

Reply to yatagarasu the sources which you have mentioned don’t seem to link to each other and each has a considerable amount of personal bias towards the “CIS gender” side.

Quoting Mr Phil O'Sophy

Biological sex is the physical body, and if they say they have the wrong body, then that is a defect, as it ‘should’ be otherwise.

That's where you're stretching the definition. That's not what psychiatrists mean by "defect". By "defect" they mean something like a mole being a harbinger of cancer, or parasites infecting the body, or being overweight. No amount of equivocating on the word "wrong" is going to change that.

Quoting Mr Phil O'Sophy

It seems as though you are playing around with the ambiguity of words more than anyone else here.

I'm really not.

Quoting Mr Phil O'Sophy

Is the cis gendered experience equivalent to be the trans gendered experience?

I have no idea what this question means.

Quoting Mr Phil O'Sophy

You really are. You’re limiting a words use to fit your argument when the word has more use than you are allowing it to have. By defect they do mean the specific things you have mentioned, but they also mean a number of other things, like I mentioned, neural defects, behavioral defects, defective beliefs etc etc etc.

In the context of the medical diagnosis of somatic delusion, by "defect" they aren't referring to the sort of thing where someone believes that they were born in the "wrong" body. They're referring to the sort of thing where someone (unresonably) believes that the normal functioning of the body they actually have is impaired in some way.

Quoting Mr Phil O'Sophy

Are there differences which give rise to the distinction between someone being cis gendered or being trans gendered?

Presumably brain structure, as shown in this study.

Is there something that trans people, being trans can relate to in terms of their experience of being trans? are they united in their experience of being 'trapped in another body?

No. I believe there are transgender people who have no desire to undergo a sex change. They're happy with their body. As has been pointed out before, there is a distinction between gender and sex, and although a lot of people want for their sex to be congruent with their gender (those who transition), it isn't necessary.

or can the two experiences, (that is the experience of being a cis and trans person) equivalent?

I still don't know what this means.

Reply to Harry Hindu How am I the one that was not making sense? What was "I did" supposed to be a sensible thing to respond to in that context?

Quoting Mr Phil O'Sophy

Can a man really know what it feels like to be a woman?

Well, can a woman? How can a man know what it feels like for the other men to feel like a man?

Reply to Count Radetzky von Radetz

Quoting Count Radetzky von Radetz

?yatagarasu the sources which you have mentioned don’t seem to link to each other and each has a considerable amount of personal bias towards the “CIS gender” side.

Don't link to each other? Biased towards the "cis" gender side? What does any of that mean? The last two studies are just reaffirmations of the first one and are not available. The comprehensive ones are the other ones. Personal bias? How do you get that from any of those studies? I'm serious. Please explain. : )-

Reply to Michael

Quoting Michael

Presumably brain structure, as shown in this study.

Exactly. The same is true of homosexual individuals brain structure.

Reply to Mr Phil O'Sophy

Quoting Mr Phil O'Sophy

?yatagarasu if it’s dense i doubt i’ll Have the time to read through it till after my exams but I will certainly come back to them. Can you summarize them? What field do you work in if you don’t mind me asking?

Yes. Whenever you have the time. : ) Good luck with your exams! : D

Unfortunately, I cannot. Mainly because it would we a long-winded summation by any account. And that I risk the chance of distorting the original studies by my personal "bias". So I usually let people just read it and see if they agree with me. I am currently working at Thermo Fisher as a researcher, but I specialize in neurobiology.

Quoting Michael

No. The issue is one of incongruence between their gender identity and their biological sex, not in believing that they have some illness or physical defect. You're just taking advantage of ambiguous language. Transgenderism isn't the sort of condition that psychiatrists are talking about when they talk about somatic delusions.

Like I said in the post you just cherry-picked. If they claim that they are woman in a man's body - that is claiming that you have a physical defect - that you are the wrong sex. To say that the issue is one of incongruence is to say that their feeling is true and their body is wrong - or defective. How do we know that it is the body that is defective and not the mind?

Psychiatrists are simply being inconsistent in order to not be labeled by society as being transgender phobes. Science is heavily influenced by culture - unfotunately.

"What makes a man a male and a woman a female?"

Why must we have two classes of people? Don't all of us have qualities of masculine and feminine? All of us have testosterone and estrogen coursing through our bodies - though our sexual organs tend to favor one or the other. There are men who grow breasts. There are aggressive and unnurturing women. How much cocoa do you have to add to the food before it becomes chocolate flavored? Perhaps we are all a blending of both genders.

That said, I do think there are people who seek contentment in their lives by living as the gender opposite to what society identified them to be. I don't see that as wrong or right, normal or aberrant. A person has certain natural freedoms to decide their behavior, enabling all of us to create our identities, our understanding of ourselves. To impose our own understanding of gender is to suppress that freedom of others, is it not?

I think what really bothers people is when they are deceived or surprised in the discovery of another person's nature against their representation of identity. We don't like to be lied to by "honest" salesmen. If the city council places a stop sign at a safe corner for our "safety", we wonder why it should be imposed upon our attention and behavior. If one perceives himself to be heterosexual, he doesn't want to discover that another person with whom he has been intimate is homosexual, and vice-versa.

When you ask what makes a person male or female, I would retort: why are you confused? All words carry meaning. That meaning differs from person to person, between contexts, and changes over time. Words are just vehicles of meaning in the transportation system of communication. If you like Fords, does that preclude others from driving Hondas?

Consider this: if you lived a few thousand years ago, you would have seen no "men" or "women" signs on the bathrooms, because the side of the trail or the pit out 'round the back of your hut would have been where you relieved yourself. People had more critical things to worry about than privacy or gender identity. May I submit that your question and corresponding confusion are artifacts of the society you live in, arising from something other than the nature of humankind.

Quoting Mr Phil O'Sophy

Correct me if i’m Wrong (and that’s perfectly possible) but I think the US is like one of the leading places in terms of making it a comfortable place for people identifying as transgender and they have around 0.6% of their population that fall into this category.

Will you provide a source for that datum?

I don't know what the proportion is in the US today, or in any other place at any other time. Who cares? What point are you trying to make by focusing on the proportion with such determination?

I don't see what relevance such facts would have for the claims I've made thus far.

Reply to Purple Pond I think you mean sex. As under transgender idea gender is what you feel vs sex is what you are.

Regarding gender being whatever you feel it to be, if I feel 27 years old, but am actually 52, am I 27?

Reply to Txastopher you could be health wise 27, but physically be 57.

Quoting Mr Phil O'Sophy

The whole point was to back up the claim I had made previously that if 99+% of the worlds population has a coinciding gender and sex, that it would suggest correlation between the two.

What do you make of this putative correlation?

Suppose that 99% of bipeds are right-handed. What does this tell us about left-handedness, apart from the fact that it is (in this hypothetical scenario) quite rare?

Suppose that 99% of humans are brown-eyed. And so on.

Moreover, if gender is in part a cultural construct, doesn't it seem reasonable to expect that the proportion you're bearing down on here may be subject to change along with cultural context?