Changing sex
Can you change your sex? I think so.
But even if you can't - and I'll explain (but not endorse) why that might be the case - all this will do is show why it is irrelevant what sex you actually are, as opposed to what sex you are otherwise indistinguishable from.
Anyway, here's why I think you can change your sex (and why the whole 'sex' 'gender' distinction is a distraction).
Some think one's sex is determined by the composition of one's physical body (either surface features, or deep features - chromosomal structure, say - or some combination or disjunction).
If that's true, then it seems quite obvious that sex can be changed. For no physical object seems to have any of its features - apart from mere extension - invariably, and thus any physical object's properties can be changed. That which is square can be made spherical; that which is red can be made blue; that which is small can be made bigger, and that which is male can be made female. So, if sex is physically determined, that doesn't imply it can't be changed. Indeed, quite the opposite: if sex is physical 'of course' it can be changed (though we might differ on just what needs to be changed).
The same applies if we expand the concept of sex so that it incorporates things such as roles and attitudes and that kind of thing. For these are no less fixed than physical features. So if one insists that sex is a complex composite of physical and social features, then sex is no less changeable for that.
The same applies if one denies physicality any role and one grounds sex entirely in social roles and attitudes and that kind of thing. Again, they can be changed, and thus sex - which has now become synonymous with gender - can be changed.
Conclusion: You can change your sex if sex is determined by one's physical features (no matter what physical features these may be). And you can change your sex if sex is socially constructed (either partly, or wholly).
That leaves considerable room for debate over exactly 'what' you need to change in order to transition from one sex to another. But that debate is now no longer over whether it is possible, just over what it takes.
There is an exception, it seems to me. And that would be if sex has an essential historical component. Take, for instance, the idea that being sex A rather than sex B is determined by an event in one's past, such as by having been born with a particular physicality, irrespective of whether one still possesses it now. In that case 'sex' is like being a family member or a genuine van gogh. It is a historical fact about me that I am a certain couple's offspring - and that is a fact I seem unable to do anything to change. No matter how much I change my body, or my attitudes, or my roles, it will still be true that I am that particular couple's offspring. Or take a 'genuine' Van gogh. A 'genuine' van gogh painting has to have the historical property of being a product of Van Gogh's hand. An otherwise identical painting that he did not produce is not a genuine van gogh, but a replica.
If sex has, as an essential historical component, that one be born with a certain kind of body, then even though someone might now possess a body that is in every other way indistinguishable from a body of that kind, one would not qualify as a member of that sex if one was not born that way, just as an otherwise indistinguishable Sunflowers painting does not qualify as a Van Gogh Sunflowers painting if van Gogh didn't paint it.
However, whether sex does, or does not have an essential historical component, it seems to me to be irrelevant to all those issues over which there is so much heated debate at the moment.
For example, how plausible is it to maintain that a person who was born male, must continue to use male toilets even though they are now indistinguishable from a woman in every way apart from historically? That seems absurd - as absurd as thinking that a perfect replica of a van gogh painting will not be as good a decoration as a genuine one. (It will be exactly as good a decoration, for it only differs from a genuine one in a way that is irrelevant to its decorative qualities).
So, it seems to me that you can change your sex if sex is a function of your physical features, and you can change your sex if sex is a mixture of your physical features and social roles, and you can change your sex if sex is wholly a matter of social roles. But matters are different if sex has an essential historical component (such as 'being born with a certain set of physical features'), because we are not able to change the past. However, as well as being controversial (it is far from obvious that sex 'does' have an essential historical feature) it seems beside the point given that on the larger issues that divide people, this feature's presence or absence is irrelevant. For example, what kind of toilet you can be admitted to, what kind of positive discrimination policies you are entitled to benefit from; what kind of prison you should be sent to - well, the historical feature's presence or absence has no plausibly bearing on any of those matters.
But even if you can't - and I'll explain (but not endorse) why that might be the case - all this will do is show why it is irrelevant what sex you actually are, as opposed to what sex you are otherwise indistinguishable from.
Anyway, here's why I think you can change your sex (and why the whole 'sex' 'gender' distinction is a distraction).
Some think one's sex is determined by the composition of one's physical body (either surface features, or deep features - chromosomal structure, say - or some combination or disjunction).
If that's true, then it seems quite obvious that sex can be changed. For no physical object seems to have any of its features - apart from mere extension - invariably, and thus any physical object's properties can be changed. That which is square can be made spherical; that which is red can be made blue; that which is small can be made bigger, and that which is male can be made female. So, if sex is physically determined, that doesn't imply it can't be changed. Indeed, quite the opposite: if sex is physical 'of course' it can be changed (though we might differ on just what needs to be changed).
The same applies if we expand the concept of sex so that it incorporates things such as roles and attitudes and that kind of thing. For these are no less fixed than physical features. So if one insists that sex is a complex composite of physical and social features, then sex is no less changeable for that.
The same applies if one denies physicality any role and one grounds sex entirely in social roles and attitudes and that kind of thing. Again, they can be changed, and thus sex - which has now become synonymous with gender - can be changed.
Conclusion: You can change your sex if sex is determined by one's physical features (no matter what physical features these may be). And you can change your sex if sex is socially constructed (either partly, or wholly).
That leaves considerable room for debate over exactly 'what' you need to change in order to transition from one sex to another. But that debate is now no longer over whether it is possible, just over what it takes.
There is an exception, it seems to me. And that would be if sex has an essential historical component. Take, for instance, the idea that being sex A rather than sex B is determined by an event in one's past, such as by having been born with a particular physicality, irrespective of whether one still possesses it now. In that case 'sex' is like being a family member or a genuine van gogh. It is a historical fact about me that I am a certain couple's offspring - and that is a fact I seem unable to do anything to change. No matter how much I change my body, or my attitudes, or my roles, it will still be true that I am that particular couple's offspring. Or take a 'genuine' Van gogh. A 'genuine' van gogh painting has to have the historical property of being a product of Van Gogh's hand. An otherwise identical painting that he did not produce is not a genuine van gogh, but a replica.
If sex has, as an essential historical component, that one be born with a certain kind of body, then even though someone might now possess a body that is in every other way indistinguishable from a body of that kind, one would not qualify as a member of that sex if one was not born that way, just as an otherwise indistinguishable Sunflowers painting does not qualify as a Van Gogh Sunflowers painting if van Gogh didn't paint it.
However, whether sex does, or does not have an essential historical component, it seems to me to be irrelevant to all those issues over which there is so much heated debate at the moment.
For example, how plausible is it to maintain that a person who was born male, must continue to use male toilets even though they are now indistinguishable from a woman in every way apart from historically? That seems absurd - as absurd as thinking that a perfect replica of a van gogh painting will not be as good a decoration as a genuine one. (It will be exactly as good a decoration, for it only differs from a genuine one in a way that is irrelevant to its decorative qualities).
So, it seems to me that you can change your sex if sex is a function of your physical features, and you can change your sex if sex is a mixture of your physical features and social roles, and you can change your sex if sex is wholly a matter of social roles. But matters are different if sex has an essential historical component (such as 'being born with a certain set of physical features'), because we are not able to change the past. However, as well as being controversial (it is far from obvious that sex 'does' have an essential historical feature) it seems beside the point given that on the larger issues that divide people, this feature's presence or absence is irrelevant. For example, what kind of toilet you can be admitted to, what kind of positive discrimination policies you are entitled to benefit from; what kind of prison you should be sent to - well, the historical feature's presence or absence has no plausibly bearing on any of those matters.
Comments (115)
Why is Caitlyn Jenner celebrated and Rachel Dolezal excoriated? 'Splain me that. It's a puzzler.
And that is exactly the problem. Strictly speaking, you'd have to change every cell in your body to include two X chromosomes instead of a Y and an X or vice versa. We cannot do that yet and that's why many people think current "sex change surgeries" insufficient
I'm sceptical they're right. But let's imagine they are and that being female is a bit like being water (you need to be made of H2o to qualify as water, and some substance that is otherwise indistinguishable from water yet does not possess that chemical composition is not, strictly speaking water - it is Twater - even though virtually everyone might mistake it for some and it can perform all the same roles etc).
Okay, well that too would be irrelevant to all the issues that divide people. Why, for instance, should someone who is otherwise indistinguishable from a woman be stopped from using a female toilet? Their cells don't have the right chromosomal structure? That seems absurd. That would be like insisting that tea shouldn't be made with Twater, only water, even though Twater tastes exactly the same as water and imparts exactly the same flavour as water to anything to which it is added.
I don't think many hold that position. I think most have a problem with people that vaguely somewhat resemble women asking to use women's bathrooms or vice versa.
Quoting Bartricks
Yes because this would have side effects such as: Making them very distinguishable from someone who was born female. If somehow you could fix the hormonal imbalances without changing the chromosomes, sure, but that sounds even harder to do.
People don't usually have a problem with changing sex. They have a problem with the current degree to which we can accomplish this feat and they see it as inadequate for being considered legitimate.
You're not addressing the example, though. Someone who thinks that your sex is determined by the chromosomal structure of your cells doesn't think your visual properties determine your sex. Someone who looked exactly like a stereotypical woman but whose cells had the wrong chromosomal structure would be deemed a man and not permitted entry to that bathroom. Which, I am saying, is absurd.
Quoting khaled
I think many do hold that position. But anyway, the revised position hat you are proposing is that women's toilets are therefore not for women strictly speaking (on this definition of a woman, that is - a woman now being someone whose cells have a certain chromosomal structure), but for those who look a certain way. But then those who satisfy the visual criteria should be admitted, regardless of their actual sex, surely?
Agreed. Those things are interconnected though. That's what I'm pointing out. You can't be indistinguishable from a woman/man visually without having the right chromosomal structure
Quoting Bartricks
Not just visual. If a guy puts on enough makeup and crossdresses to be indistinguishable from a woman I don't think he should be allowed do you?
No, there is no necessary connection between the two, as your subsequent comment acknowledges"
Quoting khaled
My whole point is that the toilet issue is irrelevant. Whatever reason you give that could plausibly justify stopping that person from going into the female toilets, it won't make essential reference to the chromosomal structure of his cells.
So who should and should not be let into which toilet is an issue that isn't plausibly about chromosomes. So if one's sex is determined by chromosomes - either partly or entirely - then that debate isn't about sex, but something else.
Having now looked up who those people are, I think the best explanation is that race clearly does have an essential historical component, whereas sex - it would seem - does not.
True
Quoting Bartricks
As I said, these things are interconnected. Maybe in some possible future there will be a time where we can somehow divorce the chromosomal structure from the visual and behavioral aspect of a person. That’s not the case though. No the problem Isn’t about chromosomes per se but without changing the chromosomes there is no real solution.
Quoting Bartricks
Sure
My point is not that such views are true, but that sex would clearly be changeable if they were true. As it would be if any other view were true apart from the 'historical' one.
Can you make a silk purse out of a sow's ear? I think not.
Here is a picture of a silk purse. Below the purse is a picture of a sow's ear. Vive la différence!
Quoting Bartricks
It seems to me that you have reached for the wrong comparison here. Among progressives (who are all in favor of loosely defined gender definitions) there is very strong support for the idea that race is an arbitrary social construct than that it is an essential historical component.
In the real world there is a distinct difference between "what is, in fact the case" and "what one can get away with". In the real world, males have XY chromosomes, and females have XX chromosomes. Men have penises, testicles, prostates, and so forth; women have vaginas, ovaries, fallopian tubes, and uteruses. Women can bear children; men can not,
Through art a man can look like a woman, and a woman can look like a man, but through no amount of surgery, hormones, clothing, cosmetics, and propaganda can a man become a woman, or a woman become a man.
Sometimes on top, sometimes on the bottom, face to face or...uhhh, the other way. Kama Sutra comes up with some dandies.
And of course there's...uhhh...uhhh...
...jeez, just occurred to me that I may have misunderstood where you were going with this.
So...never mind.
Of course sex can be changed, but these changes would be wholly artificial.
And your point is?
Quoting Bitter Crank
First, this thread isn't about race, but sex. But anyway, all you've done is said some things, not defended anything. The fact is that race does seem to have an essential historical component, which is why a person is able to change their sex, but not their race. But even if you bother to present an argument showing otherwise, that wouldn't affect my point, would it? For if it lacks a historical component, then you can change it - like, you know, your sex.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Did you actually read the OP? First, what is or is not needed to qualify as one sex rather than another is a matter of debate, and as such you can't just stipulate. This is a philosophy forum, not a pub. Just barking loudly that 'men have penises' is not a case (and it is implausible anyway - I mean, if I jump naked over a barbed wire fence and misjudge things and it rips my penis off, am I no longer a man when I land?). Second, my point is that even if qualification as a particular sex requires possession of some particular set or sets of physical features, the simple fact is that physical features can be changed and thus sex can be changed.
Yes you can, it's just tremendously difficult and probably beyond our technical know-how at the moment. For with sufficient changes you could turn a sow's ear into a silk worm. And then one could make silk from that former sow's ear and use it to make a purse.
Quoting NOS4A2
You're both right. If we define sex solely in terms of external anatomy, then certainly the sex can be changed. If we define it in terms of the presence or absence of a Y chromosome, then sex cannot be changed.
Is there a right answer to the definition? No -it's arbitrary. Perhaps we could say it's a societal definition. The problem with that is that society is not united in that regard.
By artificial I mean man made rather than occurring naturally. No contradiction there.
They're both wrong, and you're wrong. We can change internal features as surely as we can change external ones. So if sex is constitutively determined by some arrangement of physical features, then a person's sex can be changed. Not just apparently changed, but actually changed.
Why are you invested in the idea that nothing has an inherent identity? If you were a 14th-15th-16th century alchemist you would be trying to transmute lead into gold. Nuclear engineers can transmute gold into lead (by adding particles to atoms). The reverse, lead into gold, is much more difficult because it requires deleting particles from atoms. It's possible, but extraordinarily difficult and unimaginably expensive.
Real gold is born in supernova explosions and collisions of neutron stars (the creation of heavier elements like gold).
The simplest way of turning pigs ears into silk purses would be to bury pigs ears under a mulberry bush; the pig's ears would be broken down into simpler substances which a bush could take up, make leaves, and feed silk worms. Except, a bacteria/worm-reduced pig's ear no longer has the identity it once had. Now it is only chemicals. Calcium is calcium, indistinguishable from its sources. Were you and a pig buried side by side, or cremated, neither of you would have the same identity you had before you were transformed by bacteria, worms, or fires.
One of the sleights of hand that pro-trans advocates pull is saying "sex is assigned at birth". Not true. Sex is observed at birth. Hospitals, doctors, midwives, and parents don't arbitrarily "assign" a sex at birth.
Penis? check = male
Vagina? check = female
XY chromosome? check = male
XX chromosome? check = female
Granted, a small fraction (1 in every 4500 births) of babies are born with ambiguous genitals, and an extremely small number of babies are born with chromosomal abnormalities which leave the baby in the lurch as to whether they are male or female. Most babies with ambiguous genitals have unambiguous chromosomes and are clearly male or female.
Transexuals usually have a perfectly normal body; the idea that their identity does not match their body is a delusion. Look, I completely understand that some men would rather be women and some women would rather be men. They can pretend. I might wish I looked like Adonis, sang in a baritone voice, possessed the mind of Einstein, and had the wealth of Bill Gates, but I don't. They can have organs lopped off or sort-of-look-alike organs fashioned out of skin and fat tissues. An artificial penis is not a real penis; a glass eyeball is not a real eyeball.
It’s less pointless than your observation that one can change their sex by altering their body. You can change someone’s skin color by giving them a tattoo. You can change their hair color by dying their hair. These are artificial, not naturally occurring.
Where did I say that? I don't think you know what the words you are using really mean.
Quoting Bitter Crank
You earlier said that you cannot turn a pig's ear into a silk purse.
I then explained that you could, it is just tremendously difficulty and possibly beyond our technical know-how.
You're now telling me the easiest way to do it. To do something, note, that you previously said was impossible! So, is it possible or not? (Don't try and answer).
Quoting Bitter Crank
Question begging - you're assuming that sex is constitutively determined by a collection of physical attributes (that's precisely what many would dispute, so you can't just stipulate that it is without offering some kind of defence). But even if that's correct - that is, correct that sex is constitutively determined by a collection of physical attributes - that is consistent with sex being able to be changed. "At birth" and "unalterable" do not mean the same thing. I was very small at birth, I am now very big.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Again, just question begging and ignorant and unargued.
If I pull my penis off, I do not thereby cease to be a male. Plus, even if penises and vaginas are necessary and sufficient to qualify as male and female respectively, that wouldn't mean sex is fixed for someone with a penis can lose the penis and acquire a vagina and vice versa.
And likewise for chromosomes. Nothing in principle stops us from changing our chromosomes, it's just very difficult. You do not have your chromosomal structure essentially (which is not, note, to deny that you have some essential features).
Plus let's say that you discover that, much to your surprise, you have 'female' chromosomes. Well even if that means that, contrary to what you and others have believed up till now, you are in fact a woman, that wouldn't plausibly mean that it is ok for you to benefit from positive discrimination programmes designed to benefit women, or to use women's toilets, or to go to a female prison if you've done wrong. And vice versa - if someone who has up until now been considered by herself and everyone else to be a woman discovers that she actually has male chromosomes, it wouldn't be fair to insist she now use male toilets and cease to have positively discrimination programmes designed to benefit women apply to her.
By contrast, someone who has 'male' chromosomes but is otherwise indistinguishable from a 'woman' (I'm putting them in inverted commas because I don't accept the chromosomal view), should, of course, use the female toilet, benefit from positive discrimination programmes designed to benefit 'women' and go to a female prison if convicted of something. (Not saying indistinguishability is necessary for these things, just sufficient).
So even if someone insists that the chromosomal view is correct - and I personally think it isn't - this a) doesn't entail that one cannot change sex and b) is actually irrelevant to all the issues that divide people.
Quoting Bitter Crank
I couldn't detect an argument in any of that, just more question begging stipulations.
I mean, how on earth does it follow from a glass eyeball not being a real eyeball that transsexuals are not therefore the sex they say they are?
Again, more pointless observations.
Me: you can change your sex.
You: yes, but if you change your sex on a Wednesday, you didn't change it on a Tuesday
Me: that's a pointless observation in this context
You: yes, but if you change your sex on a Thursday, you didn't change it on a Friday
Adding more pointless observations to an already pointless one does not a point make.
That’s not even paraphrasing what I said. I said sex changes are artificial, which your pretended was contradictory even though it wasn’t. One can also artificially change their hair color, their skin color. Sex change can occur naturally in nature, but the ones you propose are artificial, man made, and there is nothing profound about pointing out the obvious.
i think you are misrepresenting me, a transexual woman, here I will let you feel how you want about sex change surgeries because it's really not my fucking business how much you care about that but saying that transexuals merely would rather be the opposite sex and then compare that to wants you have yourself. it is our minds that are troubled, you are right most of us do have perfectly normal bodies, both before and after transitioning, but gender dysphoria is a very serious issue, the rates of suicide and attempted suicide by transgender people are upwards of 75% and I feel like you are just trying to say that it is a casual want instead of what it really is, the ability to be who we really are. because we don't just want to be the opposite gender we are the opposite gender it just so happens to be that we are born into the wrong bodies, because it has been proven that transgender people literally have the mind of a cisgender person of the opposite birthsex.
So, someone who uses human means to change their sex has not had their sex changed naturally. Okay - so? What's your point?
Quoting NOS4A2
i feel that i need to say that there is nothing wrong with something being man-made, like vaccines, modern medicine, houses, the device you wrote this one and most food is man made, but that does not make it bad
Of course not. It’s quite amazing what we can do as a species, especially when it helps people.
i feel like you should also cover your bases a bit more, because people are really good at twisting other peoples words to mean something that was not intended
That’s my only point. You can only alter or disguise, through force, what nature has already decided.
That’s their prerogative. But I appreciate when someone such as yourself seeks clarification in good faith instead of assumption and accusation. So thank you.
no problem
:mask:
I was speaking figuratively, which is common throughout language. By “decided by nature” I mean genes and hormones, not some doctor with a steady hand, determine and develop sex at the earliest stages of a human’s life. So no, they have not changed any sex, they have merely altered the body in such a way to convince themselves that they have.
I'm gonna disagree with you there, I have changed my sex through hormones and surgery
Only now it seems you really think that sex can't be changed (which was implied by a lot of your language anyway). Yet earlier you'd acknowledged that it could be.
If you think sex can't be changed, why?
If sex is constitutively determined by physical features, then it can clearly be changed, for we do not have any of our physical features essentially.
If sex is constitutively determined by social features, then it can equally clearly be changed (for we do not have any attitudes or roles 'essentially').
If sex is constitutively determined by some combination of the above, or some disjunction of the above, then it can clearly be changed (for all of the above can be changed).
Note: really changed, not disguised.
It is only if our sex has an essential historical component that it would be unchangeable (due to the fact that we can't alter the past). But 'that' conception of sex is, a) pretty implausible and b) even if true, it would only show the irrelevance of that notion of sex to the issues that divide people.
Quoting sarah young
But presumably you have not changed your chromosomes. You have changed your sex if it’s true that nature no longer determines sex but that the mind determines it..
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.
Yes, artificially changed in the sense that you can remove, replace or alter the body, including parts of the body associated with sex.
But Sex is determined through natural development of an organism which begin at the earliest stages of life, not through alterations of physical features and body parts of an adult. Such development cannot be erased.
I have no idea what chromosomal structure my cells have (I've never inspected them). So let's say I do inspect them and find that they have the structure you think is required for being female and incompatible with being male. Am I now a female? Should I use the female toilet? Would it be fair for me now to benefit from positive discrimination programmes? (bracketing the issue of whether such programmes are justified at all, of course).
I think the answer to those questions is a fairly obvious 'no'. And vice versa. Someone whose cells happen to have the chromosomal structure that you insist is necessary and sufficient to qualify as a male, but who is in every other respect female, should surely use female toilets and fairly benefit from positive discrimination programmes designed to benefit women (for regardless of their chromosomal structure, they will have been - and/or will be - on the receiving end of the discrimination such programmes are designed - whether justly or not - to ameliorate).
It would be just bizarre, I think, to insist that unless or until the chromosomal structure of your cells is changed, you must use the male toilet or whatever. (Which, in turn, implies that our concept of a male and a female does not make essential reference to chromosomal structure).
look, I have a vagina and boobs now, no matter how legitimate you think them to be I think that they qualify me as a female
That’s fine. So you agree that mind now determines sex, not chromosomes or nature.
I’m guessing you mean you have an idea, a concept, of what a woman should look like, not in terms of beauty, but in terms of physical characteristics and that is largely vagina and boobs.
not exactly, but it is those things which made me most comfortable in my own body, think more like not necessary but appreciated
From what you say though, as it seems to me, boobs and vagina are essential, and if you don’t have them then you’re not a complete woman.
Second, there can be disjunctive concepts - that is to say, multiple ways in which someone or something might answer to the concept in question. Take 'being unwell'. There isn't just one way in which someone can qualify as 'unwell' - there are all manner of ways in which one can qualify. It seems plausible that in practice our concept of sex is like that.
So, it does not follow from boobs and vagina qualifying someone as female, that possession of boobs and vagina is essential to being female.
you can lack those and still be a complete woman, besides even if i believed differently who would I be to tell someone they aren't valid
Quoting sarah young
So if someone lacked them but still felt they were a complete women then doesn’t this suggest that being a woman on that basis is a state of mind. Of course if you felt that way what else would you want to be. But it’s still a state of mind, don’t you think?
yes i do believe it is astate of mind
:up:
I'd say that's how can appear, but it's a little bit more complicated than that.
People are not infrequently, at least for a time, trans when their mind is insisting the opposite or lacks conception of what's going on. There seems to be something more going on too, at least more than is implied by calling it a truth of mind. Sex or gender is a particularly identity truth itself. We aren't just talking about a thought or feeling someone has when we consider it.
There are people who are uncomfortable with the body and/or “social role” they have - an uncomfortableness that reaches the threshold of a recognised psychiatric condition (unlike the example offered of race identity) - and hormone therapy and sex reassignment surgery are accepted by professionals as an appropriate - and often the only - treatment. What else is there to be said? You want to say that they’re not “real” men/women because there’s some strict meaning to these words? Even if true, you’re being a dick (like calling a fat person fat).
If people have a preference for name, pronoun, and gender term, then just use it. I didn’t like being forced to refer to my teachers as “sir” or “miss”, but it was polite to do so anyway.
Quoting Michael
That’s because there is and nature has decreed it. However, if you now want to say that mind determines sex, and not nature, then go for it. People can use whatever pronoun and gender name they prefer, but denying the facts of nature is a pretty big call.
Sex is nothing but another name, a categorisation of identity.
Nature stuff, the bodies, are unaffected by this categorisation. If we have, for example, a woman with a penis, there is no denial of nature. Nature, the body with a penis, just has an identity of woman.
Nature doesn’t decree what words mean. Language users do.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
I know you think that and I don’t.
The point was your account is clearly mistaken: one can give a body with a penis the sex category of woman without denying she has a penis. No doubt there is a denial or rejection of something in this position, but it is not the bodies which have been formed by nature.
Quoting Michael
Yes and nature came before language. Words are an effort to categorise, but they’re not the thing. I’m sure there a more efficient argument than that but you get my drift.
Indeed, gender dysphoria is a very serious issue. I would not say otherwise. I also do not say that gender dysphoria is a casual wish. The difficulties which transgendered people endure argues strongly against it being a casual desire.
Can a man take on the outward appearance of a woman? Yes, clearly. People can take on the appearance and the roles (within limits) of the opposite gender. Can a male become a female? I would say 'no', because "maleness" and "femaleness" is deeper than appearance and roles. Sex (male/female, as opposed to appearances and roles of man and woman) is built from conception forward, resides in the chromosomes and sex-linked traits, and is immutable (in mammals, at least).
Not only is sex built up from conception, it has been built up in the evolution of species. Many (most?) plants and almost all animals are either male or female.
Transgendered people can (and do) change their appearance and roles. As long as that produces a long-term increase in personal satisfaction, fine. What can not be done is an actual change of sex -- switching out the XX or XY chromosomes for their opposites. The organs that were made in utero can be removed, and hormones can force changes in appearance.
Re-gendering rests on a delusion IF individuals think they have actually become the opposites - switched from male to female, when what they have achieved is a change in appearance and role.
Why?
Quoting Michael
Do you mean “man” or “male”?
And it doesn’t need words to be what it is.
Like, "The word is not the thing" and "The map is not the territory" perhaps.
Indeed. A body with a penis will be a body with a penis, whether it is "male" or "female." The sex identity doesn't determine the bodily state at all.
Same with chromosomes (which is to say, even to change chromosomes would still only be altering an "appearance". Sex lies even deeper than that.)
Thank you.
I think you’re coming from an ideological position here which I cannot challenge.
I don't know about ideological position (that springs to mind certain political nations which aren't relevant to my point here), but certainly a logical one.
To oppose the point I've made here, you would have to equivocate the existence of the body with word, such that a body with a penis was identical to the word "male," such that one would never have a body with a penis without it being the word male. An obvious incoherence since, as you yourself have pointed out, the body is distinct from the words which talk about it.
How does sex lie deeper than the chromosomes in which reside DNA?
I do disagree with you about weather or not someone can truly change their sex, because i think that changing you appearance, organs, and societal roles to match the opposite gender constitutes a sex change. But I don't care whether or not you think I am a true woman, and this entire thread has just been a bunch of people repeating themselves over and over so how do you feel about the transgender bathroom situation
No reason that you should care, as far as I know.
Quoting sarah young
My main concern about public toilets is that they be well maintained -- clean, supplied. Who else is using them at the moment is not a major concern to me, as long as proper decorum is being observed. No loud cell phone talking, no panhandling, drug dealing, that sort of thing.
The issue seems to be of primary importance to females, who fear that a male in disguise will be lurking about. The issue seems to be particularly volatile in schools (where students, parents, and staff all get involved).
I have known, worked with, socialized with, and provided social services to maybe a dozen transgendered person. This goes back to the 1970s. In those earlier days of gay liberation, there was no separate movement for trans people, at least where I lived. Actually, among GLBT people, the 4 groups all had/have separate issues, sometimes with no overlap. We took shelter in 1 big tent, more or less peaceably.
What I accept as a practical matter in my personal life (mostly tolerant of difference) is not the same as what I might theorize about philosophically. So, on a practical level, I have few problems with it. Contradictory? could be.
I do agree with your definition of what constitutes "a sex change" as the term is used, to which we can add an official name change.
All sorts of people decide to occupy deviant roles in life (deviant used here in the sociological sense of non-conforming). I grew up in a very conventional working class family. Once I left home after high school, I lived a much different, non-conforming kind of life than what I had practiced at home. Many of the people I associated with were pretty "far out" as the saying went.
You might be gendered non-conforming, yet very conforming in other aspects of life. Fine by me, as long as you are not trying to be a ruthless capitalist.
No.
You understood it totally and this is the correct answer. :ok:
I stopped reading comments after that.
honestly that is all I ask, that people tolerate my existence, and find a reason to hate me other than me being transgender.
Be tolerant, that is...not hate you for any reason.
Great, great fun people. All three were men transitioning to women.
Never has been an issue with me.
Well, "sarah" what kind of name is that, I hate that name. Lol, jk!!
But seriously, if anyone is a transphobe, they don't actually hate you, they hate what you represent, though I get that it comes out to many of the same actions in practice. But since they don't know you, they can't hate you. Just like racists don't actually hate individuals, they just hate the category of blacks or Mexicans or whatever. It sucks because that hatred of a category will stop people from getting to know the actually person behind the category, but it's not personal.
And, I don't think making your body match your mind is a thing, because I don't ascribe to mind/body dualism. Seems to me that especially changing chromosomes and hormones would result in changes of brain chemistry/structure and therefore of personality.
If the suggestion is that transition surgery is medically appropriate in order to save the lives of those suffering from gender dysphoria, then it would be necessary to cite statistics indicating that those who have transitioned suffer less from emotional issues and suicide than do those prior to transitioning. From what I've seen, that is unfortunately not the case.
If your argument is simply a libertarian one (that it's your body and you can do with it what you wish) then I'm more sympathetic to that, simply because it is none of my business what you do, especially in light of the fact I have no idea who you are or what you've experienced.
I just have a problem with the scientific claims, where people try to justify their decisions as if they're demanded by some objective criteria. If I could show you definitively that gender reassignment surgery were objectively a bad thing (based upon social, scientific, or moral arguments), I think you'd be as unmoved by my arguments as I am by your suggestion (if it indeed was your suggestion) that somehow transitioning is what one in your situation objectively ought to do.
It just strikes me that you can do as you wish, with me not caring what you do and you not caring if I care. You get to live your life how you see fit. I can buy into that, but that's as far as I'd take it.
Yeah but when they are talking to me, saying that I am not valid because of who I am it feels really personal
I pointedly used conditionals in the OP. I said 'if' sex is constitutively determined by physical features (including chromosomal structure) then it can obviously be changed.
That applies to ALL physicalist views about sex. All of them. Someone who thinks (implausibly) that a certain chromosomal structure is both necessary and sufficient for qualification as a male, or female, is someone who thinks sex can be changed. For chromosomal structure can, in principle, be changed. It's just hard to change it, that's all, and may currently be beyond our know-how.
Likewise if you think sex is constitutively determined by one's attitudes, either one's own or those of others, or some combination. Again: it can then be changed.
And likewise if you think it is a combination of the above (including disjunctive 'either/or' combinations).
Clearly, however, there are some here who think sex can't be changed. They're not really arguing their case, so far as I can tell, just asserting it as if it is common sense and doesn't require support.
Some of those clearly also think the sex is determined at the chromosomal level. I think they're either confused or dishonest, as a simple thought experiment will demonstrate.
Imagine that tomorrow scientists discover a very easy way in which chromosomal structure can be changed. All it takes is the consumption of a pill and, overnight, your chromosomal structure will be changed.
Now, will all of those who think sex can't be changed now alter their view and conclude that it can, in fact, be changed?
No. Of course they won't. They'll just shift the goalposts. You can get boobs gallore, vaginas all over your body and you can even change your chromosomes, they'll still notconsider you a woman if you weren't born with them.
That's a prediction - but it's true, isn't it? If getting boobs and a vagina doesn't do it for them, how plausible is it that changing your chromosomes will? Not remotely! They 'say' it is all about chromosomes, but it isn't because you can bet your house they won't consider you a woman no matter what changes you make to your body or your attitudes, or whatever. They'll never be satisfied.
That's the sense in which they're dishonest. All they're going to do is locate some physical feature that technological limitations mean you can't currently change and insist that changing sex requires changing 'that'. And then, when technology advances to allow you to change it, they'll say 'ah no, it actually in addition requires changing 'this'. And on and on it will go. They'll just keep refining their supposedly physicalist conception of sex so that changing it is always beyond your reach.
So what's their actual view - or better, (because they themselves are normally confused), what's the view that delivers this result? The historical view. That's the only view about sex that fixes it once and for all and will make changing it something you'll never be able to do. For with the historical view, changing your sex requires changing the past. And of course, that's something none of us are ever going to be able to do.
This is significant philosophically and epistemically.
It is significant epistemically because the historical view is just one view among at least four distinct kinds of view. At best only one of those views can be true. So, if three kinds of view permit sex to change, and one doesn't, then chances are sex can be changed. Other things being equal, it is three times more likely that you can change your sex, than that you can't.
It is significant philosophically because it means the 'can't change it' brigade need to defend that view - that view specifically - and it just isn't particularly plausible.
Since your validity is not determined by what other people think, best not to pay attention to naysayers. Us women have had to deal with people questioning our validity for millennia, whether trans or cis. Easier said than done, but that's all you can do. The Serenity Prayer got that right.
I think you're missing my point.
The fundamental question is: what are the necessary and sufficient properties for belonging to the set "human female sex" and "human male sex" respectively?
There is no objectively correct answer to this question. That's why I said they're both right- they simply have different views of which sets of properties are necessary and sufficient.
So you did, and I don't agree with that statement.
The identity of an animal is determined by billions of base pairs of DNA. A creature's identity, once composed, is fixed -- that's my view. You don't have to agree with it. A rabbit is a rabbit; it can not become a wolf. a salmon is a salmon; it can not become a bear. Homo sapiens are a particular variety of primate, and there is nothing we can do about that. Nor should do.
A female conceived is a female, and a male conceived is a male. Just because one can not altar fundamental facts does not mean that we then have to be rigid and unyielding about various aspects of existence.
Men and women can fulfill an array of roles which are very diverse, without needing to change their identity.
But we (all creatures great and small) have a stable and, for all practical purposes, an unchanging identity. This is a good thing, again in my opinion. A creature can fulfill the role for which it is suited. Some creatures can fulfill several roles. An ox can be a source of meat, and a source of traction. An ox can not breed, however, because oxen are sterilized male cattle.
What a man can do is take the role of a woman; visa versa for a woman. There may be satisfactions in so doing. Again what can not be change is "identity".
Again, just a bunch of assertions, not an argument.
They're all demonstrably false too.
I take it you agree that your body was created from a sperm and an egg, yes? And so you accept, I take it, that sperms and eggs can become males and females?
If a sperm and an egg can become males and females, why can't a male become a female? You owe an argument, because the difference between a sperm, an egg, and a male is far, far more radical than ever the difference between a male and a female.
So, the idea that once a thing's identity has been determined - as in the case of a sperm, and an egg - it is therefore fixed, is farcical.
I mean, as far as you're concerned nothing can change! If something is blue, it is always blue. If something is square, it is always square. And so on. A more obviously false view is hard to conceive of.
So sayeth the book of Bitter Crank (also sometimes known as the book of Total fill-in-the-blank).
What is harder to conceive is that there is any reason to continue this discussion with you.
Not true. An individual's DNA mutates over time.(reference)
I think most of those who claim sex can't be changed will change their mind if a pill is created that in every way changes one's sex. You exaggerate your opponent's position to suggest most of them are arguing that sex is metaphysically immutable. A clownfish changes gender over its life as do other reef fish after all. What is clear, to me at least, is that a fully transitioned man to woman is different from a naturally born one. In fact, there are terms (cis and trans) to describe the difference.
There is validity to the argument that a man cannot be made the same as a biologically born woman as a matter of current scientific fact. The immutability of gender argument you've attacked appears to attack a strawman, or at least a very very minority held position.
Is a trans woman and a cis woman the same to me? No, not really. One has female genes and female genitalia and the other male genes and no genitalia. That is just the truth. I'd change my mind if the pill you described were created though.
well first, thanks and second that isn't what I was saying i was just saying it really doesn't feel like they didn't just hate the group I'm in and really they hate every individual in the group as well as the group
(B) If someone's a given sex when and only when they have exterior sex characteristics associated with that sex, then we can change sexes through surgery and medicine at the minute.
These are practically constrained by the powers of medicine. The "can't" and "can" in the above take their meaning from the powers/possibilities/capabilities of modern medicine.
If we take Quoting Bartricks
The argument in the OP reads like:
(1) All sexual characteristics are held contingently by bodies.
(2) That which is contingently held by a body may change.
(3) All sexual characteristics of bodies can change.
(4) Sex is defined by the presence of sexual characteristics.
(5) Since sexual characteristics are contingently held by bodies, they can be changed.
(6) Sex can be changed.
The modality of the "can" phrase is different in this argument; it refers not to practical possibility given current medicine, it instead refers to physical possibility. If it's physically possible that all sexual characteristics of a body may be changed, then sex may be changed. I think this argument turns on whether a body with a given natal sex could be as if it had the other natal sex through some physical/biochemical process in a manner consistent with how a body works (an analogue of "physically possible"'s usual meaning of being consistent with how nature works).
What would be practically required to change all sexual characteristics of a fully developed body? At least; genetic therapy changing chromosomes, hormone therapy changing all relevant body chemistry, surgery supplanting (the relevant) sexual organs with analogues. Rather a lot of the body's biochemistry has to be changed, including both cellular properties like chromosomes and macro properties like sexual organs and secondary sex characteristics. I think it's implausible that sex (in sense (A)) can (practically) be changed at the minute. unless we identified sex with sense (B). In which case, it obviously can be changed, as the procedures exist to change the relevant sex characteristics in an appropriate way (sex organ transformations, presence of facial hair etc etc).
However, despite the high levels of testosterone bathing male brains, men must inevitably come to the realization that the only difference that really counts is rationality. Take strength and men are weaklings compared to a silverback gorilla and all other physical attributes men claim they posses are likewise inferior to animals. Ergo, to not make animals of themselves they have to fall back on the only quality they're superior at - rationality.
Unfortunately (for men), rationality isn't gender-dependent such that men are better thinkers than women. Logic is neither a Y chromosome thing nor does it arise in the testicles. So, such being the case, women and men don't differ in the most crucial aspect of our humanness. Men and women are identical to each other as far as being human is concerned.
Of course there exists traditional roles for both men and women but these can be chalked up to physical differences and not disparity in mental ability. In this day and age these historical gender-roles are rapidly fading away. Since being human is to be only rational and has nothing to do with the genitalia, I find it odd that a person would want to change sex because now and in the future it won't make a difference whether you're a dick or a pussy.
What you've said isn't quite what I said.
Whether chromosomal change is or is not necessary for sex change to have occurred is partly what's under debate (I am sceptical that it is). For instance, if one holds that sex has a historical aspect to it, then there would be no pill capable of "in every way" changing one's sex.
My prediction was that if a pill was developed that would overnight change your chromosomal structure, most of those who would deny sex has been changed by the acquisition of boobs and a vagina would continue denying that sex has been changed. There will be exceptions here and there - and it is just a prediction - but I think it is true.
Quoting Hanover
I don't think it is an exaggeration. There are some who hold such views here, so we can simply see if they deny it.
Quoting Hanover
They would point out that their change is 'natural' and not a product of human intervention. Again, they would cite historical properties and insist that what matters is not what properties you've acquired, but how you acquired them.
Quoting Hanover
No, these matters are not determined scientifically. There are some physical attributes, including chromosomal structure, which (I expect) we do not know how to change, but they're still capable of being changed, it is just we don't know how.
Quoting Hanover
I think many of those who would deny that someone who was born a man but now has boobs and a vagina is a woman, would continue to make that denial if that person then took that pill. For what would irk them is that this person was not 'always' this way.
Chromosomes are just another appearance. Like hair, body parts,genitals, etc., they are a biological trait reported to entail sex. One which might be subject to change. We and cut or grow our hair, cut off or remodel genitals, potentially some effect might change or remove a chromosomes too. They are no better as ground to sex.
If someone’s Y chromosomes suddenly dropped off tomorrow, would they cease to be a man? Hardly the stable quality of an identity. The trouble with supposing one is made into an identity by possessing particular traits, if the identity is then equivalent to those traits. If the trait goes, so does they identity, at least by the story being told. Sex by chromosome is another one of those shallow appearance stories, like the hair and genitals before it.
Have or alter your body this way, change your traits, and you will finally belong to your identity. The supposition identity is not grounded in itself. We must consume thing to be part of the team. Just buy the right drug, alter yourself the right way, you will finally be your meaningful self. When you finally take on the appearance of a man or women, you will be one.
The great irony in the consternation over “fluid” sex is it is the essentialist who believes, above all, it is fluid. Since they cite a trait external to identity defines it, the spectre of fluidity is always haunting. If the trait changes, if the appearance changes, so must their identity. Essential relation between identity and appearance doesn’t allow for a man without a penis to be a man, a person with long hair to be a man, a person without XY chromosomes, etc., the essentialist is always in fear of finite whim destroying sex because sex does not extend past appearance for them. It’s only ever about having the right kind of hair, genitals, chromosomes, iPhone, Apple Watch, car or house. The essentialist is the one who goes shopping for a sex or gender, taking one to be buying the right product in the social space. For them, sex is only looking a part, possessing the right sort of things. Lose the look, you lose the sex.
When I say sex lies deeper, I mean it is defined separately to one's appearance (e.g. hair length, genitals, a particular chromosome or not), in terms of one’s sex itself. It is not a status obtained by having one sort of appearance or another, but a substantial feature itself. Changing one’s appearance has no impact on their sex. Grow a man’s hair, he is still a man. Cut off a man’s genitals, he is still a man. Eliminate man’s Y chromosome, he is still a man. Sex, being identity of whole, holds across changes to other aspects of that whole. Similarly, give a woman short hair, she is still a woman. Change a woman’s genitals, she is still a woman. Give a woman a Y chromosome, she is still a woman.
The unity of identity applies just as much to the (trans) woman. If the woman appears with a penis, no breasts, etc., she is still a woman. If she appears with breasts and a penis, she is still a woman. If she appears with breasts and a vaginoplasty, she is still a woman. If she appears wth XY chromosomes, she is still a woman. Sex is not a game of obtaining or changing by buying appearances. To have a sex (or change a sex) depends on an attribute of sex itself.
In this respect, trans identity is an illusion. It only makes sense in reference to shallow appearance identifications of sex— that someone who looked like they should be a man is a woman or vice verse. When we understand the deeper truth of sex itself, the idea of trans no longer makes any sense. Appearance doesn’t give any definition of sex. Any sex might be given with any appearance. There is no longer “woman who looks like a man” or a “man who looks like a woman.” Just men, women, and anyone else, with the unity of their sex itself, however they appear.
Properly stated, a trans woman is just a woman, many of whom never actually changed sex at all (they were a woman all along, just misread by those who thought women only appeared a certain way), with a different appearance (e.g. hair length, genitals, chromosomes) to some other women.
The word 'can' is ambiguous. I was talking about what is metaphysically possible, not what is medically possible. If sex is constitutively determined by physical features, then it can in principle be changed because we do not have any of our physical attributes essentially.
We can, of course, distinguish between physical attributes we know how to change and those we do not. If sex is constitutively determined by physical attributes we know how to change, then it is medically possible for us to change a person's sex, whereas if sex is constitutively determined by physical attributes some of which we do not know how to change, then it is not medically possible for us to change a person's sex.
But I strongly suspect that most of those who think it is not medically possible for a person to change sex actually hold that changing sex is something that could not be changed no matter what physical changes a person underwent. For upon reflection it simply seems implausible that someone who refused the status 'woman' to someone who had acquired boobs and a vagina would then happily grant it if that person took a chromosomal-structure-change-pill. Some might, of course. But I think most wouldn't - they'd just change their position, searching for some yet more demanding set of criteria for qualifying as one sex rather than another. (For an analogy, in debates over capital punishment many oppose it ostensibly on the grounds that it is not an effective deterrent; yet when asked to imagine that it is as effective a deterrent as lengthy imprisonment most of them agree that they would still be morally opposed to it under those circumstances, showing that their 'real' concern about it lay elsewhere).
Their actual position - most of them, anyway - is that sex has a historical aspect to it, and thus to qualify as one sex rather than another it is important not just what properties you currently have, but either/or what properties you were born with, or how you acquired them.
Such views are, I think, not particularly plausible. No more so than the chromosomal view. But perhaps most importantly, these views are especially implausible when it comes to those issues that divide people.
So, let's just grant - purely for the sake of argument - that to be a woman you need to have a certain bundle of properties and also to have acquired them via a 'natural' process. Whereas someone who has all the same physical characteristics as a woman but has not acquired them 'naturally' is a 'woman', not a woman. Well, it isn't remotely plausible that the woman should be permitted access to female toilets and the 'woman' not. And it isn't remotely plausible that the woman should benefit from positive discrimination policies designed to ameliorate prejudice and the 'woman' should not. And it isn't remotely plausible that it is ok to insist on calling the 'woman' a man, when doing so is likely to make that person feel very uncomfortable (for an analogy, that would be akin to insisting on calling adoptive parents 'not real parents' whenever they refer to themselves as parents. Imagine a parent's evening at a school where the teachers insist on seeing parents who've adopted separately from all the rest, because 'they're not real parents').
And that's 'if' these demanding views of sex qualification are correct - which they're likely not.
I understand what you are saying, but I can not agree with it.
Chromosomes (which are groupings of DNA) are the basis of sex (as far as I know). The sex-linked chromosomes determine sex. What determines sexuality (gay, straight, fetishist, celibate, whatever) is another kettle of fish. Certain aspects of appearance (certainly NOT hair length) are determined by the chromosomes: ovaries/uterus or testes/penis, and numerous other sex-linked characteristics.
I don't know where the basis of sex could lie, deeper or not, if it was not in the DNA groupings of chromosomes. For all but a small fraction of people (far less than 1%) the XX and XY chromosomes agree with the person's self-conception of their sex (separate from sexuality). "Medical authority figures in the United States most often quote a prevalence of 1 in 30,000 for MtF transsexualism and 1 in 100,000 for FtM transsexualism." (University of Michigan)
That a small number of people's chromosomes do not match their perceived sex does not negate the principles of how sex is determined physically.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
If that works for you, fine. To me it sounds non-sensical. In my experience, men who look like men (general physical characteristics, specifics of penis, testicles, beard, body hair, manner-of-being-in-the-world) also act and identify as men. The same (different features) goes for women. Not 100% of the time, but more than 99%. Maybe I hang around with an unusually conventional group of people, but I don't think that is the case.
It IS the case that men and women can perform many roles traditionally assigned to the opposite. Men can be effective nurses, women can be effective soldiers (so reports have it, anyway). Some men are homebodies, and some women are out carousing all night. But female soldiers and all-night carousers generally think of themselves as women. Male nurses and homebodies continue to them of themselves as men.
Were society organized differently (in other cultures it has been) men and women occupy roles which in the US are oppositely assigned. For instance, women in many countries do heavy outdoor work, not exclusively, but consistently.
It is my impression that you are NOT talking about gender-linked occupational roles -- like only men get to be bricklayers and only women get to be nurses.
My point was any biological trait is on equivalent terms as hair length. DNA, chromosomes, genitals , etc., are just as much finite instances of the body which might be subject to change. In terms of defining sex, all of them are on the same level and have the same problem: the equivocate sex simply wth how someone appears, as if belonging to a sex was just a matter of looking a certain way.
By deeper, I mean an account of sex which grasp the unity itself, which doesn't just just equate having a sex with possessing a particular appearance, an account in which a sex remains defined even in the face of finite changes (e.g. hair length, chromosomes, genitals, DNA, etc.). One which does not equate sex having medical produces to look a certain way, going to the gene store, etc.
I’m not saying it works for me. It’s an objective truth. All instances of sex are defined by sex itself.
Many of the male and female sexed people have certain characteristics. Nothing about my position says there cannot be many men with certain physical characteristics, specifics of penis, testicles, beard, body hair, manner-of-being-in-the-world.
Indeed, it claims exactly the opposite: if there are men with those traits, they will exist and appear in our observations of society. Men existing with those traits was never problem nor denied. Those men aren’t men because they have those traits, they are men with those traits. 100% or 0.00001%, the amount of men we see with those traits doesn’t affect it, the male sex of each man defined by his sex itself.
The male nurse is correct to think of himself as still a man. Being a nurse, being just an appearance, has no impact upon his sex. Just because there is a notion amongst some that only women take those roles, the unity of his male sex remains unaffected.
I am talking about sex/gender linked occupational roles, not specifically, but they are a member of the same family of defining a person and role by their appearance. Biologically defined sex is another example of these. Just as someone might be saying those who are men, are not nurses because that’s a woman’s role, the notion of biological defined sex claims one cannot fall into a role (ample/female) on account of how they appear (one body of another).
Sex, in these biologically defined terms, is no different than a gender role. The woman with a penis is the same sort of situation as the male nurse. Some people might believe the role cannot go with an appearance, but that doesn’t change what is true of the person. If we have a woman whose existence is doing (i.e. she exists with one) a penis, she is still just as much a woman, just as the male nurse is still a male. Saying otherwise ("But only MALES have penises", "Only WOMEN are nurses") is only someone ignoring the given truth a person and their sex itself. Like nursing, having a penis is just something the someone might be doing, whether other think it impossible for them or not.
this is a philosophy forum - so you're supposed to 'argue' something, not just express a view. And you're also supposed to read the OP and actually address something in it, not just think "oh, this is about sex change, so I'll just assert my view on sex change regardless of the nuance of the thread".
Nuance?