What Makes You A Boy Or a Girl

[Lost247365]

actually one intersex activist does say this

Cary Gabriel Costello: On Trans Gender Identity and the Intersex Brain

by Admin

Intersex activist and sociology professor Cary Gabriel Costello blogs eloquently on the belief that transgender identities are a kind of "brain intersex".

He identifies the relationship between the pathologisation of homosexuality and similar efforts to discover a biological basis for sexual orientation, discusses "neurosexism" and brain plasticity, and also the impact on the ability of intersex people to organise.

The solution to transphobia is not neurology, but political activism.

Admin | August 4, 2012 at 11:59 am | Categories: Comment, Personal Comment

http://trans-fusion.blogspot.com.au/2012/08/on-trans-gender-identity-and-intersex.html

Believe it or not, I had already read that. It is part of the reason I was talking about how many intersex organizations want to limit intersex only to chromosomes/genitals.

I obviously have many disagreements with the statements made in that blog, especially when it comes to some of the non-science statements it is making.

[allrightalready]

actually one intersex activist does say this

Cary Gabriel Costello: On Trans Gender Identity and the Intersex Brain

by Admin

Intersex activist and sociology professor Cary Gabriel Costello blogs eloquently on the belief that transgender identities are a kind of "brain intersex".

He identifies the relationship between the pathologisation of homosexuality and similar efforts to discover a biological basis for sexual orientation, discusses "neurosexism" and brain plasticity, and also the impact on the ability of intersex people to organise.

The solution to transphobia is not neurology, but political activism.

Admin | August 4, 2012 at 11:59 am | Categories: Comment, Personal Comment

http://trans-fusion.blogspot.com.au/2012/08/on-trans-gender-identity-and-intersex.html

Believe it or not, I had already read that. It is part of the reason I was talking about how many intersex organizations want to limit intersex only to chromosomes/genitals.

I obviously have many disagreements with the statements made in that blog, especially when it comes to some of the non-science statements it is making.

yes, there is much dissension within the community, some even want to ban transitioning and use their research within the differences of sex development community to "prove" that policy position

[WoodwindWhistler]

Nature makes you a girl or a boy. I may be to emotional for a boy, I may not like my body, but I'm still a boy, this is the way I am, and I don't try to change that fact. Gender being a emotional thing, really? (Come on, throw rocks at me)

That "I"m too emotional for a boy" is probably other peoples' opinions about what a boy is, not any innate trait about being a boy.

I remember my Latin or English teacher explaining about Hercules I think, slaying a lion in a "manly" manner then crying over it because it was such a beautiful creature. In that culture, that reaction was also "manly" because it was tied up in the "nobility" of men.

Teaching boys to "be strong" and repress their feelings, or ridicule them into it causes psychological AND violent problems.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/negative-emotions-key-well-being/

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/violstres.htm

HOWEVER, there are some males who have longer index fingers (I am one of them) and some females who have longer index fingers. This shows that at least during one point in my development I did not get the amount of androgen I should have.

Define "should have."

Averages do not denote "should" at all. If a cat has a shorter tail than its littermates, "should" ze have a longer one? Nah. Natural variations are just that- natural and perfectly fine, unless they cause health problems.

Gender is largely constructed, imho. We are "told" (i.e., societally programmed) that we should feel like a man or a woman, because those are largely presented as discreet categories.

If only they were more discreet! :)

. . . huh?

[Lost247365]

Define "should have."

Averages do not denote "should" at all. If a cat has a shorter tail than its littermates, "should" ze have a longer one? Nah. Natural variations are just that- natural and perfectly fine, unless they cause health problems.

I am sorry to say but I must disagree. Depending on how the word is used, it does indeed imply probability and averages.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/should

1.1 Indicating a desirable or expected state:

and

2 Used to indicate what is probable:

I think you are confusing me talking about averages and probabilities with me saying the word normal. I never said it was "abnormal" at all.

[WoodwindWhistler]

Define "should have."

Averages do not denote "should" at all. If a cat has a shorter tail than its littermates, "should" ze have a longer one? Nah. Natural variations are just that- natural and perfectly fine, unless they cause health problems.

I am sorry to say but I must disagree. Depending on how the word is used, it does indeed imply probability and averages.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/should

1.1 Indicating a desirable or expected state:

and

2 Used to indicate what is probable:

I think you are confusing me talking about averages and probabilities with me saying the word normal. I never said it was "abnormal" at all.

No, you're right, I was only thinking of it in the typical "this is the correct way" sense. I think for purposes of raising awareness and acceptance, however, that word *shouldn't* (hahaha) be used.

[Lost247365]

That is more than fine.

Promoting awareness and acceptance is always a good thing!

I usually post on a political site so I love it when people can disagree on such friendly and civil terms! Thanks you for that!

^_^

[ShogunV2]

Your physiological upmake. Easy.

[Prairie]

Gender is largely constructed, imho. We are "told" (i.e., societally programmed) that we should feel like a man or a woman, because those are largely presented as discreet categories.

If only they were more discreet! :)

. . . huh?

You wrote discreet, which means marked by prudence or modesty and wise self-restraint when you probably meant discrete, which means constituting a separate entity or part. I was making a lighthearted joke of it by agreeing that it would be nice if society were more modest and self-restrained about what we're supposed to feel based on gender.

[R_1]

Also, can a person be cis and have gender dysphoria? Doesn't GD by its very definition exclude that? If they have gender dysphoria doesn't that means that they are having distress because they identify on some level as a different gender than the one they are assigned? They may be cis-conforming, but I don't think it is possible to be cis and have GD.

The reason why I stated that these group of people are needed to validate their studies is to verify whether it actually corrobates with their claims because when it comes to validating gender, you also need deviations from the average group of people that would be classified as transexual or cissexuals. There's still needs for a larger number of subjects to make their case stronger. Dysphoria means that their body doesn't map their brain mapping, and that alone says nothing about their identity. So, yes it's possible for one to be cis and experience some degree of dysphoria. If those studies actually recruited cis-individuals with body dysphoria relating to gender and saw that these individuals has much in common with transexual individuals, they may actually discover hints to gender as a whole rather than anything near gender identity itself. Also, mind you, for almost 2 decades, I have dysphoria with my left hand, but that still doesn't mean I can't identify as a full-bodied individual and it's entirely possible that I may have brain mapping similar to those individual with the same body dysphoria. You see my point?

Maybe I am not understanding what you are trying to say, but I am not getting how saying a brain is intersex is any different from what I am saying. CAIS, Sywers, De la Chappelle, etc. are all intersex conditions. A person who has a brain morphographically female in full (or in part) would, from my understanding of the word, indeed be intersex.

Just to be clear, when I say intersex I mean features or traits not characteristic of the biological sex that one would assume on average. Of course, it is also my understanding that organizations for intersex individuals try to limit intersex solely to chromosomal and genital/gonandal features only. This specifically excludes things like finger ratio and brain morphology. They don't consider males with female finger ratios intersex, and state that transexualism is not a form of intersex..

According to some people, sex has to be restricted to anything that has to do with reproduction and perhaps traits which would show a strong correlation with reproduction roles. For example, some people support a narrow definition of intersex because of well... breasts. Males and females both are able to produce milks, but by itself, it doesn't have anything to do with reproduction and thus, lactating potentials or breasts alone does not determine sex itself. Some other people prefer to stick to the completely objective point of view with minimal room for deviation to determine sex, and that's why some people stick with reproduction parts and chromosomes to determine sex. Of course, the definition of intersex isn't for you or I to decide, and I'll just leave that to the medical community.

That is exactly the point that I was trying to make. That sex and gender are not binary, at least if one is using a nature based or biological model. In biology, genetic in particular, things are broken down into phenotype and geneotype. Neither is more important than the other and both must be considered, and in neither case is there only two possible outcomes. Geneotypically you can have XY, XX, XXY, XXXXY, and many more outcomes. Phenotypically, sex and gender have an even greater number of variations. You also can have the two (geneotype and phenotype) opposing each other.

I would even say limiting it to % male/ %female is problematic especially if a new trait were to appear on one of the sex chromosomes that is neither traditionally male or female.

As for what silencer said, maybe i misunderstand, but it didn't look like he/she/(xe?) was making a statistical statement that one is mostly likely either male or female. WWhen he/she/etc said:

So, we both agree that sex and gender is not binary. And yes, sex has far more variance than sexual reproduction parts and XY/XX chromosomes, but at least that approach still has far less holes than any other ways to define males/females. I guess one could even expand on the definition and take into account of those traits to determine the sex of one individual or either even expand on sex categorization to get around those, and problem is solved right there.

[AndrogynousLuve]

I strongly believe that our mind/soul are genderless. It's society and its expectations as well as gendered nurture that lead us towards different kinds of behaviour and gender identities. To keep it short, gender is a vague concept constructed by people with the help of traditions and stereotypes.

[Guest]

I strongly believe that our mind/soul are genderless. It's society and its expectations as well as gendered nurture that lead us towards different kinds of behaviour and gender identities. To keep it short, gender is a vague concept constructed by people with the help of traditions and stereotypes.

+1

In my view, society's view on gender is BS. I can do what I want, wear what I want, and act how I want. If I do submit to some of society's views, it's either unintentional, I just happen to, or because my religion specifically says to avoid certain things. To me, my gender is defined by my body and nothing more.

[Lost247365]

Also, can a person be cis and have gender dysphoria? Doesn't GD by its very definition exclude that? If they have gender dysphoria doesn't that means that they are having distress because they identify on some level as a different gender than the one they are assigned? They may be cis-conforming, but I don't think it is possible to be cis and have GD.

The reason why I stated that these group of people are needed to validate their studies is to verify whether it actually corrobates with their claims because when it comes to validating gender, you also need deviations from the average group of people that would be classified as transexual or cissexuals. There's still needs for a larger number of subjects to make their case stronger. Dysphoria means that their body doesn't map their brain mapping, and that alone says nothing about their identity. So, yes it's possible for one to be cis and experience some degree of dysphoria. If those studies actually recruited cis-individuals with body dysphoria relating to gender and saw that these individuals has much in common with transexual individuals, they may actually discover hints to gender as a whole rather than anything near gender identity itself. Also, mind you, for almost 2 decades, I have dysphoria with my left hand, but that still doesn't mean I can't identify as a full-bodied individual and it's entirely possible that I may have brain mapping similar to those individual with the same body dysphoria. You see my point?

Yeah I see your point with regards to variety.

That said, I think you are mistaken about Gender Dysphoria. That is one expression of Gender dysphoria (along with body dismorphic disorder), but I believe that there are others.

In this case, I was using the definition from the DSM V:

http://www.dsm5.org/documents/gender%20dysphoria%20fact%20sheet.pdf

In the upcoming fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5),

people whose gender at birth is contrary to the one they identify with will be diagnosed with gender

dysphoria. This diagnosis is a revision of DSM-IVs criteria for gender identity disorder and is intended

to better characterize the experiences of affected children, adolescents, and adults.

{snip}

For a person to be diagnosed with gender dysphoria, there must be a marked difference between the

individuals expressed/experienced gender and the gender others would assign him or her, and it must

continue for at least six months. In children, the desire to be of the other gender must be present and

verbalized. This condition causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or

other important areas of functioning.

Gender dysphoria is manifested in a variety of ways, including strong desires to be treated as the other

gender or to be rid of ones sex characteristics, or a strong conviction that one has feelings and reactions

typical of the other gender.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B139zFO1lHFXcGRCc0tMLUpkRHc/edit

{page 2/16} Gender dysphoria refers to the distress that may accompany the incongruence between one's experienced or expressed gender and one's assigned gender.

{snip}

{page 3/16} Gender Dysphoria in Adolescents and Adults

A. A marked incongruence between one's experienced/expressed gender and assigned gender, of at least 6 month's duration, as mainfested by at least two of the following:

• A marked incongruence between one's experienced/expressed gender and primary and/or secondary sex characteristics (or in young adolescents, the anticipated secondary sex characteristics).
• A strong desire to be rid of one's primary and/or secondary sex characteristics because of a marked incongruence with one's experienced/expressed gender (or in young adolescents a desire to prevent the development of the anticipated secondary sex characteristics)
• A strong desire for the primary and/or secondary sex characteristics of the other gender.
• A strong desire to be of the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one's assigned gender).
• A strong desire to be treated as the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one's assigned gender).
• A strong conviction that one has the typical feelings and reactions of the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one's assigned gender).

Page 9/16 lists differential diagnosis. What you are describing sounds more like Body Dysmorphic Disorder.

Body dysmorphic disorder. An individual with body dysmorphic disorder focuses on the alteration or removal of a specific body part because it is perceived as abnormally formed, not because it represents a repudiated assigned gender. When an individual's presentation meets criteria for both gender dysphoria and body dysmorphic disorder, both diagnoses can be given. Individuals wishing to have a healthy limb amputated (termed by some body integrity identity disorder) because it makes them feel more "complete" usually do not wish to change gendr, but rather to live an an amputee or a disabled person.

Some more links:

http://anagnori.tumblr.com/post/75333093314/the-more-subtle-kind-of-gender-dysphoria

http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/04/acceptable-trans-narratives/

http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/gender-dysphoria

http://genderterror.com/2013/11/28/trans-101-misconceptions/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_identity_disorder

Sorry for the Gish Gallop, but this misconception had me confused for years, and years.

Since I was 12 years old, I have had this (for lack of a better word) kink called Crossdreaming (also known as autogynephilia). Though, I have had experiences that made me think there was more to it than just a kink, I was convinced it could not possibly be gender dysphoria because I thought it was like how you described:a mismatching of how one's body and brain are mapped.

Then I started hearing GD could express itself in other ways and it eventually lead to me making a post here in this group. Since then, I have kinda been (obsessively) reading up on crossdreaming/Gender dysphoria since then.

Maybe I am not understanding what you are trying to say, but I am not getting how saying a brain is intersex is any different from what I am saying. CAIS, Sywers, De la Chappelle, etc. are all intersex conditions. A person who has a brain morphographically female in full (or in part) would, from my understanding of the word, indeed be intersex.

Just to be clear, when I say intersex I mean features or traits not characteristic of the biological sex that one would assume on average. Of course, it is also my understanding that organizations for intersex individuals try to limit intersex solely to chromosomal and genital/gonandal features only. This specifically excludes things like finger ratio and brain morphology. They don't consider males with female finger ratios intersex, and state that transexualism is not a form of intersex..

According to some people, sex has to be restricted to anything that has to do with reproduction and perhaps traits which would show a strong correlation with reproduction roles. For example, some people support a narrow definition of intersex because of well... breasts. Males and females both are able to produce milks, but by itself, it doesn't have anything to do with reproduction and thus, lactating potentials or breasts alone does not determine sex itself. Some other people prefer to stick to the completely objective point of view with minimal room for deviation to determine sex, and that's why some people stick with reproduction parts and chromosomes to determine sex. Of course, the definition of intersex isn't for you or I to decide, and I'll just leave that to the medical community.

That is exactly the point that I was trying to make. That sex and gender are not binary, at least if one is using a nature based or biological model. In biology, genetic in particular, things are broken down into phenotype and geneotype. Neither is more important than the other and both must be considered, and in neither case is there only two possible outcomes. Geneotypically you can have XY, XX, XXY, XXXXY, and many more outcomes. Phenotypically, sex and gender have an even greater number of variations. You also can have the two (geneotype and phenotype) opposing each other.

I would even say limiting it to % male/ %female is problematic especially if a new trait were to appear on one of the sex chromosomes that is neither traditionally male or female.

As for what silencer said, maybe i misunderstand, but it didn't look like he/she/(xe?) was making a statistical statement that one is mostly likely either male or female. WWhen he/she/etc said:

So, we both agree that sex and gender is not binary. And yes, sex has far more variance than sexual reproduction parts and XY/XX chromosomes, but at least that approach still has far less holes than any other ways to define males/females. I guess one could even expand on the definition and take into account of those traits to determine the sex of one individual or either even expand on sex categorization to get around those, and problem is solved right there.

Alright, so on these subjects we are pretty much in agreement. :D

I strongly believe that our mind/soul are genderless. It's society and its expectations as well as gendered nurture that lead us towards different kinds of behaviour and gender identities. To keep it short, gender is a vague concept constructed by people with the help of traditions and stereotypes.

I don't know about souls, but I have to strongly disagree with you on our minds. There is STRONG evidence that there is a biological component as was proven by the sad life of David Reimer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer

http://www.crossdreamers.com/2012/08/the-story-about-viktor-and-viktoria-and.html

This is not to say that society plays no role, but that it can not be the only component and at least a part of it has to be biological.

[Prairie]

To me, my gender is defined by my body and nothing more.

I like this approach to dealing with gender: appropriate the term and strip it of its baggage. Some body shapes are called male, other body shapes are called female, and anything else associated with it by those on the outside is simply projection.

[Prisma]

As I write in my profile, I'm a female by default, which means I was born with a female body, and was always addressed with female adjectives and verbs (for those of you who only speak English- that's a thing in most languages). However, gender as an emotional/mental thing is completely meaningless for me, so I simply don't care about it enough to change the default female. I thought about it a few times, and got to conclusion that I'd probably define myself as agender- if I cared. I think people told me it's called cis-genderless?

To clarify: While gender isn't an issue for me, I do understand that for most people it has quit a meaning and is important for them. I do not mean to rule out the gender issues of others as meaningless- whatever you define yourself is your business and it's no ones place to not accept or belittle the definition. I'm only saying gender isn't an important part of my own identity.

And just an anecdote: I saw someone wrote earlier on this post (I'd quote but it was part of a long post, sorry) about having a hard time explaining dysphoria to cis people. I think I actually do understand, partially at least. I asked a trans once how did he know he's a guy, how does it feel, and he said it feels like he was born to the wrong body, to which I immediately replied that I was definitely born with the right body, but I just wish I could have stayed with it longer. That confused him, so I explained that I see myself as a child. I feel more identification to the androgynous body of a child, without the breasts or body hair or other adult sexual stuff, than I do to my own body. I'm not saying I'm dysphoric about my body- I know dysphoria is much, much more than this- but it sure took me a long, long time to accept its changes. It is still the main reason I remove hair from my legs.

Does anyone else feel like this?

[kiaroskuro]

I explained that I see myself as a child. I feel more identification to the androgynous body of a child, without the breasts or body hair or other adult sexual stuff, than I do to my own body. I'm not saying I'm dysphoric about my body- I know dysphoria is much, much more than this- but it sure took me a long, long time to accept its changes. It is still the main reason I remove hair from my legs.

Does anyone else feel like this?

Yes, totally. I think I still have a pre-puberty, androgynous or agender mindset insofar as I don't 'get' the laws of sexual attraction. Having said this, I'm aware that a lot about gender roles and clichés is based on said laws, e.g.: men who consciously cultivate so-called manly interests lest they should be seen as 'effeminate' = potentially less attractive to the opposite sex.

Leaving aside the issue of sexual attraction, I couldn't care less about gender and I don't seek to look overly masculine or feminine.

[AndrogynousLuve]

I strongly believe that our mind/soul are genderless. It's society and its expectations as well as gendered nurture that lead us towards different kinds of behaviour and gender identities. To keep it short, gender is a vague concept constructed by people with the help of traditions and stereotypes.

I don't know about souls, but I have to strongly disagree with you on our minds. There is STRONG evidence that there is a biological component as was proven by the sad life of David Reimer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer
http://www.crossdreamers.com/2012/08/the-story-about-viktor-and-viktoria-and.html

This is not to say that society plays no role, but that it can not be the only component and at least a part of it has to be biological.

If this is true then how can you explain with biology that there are people with healthy genitals and defined sex who don't identify with either gender? Or transgender people who identify as an opposite gender? This this is too big to be a mere exclusion.

[Lost247365]

I strongly believe that our mind/soul are genderless. It's society and its expectations as well as gendered nurture that lead us towards different kinds of behaviour and gender identities. To keep it short, gender is a vague concept constructed by people with the help of traditions and stereotypes.

I don't know about souls, but I have to strongly disagree with you on our minds. There is STRONG evidence that there is a biological component as was proven by the sad life of David Reimer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer

http://www.crossdreamers.com/2012/08/the-story-about-viktor-and-viktoria-and.html

This is not to say that society plays no role, but that it can not be the only component and at least a part of it has to be biological.

If this is true then how can you explain with biology that there are people with healthy genitals and defined sex who don't identify with either gender? Or transgender people who identify as an opposite gender? This this is too big to be a mere exclusion.

Failure to either masculinize or defemininize the brain or a combination of the two.

As I said earlier, we all start out morphigraphically female. It requires hormones in the right concentration and at the right time to make one male. Further, the mind is affected by this at a different stage of development than the reproductive system. So much so that hormone imbalances can affect one but not the other.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21334362

It is entirely possible that the hormones that a person gets is enough to defemininize the brain but fail to allow it to masculinize causing the sensation of not identifying with either gender. Conversely, it could masculinize the brain without defemininizing it to get people feeling like they belong to both genders. Depending on the transgender person, there is a whole host of ways they could come out.

For a mtf transwoman their brain might have had minimal if any masculinization or defeminization during their brains development, yet also have had enough hormone at the time of genital development to become completely male.

For a ftm transman, they could have had the opposite occur. A hormone surge during brain development causing their brain to de-feminize and then masculinize to where they feel male, yet the hormones were more even at the time of genital formation for them to develop physically as females.

Then there is the possibility of partial, but not complete, defemininization and masculinization that could explain the variety of non-binary trangender people.

However, if it has nothing to do with the mind or biology, how do we explain away the case of David Reimer? How do we explain away the differences in male and female brains? How do we explain away transpeople brain studies?

I don't think it is possible. Again, this is not saying that sociology plays no role (and I do think the different ways gender is expressed across the world does prove it does play SOME role) but that I don't think it is possible to say biology and the mind has no say in the matter.

[Prairie]

I still don't get the importance of establishing these things scientifically. It's like there's some kind of social court where they have to be justified. I just flip off the judge and walk out, because it's an illegitimate court to begin with. I don't need any justification to express myself in whatever way resonates with my being.

What if people aren't born with any biological gender essence and it develops somehow? Would that delegitimize people who go against the binary?

I find the evidence I've read about to be tenuous, grasping at straws, a manifestation of a sense of having to prove oneself and others to be legitimized. For example, the brain changes every time you have any experience or do anything at all. It's constantly changing. Why wouldn't it be different based on the personality of someone, how they express themselves? I'm open to this difference being there at birth, but I'm just as open to it not being there and merely a reflection of how the person has lived their life.

If this is true then how can you explain with biology that there are people with healthy genitals and defined sex who don't identify with either gender? Or transgender people who identify as an opposite gender? This this is too big to be a mere exclusion.

The biological explanation says that people are born with some kind of essence in the gender realm (and also born with genitalia that might "differ" from this), and they later recognize that and identify with it. The explanation always works. If someone's identity changes in life, then it just says that they hadn't properly identified themselves before. If the person's identity differs from their genitalia, it just says that their essence of gender also differed from genitalia at birth.

Also, those two cases of David Reimer and Viktor are just anecdotes so they don't establish anything in general, just prove that what happened to them is merely possible (in opposition to any claims that it's impossible what happened to them).

[Lost247365]

I still don't get the importance of establishing these things scientifically. It's like there's some kind of social court where they have to be justified. I just flip off the judge and walk out, because it's an illegitimate court to begin with. I don't need any justification to express myself in whatever way resonates with my being.

What if people aren't born with any biological gender essence and it develops somehow? Would that delegitimize people who go against the binary?

I find the evidence I've read about to be tenuous, grasping at straws, a manifestation of a sense of having to prove oneself and others to be legitimized. For example, the brain changes every time you have any experience or do anything at all. It's constantly changing. Why wouldn't it be different based on the personality of someone, how they express themselves? I'm open to this difference being there at birth, but I'm just as open to it not being there and merely a reflection of how the person has lived their life.

I agree that these things shouldn't have to be justified by biology and science. But, there is a big difference between the way things are, and the way they ought to be. I think that so long as they are not hurting or putting others in danger people should be tolerating and accepting of others and how they live their lives.

But, that is not how society works. People judge others all the time on things that hurt no one, and sometimes try to legislate these views. And in order to create change and acceptance we have to convince others that doing that is wrong. Showing that these things are inborn and beyond one's control is a powerful argument as, for the most part, punishing someone for something beyond their control seems cruel to most people.

I think that is why we see so much fighting between liberals and conservatives on homosexuality being an "orientation" vs a "lifestyle." Biology gives strong credence to it being an orientation and more and more we see the "lifestyle" argument dismissed as being false. It goes against the average person's sense of justice and the fact that it has been proven (to whatever degree) by science is a huge boon to the liberal side.

If gender orientation were shown to be developed socially, I would think that social conservatives would argue that it is a choice. Something that can be changed and overcome in someway, and therefore something that does not need protections from things like discrimination. I imagine their argument would go like this:

"Don't like that the diner won't serve you? That your landlord evicted you for your lifestyle? Too bad. You chose to endure this when you decided upon your lifestyle so if you don't like it change!

I think that is a horrible point of view, but it hold sway on many people. That is why I embrace the biology (that and I did study biology). To show that it is not a choice. Again, I personally wish that it didn't even matter if it was a choice, that society would accept everyone not hurting others...but I can't make society go by the way I think things ought to be.

If this is true then how can you explain with biology that there are people with healthy genitals and defined sex who don't identify with either gender? Or transgender people who identify as an opposite gender? This this is too big to be a mere exclusion.

The biological explanation says that people are born with some kind of essence in the gender realm (and also born with genitalia that might "differ" from this), and they later recognize that and identify with it. The explanation always works. If someone's identity changes in life, then it just says that they hadn't properly identified themselves before. If the person's identity differs from their genitalia, it just says that their essence of gender also differed from genitalia at birth.

Also, those two cases of David Reimer and Viktor are just anecdotes so they don't establish anything in general, just prove that what happened to them is merely possible (in opposition to any claims that it's impossible what happened to them).

The explanation does not always work. A transperson could be found who has a normal brain for their assigned sex. For this person at least, there would have to be another cause going on. To be considered science, it has to be falsifiable. There has to be a way to debunk it, otherwise it is pseudoscience. This is the problem with Freud's psychoanalysis. It can never be proven wrong and therefore un-falsifiable and un-scientific.

In biology, it only takes one case to prove something wrong. Conversely, nothing can ever be proven with 100% certainty.

Saying that everyone's gender identity is solely established by society only took one example to prove it wrong. But as my exchange with reptilian shows, there is still debate over transbrain studies and need for more research.

[Prairie]

People judge others all the time on things that hurt no one, and sometimes try to legislate these views. And in order to create change and acceptance we have to convince others that doing that is wrong. Showing that these things are inborn and beyond one's control is a powerful argument as, for the most part, punishing someone for something beyond their control seems cruel to most people.

To me this seems to be working within their framing, validating their view that one needs biological proof.

If gender orientation were shown to be developed socially, I would think that social conservatives would argue that it is a choice. Something that can be changed and overcome in someway, and therefore something that does not need protections from things like discrimination.

By offering evidence, it seems to bolster the argument that one does need biological basis to not be attacked. I'm calling for questioning the basis for mistreating someone for something they chose, otherwise it seems to just be placating the bully but strengthening them for attacking anyone else who doesn't have the biological proof card to play. What of someone who again isn't doing anything to harm others but is doing something, out of pure choice, that others feel is worthy of attacking and threatening?

Sure, society isn't like this, but I say so what? Unless I strive to live my life in defiance of these things, I will only be accommodating them in actions and thoughts. If I treat society as a given that I have to work within, I'm just voting for that very system that I see as diseased. Not trying to attack you, just highlight the accommodation of society and its judgment.

There's also the element of someone worrying whether they're a real trans person, whether they have actual biological backing in their individual case. It seems a never-ending repeat of the same pattern: only acknowledge what is accepted as known, shun what is unknown. Something new is known, rejoice, we "can" now accept these people! But you all over there whom we don't yet understand biologically, you're not accepted.

I've come to realize that it shouldn't matter what biological basis I have for anything I choose to express. Others have hangups and it's something with them. They are capable of resolving this and I'm going to be a flat mirror for them, not accommodate them.

Saying that everyone's gender identity is solely established by society only took one example to prove it wrong.

I think that the Reimer and Viktor examples merely show false the claim that those two individuals' gender identity could be established socially. It doesn't prove that it's not the case for other people.

It actually doesn't even prove this for them, because the fact that caretakers knew of their special circumstances (at least in Reimer's case, don't know about Viktor's) could have influenced their behavior such that they communicated subtly that Reimer was male but that they wanted him to think he was female. Here I have no care what is proven, but I am interested in being thorough which is why I point this out.

[Lost247365]

People judge others all the time on things that hurt no one, and sometimes try to legislate these views. And in order to create change and acceptance we have to convince others that doing that is wrong. Showing that these things are inborn and beyond one's control is a powerful argument as, for the most part, punishing someone for something beyond their control seems cruel to most people.

To me this seems to be working within their framing, validating their view that one needs biological proof.

The problem is, we are stuck playing on their court at the moment. While a huge amount of headway has been made with reference to gay rights, trans acceptance is no where near as high. Until we get to the point that point we have to play the game by their rules. Once it gets to the point where as many people support trans rights as oppose them then things can be put on a more neutral framework .

The Gay rights movement, initially had to rely on brain studies and biology as well. The discussion was focused on homosexuality running in families, the search for a gay gene, epi-genetics and many other proofs of homosexuality not being a choice back when support was low. Only now that most people (at least here where I live in US) support gay rights, has the conversation shifted.

If gender orientation were shown to be developed socially, I would think that social conservatives would argue that it is a choice. Something that can be changed and overcome in someway, and therefore something that does not need protections from things like discrimination.

By offering evidence, it seems to bolster the argument that one does need biological basis to not be attacked. I'm calling for questioning the basis for mistreating someone for something they chose, otherwise it seems to just be placating the bully but strengthening them for attacking anyone else who doesn't have the biological proof card to play. What of someone who again isn't doing anything to harm others but is doing something, out of pure choice, that others feel is worthy of attacking and threatening?

Sure, society isn't like this, but I say so what? Unless I strive to live my life in defiance of these things, I will only be accommodating them in actions and thoughts. If I treat society as a given that I have to work within, I'm just voting for that very system that I see as diseased. Not trying to attack you, just highlight the accommodation of society and its judgment.

There's also the element of someone worrying whether they're a real trans person, whether they have actual biological backing in their individual case. It seems a never-ending repeat of the same pattern: only acknowledge what is accepted as known, shun what is unknown. Something new is known, rejoice, we "can" now accept these people! But you all over there whom we don't yet understand biologically, you're not accepted.

I've come to realize that it shouldn't matter what biological basis I have for anything I choose to express. Others have hangups and it's something with them. They are capable of resolving this and I'm going to be a flat mirror for them, not accommodate them.

I think that pointing out that it is wrong to mistreat people for a choice they make is a great way to go about fighting discrimination, but I don't think bringing up the biological evidence in addition hurts the position at all. It is possible to argue both positions and if anything they enhance each other. Ultimately what we are trying to do is persuade people to come around to our way of thinking and the more evidence and points we have the stronger our case becomes.

But just like writing a persuasive paper, we have to know our audience. Right now, we know from the struggles of others that our audience will be most receptive to showing that being trans is not a choice. So it is only logical to make that one of our main points.

I think it is important to make this case because otherwise things won't ever get better. People will continue to get mistreated and the system will allow it. But if we can convince society to change we can get things like the ENDA passed and keep people from ending up homeless. I think that makes it a worthwhile endeavor.

I don't see how the biological point can undermine whether someone is a real trans or not. Trans is an identity, it is something only that person can know and identify. In my opinion, the science has only reinforced that trans people are being honest in their feelings. It not like we take a person and put them into a machine and it will pop out a paper saying you are gay, he is trans, she is an cis asexual, xe is non-binary. Even if that type of technology was available, it does not mean it would be used. We have that type of technology with regards to genetics but we rarely if ever check people's chromosomes.

If anything, I have seen the exact opposite. People trying to say that being trans has no biological component, that there is no mental component to argue against trans rights. Some anti-intersectional feminists (TERFs) for example, arguing that transitioning should not be legal because trans people are secretly sexist trying to reinforce the gender binary and what they need to do is learn to accept themselves and focus on destroying the gender binary. The biology only seems to undermine their objections and support transpeople.

I almost exclusively hear that gender is not mental/biological from people telling transpeople that their feelings are not real, and that they should just learn to accept themselves as they were born. Strangely enough, doing that is denying who they are in their heads. So they caught in a constant catch 22 of accepting oneself in one way rejects oneself in the other.

Saying that everyone's gender identity is solely established by society only took one example to prove it wrong.

I think that the Reimer and Viktor examples merely show false the claim that those two individuals' gender identity could be established socially. It doesn't prove that it's not the case for other people.

It actually doesn't even prove this for them, because the fact that caretakers knew of their special circumstances (at least in Reimer's case, don't know about Viktor's) could have influenced their behavior such that they communicated subtly that Reimer was male but that they wanted him to think he was female. Here I have no care what is proven, but I am interested in being thorough which is why I point this out.

What David Reimer proved was that the claim that EVERYONE's gender identity is 100% social was wrong. Now it is still possible that it applies to everyone but him. The theory is reworked. But now the question becomes is it just him or are there others like him?

Then Viktor and the others show up and prove that it is more than just Mr. Reimer. That there are people to whom there is a mental component. Then the question becomes does everyone's identity have a mental component?

From there we see that there are brain studies show that men and women have different brains, and then the transpeople brain studies show more similiarity to their identified sex than their assigned sex. All of this evidence taken in aggravate shows a strong possibility that gender identity does have a biological component. Is it proven 100%? Absolutely not. Nothing is 100% in biology, but there is a good possibility that it is that way.

This is the beauty of science to me. A hypothesis is made and tested. If it is proven wrong it must be corrected or rejected entirely. It does not know everything but it is self correcting and always improving upon our understanding.

Yes, it is possible the caretakers accidentally influenced him, but I don't see how that small of an influence would have any chance of overcoming the constant and explicit messaging that he was getting.

[AndrogynousLuve]

And just an anecdote: I saw someone wrote earlier on this post (I'd quote but it was part of a long post, sorry) about having a hard time explaining dysphoria to cis people. I think I actually do understand, partially at least. I asked a trans once how did he know he's a guy, how does it feel, and he said it feels like he was born to the wrong body, to which I immediately replied that I was definitely born with the right body, but I just wish I could have stayed with it longer. That confused him, so I explained that I see myself as a child. I feel more identification to the androgynous body of a child, without the breasts or body hair or other adult sexual stuff, than I do to my own body. I'm not saying I'm dysphoric about my body- I know dysphoria is much, much more than this- but it sure took me a long, long time to accept its changes. It is still the main reason I remove hair from my legs.

Does anyone else feel like this?

Yeah, I totally feel like that. I don't want my body to continue to grow up, I don't want any curves and would rather not have them at all. I'm all for androgynous look, neither masculinised nor feminised. I think my mentality hasn't changed after puberty identity-wise at all. I also remember the time when puberty hit as a complete disaster for my mind. I just couldn't cope with all the body changes, starting metamorphosis and other things that come with the surroundings. It was really painful for me and I don't mean to be dramatic here. It's interesting that so many people like me undergone similar experiences. This is the point science should start from. ^_^

Moreover, I don't get these sexual attraction concepts and laws. Why does this body part seem so attractive to them? Why is there such a fuss over this body part? What's the point of this cult? I just don't feel it. I see meat, haha, too bad. :lol:

[Prisma]

And just an anecdote: I saw someone wrote earlier on this post (I'd quote but it was part of a long post, sorry) about having a hard time explaining dysphoria to cis people. I think I actually do understand, partially at least. I asked a trans once how did he know he's a guy, how does it feel, and he said it feels like he was born to the wrong body, to which I immediately replied that I was definitely born with the right body, but I just wish I could have stayed with it longer. That confused him, so I explained that I see myself as a child. I feel more identification to the androgynous body of a child, without the breasts or body hair or other adult sexual stuff, than I do to my own body. I'm not saying I'm dysphoric about my body- I know dysphoria is much, much more than this- but it sure took me a long, long time to accept its changes. It is still the main reason I remove hair from my legs.

Does anyone else feel like this?

Yeah, I totally feel like that. I don't want my body to continue to grow up, I don't want any curves and would rather not have them at all. I'm all for androgynous look, neither masculinised nor feminised. I think my mentality hasn't changed after puberty identity-wise at all. I also remember the time when puberty hit as a complete disaster for my mind. I just couldn't cope with all the body changes, starting metamorphosis and other things that come with the surroundings. It was really painful for me and I don't mean to be dramatic here. It's interesting that so many people like me undergone similar experiences. This is the point where science should come from. ^_^

Moreover, I don't get these sexual attraction concepts and laws. Why does this body part seem so attractive to them? Why is there such a fuss over this body part? What's the point of this cult? I just don't feel it. I see meet, haha, too bad. :lol:

Yea, it is! I met a few other asexuals in a meetup who also said they feel similarly.

The funny thing about the "what makes X attractive" question is that sexuals have no idea either. I've asked a lot, and they don't know why they feel what they feel about these stuff. It's a mystery xD

[Twizzler787]

I'm a CIS female so this might not be my place to help, but I hope I can!

To me, it's just who you feel you are that makes the gender. BUT, it's not whether you feel "girly" or "boyish." It's whether you feel like a girl, like a boy, like both, like neither, or like something in between. It's complicated, and it's definitely not something you'll probably know immediately. There are some feminine boys and masculine girls, so it's not whether you act "like a girl" or "like a boy." It's what you feel. It sounds really corny, but as far as I'm aware, it's the truth.

As a CIS female, it's impossible for me to know exactly what it feels like to be a girl. I can't identify what part of me is that feeling. But I'm guessing that you'll just...know. It's like that thing where you're going shopping and you don't know exactly what you're looking for--you just know you'll know it when you see it. If you see a boy and say, "I wish I was that." Like, you truly, truly, want and feel like you are one, then you probably are. Do you feel like a girl some days and a boy others? Perhaps you don't feel like either gender? Maybe you feel like both? I say, trust in yourself. You are who you think you are.

Anyone else agree? Disagree? I'd like to know. :)

[dash]

And just an anecdote: I saw someone wrote earlier on this post (I'd quote but it was part of a long post, sorry) about having a hard time explaining dysphoria to cis people. I think I actually do understand, partially at least. I asked a trans once how did he know he's a guy, how does it feel, and he said it feels like he was born to the wrong body, to which I immediately replied that I was definitely born with the right body, but I just wish I could have stayed with it longer. That confused him, so I explained that I see myself as a child. I feel more identification to the androgynous body of a child, without the breasts or body hair or other adult sexual stuff, than I do to my own body. I'm not saying I'm dysphoric about my body- I know dysphoria is much, much more than this- but it sure took me a long, long time to accept its changes. It is still the main reason I remove hair from my legs.

Does anyone else feel like this?

Yes, but I think to a greater degree than you do. For me, it does cause significant gender dysphoria. I've medically stopped my period and am looking into top surgery.

I never "got used to it" and I never will. Interestingly, body hair doesn't bother me. Removing it is all kinds of triggering for me because of a long history of having been forced to remove it to conform to feminine standards of appearance. So I don't shave at all, other than my face.

It took me a long time to fully sort out my place under the trans umbrella in part because transness is so often defined around notions of maleness and femaleness, not around other narratives such as "puberty was a mistake," and because of the dearth of agender-spectrum narratives out there. Also, my gender changes with context, and there has been relatively little visibility for this type of experience as well.

It remains to be seen how I will feel about feminine verbs/adjectives used for me once I have less of a mismatch with my body.

As for the original post, what makes someone a boy or a girl, I'm a boy when I'm a boy and I'm a girl when I'm a girl and most of the time I don't have a gender at all. I think this question should be approached like "what makes you happy/sad/scared"? These are also states of mind, and they change with context, and what makes one person happy is not the same as what makes another person happy. I don't really "get" how people can be one gender all the time. I mean, I see it all around me, but that just isn't how I work.

[OfTheVeil]

don't really know. to make a sweeping generalization, boys xy chromosomes and girls xx. but there's other chromosomal makeup that people have... theres a range of genitalia, including a range of fertility/infertility... there's a range of secondary characteristics like facial hair and voice... it's too big of a gray area for me to really nail down and say "boy = this, girl = this". and of course, there are people who think being a boy or girl is a totally mental/emotional thing, but that again implies that to be a boy actually means to be something different than being a girl... idk i just kinda think were all human

[gayasanaro]

I'd say I'm a boy because I have a Y chromosome.

But not all boys have Y Chromosomes and not everyone with a Y chromosome is a boy. If you're cis then that's cool, but that doesn't apply to everyone.

Huh?

Some trans women have a Y chromosome. That doesn't make them men. So do some nonbinary people. They're not men (unless they are multigender and are part man).

Some intersex cis women have Y chromosomes. That doesn't make them men.

Some trans men don't have a Y chromosome. They're still men. Some nonbinary people have XX chromosomes. That doesn't make them women.

A Y chromosome is just a chromosome. All it says about the person carrying it is that they have a Y chromosome.

It doesn't define their gender. You are not male because you have a Y chromosome. You are male because you simply are male.

[Emery.]

Why is here so much about chromosmomes? Most people don't get them tested ever. Genitals are the thing most people regard as physical sex.

May I suggest something about the ways of perception? I think chardog has already metioned it.

If that doesn't much, you feel a really strange dissonance.

I tried to decribe it. But I have no idea how. It boils down to very primary instincts, how you react automatically. How you perceive things. That might be the factor.

[Emery.]

And just an anecdote: I saw someone wrote earlier on this post (I'd quote but it was part of a long post, sorry) about having a hard time explaining dysphoria to cis people. I think I actually do understand, partially at least. I asked a trans once how did he know he's a guy, how does it feel, and he said it feels like he was born to the wrong body, to which I immediately replied that I was definitely born with the right body, but I just wish I could have stayed with it longer. That confused him, so I explained that I see myself as a child. I feel more identification to the androgynous body of a child, without the breasts or body hair or other adult sexual stuff, than I do to my own body. I'm not saying I'm dysphoric about my body- I know dysphoria is much, much more than this- but it sure took me a long, long time to accept its changes. It is still the main reason I remove hair from my legs.

Does anyone else feel like this?

Yeah, I totally feel like that. I don't want my body to continue to grow up, I don't want any curves and would rather not have them at all. I'm all for androgynous look, neither masculinised nor feminised. I think my mentality hasn't changed after puberty identity-wise at all. I also remember the time when puberty hit as a complete disaster for my mind. I just couldn't cope with all the body changes, starting metamorphosis and other things that come with the surroundings. It was really painful for me and I don't mean to be dramatic here. It's interesting that so many people like me undergone similar experiences. This is the point science should start from. ^_^

Moreover, I don't get these sexual attraction concepts and laws. Why does this body part seem so attractive to them? Why is there such a fuss over this body part? What's the point of this cult? I just don't feel it. I see meat, haha, too bad. :lol:

I used not to identify with this adult flesh XD but it somehow changed. The reason why I shave is that I don't want others to know I'm really a boy ;) End of joking, I just have that feeling that my body hair is male. I'm more hairy than some of my male friends in late teens. I'd asses my body as a mix of a 25-year old female and a 17-year old boy. Not olny because of the hair, but also because of muscles and its sexual behaviour. And a female, because all the female equipment and shape is quite obvious.

Sexual attraction? It's like being hugnry. Or thirsty. Exactly the same. Very basic instinct.