Gender and threats to "Normality" (spilit from "The challenges ahead")

[Rodia]

As far as detransition, there's actually so many great ways to help people make the right choices regarding their gender.

The first step is education, and not placing any stigma on gender-nonconformity, or being trans. Teaching children the truth: that trans people, and nonbinary and intersex people are not deviants or mentally ill people, just normal ones.

Allowing children to question and explore their gender identity without placing labels on them from birth. Not dividing up groups by gender and/or genitals unless absolutely necessary (it rarely is). Not treating the cis status as obvious unquestionable default, and the trans status as something to prove and be concerned about. Letting kids change their gender presentation and perform even playful temporary social transitions to get a better feel for whom they are. Not demanding complete commitment or hounding for proof that it's 'real'.
(incidentally this also improves communication between cis male and cis female kids. gender tribalism is really silly.)

Because transition and detransition are not just about operations and medication, they're also about changing your name and using different pronouns. That's always 100% reversible.

So are puberty blockers-they're not permanent.

It's also important to look at the reasons for detransitioning, and notice how often the cause is a lack of acceptance by society, family pressure and struggle with legal and social discrimination rather than a genuine desire to return to the previously assumed gender. Generally someone who goes through the entire process of medication, hormones, surgery, and legal changes is going to be pretty damn sure of their decision.

[Cerin]

Rodia, I want to acknowledge your posts, but there is no point in arguing the issue. I don't subscribe to the woke worldview (or whatever word you would choose to characterize your viewpoint).

[Eldy]

Hot take: if your definition of "the woke worldview" includes "trans people, and nonbinary and intersex people are not deviants or mentally ill people, just normal ones," disagreeing with it isn't really something to be proud of.

[RoseMorninStar]

Friendly neighborhood biologist here. I see a lot of people are talking about biological sexes and gender right now. Lots of folks make biological sex seem really simple. Well, since it’s so simple, let’s find the biological roots, shall we? Let’s talk about sex…

If you know a bit about biology you will probably say that biological sex is caused by chromosomes, XX and you’re female, XY and you’re male. This is “chromosomal sex” but is it “biological sex”? Well…

Turns out there is only ONE GENE on the Y chromosome that really matters to sex. It’s called the SRY gene. During human embryonic development the SRY protein turns on male-associated genes. Having an SRY gene makes you “genetically male”. But is this “biological sex”?

Sometimes that SRY gene pops off the Y chromosome and over to an X chromosome. Surprise! So now you’ve got an X with an SRY and a Y without an SRY. What does this mean?

A Y with no SRY means physically you’re female, chromosomal you’re male (XY) and genetically you’re female (no SRY). An X with an SRY means you’re physically male, chromosomally female (XX) and genetically male (SRY). But biological sex is simple! There must be another answer…

Sex-related genes ultimately turn on hormones in specific areas on the body, and reception of those hormones by cells throughout the body. Is this the root of “biological sex”??

“Hormonal male” means you produce ‘normal’ levels of male-associate hormones. Except some percentage of females will have higher levels of ‘male’ hormones than some percentage of males. Ditto ditto ‘female’ hormones. And…

…if you’re developing, your body may not produce enough hormones for your genetic sex. Leading you to be genetically male or female, chromosomal male or female, hormonally non-binary, and physically non-binary. Well, except cells have something to say about this…

Maybe cells are the right answer to “biological sex”?? Right?? Cells have receptors that “hear’ the signal from sex hormones. But sometimes those receptors don’t work. Like a mobile phone that’s on “do not disturb’. Call and call, they will not answer. 

What does this all mean?

It means that you may be genetically male or female, chromosomal male or female, hormonally male/female/non-binary, with cells that may or may not hear the male/female/non-binary call, and all this leading to a body that can be male/non-binary/female.
Try out some combinations for yourself. Notice how confusing it gets? Can you point to what the absolute cause of biological sex is? Is it fair to judge people by it? 

Of course you could try appealing to the numbers. “Most people are either male or female” you say. Except that as a biologist professor I will tell you…

The reason I don’t have my students look at their own chromosome in class is because people could learn that their chromosomal sex doesn’t match their physical sex, and learning that in the middle of a 10 point assignment is JUST NOT THE TIME.

Biological sex is complicated. Before you discriminate against someone on the basis of “biological sex” & identity, ask yourself: have you seen YOUR chromosomes? Do you know the genes of the people you love? The hormones of the people you work with? The state of their cells?

Since the answer will obviously be no, please be kind, respect people’s right to tell you who they are, and remember that you don’t have all the answers. Again: biology is complicated. Kindness and respect don’t have to be.

Rebecca R Helm 12/19/19

Sexual identity is not as straightforward as we might like. That is a scientific fact. That some people have had to (artificially) conform to narrow definitions set forth by culture to make others feel more comfortable doesn't make the facts change or make it go away. It's just gets hidden. We are not all born with equal genetic make-up any more than we all look alike or think alike. Divergent gender has been recognized in many cultures throughout history, here are a few examples. And another: The history of non-binary genders is longer than you know.

To recognize that diversion from 'the norm' is part of the natural biological process isn't being 'woke' it's akin to accepting the fact that not everyone has red hair. Since I am fortunate enough not to have the burden that some do in this area, the least I can do is be kind and try to understand/accept the person for who they are.

[elengil]

Will add that for decades, doctors have performed gender assignment surgery at birth if you didn't look *quite* like you were "supposed" to - meaning that there were countless children who had their right to choose taken away by the medical establishment who seemed to not think that changing a 'boy' to a 'girl' or a 'girl' to a 'boy' was any big deal so long as it was, apparently, not the child themself getting to have any part in this decision (or even, occasionally, the parents). Even if it meant the child was forced into an unsuitable gender role or even had to take hormone replacements.

And no, they never did "chromosomal testing" to make sure they were following "biology" - they literally looked at the genetical and decided whether they looked enough like a boy or a girl. If not - Oh they'll "fix" it. No Biology considered whatsoever, only physical manifestations.

So basically if the doctor tells you your child is a boy or a girl, and surgically alters their body to fit and forces them to take hormones to 'match' - that's fine. But if the child tells you they're a boy or a girl, somehow that's just outrageous and without precedent or support in biology??

And if the child is old enough to make that decision, suddenly the ability to agree or not is removed from the hands of doctors and put into the hands of elected officials. Why is a doctor's agreement fine at birth but not at 10 years old?

Compared to surgical forced gender assignment, a 10 yr old child wanting to explore gender possibilities seems laughably unobtrusive in the child's overall development - And yet which one are people losing their minds over? Not doctors arbitrarily assigning gender, oh no. Not doctors performing absolutely unnecessary and life-altering surgeries on infants. No no. But children being allowed to explore whether or not their bodies and self-perceptions are in full alignment - that needs the power of government to step in and squash. That needs little girls sexually molested to make sure they're "really" girls. That needs pearl clutching and "what about the children!"

https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/ ... on-infants

[Frelga]

Rodia, I want to acknowledge your posts, but there is no point in arguing the issue. I don't subscribe to the woke worldview (or whatever word you would choose to characterize your viewpoint).

What's the opposite of woke? Slepy? Comatosy?

I note that, with the whole dictionary of terms to pin a label on their bogeyman, the right chose antifa. Antifascist. Is anti-anti-fascist the opposite of woke?

[Rodia]

Rodia, I want to acknowledge your posts, but there is no point in arguing the issue. I don't subscribe to the woke worldview (or whatever word you would choose to characterize your viewpoint).

Oh there is absolutely a point to arguing the issue. For as long as people continue to present transphobic opinions in circles I happen to be in, it will be worth expressing my disapproval and explaining the error . If only to let the trans people present know that I do not consider their rights a matter of opinion.

If you want to stop contributing, that's fine by me.

But I wonder what is this woke worldview you think I subscribe to? And based on what? We haven't talked much before, you know very little about my world view. Right now, all you know is that I believe trans people do not deserve discrimination.

I think it would be better if you talked about the world views YOU subscribe to instead of trying to dismiss the entirety of mine with a buzzword.

[Rodia]

Will add that for decades, doctors have performed gender assignment surgery at birth if you didn't look *quite* like you were "supposed" to - meaning that there were countless children who had their right to choose taken away by the medical establishment who seemed to not think that changing a 'boy' to a 'girl' or a 'girl' to a 'boy' was any big deal so long as it was, apparently, not the child themself getting to have any part in this decision (or even, occasionally, the parents). Even if it meant the child was forced into an unsuitable gender role or even had to take hormone replacements.

[...]

Just to make it clear in case someone missed that from your post, they STILL do that. In first world countries.

Even the most stubborn anti-trans person must admit that intersex people exist, born with ambiguous genital markers. I personally know at least three.

And these people have gender assignment surgery performed on them without their consent, and are forced to live as the gender the doctor and their parents picked out for them. Even when they do not need the surgery at all.

edit: it has been brought to my attention that this might sound like I do not realise surgeries are often necessary on intersex babies for health reasons. I do. Those are fine. Those are good. Compounding those surgeries with making sure the child's looks approximate one of the binary genders, up to making the child take hormones, is forced transition. That's bad.

Why is there no legal category for intersex people, since they exist, naturally born that way? Why is there no gender marker for them in documentation? Why are they not protected from forced transition?

Because people are 'concerned' and 'uncomfortable' with the idea that the two gender categories we most often use are inadequate. Because it clashes with their worldview, their tradition, or their religion.

The most frequent response to this is 'well but they're a very small minority'. A minority which can apparently be sacrificed to the idea of the gender binary and mutilated for no good reason.

This is one injustice that hurts my heart when I think about it.

[RoseMorninStar]

Here's an article by WebMD: About 1 in 1,000 Babies Born 'Intersex,' Study Finds. 1 in 1,000 is a lot. And that's just the physically noticeable cases/one aspect of this discussion.

[Cerin]

Hot take: if your definition of "the woke worldview" includes "trans people, and nonbinary and intersex people are not deviants or mentally ill people, just normal ones," disagreeing with it isn't really something to be proud of.

I'll decide the things I'm proud of, and you decide the things you're proud of.

[Eldy]

I'll decide the things I'm proud of, and you decide the things you're proud of.

That is indeed how opinions work!

[Cerin]

Rodia, I want to acknowledge your posts, but there is no point in arguing the issue. I don't subscribe to the woke worldview (or whatever word you would choose to characterize your viewpoint).

I think it would be better if you talked about the world views YOU subscribe to instead of trying to dismiss the entirety of mine with a buzzword.

Discussing my worldview here would undoubtedly give offense, and I'm not prepared to do that. In addition, based on past experience, I believe it would be a waste of everyone's time, and I'm not willing to waste mine.

[Frelga]

Discussing my worldview here would undoubtedly give offense, and I'm not prepared to do that. In addition, based on past experience, I believe it would be a waste of everyone's time, and I'm not willing to waste mine.

I'm sure no one would be offended, or surprised, if you openly stated what it is you believe.

Me, I'm comfortable with my worldview. I believe that all humans are created equal and have the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. That includes the right to determine their name, appearance, religious observance, form of address, consenting sexual partner, spouse, and any other choice that does not cause injury or property damage to unwilling participants.

If that's woke, then I'm proud to be woke. (Seriously, how are people so bad at everything that even their insults sound like compliments? If I want to insult someone, I call them a half-pint of cheap plum jam, not social justice warrior, which just sounds badass)

And what is the opposite of that? What do we call the belief that individual choices must be subjugated to the demands of one ideology or religion, usually elevating one group of humans (white, straight, Christian men, in this case) while the rest are lucky to be allowed to breathe?

[Frelga]

TL;DR Could have just gone with Hillel the Elder. "That which is hateful to you, do not do unto your fellow."

[Eldy]

I'm sure no one would be offended, or surprised, if you openly stated what it is you believe.

Not surprised, no, but I also don't buy into the idea that it's less offensive for someone to play coy and merely imply they think trans people—or any other group—are bad, by disagreeing with calls for basic decency and refusing to elaborate on their beliefs but admitting they'd be considered offensive by the standards of the community. I would much rather somebody be honest and say to my face that they think I'm a mentally ill deviant, or that we have to keep children from growing up to be like me, or whatever other right-wing talking points they might buy into, than dance around the issue and hide behind superficial conformity to the civility norms of liberal politics. But then again, I'm a weirdo who cares more about the ideas people express than the way in which they express them. :V

[River]

I think Jesus said something similar, Frelga, but it's been a long time since I was in Sunday School and with the way some self-identified Christians carry on these days I'm wondering if the New Testament has changed since then.

[(Seriously, how are people so bad at everything that even their insults sound like compliments? If I want to insult someone, I call them a half-pint of cheap plum jam, not social justice warrior, which just sounds badass)

A friend of mine also favors food-based insults. "Limp broccolini" is one of his choice ones.

[RoseMorninStar]

Me, I'm comfortable with my worldview. I believe that all humans are created equal and have the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. That includes the right to determine their name, appearance, religious observance, form of address, consenting sexual partner, spouse, and any other choice that does not cause injury or property damage to unwilling participants.

If that's woke, then I'm proud to be woke. (Seriously, how are people so bad at everything that even their insults sound like compliments? If I want to insult someone, I call them a half-pint of cheap plum jam, not social justice warrior, which just sounds badass)

And what is the opposite of that? What do we call the belief that individual choices must be subjugated to the demands of one ideology or religion, usually elevating one group of humans (white, straight, Christian men, in this case) while the rest are lucky to be allowed to breathe?

I looked the term 'woke' up in the dictionary. woke | wōk |verb alert to injustice in society, especially racism.

I agree Frelga, social justice warrior doesn't sound like an insult. It puzzles me why someone (especially anyone claiming to be religious) would consider that an insult. It calls to mind Pope Paul VI's quote, "If you want peace, work for justice." (The do unto others quote is also a good one) My daughter recently gave me a shirt that says 'In a world where you can be anything, Be Kind.' I love it.

My dictionary often gives opposite meaning but in this case it did not give one for 'woke'. What would the opposite be? The words that come to mind are not kind or nice ones.

[Frelga]

I think Jesus said something similar, Frelga, but it's been a long time since I was in Sunday School and with the way some self-identified Christians carry on these days I'm wondering if the New Testament has changed since then.

Not to geek out in Lasto, but Hillel was an older contemporary of Jesus (taking the dating in the gospels as, well, a gospel). He was one of the most important Jewish thinkers and religious leaders of his time. It is practically certain that Jesus was influenced by him.

Whether the formula of the Golden Rule as recorded in Christian gospels is a deliberate paraphrase, misquote, or mistranslation, I can't tell you, but it is probably not a coincidence.

[Rodia]

Rodia, I want to acknowledge your posts, but there is no point in arguing the issue. I don't subscribe to the woke worldview (or whatever word you would choose to characterize your viewpoint).

I think it would be better if you talked about the world views YOU subscribe to instead of trying to dismiss the entirety of mine with a buzzword.

Discussing my worldview here would undoubtedly give offense, and I'm not prepared to do that. In addition, based on past experience, I believe it would be a waste of everyone's time, and I'm not willing to waste mine.

Leaving it at that only forces me to make the worst assumptions about your worldview. I won't, but, you know, you're setting it up like that.

[Rodia]

Hot take: if your definition of "the woke worldview" includes "trans people, and nonbinary and intersex people are not deviants or mentally ill people, just normal ones," disagreeing with it isn't really something to be proud of.

I'll decide the things I'm proud of, and you decide the things you're proud of.

And then this. Cerin, come on. You're saying you don't want to discuss your worldview because it will offend, but you're still giving those opinions with all the links you post and the indirect comments you make. Just be honest and don't make us guess what you think. Unless you're prepared for everyone to have an inaccurate view of your stand.

If you're proud of thinking trans people, nonbinary people and intersex people are deviants or mentally ill, if you are ok with the vaginal examinations of minors, just SAY so. If you're not, then say that isn't your opinion! But don't hedge around it like a politician.