I don't think there's a responsible, compassionate case to be made that we should try not to answer these very basic questions before proceeding with treatment that is possibly more dangerous than non-medical intervention. — Artemis

Which is nice, because I'm absolutely not making that case, and neither are the doctors asking the questions!

because I'm absolutely not making that case, — fdrake

Can you explain what case you are making then? Cause imho your last post sounded like you did not have answers to those questions but would still endorse selectively allowing underage persons to take on the risk.

Can you explain what case you are making then? Cause imho your last post sounded like you did not have answers to those questions but would still endorse selectively allowing underage persons to take on the risk. — Artemis

Are you under the impression that doctors do not extensively screen the appropriateness of and tailor hormone therapy (and surgical intervention) to gender non-conforming individuals? It's assessed on a case by case basis.

I guess you could phrase it that way.

I think doctors offering transitions to underage persons are probably (in good faith) trying too quick to accommodate transpeople's desires. Which is understandable, but it might not actually be in the best interest of transpeople until we can solve a whole list of medical and metaphysical concerns first.

I think doctors offering transitions to underage persons are probably (in good faith) trying too quick to accommodate transpeople's desires. Which is understandable, but it might not actually be in the best interest of transpeople until we can solve a whole list of medical and metaphysical concerns first. — Artemis

The metaphysical stuff is funny.

Before trying to treat this person for gender dysphoria and attendant mental health difficulties, forming support and advocacy groups for them, and trying to fight for their social recognition, let us first decide if they actually exist!

Of course they bloomin' do, the clinical questions; how best to treat this patient; are influenced by but are not reducible to questions like what is the aetiology of their condition; and those are influenced by but are not reducible to questions of what is a trans person. The influence goes both ways, of course, and if you want to study the metaphysics of transsexualism, you can learn a lot from studying trans people.

let us first decide if they actually exist! — fdrake

Red herring.

condition; and those are influenced by but are not reducible to questions of what is a trans person. The — fdrake

Actually, that's a really important, fundamental question before medicine should be practiced. I mean, unless you know what it is, you can't know all that much about how to treat it, and you risk making things worse.

Why is it inappropriate for one child to wear clothes that it's appropriate for a child with different genitals to wear?

The issue isn't that we should accommodate inappropriate behaviour; the issue is that the behaviour isn't inappropriate at all. Nonconforming, perhaps, but not inappropriate. — Michael

Isn't that what "inappropriate" means? Nonconforming?

It is inappropriate or appropriate based on the culture you find yourself in. That isn't to say that it is right or wrong. That's just the way it is. What you are physically isn't based on culture. It is based on biology - your ancestral species and your sex. What you wear doesn't change what you are, but it can change the expectations of society because society assumes you are biologically that person and not just dressing up as one. Once society finds out they've been duped, they reject that person. They aren't playing by that society's rules. In order to be accepted, they go about changing their physical form to be as much like that person as possible, but can still never get to the true form and function of something that they just aren't.

Transgenderism reinforces those cultural stereotypes. With transgenderism, wearing skirts and having long hair is what it means to be a woman. Wearing pants and having short hair is what it means to be a man. That isn't what it means to be a man or woman. Men and women can wear a variety of clothes and have different lengths of hair and still be a man or a woman. How different societies enforce these rules varies, but that variation doesn't make one more or less of a man or a woman - that is biology.

The socialist left doesn't seem to realize that gender-neutrality and transgenderism are incompatible ideas. You can't have both in the same culture. Either we change our culture as to not assume that a woman is under that dress and that it is okay for men to wear dresses and still be a man so they don't go do something radical and dangerous to their bodies, OR we change our ideas about mental health and that people can actually be other people in their heads even though their physical form says otherwise.

Actually, that's a really important, fundamental question before medicine should be practiced. — Artemis

Seems pretty backwards to me. The only reason we're theorising about the metaphysics of transgenderism is because trans people are becoming more socially recognised and the treatments for them are developing. It's not like the metaphysical questions' a priori nature dictates treatment strategy or social experience; though the metaphysics that accompanies peoples' perceptions of trans (including self perception) is important.

Especially when you have people like here who still believe there's no distinction between birth sex and gender, trans people be damned.

It's not like the metaphysical questions' a priori nature dictates treatment strategy or social experience; though the metaphysics that accompanies peoples' perceptions of trans (including self perception) is important. — fdrake

Of course details like "what exactly is transgenderism" determine treatment. It's like the difference between how you'd treat someone with paranoia versus a victim of stalking. Or how you'd treat an obese person trying to lose weight versus an anorexic one. Or treating an ulcer versus Crohn's disease. All these things share symptoms, but are hugely different cases and therefore need different treatments.

If we say transgenderism is being "trapped in the wrong body" we can make a case for physical alterations. If we say transgenderism is just self-id and a social role, then the case for risky medical procedures seems less clear.

Especially when you have people like ↪Harry Hindu here who still believe there's no distinction between birth sex and gender, trans people be damned. — fdrake

For most people there isnt one. The difference is as imaginary as the sex transgenders believe they are. For the transgenders there isn't a difference which is why they attempt to change their sex.

Gender has never defined coherently other than as a synonym for sex. If gender were a social construction then society, not indivuals and their view of themselves, determine gender. Gender would be detrmined collectively, not individually.

Of course details like "what exactly is transgenderism" determine treatment. It's like the difference between how you'd treat someone with paranoia versus a victim of stalking. Or how you'd treat an obese person trying to lose weight versus an anorexic one. Or treating an ulcer versus Crohn's disease. All these things share symptoms, but are hugely different cases and therefore need different treatments. — Artemis

I guess what I'm saying is we don't need metaphysical speculation for basic characterisation any more. If the UN has a definition of the term they use for assessing policy/treatment/rights, the basic characterisation of what "transexual' means is already well studied.

Transgender (sometimes shortened to “trans”) is an umbrella term used to describe a wide range of identities whose appearance and characteristics are perceived as gender atypical —including transsexual people, cross-dressers (sometimes referred to as “transvestites”), and people who identify as third gender. Transwomen identify as women but were classified as males when they were born, transmen identify as men but were classified female when they were born, while other trans people don’t identify with the gender-binary at all. Some transgender people seek surgery or take hormones to bring their body into alignment with their gender identity; others do not. — UN

There are accompanying definitions of gender identity and gender expression in the link.

Gender identity reflects a deeply felt and experienced sense of one’s own gender. Everyone has a gender identity, which is part of their overall identity. A person’s gender identity is typically aligned with the sex assigned to them at birth. Transgender (sometimes shortened to “trans”) is an umbrella term used to describe people with a wide range of identities – including transsexual people, cross-dressers (sometimes referred to as “transvestites”), people who identify as third gender, and others whose appearance and characteristics are seen as gender atypical and whose sense of their own gender is different to the sex that they were assigned at birth. Trans women identify as women but were classified as males when they were born. Trans men identify as men but were classified female when they were born. Cisgender is a term used to describe people whose sense of their own gender is aligned with the sex that they were assigned at birth. Gender identity is distinct from sexual orientation and sex characteristics. — UN

Gender expression is the way in which we express our gender through actions and appearance. Gender expression can be any combination of masculine, feminine and androgynous. For a lot of people, their gender expression goes along with the ideas that our societies deem to be appropriate for their gender. For other people it does not. People whose gender expression does not fit into society’s norms and expectations, such as men perceived as ‘feminine’ and women perceived as ‘masculine’ often face harsh sanctions, including physical, sexual and psychological violence and bullying. A person’s gender expression is not always linked to the person’s biological sex, gender identity or sexual orientation. — UN

Sure, there'll probably be problems in it. But the basic groove the definitions follow is that:

(1) Gender isn't reducible to birth sex, even though it usually aligns with it.
(2) Gender is a social phenomenon whose archetypes are correlated with the sex of bodies.
(3) The expression of gender is intimately bound up with norms of expression of its archetypes, as a social phenomenon relating to the expectations of appearance and actions, this is not surprising.

There's also a resounding lack of 'gender dysphoria' in these basic characterisations, which is a virtue, for a similar reason to homosexuality no longer being a mental illness. For what I imagine is a related reason, the characterisations locate the site of social 'sanctions'; mental and physical abuse; as related to norms of gender expression and not gender identity; can be a man or woman or whatever without abuse for gender identity, you're gonna get abuse when the norms for gender expression are in friction with your gender expression. To wit; trans people aren't mentally ill a lot because they're trans, trans people are mentally ill a lot because society fucks them up.

I'm not saying we should uncritically accept these basic characterisations, to my mind they seem very sensible and cover what seems relevant. What I will say is that I'm usually extremely suspicious that non-acceptance of something resembling this account in its major respects is rooted in a desire for metaphysical accuracy rather than ignorance or prejudice. Out in public it looks like fear of traps, on a philosophy forum it looks like a desire for linguistic or biological decorum, in private it looks like drooling over your dick while guiltwanking on pornhub (which I would link to, but one must have standards).

What I will say is that I'm usually extremely suspicious that non-acceptance of something resembling this account in its major respects is rooted in a desire for metaphysical accuracy rather than ignorance or prejudice. — fdrake

I don't think it makes any sense to claim that a person looking for metaphysical accuracy is being prejudiced. Some might be, as you suggest, using it as a cover for their prejudice, but you cannot assume that a) all such questions are covers, and b) all true supporters won't question the metaphysics.

In fact, as I have pointed out before, I believe NOT wanting an accurate account of the phenomenon is potentially much more harmful and less supportive than a risk-taking rush to accommodate everything people think they want.

So the definition you present here basically comes down to the latter of my two suggestions earlier: gender is self-id and a social role. In which case, part of the reason trans-people would so desperately want to transition early would be to "pass" more easily and not be the subject of harrassment.

Again, I don't think there's a good case to be made that we should allow teens to modify their bodies because other people are jerks. That runs counter to everything else we try to instill in our children. It gives credence to the suggestion that it is okay to judge someone on their appearance, and that it is the harrassee and not the harrasser who must change.

I guess what I'm saying is we don't need metaphysical speculation for basic characterisation any more. — fdrake

Sure you do. You are skeptical of so many claims on this forum, yet you aren't skeptical of someone's claim that they are a woman when they were born a man. This is a case of one's skepticism being applied inconsistently, and the reason is because it is a political/religious issue for you, not a scientific one.

Transgender (sometimes shortened to “trans”) is an umbrella term used to describe a wide range of identities whose appearance and characteristics are perceived as gender atypical — UN

Ok, so here "gender" is defined as an identity that is gender atypical. Did you read that over? Gender is an identity that is gender atypical. Sounds like a contradiction to me. How can gender be something that is atypical of gender? Politics.

Gender is a social phenomenon whose archetypes are correlated with the sex of bodies — fdrake

Here's a completely different definition - one where you just reiterated what I already did - that if gender is a social phenomenon, then gender is defined collectively, not by an individual, which contradicts the idea that gender is an individual identity that a person feels like and can decide for themselves.

I don't think it makes any sense to claim that a person looking for metaphysical accuracy is being prejudiced. Some might be, as you suggest, using it as a cover for their prejudice, but you cannot assume that a) all such questions are covers, and b) all true supporters won't question the metaphysics. — Artemis

I certainly don't think you are prejudiced here! You've been nothing but earnest and exploratory. And I agree that it is important to care about accurately describing transgenderism. Otherwise I would probably not have done basic research about it.

So the definition you present here basically comes down to the latter of my two suggestions earlier: gender is self-id and a social role. In which case, part of the reason trans-people would so desperately want to transition early would be to "pass" more easily and not be the subject of harrassment. — Artemis

I think one of the best parts about the UN characterisation is that it highlights bodies as social objects, in the regard that they are not just passively immersed in roles and appearances, but roles and appearances play out in them.

For a playful example, I identify as a mathematician. That I've worked in that role is part of it, part of it is a thinking style, part of it is a collection of analogies and codes and heuristics that I partake in, and some of it is being able to make my choices and thoughts and keystrokes/penstrokes align in the right way to make computers do stuff, students learn stuff, or for some other end. These aren't just floating ideas existing in some realm of abstraction; appearances of mathematical competence; I embody versions of them and carry them forth in my day to day life. My body can function as a mathematician, and I currently have that as a social role. Luckily I don't have to just do math.

For a less playful example, I have dissociative disorder. That I've been diagnosed with it and treated for it is part of it, part of it is a thinking style, part of it is a collection of habits and bodily processes that I partake in, and some of it is that my thoughts and body movements align in the right way to... make me unable to move for hours at a time, unpredictably. These aren't just floating ideas existing in some realm of abstraction; appearances of diagnostic indicators formulated from case reports and clinical trials; I embody versions of them and carry them forth in my day to day life. My body can function as a person with dissociative disorder, and I currently have that as a social role. Luckily my social functions do not solely consist in partaking in clinical trials.

Of course there are differences, but I could no more sever mathematical training from my mind than the dissociative disorder. Both atrophy when not exercised, though, and that's a good thing in the latter case and a sorry state of human stupidity in the former case.

For a far more contentious example, I identify as a man, the sex I was born as. That I've been comfortable with the alignment of my birth sex and my gender identity is part of it, part of it is a thinking style, part of it is a collection of habits and bodily process that I partake in (socialisation!), and some of it is that my thoughts and body movements align in the right way to... make me perceive little to no difference between my gender identity and my biological sex. These aren't just floating ideas existing in some realm of abstraction; behavioural indicators correlating with physiology and expression in an anthropologist's notebook; I embody versions of them and carry them forth in my day to day life. My body can function as a man, and I currently have that as a social role. Luckily my social roles do not consist in being an archetype of masculinity.

Of course there are differences, the latter is so fundamental to my being I find it difficult to give it a procedural description because I can't separate myself from it. I can't describe it indifferently as a separate function. My bits have social functions every bit a part of me as the bits themselves, that I don't feel much internal conflict between them and my self concept is difficult to express; distinctions in character are furnished with differences in function rather than identities in character, and I have no fucking clue what those identities consist in since I am them for the most part. I can't imagine how it would feel to feel differences in these bits and be bullied for it! I guess maybe it's something like discovering a body part by feeling it ache.

Perhaps this is because I am insane, but I see the social roles and the body bits they concern as equally fundamental to the process of my gender identity and expression; it's not just me over here and the social world over there, I'm already over there and it's already over here. I'm differentiated from it but part of it. My gender is as much a process of inter-relation between bodies and social roles as it is the bodies and the roles which express the process. Such a 'social object' is a living, sensuous how rather than an inert insertion (oo-er) of whats into an independent medium. These processes are as much fleshy as legislative, like penstrokes branding dicks as M and M as rugged, or modes under different aspects playing out in the same substance. This seems far more amenable to me than " dick => man (behind the curtain) "

There're lots of gender metaphysics, this lesbian Deleuze-Butler slash-fic buggery I just offered you is one. I think it's pretty consistent with the UN definition; it emphasises bodies, gender identities, sexes and gender expression as a connected whole of overlapping but distinct components that mediate between but are carried forth by the bodies (human, social) the account concerns.

Start thinking in terms where trans people actually exist and I'll respond in more detail.

Start thinking in terms where trans people actually exist and I'll respond in more detail. — fdrake

You need to define gender in order to define transgenders and where they are. Is gender a feeling or is it a social construction?

Why would trans people exist in certain places if it was an internal feeling and individual view of themselves as opposed to a social construction?

Trans people only seem to exist in western countries where a small fraction of parents raise their child as the opposite sex rather than in a gender-neutral environment. But that doesn't mean that they don't exist elsewhere as they could be labeled not as trans but as criminals or delusional. Again it comes down to defining it in a consistent and coherent way.

Raising a child as the opposite sex is limiting what your child wears and plays with based on their opposite sex and is just as egregious if not more so to the gender-neutral movement as raising your child to limit what they wear and play with based on their actual sex. Its all about sex.

Trans people only seem to exist in western countries where a small fraction of parents raise their child as the opposite sex rather than in a gender-neutral environment — Harry Hindu

No. The name 'transgender' might be new, but people who don't fit snugly in male and female archetypes for their culture and time period are not.

You need to define gender in order to define transgenders and where they are. Is gender a feeling or is it a social construction? — Harry Hindu

Define define. Define need. Define feeling. Define social construction. Only then will I be able to understand what you write, and I am responding in earnest. If this request seems ridiculous, wonder why such incredulity does not apply to yours. If you seriously don't know what gender is, here is the WHO's definition of it as it relates to social constructions.

Gender refers to the socially constructed characteristics of women and men – such as norms, roles and relationships of and between groups of women and men. It varies from society to society and can be changed. While most people are born either male or female, they are taught appropriate norms and behaviours – including how they should interact with others of the same or opposite sex within households, communities and work places. When individuals or groups do not “fit” established gender norms they often face stigma, discriminatory practices or social exclusion – all of which adversely affect health. It is important to be sensitive to different identities that do not necessarily fit into binary male or female sex categories.

And here's Google's definition of it:

noun
noun: gender; plural noun: genders
1.
either of the two sexes (male and female), especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones. The term is also used more broadly to denote a range of identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female.

members of a particular gender considered as a group.

the fact or condition of belonging to or identifying with a particular gender.

And self-identity because, yeah... apparently necessary too:

the perception or recognition of one's characteristics as a particular individual, especially in relation to social context.

If you're still having trouble understanding what gender roughly is and how it relates to feelings and social contexts, cultures, identity, self identity and so on, re-read what I quoted here.

Hope that helps.

Hope that helps. — fdrake

But doesn't the 'self-' bit of 'self-identity' as...

"the perception or recognition of one's characteristics as a particular individual, especially in relation to social context."

...contradict

"Gender refers to the socially constructed characteristics of women and men – such as norms, roles and relationships of and between groups of women and men. It varies from society to society and can be changed. While most people are born either male or female, they are taught appropriate norms and behaviours – including how they should interact with others of the same or opposite sex within households, communities and work places."

One cannot seem to self-identify by the first criteria as a member of some category in the second definition because the second definition makes it clear such membership criteria are taught and imposed by culture, not determined freely by individuals.

Isn't this the nub of the feminist concern about transgender issues, that society's imposed criteria for 'womanhood' become some fixed biological trait that people are born with, identifiable by the self, not imposed by the culture?

Your self-description reminds me of part 51 of "Song of Myself" by Walt Whitman (especially the famous part, highlighted in bold):

51
The past and present wilt—I have fill’d them, emptied them,
And proceed to fill my next fold of the future.

Listener up there! what have you to confide to me?
Look in my face while I snuff the sidle of evening,
(Talk honestly, no one else hears you, and I stay only a minute longer.)

Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)

I concentrate toward them that are nigh, I wait on the door-slab.

Who has done his day’s work? who will soonest be through with his supper?
Who wishes to walk with me?

Will you speak before I am gone? will you prove already too late?

https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/45477/song-of-myself-1892-version

I'm glad it reminded you of something legitimately good.

The name 'transgender' might be new, but people who don't fit snugly in male and female archetypes for their culture and time period are not. — fdrake

Exactly. There have to be these binary archetypes existent in a cultures for there to someone who might want to play the opposite archetype. Eliminate the archetypes and you end up with a gender neutral society and you eliminate transgenderism at the same time. Like I said, transgenders aren't being gender neutral. They are enforcing the binary gender system by claiming to be the opposite sex when performing the acts that some society expects of that sex. In a gender neutral society there would be no acts that make one a man or a woman other than the biological ones that have to do with procreation.

Define define. Define need. Define feeling. Define social construction. Only then will I be able to understand what you write, and I am responding in earnest. If this request seems ridiculous, wonder why such incredulity does not apply to yours. If you seriously don't know what gender is, here is the WHO's definition of it as it relates to social constructions. — fdrake

And self-identity because, yeah... apparently necessary too:

the perception or recognition of one's characteristics as a particular individual, especially in relation to social context. — fdrake

One cannot seem to self-identify by the first criteria as a member of some category in the second definition because the second definition makes it clear such membership criteria are taught and imposed by culture, not determined freely by individuals.

Isn't this the nub of the feminist concern about transgender issues, that society's imposed criteria for 'womanhood' become some fixed biological trait that people are born with, identifiable by the self, not imposed by the culture? — Isaac

It looks like someone else gets it.

Also from Google:

Male: an adult human male
Woman: an adult human female

"Man" and "woman" are terms used to designate not just sex, but species. One's species is probably the most important distinction these terms make. Just as "buck" and "doe" are terms used to refer to male and female deer, we have terms to refer to male and female humans. These aren't social constructions.

Gender refers to the socially constructed characteristics of women and men – such as norms, roles and relationships of and between groups of women and men. It varies from society to society and can be changed.

Seems to me that this is saying that women and men are physical, biological entities that have these ideas imposed on them by culture. Culture has a way of imposing unnatural rules on us - of treating us unequally and differently. It seems to me that changing ones gender entails changing the society you live in, not by changing your appearance.

If gender is imposed on an individual, then how can an individual choose their own gender?

If gender is imposed on an individual, then how can an individual choose their own gender? — Harry Hindu

How can I be part of this family I'm born into?

I dont understand the point of your question. To be "part of a family" entails a physical, biological relationship with others, which is the case regardless of the culture you're born into or choices you make.

part of a family" entails a physical, biological relationship with others — Harry Hindu

Correction: entails a biological and/or social bond. People are generally not biologically related to their spouses, in-laws count as families, as do adopted relations. On the flip side, we can and do disown people biologically related to us based on their treatment of us.

One cannot seem to self-identify by the first criteria as a member of some category in the second definition because the second definition makes it clear such membership criteria are taught and imposed by culture, not determined freely by individuals. — Isaac

Where do you think this dichotomy comes from? Between 'taught and imposed by culture' and 'determined freely by individuals'?

Correction: entails a biological and/or social bond. People are generally not biologically related to their spouses, in-laws count as families, as do adopted relations. On the flip side, we can and do disown people biologically related to us based on their treatment of us. — Artemis

This isn't a correction because you didn't read 's question, which asks how can one be part of a family one is born into. I didn't understand the question as one is born from a mother and father's genetic material, unless drakes is using an alternate form of "family". If he meant society or culture, he could of just used those terms, but he's being vague and avoiding me now.

Where do you think this dichotomy comes from? Between 'taught and imposed by culture' and 'determined freely by individuals'? — fdrake

Natural selection. The term is called "sexual dimorphism".

This isn't a correction because you didn't read ↪fdrake's question, which asks how can one be part of a family one is born into. — Harry Hindu

Hence the disowning bit.

:lol: You can't disown genetics. I did use that term, right - "genetics"? Yep, so either you're not paying attention, or you're building straw-men.

Where do you think this dichotomy comes from? Between 'taught and imposed by culture' and 'determined freely by individuals'? — fdrake

Not sure if you're asking how I think it came to be, or what I think it is about those factors which give rise to a dichotomy. Presuming the second, it's about the knowledge drawn on to make the classification.

Ultimately, man, woman, are just words, right? Words can be used correctly or incorrectly and the arbiter of 'correctness' has to be the function of the word (unless you can think of anywhere else 'correctness' could be kept). So, with the aspects of 'man' and 'woman' which refer to gender (there are obviously other uses the same words are put to), they are categorising words, they assign people to groups. So the question of whether they've performed this function 'correctly' has to be one which the language-user community can answer. Otherwise you end up with a private language, which is a nonsense.

Say you're born into a family where your parents used ivf with donor sperm and eggs. They also had already adopted two other kids. They raise you and love you your whole life.

According to you, these would not be your family?


And, btw, you can very much legally disown children and parents.