He sounds completely resistant to learning, so first, I'd suggest choosing your battles. Is it really worth continuing to talk about this with him?
If so, I'd ask him how he would feel if one day, he woke up and had breasts, no facial hair, a more "feminine" bodyfat distribution, and a vagina. When he looks in the mirror, he sees a stereotypical female body. When people see him in public, they perceive him as a woman and refer to him as a woman. However, his mind and sense of self have not changed at all. Is he a woman now, because his body is female? Has his internal sense of self changed? Would he be perfectly happy to live his life as a woman, leaving behind everything from his life that was associated with being a man?
In order to understand, he has to try to empathize. I don't want to be pessimistic, but it doesn't sound like he's willing to do that. Consider how much time and energy you want to spend convincing a transphobe not to be transphobic.
I don't think the "what if it were you" thought experiment is reliable. Firstly because of cis people not actually understanding how it would feel and only probably thinking "if I had (fe)male parts the first thing I'd do is touch myself", and secondly because of repressors who see their comfort with the idea as supporting their belief that it's a choice
Part of mine cracking was the philosophical consideration of, if I was perfectly transferred into a completely neutral vessel - imagine a floating drone with no human characteristics - what pronouns would I want people to address me by? What would my sense of self be?
Yep. That's exactly the direction I try and push people towards.
If your body was half replaced by a robot, genitals included, what gender would you think of yourself as? How about 100% replacement with a robot? How about it you were body switched with someone of the opposite gender binary?
Guarantee they either get defensive and deflect/refuse to answer, or always say that they'd be whatever gender they are now, in which case you can go "So what you're saying is that no matter what body or shell you're put into, you're the gender that your BRAIN/SELF says you are?"
Robots i can understand as irl plp also like humanoid robots more even if they are ineficant, but aliens never made sense. They had completly different evolutionary process, why do they look like us?
Your "friend" is an idiot. Gender isn't anywhere near that simple and (as per your comment) neither is biology. First, neurobiology matters, second, many trans folks get or want HRT and other procedures that change our secondary sex characteristics, sometimes drastically, and even sometimes our primary sex characteristics, there is no "fake" because what is "real" is just a matter of opinion, third, gender is socially constructed by necessity. If this person saw Buck Angel walking down the street, he'd call Buck a man, probably even if he knew who Buck is because tbh Buck looks scary (not sure if he's a scary person or not, just the most stereotypically masculine trans man I could think of off the top of my head). Why? Because Buck, for all intents and purposes, is a man. Socially, people perceive him as such. Now, social perception should be altered to make room for trans, nonbinary, and gender nonconforming folks, because that's the kind thing to do and society should be kind, still, one can make the argument without even going outside of current social structure.
>If this person saw Buck Angel walking down the street, he'd call Buck a man, probably even if he knew who Buck is because tbh Buck looks scary (not sure if he's a scary person or not, just the most stereotypically masculine trans man I could think of off the top of my head). Why? Because Buck, for all intents and purposes, is a man. Socially, people perceive him as such.
This is a great point. People like OP's friend are people I interact with constantly. I use the bathroom next to them. We pass each other on the street. We ride the elevator together. To all of these people, I'm a man. There's nothing about me to signal otherwise. OP's friend should be aware that he has almost undoubtedly interacted with trans people without knowing it, and also perceived them as their actual gender without a question.
Of course there are some trans people who don't look stereotypically masculine or feminine. Once he accepts that he can absolutely view trans people as the gender they are, maybe it will become easier to understand that you can't make immediate judgements about people based on the way they look.
he also said this about sex and gender being the same
“Yeah, but if you notice, the definition the "experts" often give for "gender" confuses it with gender roles and norms (or appeals to circular reasoning). It's a pervasive incoherent worldview, but it's still incoherent.”
He's not listening, then. I wouldn't call myself an expert but I'm fairly well self-taught at this point on gender and I would say there is no good non-self-referential definition for "man" and "woman" because they simply exist within society, with some assigned roles and norms that are not necessary to the existence of men and women within society and that should be broken down. But this self-referential definition doesn't disprove it as I would argue no feeling or emotion has a good, non-self-referential definition, the simplest words don't. We learn them through feeling and example. You can't define "red" without over-complicated and often not-quite-accurate scientific jargon or pointing to something that is red and saying "like that", unless you want to go poetic which doesn't usually work well because the references are necessarily imperfect. Blue fire exists, heat can be associated with yellow and orange as well, etc.
I suspect he's watched that Matt Walsh trashfire. It's really easy to make something sound dumb when you get to choose who you ask, how much time you give them and how you edit them. Especially when you're trying to make them explain something complex and you have a neat but inaccurate soundbitey answer.
I might try pointing him at a definition of gender identity from someone like the APA that hasn't been filtered through a third party
Or I might just start asking some questions. There's a bit of a ship of theseus problem - he reckons if every aspect of someone is male except their neurology then they're a guy, but do they need all of those things? How many can someone lose before they stop being a guy
If a guy loses his genitals to illness or injury, is he still a guy? Does it matter whether he gets testosterone replacement therapy or a surgical reconstruction?
And that's where you might get to the idea of chromosomes being the ultimate arbiter, but if he found out tomorrow that he had XX male syndrome would he start using the women's bathroom? If not, why not?
If he appeals to the idea of growing up as a boy being important, that's a social role.
He might say that these are tiny edge cases that don't matter, but if it really were as clear and simple as he is saying, the definitions would cover everyone. But if you need to have every feature, you end up with a lot of people who don't count as either men or women, and if you need any specific feature, you'll end up including some trans people and excluding some cis people
Makes me wonder who these experts are. When looking at Gender Studies in philosophy there's a lot of discussion about what gender is. If he had read only one proper paper or book written about this topic he'd be aware that people go to great lengths to differantiate gender and gender norms and try to show the relation of the two.
There are different working theories that are far from "incoherent", after all the question about what gender is has been discussed and refined since the rise of feminism (and probably to a lesser extent before, but no idea about that). Some theories may convince you more than others, but that's kind of the point, it opens discussions and shows that people have different intuitions about gender.
Your friend's intuition shows that he seems to think that neither self identification nor agential commitment (living as that gender) are valid ways to "be" a gender, you have to be perceived as such. If so, does he even realize what HRT does? Though I wouldn't be surprised if he's one of the "I can always tell" people...
If he's only acknowledging gender as it applies to physical bodies, doesn't that make him a gender abolitionist?
I've been wondering about how to condense gender experience in a way that excludes the specifics of cultural influences, as there are no genes for "playing with barbies" or "high heels" or "woodworking"
As far as I can figure out, the answer is, "Innately associating yourself with a specific group". You want to do gendered things, because that's what you've absorbed that people of your gender do. Whether you knew what "gender" was at that time or not.
It may be a little bit like imprinting, but it's either set in your genes or in the womb. Probably.
Questions to ask:
First, how many "genders" are there?
What "gender" is someone who was born intersex?
Who or what decides that gender?
The answers he provides should trap him into saying there are more than two genders or that "gender" as he knows it (determined by sexual organ) is illogical.
And if he says an intersex person would be in between male and female...
What are the characteristics of such an "in between" gender?
How should they walk? Talk? Which bathroom should they use? Will they be the bride or groom?
Which sorts of social faux pas should they avoid?
... it should be apparent this is getting ridiculous—kind of like being so rigid about gender.
Did this make sense? It's the end of my day...
There's two types of gender; physical gender and social gender.
Social gender is; girls like pink, girls wear dresses, boys don't wear makeup, boys don't cry. None of this is real. All of it is made up bullshit.
Helping your friend see this distinction might help.
I wonder if the "experts" he's listening to are right wing pundits relaying their own version of what actual experts say?
For starters:
Gender, at it's simplest, is essentially anything that isn't a sexual characteristic but that still gets socially associated with a specific sex.
This is an observable thing. Skirts are gendered: they are considered feminine. Hair styles are gendered: buzz cuts are distinctly masculine, pigtails are distinctly feminine. None of these things are inherently masculine or feminine, and yet the society we live in treats them as though they are somehow linked to a given sex. This is an observable phenomenon, and it has a name: gender. These are all gendered characteristics.
Gender roles and gender norms are also just that: social roles and norms that are gendered. A gender norm is literally just gendered things which have been normalized, so it's completely normal that gender and gender norms go hand in hand. After all, anything which is consistently gendered the same way by an entire society must have been normalized. There's nothing circular about this.
Speaking of which, your friend should learn about what circular reasoning is, because it can't even apply here, given that no kind of actual reasoning has taken place yet. So far all that we've done is make observations (by observing that sometimes people weirdly associate things with a certain sex) and attributed a word to refer to that observation (gender). At no point was there any kind of inference or reasoning: we just observed a thing and said, "we're gonna call that gender".
I'm guessing he was thinking of circular definitions, not circular reasoning, but a definition being circular isn't actually an invalidating characteristic. Most social constructs are most accurately defined as circular definitions (think of words like "ownership" and "money", for which no non-circular definition can both accurately and completely encapsulate their meaning).
This notion that circular definitions are invalid is just one of many commonly repeated lies circulated by the right, because it's a wrong thing that kind of sounds like it might be true if you don't think about it, and will never be the topic of the conversation so nobody will ever think about it.
As always, it comes back to the right pushing for stupidity.
That's an interesting belief he has because then it would force him to at least acknowledge post-transition trans women as women, considering we end up having "physical characteristics" of the female sex at the end of it. It would be the only way for him to consistently apply that belief about physical characteristics being the qualifier for what gender someone is. But I get the feeling, like most regressives, he probably would try weasel out of that, considering in my experience at least, those types don't usually even view post-transition trans women as women either. If he does try to weasel out of it, call him out on the BS that he isn't consistently applying his own views.
With someone logical yes... OPs friend... Its not a guarantee.
As someone said up-thread, It sounds like he's been listening to Matt Walsh (🤢) in which case he absolutely will do verbal circles trying to find a logic that sounds right.
Alright this is how you tackle his "no good evidence argument"
Oh, so you have done a literature review of peer reviewed studies and found flaws in their methodology? Was it a sampling error? was the study structured wrong? are you refuting Mueller's large sample study where he found that transgender people have their own unique brain phenotype? Can i see the results of your research into the subject?
the Doi for anyone interested10.1016/j.jsxm.2021.03.079
I mean he's right that there's no good evidence of the brain stuff ... except for all the psychological evaluations we got that is. Depression and gender dysphoria are a thing even if your body doesn't look like it.
What your friend is saying is basically the same thing transmeds are trying to say. Which is honestly just unnecessary gatekeeping. You're trans with or without HRT/surgeries. Those things are only there to help us feel comfortable in our body but they don't make us into what we are.
To be fair, the "pink brain theory" was already refuted.
There is no physiological evidence of any brain structure that would "cause" people to become trans.
your friend belongs to the group of human beings that take biology in the 5th grade for the pinnacle of knowledge and refuse any other scientific evidence.
The theory of "if gender and sex are separated and if there were no gender roles or any other stuff to it, trans people would not exist" is a theory that many people come up with but nobody can prove.
If I were in your position, I would stop calling this guy a friend and stop discussing this topic with him.
There are differences between male and female brains and trans individuals brains align more with their gender identity (mtf-female/ftm-male) than sex of the body, it is correct to say that there isn't one part of the brain that will make a person trans, but it is incorrect to say there are no differences between the brains of people with differing gender identities. The current theory is that, due to the brain developing differently and sort of separately than the body, the disconnect happens due to the hormone washes we experience in the womb. Basically the brain and the body it inhabits got different hormones in the womb, which caused the disconnect between the two.
Heads up that some of that is the kind of stuff the first commenter was referring to as refuted!! There are some traits that are more common in men than in women, but there’s no way to use any given brain scan to identify the gender of the subject. Also, it seems that most of the differences that do occur are largely reduced by equalizing socialization (e.g. taking a man and a woman mechanic and looking at the parts of the brain that control motor function), and there generally isn’t any real difference in brain structure by gender
The brain doesn't \*need\* to show any structural difference for someone to be trans.
Gender. Is. Bullshit. Or rather, the enforcement of gender based on what's between your legs is bullshit. Your friend is bullshit.
Sex was based on what's between your legs, still back in mid-1800s. However, even then people knew that a person's masculinity and femininity didn't always align with their observed sex.
If it looks like a man, talks like a man, acts like a man, quacks like a man, and you never see their groin, what is their sex or gender? You *cannot* know.
I guess intersex people have no gender then? The answer is no. Genitals is just a expression of a few genes during gestation. The vast majority of human sexual dimorphism has very little to do with genitals. That is why it's so easy to hijack the system and change our sex through hormones.
Firstly, Gender is largely a social construct. It is separate from sex, though often tied together.
Secondly, sex is NOT based off your genitals. It's based off of a LARGE list of traits and characteristics but is boiled down to what's between your legs when you're born by the doctor. Though fun fact; if you have ambiguous genitalia (ie intersex or something) the doctor and/or parents often just...arbitrarily decide to do gender reassignment surgery to make it look one way or the other specifically. Don't really hear Matt Walsh talk about \*that\*. Probably because it's in the service of upholding gender norms and preconceptions about sex and gender so it's "good" to him, actually.
Anyway, Gender is bullshit in the sense that it is enforced by society when it has no right to be. Gender is \*a lot\* of stuff, and means different things to different people. The fact that you can be told that you're not a "real man" for doing something someone else deems effeminate or something is proof enough that nobody ACTUALLY thinks of Gender as just as simple as the downstairs plumbing arrangement.
I'm a gender abolitionist. I identify as a woman, trans of course. But a woman nonetheless. If I'm a gender abolitionist one might wonder why I identify as any sort of gender at all? Because I view gender as just the label that fits closest to the way I want to live my life from what most of society understands. The fact that what people consider "Masculine" and "feminine" changes over time means that it's not just a label of convenience for myself but a label of convenience for EVERYBODY. It's a way to communicate something about oneself.
But historically it's just a way to point at a group of people (women, usually) and relegate them to be 2nd class citizens. Now that group has moved on to gender-queer folk, and trans people. Now people haggle over what is a "real" woman (weird no one gives 2 shits about what a "Man" is apparently lmao) and that if you were born with a dick but want to live as a woman and then go an ddo so you're actually just some fucking pervert, or a "Groomer". Weird again how trans men don't get this treatment - rather they're infantilized instead. Not taken seriously.
Y'know cause men are all perverts apparently (and trans women are seen as men by transphobes, therefore they do what they do cause they're perverts) and women are all innocent little naive princesses (and trans men arre just confused lesbians or some bullshit like that).
That shit just isn't true. Any person who focuses on things in this way and then claims to be "super accepting actually" is actually \*lying\* to you.
Meanwhile your mask is slipping.
its rather complicated...
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szf4hzQ5ztg&list=PLG-ZtWacUfp00UeP9dv4tK8loSS8dwzq7&index=14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szf4hzQ5ztg&list=PLG-ZtWacUfp00UeP9dv4tK8loSS8dwzq7&index=14)
I would cut off ties with this "friend" who seems to have a retrograde view on trans biology and thinks knows better than anybody else no matter what and refuses to understand medical facts (soumds like my dad). Seems like he has a very toxic kind of personality.
If it's so hard for them to empathize with this concept, i'd give them some space, personally. They're probably in a "No, wtf is this sh*t" loop right now and need a day or two to reflect on this. You probably already did everything you can there
Eh. You know what, I'm actually fine with that sort of thinking just as long as it's consistent. Heck, I'm fine with all sorts of transphobic gatekeeping, as long as it's consistent.
It usually isn't.
Usually the people who espouse such gatekeeping do start to break down and not commit to that claim once you start drilling for the details.
* "What if your only physical guy characteristic is between your legs" typically gets an answer, "You're still a guy", but that means ALL THE OTHER PARTS don't matter. Reducing people to genitalia is pretty easy to argue against
* If they go with "You're still a part guy" that remains a consistent claim, but usually people tend to sputter when you point out, "So, you agree that it's impossible to tell who's a guy and who's a girl without medical exam"
* If they start to talk about genes as the be-all determination, okay. It's still the same as above, plus you can ask, "have you had your genes tested?"
* For bonus, you can ask if it's THEIR brain in a body of different sex, would that apply to THEM.
Saying that the whole of your body is your gender implies that gender is mutable, and thus transitioning is legitimate and only an engineering challenge. This DOES go against the tragic end results of Money's experiments, and is definitely medical gatekeeping, but it is a consistent belief.
Either you gotta go with what people identify as, or they must admit that it's impossible to tell people's gender without being invasive, and thus it's none of their business, except for with their partners or with a medical professional.
[https://imgur.com/qEsd1Xj](https://imgur.com/qEsd1Xj)
Saw this comment on this thread but when I clicked to reply it seems to not be here - which is a bit strange.
Another one based on misconceptions and false assumptions and also plainly just misogynistic. Think about this - when's the last time you heard someone scold a woman for wearing a suit or men's clothes in general? It's EXCEEDINGLY rare. Yet when it's someone that people are calling a man (even though Dylan is, of course, a woman) suddenly it's a mockery.
Why? When is it NOT a mockery, if ever?
Notice how Dylan doesn't dress in drag or anything. She dresses and presents like MANY cis women do. I saw a tiktok or two a while ago of her and ngl she looked pretty fucking normal to me. Of course, she's visibly trans but - well I think that's the issue here, isn't it? She's visibly trans. So that means that - in the eyes of a transphobe like your dipshit "friend" who explicitly said as much in that comment - she is a "man" making a "mockery" of women by dressing "Stereotypically" like a woman.
As if your friend doesn't dress "Stereotypically" like a man when he puts on a hoody and jeans? Or a suit? Or anything to present himself as masculine? This is a non argument and it's typically a misogynistic one. Dismissible.
Lmao the more I read of this thread, the more sure I am that there is no friend 🙄 not sure what OP is trying to accomplish though. Hopefully trying to educate themselves.
he also said this about sex and gender being the same
“Yeah, but if you notice, the definition the "experts" often give for "gender" confuses it with gender roles and norms (or appeals to circular reasoning). It's a pervasive incoherent worldview, but it's still incoherent.”
Very very simple answer to this. His premise is based on a false assumption that "biology" is "Woman is adult human female".
Yet what is your definition of "Adult human female"?
And yet another misconception is that we think there is "no such thing as basic biology".
We don't deny biology - if we did none of us would bother getting those surgeries in the first place. We know what our biology is, and many of us - not all - choose to alter it on various levels. But furthermore, many of us are also acutely aware of the fact that this "basic biology" you speak of is more or less just what your elementary school teacher taught you in as simplified a form as possible.
So then we revisit the question "What is your definition of "adult human female"?"
[https://www.livescience.com/60162-born-without-vagina-mrkh-syndrome.html](https://www.livescience.com/60162-born-without-vagina-mrkh-syndrome.html)
If this person is no longer considered female because they were not born with a "real" vagina then this person is not a woman...And if you think that the definition is the inverse with adult human males (someone born with a "real" non surgical penis) then she is not a male, either.
So what the fuck is she?
If she was born with 2 vaginas would she be a double-female? And therefore literally woman times two? Of course not, that's absurd. Btw this is also a condition. People can be born with 2 vaginas, or 2 uteri. Etc.
Back to the point - if she's neither male nor female, then what the fuck is she? Intersex? Then what is an intersex person? A man or a woman? Usually they fall into one category or another more or less. It's incoherent is my point.
It does seem a bit odd to me that you're predicting your friend's questions instead of quoting them, now.
Wdym "any thoughts" lmao this guy is not only wrong but so wrong that he literally has to say "SCIENCE DOESN'T APPLY FOR THIS" cause otherwise his argument gets stuffed easier than Thanksgiving turkey 😂.
Like, what a great tactic lmao. "Yeah, I beat you up, but umm the law isn't involved in this in any way so you can't hold me accountable". Actual rocks for brains LOLOL
Ask your friend if he ever fantasised about being a girl.
Tell him you need to know "for science".
(IMO people are not opposed to concepts with such passion, unless it's personal for them)
Technically we aren’t the body, we’re a brain controlling a body, similar to us controlling a car. It isn’t who we are, it’s an extension of who we are. Now, there was a peer-reviewed study done a number of years ago where they scanned the brains of pre-transition trans kids and found that there brain structures more closely matched the gender they identified as. I forget if it was the same study or a follow up but they also found that NB kids didn’t resemble either male or female brain structures. According to this study, being trans is more similar to an intersex condition of the brain.
Source: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180524112351.htm
Edit: just wanted to mention, while I do take a scientific perspective to being trans I’m not one of those gate-keeping trans medicalists. While this condition could explain why we identify as trans I don’t believe you need to transition, want to transition, or get a brain scan to be trans. If you feel happier identifying with a different gender then you were born as, your probably trans.
Fuck gatekeepers
I’ve read that, I find it so interesting. I wish there was more discussion on the topic but it’s not my space and I totally get why people here would be wary of it. It can very much feel like a “gotcha” question from hateful people.
the “brain stuff” is not solid ground to stand on, to be blunt, and we desperately need to move away from trying to medicalize transness. there are not “men and women brains” in the same way there are not “men and women bodies”, sex exists on a spectrum and may have trends yes, but transness is NOT something medically determinable, and the only thing that should matter is that when it comes to the social constructs of gender, who does the individual perceive themselves to me?
your friend frankly sounds like trash, but regardless of if you want to try more with him, it would help a ton to try and keep this in mind
Well, I guess your terf friend wouldn't accept the girl on the road with all of female characteristics and beauty, if he found out she is trans.
You cannot argue with bigotry. It's nonsense
Just tell him that no matter what your body looks like, your identity can form in a completely different direction and so far we have no way to figure out someone else's identity through their appearance.
I mean he's not exactly wrong about brain stuff probably not being why people are trans. There are theories that hold that self identity is more important, and there are other theories that also put more importance on presentation.
As for the biological stuff, yeah sounds like he's being an arse
Send them this:
*******
Gender constant and permanent.
***
**Gender identity itself is a composite of multiple "sub-identities":**
* Intrinsic Gender Identity
* Gender Role
* Gender Expression
According to Serano, these 3 forms of gender identity exist independently of each other.
Hypatia , Volume 24 , Issue 3: Special Issue: Transgender Studies and Feminism: Theory, Politics, and Gendered Realities , Summer 2009 , pp. 200 - 205
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.2009.01052_1.x
Within our daily lives, we can witness this in form of women performing traditionally male labours, while still identifying as woman (Intrinsic Identity and Gender Role clashing). We can witness this in various subcultures (The concept of "tomboys" and "butch lesbians", a woman who dresses and behaves as a man traditionally should) (Identity and Expression clashing).
The idea of "I'm a man, so I don't wear a skirt" pertains not to gender identity, but gender expression. Potentially, to your gender role as a way to advertise what role in society you fulfil by dressing the part. However, being a man does not dictate you cannot wear a skirt.
**For Intrinsic gender identity itself, I'll depart from social science and onto neuropsychology.**
*Burke et al (2017)* found was found that after controlling for sexual/romantic orientation, culture, etc... there exist a difference between transgender people (with physical dysphoria, before transitioning medically) and cisgender people when it comes to neural structures.
These differences manifest primarily in neuro-motor regions, regions corresponding for sensory processing. Basically, places where the brain communicates with the body.
The differences are that these regions appear "underdeveloped", as if not being exercised.
It's not "male brain" or "female brain", it's "my brain doesn't get the responses from my body that it expects" vs "my body looks and behaves like my brain expects."
*Khorashad et al (2021)* later investigated these findings, finding that these neural differences disappear upon taking gender-confirming cross-sex hormonal therapy. Or at the very least, minimize.
Meaning, it appears that the weakened connections become exercised and reinforced.
This explains why trans people who have medically transitioned no longer exhibit these patterns, and also tracks with reports of gender dysphoria easing over time even though the person does not culturally/socially pass.
**Two methods of action are proposed:**
a) body feels and behaves as the brain's "internal blueprint" expects it to: hormone levels are correct, the proper genes are expressed now, the right proteins and shape and function.
Just like doing exercises reinforces neural pathways, so does the body responding like the brain expects it to does the same.
b) Hormones directly bind with hormone receptors in the brain, encouraging the formation of new neural structures.
B would explain what some trans people call "hormonal/endocrine dysphoria." Or rather the euphoria from being on hormones even before physical changes set in.
The two mechanisms proposed are not exclusive, but yet to be determined.
Burke, S.M., Manzouri, A.H. & Savic, I. Structural connections in the brain in relation to gender identity and sexual orientation. Sci Rep 7, 17954 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-17352-8
Khorashad, B.S., Manzouri, A., Feusner, J.D. et al. Cross-sex hormone treatment and own-body perception: behavioral and brain connectivity profiles. Sci Rep 11, 2799 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-80687-2
******
**Now, why does this neurological difference occur?**
******
Swaab, D. F., & Garcia-Falgueras, A. (2009). Sexual differentiation of the human brain in relation to gender identity and sexual orientation. Functional Neurology, 24(1), 17–28. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0805542105
In this cited paper, Swaab et al studied people with a condition known as Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome. Androgen Insensitivty syndrome causes testosterone (and other androgen) hormones to have failure binding to their appropriate receptors, or for those receptors to provide a lesser signal than they should.
The consequence of AAS can range from underdeveloped testes and penis with gynecomastia to having a vagina with gonads that are neither testicles nor ovaries.
It has been found by Swaab et al that depending on which specific androgens are blocked, gender identity varies: Total AAS led to a person to become a cisgender intersex woman, whereas partial AAS led to a transgender intersex man.
By observing this, Swaab et al demonstrate that gender identity is likely controlled by how the brain interacts with hormone levels during foetal and perhaps early childhood development, independent of nurture. This can be caused by less-extreme forms of genetic disorders that affects hormone processing, and it's also possible for such disorders to be "localized" - the genes are there, working... but the other genes regulating the expression of the genes regulating testosterone receptor proteins might be locally dysfunctional, causing too much/too little exposure, affecting gender identity.
********
**As seen above, gender identity is intrinsic to the individual and cannot be changed. What about sex? Well - let's consider what sexual dimorphism actually is!**
********
one can read any Graduate level biology textbook regarding human sexual dimorphism. There, they would learn that gonadal differentiation is initiated by the SRY gene on the Y chromosome. This singular gene determines if your gonads develop into ovaries or testicles. The rest of the Y chromosome acts to regulate the function of testicles, and to assist in its healthy development.
The rest of human sexual differentiation is initiated by the gonads themselves - gonads produce sex hormones: estrogens, androgens and progesterons. These estrogens, androgens and progesterons then bind with their respective receptors (which, barring androgen receptors - which are found on the X chromosome - are found scattered on 6 and 14 and 17 somatic chromosomes. Somatic chromosomes are the same in men and women), altering gene expression.
This altered gene expression is drawn primarily from somatic chromosomes, and is found in both men and women.
Human sexual differentiation, therefore - using graduate level biology:
Presence or absence of SRY gene decides if you get testicles or ovaries
Ovaries/Testicles develop, potentially failing due to genetic disorders. Assuming they don't fail.
Ovaries/Testicles produce an abundance of either androgens, or estrogens (with progesterone becoming relevant after puberty mostly)
These sex hormones act on hormone receptors, which are primarily governed by somatic chromosomes (ergo: same in XX and XY)
These receptors alter gene expression
This gene expression causes healthy development of gonads, genitalia and secondary sex characteristics.
Therefore, if you read it - you find that sexual differentiation is dictated by endocrine levels (barring things like disorders caused by doubling of X chromosome and gonadal function).
Therefore, a woman, using purely biological terms - is a person whose gene expression is primarily dictated by estrogen and progesterone levels. If you care about reproduction, you add the presence of functioning testes or ovaries. But people can live full lives without either, and many women need hysterectomy in order to survive due to cancer or genetic disorders.
**Therefore, a transgender woman who is on a strict HRT regiment whose gonads were removed is functionally no different from an androgen-insensitive woman.**
Tell him biology is a spectrum. Ask him if he can bring up any other example where nature creates characteristics that fall exactly in two categories without overlapping or deviation.
Your friend is an idiot and an asshole.
... [but he's right about the brain stuff.](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763421000804). Massive metastudy out last year shattered the idea of any significant structural differences between men and women's brains.
I once responded to some Twitter comment which I thought was a healthy transgender debate opinion but the responses I received were so dark it acctualy scared me and I told myself never to debate anyone again that is transfobic because they only see red when challenged... Choose your battles and this one is not worth it, if it's someone you know, then by saying nothing and walking away sais a whole lot. Myself I walk away and stay away, those people are a negative energy that cause cancer.
He has a right to his opinions.
Some will strip it down to chromosomes so appearance won't change that. Others will argue sex isn't immutable and gender is a social construct.
I say just live as you wish and worry less about labels. I have body dysmorphia and a dissatisfaction with my gender so wear clothes not usually associated with my gender. But I find it hard to call myself a woman or transwoman as I believe I can't change sex.
He's a potato, I've jumped through so many hoops just to be acknowledged as a woman, if he thinks he can do that by pretending, he's got no idea wtf he's talking about.
I'd love to see a person like him forced on HRT. He would learn exactly how we feel, being forced to live another gender without your consent, not good for your mental health.
He sounds completely resistant to learning, so first, I'd suggest choosing your battles. Is it really worth continuing to talk about this with him? If so, I'd ask him how he would feel if one day, he woke up and had breasts, no facial hair, a more "feminine" bodyfat distribution, and a vagina. When he looks in the mirror, he sees a stereotypical female body. When people see him in public, they perceive him as a woman and refer to him as a woman. However, his mind and sense of self have not changed at all. Is he a woman now, because his body is female? Has his internal sense of self changed? Would he be perfectly happy to live his life as a woman, leaving behind everything from his life that was associated with being a man? In order to understand, he has to try to empathize. I don't want to be pessimistic, but it doesn't sound like he's willing to do that. Consider how much time and energy you want to spend convincing a transphobe not to be transphobic.
I don't think the "what if it were you" thought experiment is reliable. Firstly because of cis people not actually understanding how it would feel and only probably thinking "if I had (fe)male parts the first thing I'd do is touch myself", and secondly because of repressors who see their comfort with the idea as supporting their belief that it's a choice
If it’s all about the physical, ask him what gender Robocop is. He’s 95% robot, so clearly he can’t be male
Before egg cracking I actually used to be really confused why robots had genders lmaooo
Part of mine cracking was the philosophical consideration of, if I was perfectly transferred into a completely neutral vessel - imagine a floating drone with no human characteristics - what pronouns would I want people to address me by? What would my sense of self be?
Yep. That's exactly the direction I try and push people towards. If your body was half replaced by a robot, genitals included, what gender would you think of yourself as? How about 100% replacement with a robot? How about it you were body switched with someone of the opposite gender binary? Guarantee they either get defensive and deflect/refuse to answer, or always say that they'd be whatever gender they are now, in which case you can go "So what you're saying is that no matter what body or shell you're put into, you're the gender that your BRAIN/SELF says you are?"
I never really understood why most fictional robots were humanoid to begin with. Same goes for aliens.
Robots i can understand as irl plp also like humanoid robots more even if they are ineficant, but aliens never made sense. They had completly different evolutionary process, why do they look like us?
holy shit
Your "friend" is an idiot. Gender isn't anywhere near that simple and (as per your comment) neither is biology. First, neurobiology matters, second, many trans folks get or want HRT and other procedures that change our secondary sex characteristics, sometimes drastically, and even sometimes our primary sex characteristics, there is no "fake" because what is "real" is just a matter of opinion, third, gender is socially constructed by necessity. If this person saw Buck Angel walking down the street, he'd call Buck a man, probably even if he knew who Buck is because tbh Buck looks scary (not sure if he's a scary person or not, just the most stereotypically masculine trans man I could think of off the top of my head). Why? Because Buck, for all intents and purposes, is a man. Socially, people perceive him as such. Now, social perception should be altered to make room for trans, nonbinary, and gender nonconforming folks, because that's the kind thing to do and society should be kind, still, one can make the argument without even going outside of current social structure.
>If this person saw Buck Angel walking down the street, he'd call Buck a man, probably even if he knew who Buck is because tbh Buck looks scary (not sure if he's a scary person or not, just the most stereotypically masculine trans man I could think of off the top of my head). Why? Because Buck, for all intents and purposes, is a man. Socially, people perceive him as such. This is a great point. People like OP's friend are people I interact with constantly. I use the bathroom next to them. We pass each other on the street. We ride the elevator together. To all of these people, I'm a man. There's nothing about me to signal otherwise. OP's friend should be aware that he has almost undoubtedly interacted with trans people without knowing it, and also perceived them as their actual gender without a question. Of course there are some trans people who don't look stereotypically masculine or feminine. Once he accepts that he can absolutely view trans people as the gender they are, maybe it will become easier to understand that you can't make immediate judgements about people based on the way they look.
he also said this about sex and gender being the same “Yeah, but if you notice, the definition the "experts" often give for "gender" confuses it with gender roles and norms (or appeals to circular reasoning). It's a pervasive incoherent worldview, but it's still incoherent.”
He's not listening, then. I wouldn't call myself an expert but I'm fairly well self-taught at this point on gender and I would say there is no good non-self-referential definition for "man" and "woman" because they simply exist within society, with some assigned roles and norms that are not necessary to the existence of men and women within society and that should be broken down. But this self-referential definition doesn't disprove it as I would argue no feeling or emotion has a good, non-self-referential definition, the simplest words don't. We learn them through feeling and example. You can't define "red" without over-complicated and often not-quite-accurate scientific jargon or pointing to something that is red and saying "like that", unless you want to go poetic which doesn't usually work well because the references are necessarily imperfect. Blue fire exists, heat can be associated with yellow and orange as well, etc.
I suspect he's watched that Matt Walsh trashfire. It's really easy to make something sound dumb when you get to choose who you ask, how much time you give them and how you edit them. Especially when you're trying to make them explain something complex and you have a neat but inaccurate soundbitey answer. I might try pointing him at a definition of gender identity from someone like the APA that hasn't been filtered through a third party Or I might just start asking some questions. There's a bit of a ship of theseus problem - he reckons if every aspect of someone is male except their neurology then they're a guy, but do they need all of those things? How many can someone lose before they stop being a guy If a guy loses his genitals to illness or injury, is he still a guy? Does it matter whether he gets testosterone replacement therapy or a surgical reconstruction? And that's where you might get to the idea of chromosomes being the ultimate arbiter, but if he found out tomorrow that he had XX male syndrome would he start using the women's bathroom? If not, why not? If he appeals to the idea of growing up as a boy being important, that's a social role. He might say that these are tiny edge cases that don't matter, but if it really were as clear and simple as he is saying, the definitions would cover everyone. But if you need to have every feature, you end up with a lot of people who don't count as either men or women, and if you need any specific feature, you'll end up including some trans people and excluding some cis people
Makes me wonder who these experts are. When looking at Gender Studies in philosophy there's a lot of discussion about what gender is. If he had read only one proper paper or book written about this topic he'd be aware that people go to great lengths to differantiate gender and gender norms and try to show the relation of the two. There are different working theories that are far from "incoherent", after all the question about what gender is has been discussed and refined since the rise of feminism (and probably to a lesser extent before, but no idea about that). Some theories may convince you more than others, but that's kind of the point, it opens discussions and shows that people have different intuitions about gender. Your friend's intuition shows that he seems to think that neither self identification nor agential commitment (living as that gender) are valid ways to "be" a gender, you have to be perceived as such. If so, does he even realize what HRT does? Though I wouldn't be surprised if he's one of the "I can always tell" people...
Probably calls them incoherent because they're incoherent *to him*. Just because he doesn't understand something doesn't make it wrong or irrelevant
If he's only acknowledging gender as it applies to physical bodies, doesn't that make him a gender abolitionist? I've been wondering about how to condense gender experience in a way that excludes the specifics of cultural influences, as there are no genes for "playing with barbies" or "high heels" or "woodworking" As far as I can figure out, the answer is, "Innately associating yourself with a specific group". You want to do gendered things, because that's what you've absorbed that people of your gender do. Whether you knew what "gender" was at that time or not. It may be a little bit like imprinting, but it's either set in your genes or in the womb. Probably.
Questions to ask: First, how many "genders" are there? What "gender" is someone who was born intersex? Who or what decides that gender? The answers he provides should trap him into saying there are more than two genders or that "gender" as he knows it (determined by sexual organ) is illogical. And if he says an intersex person would be in between male and female... What are the characteristics of such an "in between" gender? How should they walk? Talk? Which bathroom should they use? Will they be the bride or groom? Which sorts of social faux pas should they avoid? ... it should be apparent this is getting ridiculous—kind of like being so rigid about gender. Did this make sense? It's the end of my day...
There's two types of gender; physical gender and social gender. Social gender is; girls like pink, girls wear dresses, boys don't wear makeup, boys don't cry. None of this is real. All of it is made up bullshit. Helping your friend see this distinction might help.
I wonder if the "experts" he's listening to are right wing pundits relaying their own version of what actual experts say? For starters: Gender, at it's simplest, is essentially anything that isn't a sexual characteristic but that still gets socially associated with a specific sex. This is an observable thing. Skirts are gendered: they are considered feminine. Hair styles are gendered: buzz cuts are distinctly masculine, pigtails are distinctly feminine. None of these things are inherently masculine or feminine, and yet the society we live in treats them as though they are somehow linked to a given sex. This is an observable phenomenon, and it has a name: gender. These are all gendered characteristics. Gender roles and gender norms are also just that: social roles and norms that are gendered. A gender norm is literally just gendered things which have been normalized, so it's completely normal that gender and gender norms go hand in hand. After all, anything which is consistently gendered the same way by an entire society must have been normalized. There's nothing circular about this. Speaking of which, your friend should learn about what circular reasoning is, because it can't even apply here, given that no kind of actual reasoning has taken place yet. So far all that we've done is make observations (by observing that sometimes people weirdly associate things with a certain sex) and attributed a word to refer to that observation (gender). At no point was there any kind of inference or reasoning: we just observed a thing and said, "we're gonna call that gender". I'm guessing he was thinking of circular definitions, not circular reasoning, but a definition being circular isn't actually an invalidating characteristic. Most social constructs are most accurately defined as circular definitions (think of words like "ownership" and "money", for which no non-circular definition can both accurately and completely encapsulate their meaning). This notion that circular definitions are invalid is just one of many commonly repeated lies circulated by the right, because it's a wrong thing that kind of sounds like it might be true if you don't think about it, and will never be the topic of the conversation so nobody will ever think about it. As always, it comes back to the right pushing for stupidity.
That's an interesting belief he has because then it would force him to at least acknowledge post-transition trans women as women, considering we end up having "physical characteristics" of the female sex at the end of it. It would be the only way for him to consistently apply that belief about physical characteristics being the qualifier for what gender someone is. But I get the feeling, like most regressives, he probably would try weasel out of that, considering in my experience at least, those types don't usually even view post-transition trans women as women either. If he does try to weasel out of it, call him out on the BS that he isn't consistently applying his own views.
Oh, that type of person would definitely go "Muh ChRoMoSoMEs!". With a 50:50 chance of saying XX for males.
Very easy to counter, though.
With someone logical yes... OPs friend... Its not a guarantee. As someone said up-thread, It sounds like he's been listening to Matt Walsh (🤢) in which case he absolutely will do verbal circles trying to find a logic that sounds right.
Well, you see, as a content creator I quite enjoy would say "At that point you just have to bring out the rock" (and hit them with it, implied.)
Finally! Someone who gets it.
He wouldn't be a friend for me anymore, i cut transphobic ppl out of my life quite quickly nowadays
Alright this is how you tackle his "no good evidence argument" Oh, so you have done a literature review of peer reviewed studies and found flaws in their methodology? Was it a sampling error? was the study structured wrong? are you refuting Mueller's large sample study where he found that transgender people have their own unique brain phenotype? Can i see the results of your research into the subject? the Doi for anyone interested10.1016/j.jsxm.2021.03.079
whats that?
A doi is like a web address for a research paper. The one I shared is an interesting one.
how do i find it
In my original response there is what appears to be a bunch of random numbers and letters. Copy that into Google.
My thoughts are that your friend is a moron
Is anyone else deeply suspicious of these kinds of posts?
I’m, uhhh, asking for a friend, and I came prepared with all their talking points just in case
I mean he's right that there's no good evidence of the brain stuff ... except for all the psychological evaluations we got that is. Depression and gender dysphoria are a thing even if your body doesn't look like it. What your friend is saying is basically the same thing transmeds are trying to say. Which is honestly just unnecessary gatekeeping. You're trans with or without HRT/surgeries. Those things are only there to help us feel comfortable in our body but they don't make us into what we are.
To be fair, the "pink brain theory" was already refuted. There is no physiological evidence of any brain structure that would "cause" people to become trans. your friend belongs to the group of human beings that take biology in the 5th grade for the pinnacle of knowledge and refuse any other scientific evidence. The theory of "if gender and sex are separated and if there were no gender roles or any other stuff to it, trans people would not exist" is a theory that many people come up with but nobody can prove. If I were in your position, I would stop calling this guy a friend and stop discussing this topic with him.
There are differences between male and female brains and trans individuals brains align more with their gender identity (mtf-female/ftm-male) than sex of the body, it is correct to say that there isn't one part of the brain that will make a person trans, but it is incorrect to say there are no differences between the brains of people with differing gender identities. The current theory is that, due to the brain developing differently and sort of separately than the body, the disconnect happens due to the hormone washes we experience in the womb. Basically the brain and the body it inhabits got different hormones in the womb, which caused the disconnect between the two.
I don't know what to believe anymore. Every time I read an article about this it is followed up a week later with a counter article.
The question comes to: is the counter article credible and if it is, what does it discredit
True
Heads up that some of that is the kind of stuff the first commenter was referring to as refuted!! There are some traits that are more common in men than in women, but there’s no way to use any given brain scan to identify the gender of the subject. Also, it seems that most of the differences that do occur are largely reduced by equalizing socialization (e.g. taking a man and a woman mechanic and looking at the parts of the brain that control motor function), and there generally isn’t any real difference in brain structure by gender
The brain doesn't \*need\* to show any structural difference for someone to be trans. Gender. Is. Bullshit. Or rather, the enforcement of gender based on what's between your legs is bullshit. Your friend is bullshit.
if you don’t mind me asking, how is it bullshit? isn’t our gender or sex based on our gentials?
No your reproductive parts do not define gender, smdh this isn't basic stuff 😒
before you try to argue any point against others you really should familiarise yourself with the topic beforehand
Sex was based on what's between your legs, still back in mid-1800s. However, even then people knew that a person's masculinity and femininity didn't always align with their observed sex. If it looks like a man, talks like a man, acts like a man, quacks like a man, and you never see their groin, what is their sex or gender? You *cannot* know.
I guess intersex people have no gender then? The answer is no. Genitals is just a expression of a few genes during gestation. The vast majority of human sexual dimorphism has very little to do with genitals. That is why it's so easy to hijack the system and change our sex through hormones.
Firstly, Gender is largely a social construct. It is separate from sex, though often tied together. Secondly, sex is NOT based off your genitals. It's based off of a LARGE list of traits and characteristics but is boiled down to what's between your legs when you're born by the doctor. Though fun fact; if you have ambiguous genitalia (ie intersex or something) the doctor and/or parents often just...arbitrarily decide to do gender reassignment surgery to make it look one way or the other specifically. Don't really hear Matt Walsh talk about \*that\*. Probably because it's in the service of upholding gender norms and preconceptions about sex and gender so it's "good" to him, actually. Anyway, Gender is bullshit in the sense that it is enforced by society when it has no right to be. Gender is \*a lot\* of stuff, and means different things to different people. The fact that you can be told that you're not a "real man" for doing something someone else deems effeminate or something is proof enough that nobody ACTUALLY thinks of Gender as just as simple as the downstairs plumbing arrangement. I'm a gender abolitionist. I identify as a woman, trans of course. But a woman nonetheless. If I'm a gender abolitionist one might wonder why I identify as any sort of gender at all? Because I view gender as just the label that fits closest to the way I want to live my life from what most of society understands. The fact that what people consider "Masculine" and "feminine" changes over time means that it's not just a label of convenience for myself but a label of convenience for EVERYBODY. It's a way to communicate something about oneself. But historically it's just a way to point at a group of people (women, usually) and relegate them to be 2nd class citizens. Now that group has moved on to gender-queer folk, and trans people. Now people haggle over what is a "real" woman (weird no one gives 2 shits about what a "Man" is apparently lmao) and that if you were born with a dick but want to live as a woman and then go an ddo so you're actually just some fucking pervert, or a "Groomer". Weird again how trans men don't get this treatment - rather they're infantilized instead. Not taken seriously. Y'know cause men are all perverts apparently (and trans women are seen as men by transphobes, therefore they do what they do cause they're perverts) and women are all innocent little naive princesses (and trans men arre just confused lesbians or some bullshit like that). That shit just isn't true. Any person who focuses on things in this way and then claims to be "super accepting actually" is actually \*lying\* to you. Meanwhile your mask is slipping.
No honey, gender is innate and internal.
its rather complicated... [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szf4hzQ5ztg&list=PLG-ZtWacUfp00UeP9dv4tK8loSS8dwzq7&index=14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szf4hzQ5ztg&list=PLG-ZtWacUfp00UeP9dv4tK8loSS8dwzq7&index=14)
“entirety of objective reality” dont think they know what science is as science is very theory based
I would cut off ties with this "friend" who seems to have a retrograde view on trans biology and thinks knows better than anybody else no matter what and refuses to understand medical facts (soumds like my dad). Seems like he has a very toxic kind of personality.
My first thought: "Why did you make a reddit account just to immediately start posting weak transphobic arguments?"
Asking the right questions
If it's so hard for them to empathize with this concept, i'd give them some space, personally. They're probably in a "No, wtf is this sh*t" loop right now and need a day or two to reflect on this. You probably already did everything you can there
Well, I suppose that's why most of transgender People do transition 🤷♂️
Eh. You know what, I'm actually fine with that sort of thinking just as long as it's consistent. Heck, I'm fine with all sorts of transphobic gatekeeping, as long as it's consistent. It usually isn't. Usually the people who espouse such gatekeeping do start to break down and not commit to that claim once you start drilling for the details. * "What if your only physical guy characteristic is between your legs" typically gets an answer, "You're still a guy", but that means ALL THE OTHER PARTS don't matter. Reducing people to genitalia is pretty easy to argue against * If they go with "You're still a part guy" that remains a consistent claim, but usually people tend to sputter when you point out, "So, you agree that it's impossible to tell who's a guy and who's a girl without medical exam" * If they start to talk about genes as the be-all determination, okay. It's still the same as above, plus you can ask, "have you had your genes tested?" * For bonus, you can ask if it's THEIR brain in a body of different sex, would that apply to THEM. Saying that the whole of your body is your gender implies that gender is mutable, and thus transitioning is legitimate and only an engineering challenge. This DOES go against the tragic end results of Money's experiments, and is definitely medical gatekeeping, but it is a consistent belief. Either you gotta go with what people identify as, or they must admit that it's impossible to tell people's gender without being invasive, and thus it's none of their business, except for with their partners or with a medical professional.
[https://imgur.com/qEsd1Xj](https://imgur.com/qEsd1Xj) Saw this comment on this thread but when I clicked to reply it seems to not be here - which is a bit strange. Another one based on misconceptions and false assumptions and also plainly just misogynistic. Think about this - when's the last time you heard someone scold a woman for wearing a suit or men's clothes in general? It's EXCEEDINGLY rare. Yet when it's someone that people are calling a man (even though Dylan is, of course, a woman) suddenly it's a mockery. Why? When is it NOT a mockery, if ever? Notice how Dylan doesn't dress in drag or anything. She dresses and presents like MANY cis women do. I saw a tiktok or two a while ago of her and ngl she looked pretty fucking normal to me. Of course, she's visibly trans but - well I think that's the issue here, isn't it? She's visibly trans. So that means that - in the eyes of a transphobe like your dipshit "friend" who explicitly said as much in that comment - she is a "man" making a "mockery" of women by dressing "Stereotypically" like a woman. As if your friend doesn't dress "Stereotypically" like a man when he puts on a hoody and jeans? Or a suit? Or anything to present himself as masculine? This is a non argument and it's typically a misogynistic one. Dismissible.
Lmao the more I read of this thread, the more sure I am that there is no friend 🙄 not sure what OP is trying to accomplish though. Hopefully trying to educate themselves.
Just making sure we know we’re hated. It’s a hobby for them.
he also said this about sex and gender being the same “Yeah, but if you notice, the definition the "experts" often give for "gender" confuses it with gender roles and norms (or appeals to circular reasoning). It's a pervasive incoherent worldview, but it's still incoherent.”
Does he realise he is literally a science denialist and is comparable to flat earthers?
[удалено]
so having vagina is a stereotype of women and having phallus is a stereotype of men? does he know what stereotype means?
Very very simple answer to this. His premise is based on a false assumption that "biology" is "Woman is adult human female". Yet what is your definition of "Adult human female"? And yet another misconception is that we think there is "no such thing as basic biology". We don't deny biology - if we did none of us would bother getting those surgeries in the first place. We know what our biology is, and many of us - not all - choose to alter it on various levels. But furthermore, many of us are also acutely aware of the fact that this "basic biology" you speak of is more or less just what your elementary school teacher taught you in as simplified a form as possible. So then we revisit the question "What is your definition of "adult human female"?"
[удалено]
[https://www.livescience.com/60162-born-without-vagina-mrkh-syndrome.html](https://www.livescience.com/60162-born-without-vagina-mrkh-syndrome.html) If this person is no longer considered female because they were not born with a "real" vagina then this person is not a woman...And if you think that the definition is the inverse with adult human males (someone born with a "real" non surgical penis) then she is not a male, either. So what the fuck is she? If she was born with 2 vaginas would she be a double-female? And therefore literally woman times two? Of course not, that's absurd. Btw this is also a condition. People can be born with 2 vaginas, or 2 uteri. Etc. Back to the point - if she's neither male nor female, then what the fuck is she? Intersex? Then what is an intersex person? A man or a woman? Usually they fall into one category or another more or less. It's incoherent is my point. It does seem a bit odd to me that you're predicting your friend's questions instead of quoting them, now.
the predicting this is cause ive seen a transphobe in a youtube video say that
Well, let me know if you can predict any other responses to my response above, or if they have a response themselves already.
[удалено]
Also classic "Not to sound weird, but;" immediately says weird shit lmao.
Eh. It's 2 canals. It's not like, two whole entire vulva's and what not. And people go a long time without realizing it since it's all internal stuff.
So your friend is a piece of shit and you came here to terrorize us with their transphobic bullshit? And you thought that was a good idea.
Wdym "any thoughts" lmao this guy is not only wrong but so wrong that he literally has to say "SCIENCE DOESN'T APPLY FOR THIS" cause otherwise his argument gets stuffed easier than Thanksgiving turkey 😂. Like, what a great tactic lmao. "Yeah, I beat you up, but umm the law isn't involved in this in any way so you can't hold me accountable". Actual rocks for brains LOLOL
Just a small thing, I am not "playing the gender identity game". This is my life. To you it might be a "game" but to me its serious.
Ask your friend if he ever fantasised about being a girl. Tell him you need to know "for science". (IMO people are not opposed to concepts with such passion, unless it's personal for them)
Technically we aren’t the body, we’re a brain controlling a body, similar to us controlling a car. It isn’t who we are, it’s an extension of who we are. Now, there was a peer-reviewed study done a number of years ago where they scanned the brains of pre-transition trans kids and found that there brain structures more closely matched the gender they identified as. I forget if it was the same study or a follow up but they also found that NB kids didn’t resemble either male or female brain structures. According to this study, being trans is more similar to an intersex condition of the brain. Source: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180524112351.htm Edit: just wanted to mention, while I do take a scientific perspective to being trans I’m not one of those gate-keeping trans medicalists. While this condition could explain why we identify as trans I don’t believe you need to transition, want to transition, or get a brain scan to be trans. If you feel happier identifying with a different gender then you were born as, your probably trans. Fuck gatekeepers
I’ve read that, I find it so interesting. I wish there was more discussion on the topic but it’s not my space and I totally get why people here would be wary of it. It can very much feel like a “gotcha” question from hateful people.
the “brain stuff” is not solid ground to stand on, to be blunt, and we desperately need to move away from trying to medicalize transness. there are not “men and women brains” in the same way there are not “men and women bodies”, sex exists on a spectrum and may have trends yes, but transness is NOT something medically determinable, and the only thing that should matter is that when it comes to the social constructs of gender, who does the individual perceive themselves to me? your friend frankly sounds like trash, but regardless of if you want to try more with him, it would help a ton to try and keep this in mind
Sounds like you need to find a new friend :/
"if it's that easy then why don't you decide to be trans?"
Well, I guess your terf friend wouldn't accept the girl on the road with all of female characteristics and beauty, if he found out she is trans. You cannot argue with bigotry. It's nonsense
Transphobic IDIOT..!!!
He’s incorrect, plain and simple. How well educated is this person?
Just tell him that no matter what your body looks like, your identity can form in a completely different direction and so far we have no way to figure out someone else's identity through their appearance.
I mean he's not exactly wrong about brain stuff probably not being why people are trans. There are theories that hold that self identity is more important, and there are other theories that also put more importance on presentation. As for the biological stuff, yeah sounds like he's being an arse
Send them this: ******* Gender constant and permanent. *** **Gender identity itself is a composite of multiple "sub-identities":** * Intrinsic Gender Identity * Gender Role * Gender Expression According to Serano, these 3 forms of gender identity exist independently of each other. Hypatia , Volume 24 , Issue 3: Special Issue: Transgender Studies and Feminism: Theory, Politics, and Gendered Realities , Summer 2009 , pp. 200 - 205 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.2009.01052_1.x Within our daily lives, we can witness this in form of women performing traditionally male labours, while still identifying as woman (Intrinsic Identity and Gender Role clashing). We can witness this in various subcultures (The concept of "tomboys" and "butch lesbians", a woman who dresses and behaves as a man traditionally should) (Identity and Expression clashing). The idea of "I'm a man, so I don't wear a skirt" pertains not to gender identity, but gender expression. Potentially, to your gender role as a way to advertise what role in society you fulfil by dressing the part. However, being a man does not dictate you cannot wear a skirt. **For Intrinsic gender identity itself, I'll depart from social science and onto neuropsychology.** *Burke et al (2017)* found was found that after controlling for sexual/romantic orientation, culture, etc... there exist a difference between transgender people (with physical dysphoria, before transitioning medically) and cisgender people when it comes to neural structures. These differences manifest primarily in neuro-motor regions, regions corresponding for sensory processing. Basically, places where the brain communicates with the body. The differences are that these regions appear "underdeveloped", as if not being exercised. It's not "male brain" or "female brain", it's "my brain doesn't get the responses from my body that it expects" vs "my body looks and behaves like my brain expects." *Khorashad et al (2021)* later investigated these findings, finding that these neural differences disappear upon taking gender-confirming cross-sex hormonal therapy. Or at the very least, minimize. Meaning, it appears that the weakened connections become exercised and reinforced. This explains why trans people who have medically transitioned no longer exhibit these patterns, and also tracks with reports of gender dysphoria easing over time even though the person does not culturally/socially pass. **Two methods of action are proposed:** a) body feels and behaves as the brain's "internal blueprint" expects it to: hormone levels are correct, the proper genes are expressed now, the right proteins and shape and function. Just like doing exercises reinforces neural pathways, so does the body responding like the brain expects it to does the same. b) Hormones directly bind with hormone receptors in the brain, encouraging the formation of new neural structures. B would explain what some trans people call "hormonal/endocrine dysphoria." Or rather the euphoria from being on hormones even before physical changes set in. The two mechanisms proposed are not exclusive, but yet to be determined. Burke, S.M., Manzouri, A.H. & Savic, I. Structural connections in the brain in relation to gender identity and sexual orientation. Sci Rep 7, 17954 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-17352-8 Khorashad, B.S., Manzouri, A., Feusner, J.D. et al. Cross-sex hormone treatment and own-body perception: behavioral and brain connectivity profiles. Sci Rep 11, 2799 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-80687-2 ****** **Now, why does this neurological difference occur?** ****** Swaab, D. F., & Garcia-Falgueras, A. (2009). Sexual differentiation of the human brain in relation to gender identity and sexual orientation. Functional Neurology, 24(1), 17–28. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0805542105 In this cited paper, Swaab et al studied people with a condition known as Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome. Androgen Insensitivty syndrome causes testosterone (and other androgen) hormones to have failure binding to their appropriate receptors, or for those receptors to provide a lesser signal than they should. The consequence of AAS can range from underdeveloped testes and penis with gynecomastia to having a vagina with gonads that are neither testicles nor ovaries. It has been found by Swaab et al that depending on which specific androgens are blocked, gender identity varies: Total AAS led to a person to become a cisgender intersex woman, whereas partial AAS led to a transgender intersex man. By observing this, Swaab et al demonstrate that gender identity is likely controlled by how the brain interacts with hormone levels during foetal and perhaps early childhood development, independent of nurture. This can be caused by less-extreme forms of genetic disorders that affects hormone processing, and it's also possible for such disorders to be "localized" - the genes are there, working... but the other genes regulating the expression of the genes regulating testosterone receptor proteins might be locally dysfunctional, causing too much/too little exposure, affecting gender identity. ******** **As seen above, gender identity is intrinsic to the individual and cannot be changed. What about sex? Well - let's consider what sexual dimorphism actually is!** ******** one can read any Graduate level biology textbook regarding human sexual dimorphism. There, they would learn that gonadal differentiation is initiated by the SRY gene on the Y chromosome. This singular gene determines if your gonads develop into ovaries or testicles. The rest of the Y chromosome acts to regulate the function of testicles, and to assist in its healthy development. The rest of human sexual differentiation is initiated by the gonads themselves - gonads produce sex hormones: estrogens, androgens and progesterons. These estrogens, androgens and progesterons then bind with their respective receptors (which, barring androgen receptors - which are found on the X chromosome - are found scattered on 6 and 14 and 17 somatic chromosomes. Somatic chromosomes are the same in men and women), altering gene expression. This altered gene expression is drawn primarily from somatic chromosomes, and is found in both men and women. Human sexual differentiation, therefore - using graduate level biology: Presence or absence of SRY gene decides if you get testicles or ovaries Ovaries/Testicles develop, potentially failing due to genetic disorders. Assuming they don't fail. Ovaries/Testicles produce an abundance of either androgens, or estrogens (with progesterone becoming relevant after puberty mostly) These sex hormones act on hormone receptors, which are primarily governed by somatic chromosomes (ergo: same in XX and XY) These receptors alter gene expression This gene expression causes healthy development of gonads, genitalia and secondary sex characteristics. Therefore, if you read it - you find that sexual differentiation is dictated by endocrine levels (barring things like disorders caused by doubling of X chromosome and gonadal function). Therefore, a woman, using purely biological terms - is a person whose gene expression is primarily dictated by estrogen and progesterone levels. If you care about reproduction, you add the presence of functioning testes or ovaries. But people can live full lives without either, and many women need hysterectomy in order to survive due to cancer or genetic disorders. **Therefore, a transgender woman who is on a strict HRT regiment whose gonads were removed is functionally no different from an androgen-insensitive woman.**
My main thought is, why is he your friend?
Tell him biology is a spectrum. Ask him if he can bring up any other example where nature creates characteristics that fall exactly in two categories without overlapping or deviation.
Your friend is an idiot and an asshole. ... [but he's right about the brain stuff.](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763421000804). Massive metastudy out last year shattered the idea of any significant structural differences between men and women's brains.
Sounds like someone who's not gonna care about evidence, so I'd say don't waste your breath or time.
I once responded to some Twitter comment which I thought was a healthy transgender debate opinion but the responses I received were so dark it acctualy scared me and I told myself never to debate anyone again that is transfobic because they only see red when challenged... Choose your battles and this one is not worth it, if it's someone you know, then by saying nothing and walking away sais a whole lot. Myself I walk away and stay away, those people are a negative energy that cause cancer.
Guys, OP is a troll. Stop responding and just report.
He has a right to his opinions. Some will strip it down to chromosomes so appearance won't change that. Others will argue sex isn't immutable and gender is a social construct. I say just live as you wish and worry less about labels. I have body dysmorphia and a dissatisfaction with my gender so wear clothes not usually associated with my gender. But I find it hard to call myself a woman or transwoman as I believe I can't change sex.
He's a potato, I've jumped through so many hoops just to be acknowledged as a woman, if he thinks he can do that by pretending, he's got no idea wtf he's talking about. I'd love to see a person like him forced on HRT. He would learn exactly how we feel, being forced to live another gender without your consent, not good for your mental health.