Jump to content

Transgender


gmanyo
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

Darreichs what's your fixation on the brain? There are differences, yes, but there's some suggestion that they are at least partly due to hormones (not seen anything suggesting long term hormone therapy can alter an adult brain tho)...and the similarities between the female and male brains are obviously FAR greater than any slight differences that come up when studying.

I was talking about brain as an example for differences between men and women as an answer to someone saying other than reproductive organs trans women and natural women are the same which isn't exact. Even after hormones and surgeries and what not a man can't be transitioned into a woman and vice versa, biologically spoken. Which must suck if you want to be the opposite biological gender, so my condolences there. As for social gender there aren't only two, are there? At least a lot of sociologists think that. So why even talk about male and female when talking about social gender?

A woman who greets you or I on the street is going to be approached exactly the same. Whether or not she was born a female, born male, or is at some other place: if she chooses to present herself as a woman to me, I'll treat her as one. I'm not likely going to be inspecting her genitals at that moment, so why does her biological history matter in this social interaction? It doesn't is my point. It really doesn't at all unless I'm a scientist studying sexual dimorphism (I'm not), or I'm planning on reproducing with her, at which point I imagine we'll be comfortable enough with one another to discuss the particulars that are relevant. Beyond that, a trans woman or a since-birth woman are 'the same' as far as it matters to me, you, and anyone else really. And even that really isn't much, I'll say ma'am and refer to the person as a her...just semantics really. I guess I might be somewhat surprised if she's a woman who's also a rodeo clown since they're mostly males, last time I checked, but it's not like it would matter? That's just getting to know someone....and that gets into the social gender thing, which is I'm sure complex but I know nothing about. I assume the same ideas carry over as far as I'm concerned, so I really don't care how someone is presenting themselves/identifying/etc. 

Edited by auxien
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 582
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

we're talking past one another. similar to what is talked about in that article btw. which is, again, a good article. to me, the article, nor our methodological issue was about explaining variance, btw. but why bother going in circles. 

 

that article especially, is - to me - about interpreting results. and less about methodology, or correcting for social factors, or explaining variance. The good thing about it, imo, is that they're being blatantly attacked on being driven by ideology, even though they're careful to do exactly that and are trying to interpret results in the most neutral way possible. which is admirable. in the end the discussion seems mostly semantic though, as the most credible critique on their research - from what i can tell - is on how they defined "internal consistency".

 

 

 

Cahill also asserts that, yes, the brain is plastic, but only within certain limitations, and that the reason Joel’s study did not find two categorical genders was because her definition of “internal consistency” was extreme, an assertion that was also made by a different group of researchers in a study described in a letter to PNAS. “It’s a joke,” he says. “I wish people would read the two papers and come to their own conclusions.”

 

so besides interpretation, there's also a semantic thing going on. which is something completely different to "the ability to explain variance" btw. that's a methodological thing. but the article is less about methodology and more about frame of interpretation. perhaps i havent read it properly, but i can't tell where this variance issue popped up. at least not in the sense that i interpret that issue. (again, lets stop going there and leave it at communidistortion)

 

imo, it's perfectly reasonable what they're trying to do. even if the criticism would have a point of truth. as long as Popper would be happy, they're doing good science, imo. not only that, it's incredibly useful to research from a different hypothesis. or frame of reference. if there was such a thing as male or female brains, trying to prove the opposite and failing is the best way to prove it. or at least a good way. 

 

their results are more interesting anyways. simply because it creates even more nuance in the gender discussion. which is something different to argue that there isn't a male or female brain, btw. it's more nuanced is all they're arguing. from what i can read, at least. which to me looks like an obvious outcome. it always is, right?

 

anyways, good article. and lets just conclude it's pointless to argue. your tism is totally not mine! and vice versa ;D

 

not sure why i bothered to respond to the article. but it's just that. its interesting and all that. please just ignore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

How do I get some of that people-getting-the-fuck-out-of-my-way male privilege? Would be handy as fuck in London.

Yeah, completely agree. I guess I'm not man enough, because I personally tend to zigzag through the crowds. Evading people as much as possible. Guess the man-test is to see whether or not people will go out of their way for you. Game-of-chicken through life, if you will. I should make more use of my genetically and biologically acquired privileges. I'm a failed specimen. An exception to the rule. :(

 

Also, genders are constructed is a pretty well accepted notion? In what context!?

London is like the hadron super collider for alphas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Darreichs what's your fixation on the brain? There are differences, yes, but there's some suggestion that they are at least partly due to hormones (not seen anything suggesting long term hormone therapy can alter an adult brain tho)...and the similarities between the female and male brains are obviously FAR greater than any slight differences that come up when studying.

I was talking about brain as an example for differences between men and women as an answer to someone saying other than reproductive organs trans women and natural women are the same which isn't exact. Even after hormones and surgeries and what not a man can't be transitioned into a woman and vice versa, biologically spoken. Which must suck if you want to be the opposite biological gender, so my condolences there. As for social gender there aren't only two, are there? At least a lot of sociologists think that. So why even talk about male and female when talking about social gender?
A woman who greets you or I on the street is going to be approached exactly the same. Whether or not she was born a female, born male, or is at some other place: if she chooses to present herself as a woman to me, I'll treat her as one. I'm not likely going to be inspecting her genitals at that moment, so why does her biological history matter in this social interaction? It doesn't is my point. It really doesn't at all unless I'm a scientist studying sexual dimorphism (I'm not), or I'm planning on reproducing with her, at which point I imagine we'll be comfortable enough with one another to discuss the particulars that are relevant. Beyond that, a trans woman or a since-birth woman are 'the same' as far as it matters to me, you, and anyone else really. And even that really isn't much, I'll say ma'am and refer to the person as a her...just semantics really. I guess I might be somewhat surprised if she's a woman who's also a rodeo clown since they're mostly males, last time I checked, but it's not like it would matter? That's just getting to know someone....and that gets into the social gender thing, which is I'm sure complex but I know nothing about. I assume the same ideas carry over as far as I'm concerned, so I really don't care how someone is presenting themselves/identifying/etc.

Re: inability to reproduce - imagine if women with severe endo had to mention it when first meeting every male

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i dont get why pppl cant just be cool w others, if someone considers themselves female or male why dont people just be coolwith it instead of being all "oh actually im an expert in chromosomes and biology let me tell yo why youre a bloke in a dress" etc etc

trance is awful tho

trance: awful or not awful?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

i dont get why pppl cant just be cool w others, if someone considers themselves female or male why dont people just be coolwith it instead of being all "oh actually im an expert in chromosomes and biology let me tell yo why youre a bloke in a dress" etc etc

trance is awful tho

trance: awful or not awful?

 

 

I recommend having this on full blast constantly while reading this thread

Edited by MIXL2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But even with estrogenes your brain won't be that of a woman if you were a man before that wants to be a woman. Because there are structural differences that can't be affected by hormones. You can get close though

 

Watch those videos, by people who know the science.  A trans woman's brain is closer to a cis woman's brain than a cis man's brain regardless of whether she's switched hormones or not, and vice versa for trans men.  That's why it's technically true but disingenuous to say that switching hormones won't make a trans woman neurologically female: she already is.  That's what being trans is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...gay men in media, from my experience, are way more present than lesbians. Hell, a sit-com without a couple of gay men is a rare thing nowadays. You could make a comment about the way gay men are portrayed and all that...

 

I think we might be talking at crossed purposes a bit here, and also have different film and TV libraries...

 

Say I want to watch a film, and I don't specifically care about the sexuality of any of the characters.  Maybe I want to watch The Social Network, for example.  That has straight couples making out and having sex in toilets, and it has two presumably-straight women kissing for the benefit of the men watching them at Harvard, and it has no men kissing each other.  (Yes, I know it's based on a true story, art imitating life and all that.)  You pick any film or TV show in your collection, and you'll probably find it has straight people making out and/or having sex, maybe also two women, though possibly just for the male gaze, and pretty much never two men.

 

The only example I can think of, of a show which has two guys in it who are partners and very much in love and they kiss and they even have sex, and that's not what the show is about, and it's not aimed solely at gay guys, is Sense8.  In a rather bizarre mirroring of what you usually get, they're even fetishised for the female gaze of another character.  There's similar mirroring in Jessica Jones, where a male character is a pretty idiot who one of the female protagonists has sex with, but she doesn't care about his opinion.  Those two shows have objectified men for the benefit of their female characters, and I can only imagine their assumed female audience, the same way almost all others objectify women for the benefit of their male characters and assumed male audience.

 

There seems to be this general assumption that if two women kiss on screen, it won't deter female audience members, or if it will, no-one cares.  There doesn't seem to be such an assumption about two men kissing on screen.  It seems to be implied that that would squick straight men who are apparently so insecure they'd immediately stop watching, presumably lest they accidentally enjoy it and start questioning themselves.

 

But hey, I don't watch many sitcoms (Silicon Valley, I guess?) so maybe most of them feature gay guys who kiss their partners just as often as the straight characters do, and who are the leads just as often.  Otherwise "gay" here sounds like it might mean "camp, funny, and single, basically celibate on camera", which doesn't sound like the same thing.  They should be gay not just in theory, but in practice, just as often as the straight characters are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ZoeB, I feel like this is a slight change in where the goal posts are being set. I was talking about prevalence of either gay men or women in media. And thought you were too. Now you specify it with gay couples kissing. And the argument becomes about the prevalence of women kissing women vs. men kissing men. Which, imo, is a different beast. As I both agree and disagree. I can agree there's more women kissing women in the media. But if you look at prevalence of gay people in general, I still believe it's the complete opposite.

 

And although that may be factually correct and all, I don't consider women kissing women to be a necessarily gay thing, tbh. In dating life I've seen plenty women, who otherwise identified themselves as straight (lets assume they're bi, btw) kissing other women. In public. In regular "straight" sex environments. So yeah, I might be a biased bigot and all that, but women kissing women to me has a different meaning to men kissing men. Such that it doesn't imply a woman is lesbian when she kisses other women. (I'd consider it naive to think so, tbh) And from my conversations with women, this is not specifically a cis-male bias either. Ask a woman what she thinks of women kissing women vs men kissing men. Even if they say they don't mind either, often they prefer looking at women kissing women over men kissing men.

 

Why that is, I don't know. What it means, I don't pretend to know either. But I do believe that it's more complicated than the "male gaze" explanation you seem to offer. Perhaps it's all in my imagination. But at this point, at best, it's my imagination (or anekdotal experience) vs yours. And certainly no viable statistic, to say the least. Also, if it's true that besides the kissing aspect, there's simply more gay men in the media than gay women, how would that cater the male gaze?

 

At which point I can only say: you have every right to have that opinion. Because it is an opinion, as far as I can tell. And I can add that if you are right, I don't think that would be a good thing and I would understand your position. But at this moment, my experience is just different.

 

What is in your favor however, is when you specifically look at porn. Yes, I'm going there! ;) Is there "lesbian" porn being made which is being catered toward pleasuring the "male gaze". Absolutely! I don't have any statistics, but I don't have a problem with the notion there's more women kissing women than men kissing men. Way more. (lets assume thats the case for the argument) But again, if you consider the watching behavior of women watching porn, there's this awkward statistic that women tend to prefer (straight?) lesbian porn. Wait what?

 

https://www.pornhub.com/insights/womens-favorite-searches-worldwide

https://www.bustle.com/p/how-women-are-watching-porn-today-because-were-viewing-it-on-our-phones-more-than-men-43252

 

So besides catering this male gaze, you can also talk about catering the female gaze. Irony? (or proof of male oppression!?)

 

Which comes to a burning question I have. Lets say the male gaze is a negative thing. Would you agree there's also such a thing as the female gaze? And would it be equally bad? Or completely different to the male gaze? In whatever way possible. You decide.

 

And if you would be able to get rid of the male gaze, would you also like to get rid of the female gaze? Or would you consider this "gaze"-thing just some sort of natural phenomena related to sexual desires which is equally shared by all sexes. And it's perhaps more about learning men to put more effort into hiding their male gaze when they are in public. Like one could argue is the case with the female gaze. Or do we live in a world without a female gaze?

 

Lets leave it at this, because this hasn't got anything to do with transgender at all, imo. And in a way it's even beyond prejudices and behavior in a social context of and about transgenders. If you want to discuss though, I'll try to dance. But I can imagine, if you're currently still with me, that you aren't really bothered. Because perhaps this has become more about having different experiences in a context which pretends to be some sort of moral/ethical debate. Which, imo, is oddly not even the case. As I see no moral/ethical differences besides having different experiences and opinions even.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why that is, I don't know. What it means, I don't pretend to know either.

 

In a world where people are divided into Default and Other, and straight men are in Default, and women and GBT men are in Other, it becomes pretty clear why straight men have hangups about being perceived as gay or bi, while straight women don't.  See also my previous comments about lesbians being assumed to "grow out of it one day" while gay men are assumed to definitely be gay, although that might also be accounted for by again things catering to a straight-male perspective, which might be egotistical enough to think that deep down he's irresistable to women regardless of our claims to the contrary.  Yikes.  This is all symptomatic of a society with deep issues.

 

You seem to be arguing that women are objectively more attractive than men.  While we may agree that we think so, claiming this to be an objective fact seems a bit of a reach.

 

I'm not familiar with this porn you mention, but I hear it objectifies straight women enough that many such straight women seek out gay male porn just to avoid that, even if they don't fetishise gay men, so other straight women seeking out lesbian porn for similar reasons of wanting to avoid the whole degrading aspect would make sense.  All that would prove is that there isn't enough feminist straight porn catering to the market of straight women customers, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yeah, I think I'll leave this thread, as it's much more fun to work out [Rhubarb]'s time signature (plain old 4/4, who knew?) than it is to debate whether I'm real for the hundredth time.  What's a quirky thought experiment or abstract philosophical question for some is an attempt to invalidate the existence and lived experience of others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Why that is, I don't know. What it means, I don't pretend to know either.

 

In a world where people are divided into Default and Other, and straight men are in Default, and women and GBT men are in Other, it becomes pretty clear why straight men have hangups about being perceived as gay or bi, while straight women don't.  See also my previous comments about lesbians being assumed to "grow out of it one day" while gay men are assumed to definitely be gay, although that might also be accounted for by again things catering to a straight-male perspective, which might be egotistical enough to think that deep down he's irresistable to women regardless of our claims to the contrary.  Yikes.  This is all symptomatic of a society with deep issues.

 

You seem to be arguing that women are objectively more attractive than men.  While we may agree that we think so, claiming this to be an objective fact seems a bit of a reach.

 

I'm not familiar with this porn you mention, but I hear it objectifies straight women enough that many such straight women seek out gay male porn just to avoid that, even if they don't fetishise gay men, so other straight women seeking out lesbian porn for similar reasons of wanting to avoid the whole degrading aspect would make sense.  All that would prove is that there isn't enough feminist straight porn catering to the market of straight women customers, though.

 

 

Looks like you've got all the explanations covered. ;)

 

Before you leave though, there has been plenty of stuff in this thread which taught me a thing or two. Even if I don't agree with all your explanations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Darreichs what's your fixation on the brain? There are differences, yes, but there's some suggestion that they are at least partly due to hormones (not seen anything suggesting long term hormone therapy can alter an adult brain tho)...and the similarities between the female and male brains are obviously FAR greater than any slight differences that come up when studying.

I was talking about brain as an example for differences between men and women as an answer to someone saying other than reproductive organs trans women and natural women are the same which isn't exact. Even after hormones and surgeries and what not a man can't be transitioned into a woman and vice versa, biologically spoken. Which must suck if you want to be the opposite biological gender, so my condolences there. As for social gender there aren't only two, are there? At least a lot of sociologists think that. So why even talk about male and female when talking about social gender?
A woman who greets you or I on the street is going to be approached exactly the same. Whether or not she was born a female, born male, or is at some other place: if she chooses to present herself as a woman to me, I'll treat her as one. I'm not likely going to be inspecting her genitals at that moment, so why does her biological history matter in this social interaction? It doesn't is my point. It really doesn't at all unless I'm a scientist studying sexual dimorphism (I'm not), or I'm planning on reproducing with her, at which point I imagine we'll be comfortable enough with one another to discuss the particulars that are relevant. Beyond that, a trans woman or a since-birth woman are 'the same' as far as it matters to me, you, and anyone else really. And even that really isn't much, I'll say ma'am and refer to the person as a her...just semantics really. I guess I might be somewhat surprised if she's a woman who's also a rodeo clown since they're mostly males, last time I checked, but it's not like it would matter? That's just getting to know someone....and that gets into the social gender thing, which is I'm sure complex but I know nothing about. I assume the same ideas carry over as far as I'm concerned, so I really don't care how someone is presenting themselves/identifying/etc.
Yeah, sounds good my man, agree, but in a thread about transgenders it's good to cover all aspects of the matter including genitals Edited by darreichungsform
Link to comment
Share on other sites

good friend of mine is 7 months pregnant and yesterday her doctor told her that she's carrying a trans-girl baby. she's in wonder about the name now  :wacko: the doctor offered her some suggestions but she felt very awkward... i dont know what to say to her to all of that.

 

#only_science_can_help_you_think_about_life

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...