Gender identity: Crazy/delusional?

[Oystein]

BTW: While straight myself, . . .

I wonder . . . Seems that you protest a lot and are preoccupied with this subject.

You are a many-faceted bigot.

 

[billvon]

From Billvon Posts #3 &7As mentioned in my Post #5, I apologize for calling gender identity issues insanity & consider delusional a better description of the syndrome, since insanity implies some serious level of functional disability.

And delusional means based on faulty judgment and not based in reality. Gender identity issues do not apply.

You are misinterpreting some of my remarks (or perhaps deliberately putting your words into my Posts). You are suggesting that I consider homosexuality insane or delusional. I do not consider it to be either. Insane & delusional imply contrary to reality.

Agreed.

Homosexual & monogamous behavior are observable realities.

Agreed on homosexual.

Now let's consider monogamous behavior. Someone who claims they are monogamous - and lives a monogamous life by remaining with one partner - is indeed monogamous. That's true even if you really, honestly believe that humans are inherently polygamous (as some people do.)

Someone who claims they are monogamous - but in fact has a lot of partners - is dishonest. In general they are NOT delusional; they are just lying.

An anatomically male person who considers himself a female in a male body surely has views which at some level are contrary to reality. Id est: Delusional.

Incorrect. Someone who is anatomically male who considers their gender to be female - and lives that way - has a female gender identity. That is a fact, not delusion. If they are genetically male, anatomically female and living as a female? Same thing. You may dislike the idea that they are living as a woman, but that does not change reality.

 

[spidergoat]

An anatomically male person who considers himself a female in a male body surely has views which at some level are contrary to reality.

That is not correct. First of all, anatomy is not binary. We all start anatomically female, and then hormones trigger changes, mostly before birth. Many people are on some spectrum between male and female. Furthermore, behavior doesn't just come from society, but is also regulated by hormones. It's the binary view of gender that is contrary to reality.

 

[Tiassa]

An anatomically male person who considers himself a female in a male body surely has views which at some level are contrary to reality.

Your definition of reality might be problematic.

It's not quite a matter of God's will, but if genotype, phenotype, and cognitive-behavioral outcomes were intended to line up in such neat ranks, they would.

 

[Syne]

What would you suggest as a standard for gender identification?

DNA.

 

[Capracus]

DNA.

If gender were used strictly to classify biological sex then that would be sufficient, but sociologically the term is also used more broadly to describe the psychological and behavioral qualities of individuals as well. From a sociological perspective, is one’s biological sex more relevant than the overall quality of their morphology and behaviors? Of course (presently) the absence of a uterus excludes biological males from gestation and birth, but many biological females are also functionally deficient in this regard. Outside of the fertility issues, a biological male or female can be conditioned to adequately function as their biological counterparts in all other respects.

 

[Syne]

If gender were used strictly to classify biological sex then that would be sufficient, but sociologically the term is also used more broadly to describe the psychological and behavioral qualities of individuals as well. From a sociological perspective, is one’s biological sex more relevant than the overall quality of their morphology and behaviors? Of course (presently) the absence of a uterus excludes biological males from gestation and birth, but many biological females are also functionally deficient in this regard. Outside of the fertility issues, a biological male or female can be conditioned to adequately function as their biological counterparts in all other respects.

Sociology is not science. And while you'd probably scoff at such subjective enabling of the religious, you hypocritically advocate for it among the gender dysphoric.

 

[billvon]

DNA.

So you'd force men with male genitals, male sex drives etc to use the same bathroom as your daughter?

 

[Syne]

So you'd force men with male genitals, male sex drives etc to use the same bathroom as your daughter?

What are you on about? How do you get that from "DNA"?

 

[Bells]

What are you on about? How do you get that from "DNA"?

Because you are badly attempting to argue that one's DNA sets one's gender. That one's DNA would give a clear indication of their gender or gender identification.

Studies have shown a biological basis and link to being transgender.

Some children insist, from the moment they can speak, that they are not the gender indicated by their biological sex. So where does this knowledge reside? And is it possible to discern a genetic or anatomical basis for transgender identity? Exploration of these questions is relatively new, but there is a bit of evidence for a genetic basis. Identical twins are somewhat more likely than fraternal twins to both be trans.

Male and female brains are, on average, slightly different in structure, although there is tremendous individual variability. Several studies have looked for signs that transgender people have brains more similar to their experienced gender. Spanish investigators—led by psychobiologist Antonio Guillamon of the National Distance Education University in Madrid and neuropsychologist Carme Junqué Plaja of the University of Barcelona—used MRI to examine the brains of 24 female-to-males and 18 male-to-females—both before and after treatment with cross-sex hormones. Their results, published in 2013, showed that even before treatment the brain structures of the trans people were more similar in some respects to the brains of their experienced gender than those of their natal gender. For example, the female-to-male subjects had relatively thin subcortical areas (these areas tend to be thinner in men than in women). Male-to-female subjects tended to have thinner cortical regions in the right hemisphere, which is characteristic of a female brain. (Such differences became more pronounced after treatment.)

“Trans people have brains that are different from males and females, a unique kind of brain,” Guillamon says. “It is simplistic to say that a female-to-male transgender person is a female trapped in a male body. It's not because they have a male brain but a transsexual brain.” Of course, behavior and experience shape brain anatomy, so it is impossible to say if these subtle differences are inborn.

Other investigators have looked at sex differences through brain functioning. In a study published in 2014, psychologist Sarah M. Burke of VU University Medical Center in Amsterdam and biologist Julie Bakker of the Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience used functional MRI to examine how 39 prepubertal and 41 adolescent boys and girls with gender dysphoria responded to androstadienone, an odorous steroid with pheromonelike properties that is known to cause a different response in the hypothalamus of men versus women. They found that the adolescent boys and girls with gender dysphoria responded much like peers of their experienced gender. The results were less clear with the prepubertal children.​

Billvon's point, in response to your flippant DNA remark, was to correctly point out that DNA, such as a DNA test on a male transgender who has male sex drives, male genitals, etc, but was born female with female DNA to use your daughter's bathroom.

Sociology is not science. And while you'd probably scoff at such subjective enabling of the religious, you hypocritically advocate for it among the gender dysphoric.

Do you think transgender are somehow enabled? That children who from their first words, say they are not the sex they were born as, are somehow conditioned? Do you think the biological response in their brains is from enabling or conditioned behaviour?

I'll reiterate, as one example of the biological basis of gender identity:

For example, the female-to-male subjects had relatively thin subcortical areas (these areas tend to be thinner in men than in women). Male-to-female subjects tended to have thinner cortical regions in the right hemisphere, which is characteristic of a female brain. (Such differences became more pronounced after treatment.)​

These differences were there even before they began their treatment. Enabling or conditioning would not result in these differences.

Ergo, Billvon's question to you is quite valid. I'd suggest you not dodge it as you are attempting to, and answer it and support your arguments..

 

[Jeeves]

And while you'd probably scoff at such subjective enabling of the religious, you hypocritically advocate for it among the gender dysphoric.

What does this mean?
Enable how? To do what?

 

[Capracus]

Sociology is not science. And while you'd probably scoff at such subjective enabling of the religious, you hypocritically advocate for it among the gender dysphoric.

Why would you disqualify sociology as a science?

Let’s compare the religious and the gender dysphoric. The religious are conditioned to expect that their fantasy is reality, while the gender dysphoric are conditioned to expect that they can make their fantasy become reality. Given the present state of culture and medical technology, I would say that the expectations of the gender dysphoric are to ever increasing degrees realistically attainable, where the mystical expectations of the religious continue to remain highly dubious.

 

[kx000]

If a person believes he/she Napoleon or a reincarnation of him, he is considered insane or delusional. Similarly for belief in being a reincarnation of some 16th century woman.

If a person believes that he is a man born into a woman's body or a similar belief for a woman, he/she is considered to have some gender identity problem.

Why is the former insane & the latter not less insane, but still insane?

Out of false belief (bigotry), or ignorance.

 

[Syne]

Billvon's point, in response to your flippant DNA remark, was to correctly point out that DNA, such as a DNA test on a male transgender who has male sex drives, male genitals, etc, but was born female with female DNA to use your daughter's bathroom.

If we didn't placate gender dysphoria, it wouldn't be an issue. Aside from that, if you can pass as your chosen gender, no one will think twice about you using your chosen bathroom. And if you can't pass as your chosen gender, it's only an issue if you are prone to flashing your junk around. But we can't simply let anyone use any bathroom solely on subjective self-reported gender without enabling potential predators to exploit it.

Because you are badly attempting to argue that one's DNA sets one's gender. That one's DNA would give a clear indication of their gender or gender identification.

Studies have shown a biological basis and link to being transgender.

Some children insist, from the moment they can speak, that they are not the gender indicated by their biological sex. So where does this knowledge reside? And is it possible to discern a genetic or anatomical basis for transgender identity? Exploration of these questions is relatively new, but there is a bit of evidence for a genetic basis. Identical twins are somewhat more likely than fraternal twins to both be trans.

Male and female brains are, on average, slightly different in structure, although there is tremendous individual variability. Several studies have looked for signs that transgender people have brains more similar to their experienced gender. Spanish investigators—led by psychobiologist Antonio Guillamon of the National Distance Education University in Madrid and neuropsychologist Carme Junqué Plaja of the University of Barcelona—used MRI to examine the brains of 24 female-to-males and 18 male-to-females—both before and after treatment with cross-sex hormones. Their results, published in 2013, showed that even before treatment the brain structures of the trans people were more similar in some respects to the brains of their experienced gender than those of their natal gender. For example, the female-to-male subjects had relatively thin subcortical areas (these areas tend to be thinner in men than in women). Male-to-female subjects tended to have thinner cortical regions in the right hemisphere, which is characteristic of a female brain. (Such differences became more pronounced after treatment.)

“Trans people have brains that are different from males and females, a unique kind of brain,” Guillamon says. “It is simplistic to say that a female-to-male transgender person is a female trapped in a male body. It's not because they have a male brain but a transsexual brain.” Of course, behavior and experience shape brain anatomy, so it is impossible to say if these subtle differences are inborn.

Other investigators have looked at sex differences through brain functioning. In a study published in 2014, psychologist Sarah M. Burke of VU University Medical Center in Amsterdam and biologist Julie Bakker of the Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience used functional MRI to examine how 39 prepubertal and 41 adolescent boys and girls with gender dysphoria responded to androstadienone, an odorous steroid with pheromonelike properties that is known to cause a different response in the hypothalamus of men versus women. They found that the adolescent boys and girls with gender dysphoria responded much like peers of their experienced gender. The results were less clear with the prepubertal children.​

It's called neuralplasticity, where behavior can change the structure of the brain. Just like behaving like you're sad can actually change your mood, behaving like one sex can alter the brain...but like your source says, only "more similar in some respects." The reason "Trans people have brains that are different from males and females" is that males and females don't typically behave so much like the opposite sex. And your source even seems to favor neuralplasticity: "Of course, behavior and experience shape brain anatomy, so it is impossible to say if these subtle differences are inborn." And even though it starts by making allusions to the behavior of children, where are the studies showing the correlated brain differences in children?

Your science doesn't make as strong of claims as you seem to think they do.

Do you think transgender are somehow enabled? That children who from their first words, say they are not the sex they were born as, are somehow conditioned? Do you think the biological response in their brains is from enabling or conditioned behaviour?

Children are notoriously confused, and yes, that confusion can either be reinforced and normalized or corrected. What "biological response in their brains"? Do you have evidence of that in children? Or are you merely making an unfounded leap from evidence in adults?

I'll reiterate, as one example of the biological basis of gender identity:

For example, the female-to-male subjects had relatively thin subcortical areas (these areas tend to be thinner in men than in women). Male-to-female subjects tended to have thinner cortical regions in the right hemisphere, which is characteristic of a female brain. (Such differences became more pronounced after treatment.)​

These differences were there even before they began their treatment. Enabling or conditioning would not result in these differences.

Yeah, in adults...long after any possible "behavior and experience shape brain anatomy" (according to your own source).

What does this mean?
Enable how? To do what?

Would you demand others accept a subjectively reported god, just as you might demand the acceptance of a subjectively reported gender identity?

Why would you disqualify sociology as a science?

There's a reason it's qualified as "social science", rather than just science.

Positivist social scientists use methods resembling those of the natural sciences as tools for understanding society, and so define science in its stricter modern sense. Interpretivist social scientists, by contrast, may use social critique or symbolic interpretation rather than constructing empirically falsifiable theories, and thus treat science in its broader sense. In modern academic practice, researchers are often eclectic, using multiple methodologies (for instance, by combining the quantitative and qualitative researchs). - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_science​

If you deem that on par with more rigorous scientific fields, that's your prerogative.

Let’s compare the religious and the gender dysphoric. The religious are conditioned to expect that their fantasy is reality, while the gender dysphoric are conditioned to expect that they can make their fantasy become reality. Given the present state of culture and medical technology, I would say that the expectations of the gender dysphoric are to ever increasing degrees realistically attainable, where the mystical expectations of the religious continue to remain highly dubious.

Aside from mystic religions, what attainment do you think is unrealistic in this world? You do know that most Christian attainment doesn't apply to this world, right? So are you only cherry-picking a specific exception attempting to make a general point? And even though trans may get closer to approximating their chosen sex, nothing will change their chromosomes. So their "reality" will always be a farce. But well done for admitting "the gender dysphoric are conditioned to expect that they can make their fantasy become reality."

 

[billvon]

If we didn't placate gender dysphoria, it wouldn't be an issue.

So your argument is that if we didn't deal with gender dysphoria, it would go away? History disagrees.

But we can't simply let anyone use any bathroom solely on subjective self-reported gender without enabling potential predators to exploit it.

We cannot allow adults to use the same bathrooms as children without enabling potential predators to exploit it.

It's called neuralplasticity, where behavior can change the structure of the brain. Just like behaving like you're sad can actually change your mood, behaving like one sex can alter the brain...

So if you behaved like a woman, you would (effectively) become one? You must be different than most people, then.

Would you demand others accept a subjectively reported god, just as you might demand the acceptance of a subjectively reported gender identity?

Nope. But I would demand that others accept my choice of God - as I am sure you do.
[quoteAnd even though trans may get closer to approximating their chosen sex, nothing will change their chromosomes.[/quote]
True.

So their "reality" will always be a farce.

So to you, a woman with XY chromosomes who, due to AIS, is a "farce?"

 

[Syne]

So your argument is that if we didn't deal with gender dysphoria, it would go away? History disagrees.

Who said it would go away?

We cannot allow adults to use the same bathrooms as children without enabling potential predators to exploit it.

So since we cannot guarantee protection, there should be none?

So if you behaved like a woman, you would (effectively) become one? You must be different than most people, then.

No, neuralplasticity does not change sex, only brain structure. Even sex change surgery doesn't effectively make a genuine woman.

Nope. But I would demand that others accept my choice of God - as I am sure you do.

Yes, and that acceptance requires zero action or accommodation from anyone else. Contrary to trans bathroom "rights".

So to you, a woman with XY chromosomes who, due to AIS, is a "farce?"

There are naturally occurring abnormal exceptions, none of which justify the normalization of dysphoria in the physically typical. Considering AIS does bar conception, it would not classify as female (of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) that can be fertilized by male gametes). Just like secondary sexual characteristics changed through surgery do not change genetics.

 

[spidergoat]

DNA.

Science denier, DNA is not the sole determinant for gender.

 

[billvon]

Who said it would go away?

You - "If we didn't placate gender dysphoria, it wouldn't be an issue." If by that you mean that anyone could use any bathroom they wanted and no one would be upset about it, then I agree - it wouldn't be an issue.

So since we cannot guarantee protection, there should be none?

Nope. Protection should be sane, based on rational measures of protection vs. restriction of freedoms.

No, neuralplasticity does not change sex, only brain structure. Even sex change surgery doesn't effectively make a genuine woman.

I didn't say "become a woman." I said "effectively become a woman" i.e. live like one.

You claimed "It's called neuralplasticity, where behavior can change the structure of the brain. Just like behaving like you're sad can actually change your mood, behaving like one sex can alter the brain." And you floated this as a reason some men lived like women and vice versa. Or are you walking that back now?

Yes, and that acceptance requires zero action or accommodation from anyone else.

Really? Being required to say "under God" is not an action? Being required to use money that says "in God we trust?" is not an action?

If an atheist can be forced to proclaim that his country is under God, and can be forced to pay for things with money that claims he trusts God, then you can deal with someone who is genetically female using your bathroom. He tolerates you; you are in turn required to tolerate him.

There are naturally occurring abnormal exceptions, none of which justify the normalization of dysphoria in the physically typical.

Nor do we need to "normalize" it. We merely need to treat others as we would want to be treated. Live and let live.

Considering AIS does bar conception, it would not classify as female (of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) that can be fertilized by male gametes).

True of people who are sterile by choice (or biology) as well - women over 50, for example. Do they not "classify as female?" Should they use a different bathroom, lest conservative sensitivities be offended?

Oh and BTW -

Considering AIS does bar conception, it would not classify as female . . . .

Referring to people as "it" doesn't really help make your case.

 

[Jeeves]

Would you demand others accept a subjectively reported god, just as you might demand the acceptance of a subjectively reported gender identity?

I demand nothing but freedom from religion. However, churches make many demands, and usually get their way.
I do not interfere with the right of all kinds of religious kooks to carry on whatever rituals (short of unconsenting sacrifice) they are moved to perform in whatever edifices they consecrate to whatever deities they worship. I only draw the line at their attempt to force their dogma on people who do not share those beliefs.
They don't require any help to be able to do what they do.
People who subjectively experience gender differently from the way I experience it are fully able to express themselves also.

What kind of enabling do you think they need?
If they're not hurting anyone, why should I care?

Follow-up questions on DNA:
On whom is the test done? Everyone, or just the people who declare themselves other than as they appear?
When is the testing to be done? Before each proposed bathroom visit, or just one time, and the subjects get a visible tattoo, for next time the question of their gender identity arises?
Do you need a court order each time someone is subjected to testing, or will a single executive order cover all contingencies?
How is the DNA testing program funded?
What's the expected wait-time for results?

 

[Syne]

Science denier, DNA is not the sole determinant for gender.

Where is the science on gender identity? You know, short of subjective anecdote and misrepresented neuralplasticity findings?
Oh, I forgot, you only have ad hominems in lieu of argument.