Poll: Gender Identity

[Drake the Dragonheart]

Edit: To be honest I asked the first question largely in jest. See how in my earlier responses to this thread I played off of a response about how rediculous it would be for someone to say Zhukov was unmanly for using safety razors over straight razors to shave. Also, I honestly never gave that a second thought until you asked.

Fair enough. Your last sentence is interesting though - I mean, isn't it weird how much we just accept because it's the norm in our society? Ever since you posted your first response, I've been wracking my brain thinking that surely there must be a logical reason why we segregate bathrooms, and I've honestly got nothing. I mean, it's not considered odd that people who share a house (even if they're not related) share bathrooms, so why is it practically a requirement in public places or for businesses?

I'm aware that I'm going off on a tangent here, forgive my musings.

haha nothing to forgive. I'm actually finding this conversation quite engaging. You've made stop and think about things that I have honestly never had reason to question.



I will say though that I imagine if I was using a public restroom and there was a woman in the stall next to me I would find it really awkward, and I'd be at least a little surprised if they didn't have a similar, though maybe not as strong a reaction. I must admit you do raise a very good point, although I would say in a residence a person is not using the restroom at the same time as anyone else. Well I guess I should only speak for myself, but I know I have never seen two people using the same bathroom at the same time in a home or residence.


I'm guessing I know your answer but will ask anyway: What about locker rooms? would those remain seperate or would they be shared by both genders as well?

 

[Aaron Sylvester]

I have an odd feeling that a whole bunch of people voted "other" just for giggles :S

 

[Drake the Dragonheart]

I have a question. Is "trans" describing someone who has had a sex change, or is it the "man trapped in a woman's body/woman trapped in a man's body" scenario?

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

I have a question. Is "trans" describing someone who has had a sex change, or is it the "man trapped in a woman's body/woman trapped in a man's body" scenario?

It usually means both, not sure if that was the intent of the person making the poll, though. Trans is used to describe someone's gender identity, not their physical body. So if you'd had sex reassignment surgery, you could still identify as trans if you liked.

I have an odd feeling that a whole bunch of people voted "other" just for giggles :S

I think you'd find that you're wrong on that front. There's a diverse range of gender identity outside the other four listed.

 

[Aramis Night]

snip

I just feel like I should bring up something that might calm some of your fears. Modern day hair transplant surgery works really well. I have had long black hair all of my adult life. It is a large part of my identity. When I turned 29 I found out that I had developed a large bald spot in the back of my head. This distressed me a great deal. Especially since I have no baldness in my family. It seems stress is a huge trigger as my life has not been easy. I looked into the surgery and various doctors who perform it in my area. Thankfully I live in southern California where we are swimming in cosmetic surgeons. I saved up for a few years and got the procedure done. The difference has been dramatic. What's even better is the transplanted hair is resistant to loss due to testosterone. It seems that it would work for your concerns if it came down to it.

I know of it, though any other hair on my body is curled and the hair on my head straight, which wouldn't make a good match. >_>

While they can take the hair from your body if necessary, that is not typical. They usually simply take it from the back of your head where the follicles tend to be at their thickest. The hair that grows in the back and sides of your head tend to be more resistant to loss due to testosterone. This is why male pattern baldness tends to present itself as loss in the front and top leaving men with a horseshoe configuration. The hair that grows within that configuration is different from the hair that grows in the front and top. This is the hair they usually use in the procedure to transplant elsewhere. I hope this helps.

 

[Aramis Night]

I suppose everything is debatable. Of course debating against established scientific/medical facts(http://cercor.oxfordjournals.org/content/11/6/490.short) would put you in the same intellectual position as a creationist. But that is your prerogative.

First sentence of the abstract for that article: "The etiology and consistency of findings on normal sexual dimorphisms of the adult human brain are unresolved." Also, the study's sample size of 48 is hardly impressive and nowhere near enough to start making statements about entire genders.

There is not scientific consensus on this, not by a long shot, and it's certainly not in any way comparable to "established scientific facts" like evolution, so quit with the hyperbole.

Oh come on. At least try to be convincing when you pretend to address research honestly. The one sentence you bothered to read was not a statement meant to incline that such differences don't exist. It was an admission that we do not have a complete understanding of the full nature of these distinctions. If you actually bothered to read the study you would see references of established gendered distinctions such as: "Sexual dimorphisms of adult brain volumes were more evident in the cortex, with women having larger volumes, relative to cerebrum size, particularly in frontal and medial paralimbic cortices. Men had larger volumes, relative to cerebrum size, in frontomedial cortex, the amygdala and hypothalamus."

As to your issue over the sample size of 48, this was a study where they were attempting to control for a number of other factors as they stated "The men and women were similar in age, education, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, general intelligence and handedness." Finding thousands or hundreds of people who share all of these factors in common, willing to participate would be unrealistic given the scope and nature of the research.

Should I just start throwing out other related studies so you can make excuses to not take those seriously as well? I'm sure you can have a grand time misrepresenting them as well. Here you go, try these: http://cercor.oxfordjournals.org/content/11/6/552.short?rss=1&ssource=mfr
http://cercor.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/04/25/cercor.bhu036.abstract?sid=5c832203-3ec9-4ebb-8900-5ea00a68e5fb
http://cercor.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/12/2797.abstract?sid=5c832203-3ec9-4ebb-8900-5ea00a68e5fb
http://cercor.oxfordjournals.org/content/23/10/2322.abstract?sid=5c832203-3ec9-4ebb-8900-5ea00a68e5fb

 

[Eamar]

snip

Oh get off your high horse and stop putting words into my mouth. I never claimed what you were saying was patently untrue, I said that it was disputed and that by framing the debate as being analogous to evolution vs creationism (ie, trying to paint your critics as uneducated, wilfully ignorant and/or delusional), you were being disingenuous and unnecessarily aggressive.

I'll repeat, I do not know enough to come to a conclusion on the matter either way. Very few people do, if any. But you're presenting this as undisputed scientific fact, which it just isn't. The methodologies used and scientists' own innate biases with regard to these issues have been repeatedly criticised.

I can play the linking game too:

http://www.rebeccajordan-young.com/uploads/7/9/8/4/7984974/ajs_review.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusions_of_Gender

Now, theses like those are also debated, and again I am not equipped to say they are 100% right. But they are out there. They have supporters as well as critics within the scientific establishment. Because sexual dimorphism of the human brain/psychology is not an open and shut thing yet.

Please, and I'm not trying to be sarcastic or catty here, please try to dial back the aggression if you choose to continue this discussion. I'm not making the argument you seem to think I am, I'm just asking you to consider different points of view (and not in a creationist way). Vault said the science you mentioned was disputed. She is correct. Whether you agree with the sceptics or not is irrelevant, hitting back with hyperbole and name calling as you did (you effectively called her the intellectual equivalent of a creationist) was unnecessary. That was my only point.

 

[Aramis Night]

snip

Oh get off your high horse and stop putting words into my mouth. I never claimed what you were saying was patently untrue, I said that it was disputed and that by framing the debate as being analogous to evolution vs creationism (ie, trying to paint your critics as uneducated, wilfully ignorant and/or delusional), you were being disingenuous and unnecessarily aggressive.

I'll repeat, I do not know enough to come to a conclusion on the matter either way. Very few people do, if any. But you're presenting this as undisputed scientific fact, which it just isn't. The methodologies used and scientists' own innate biases with regard to these issues have been repeatedly criticised.

I can play the linking game too:

http://www.rebeccajordan-young.com/uploads/7/9/8/4/7984974/ajs_review.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusions_of_Gender

Now, theses like those are also debated, and again I am not equipped to say they are 100% right. But they are out there. They have supporters as well as critics within the scientific establishment. Because sexual dimorphism of the human brain/psychology is not an open and shut thing yet.


Please, and I'm not trying to be sarcastic or catty here, please try to dial back the aggression if you choose to continue this discussion. I'm not making the argument you seem to think I am, I'm just asking you to consider different points of view (and not in a creationist way). Vault said the science you mentioned was disputed. She is correct. Whether you agree with the sceptics or not is irrelevant, hitting back with hyperbole and name calling as you did (you effectively called her the intellectual equivalent of a creationist) was unnecessary. That was my only point.

Did you really just link Wikipedia as an attempt to delegitimize my links to actual scientific studies out of Oxford? Wow, and with a thesis on sociology(a "soft" science) no less.
Hell the Wikipedia book review contains wonderful information when reviewed by members of the actual scientific fields involved like:

Lewis Wolpert, a developmental biologist, in a video lecture stated that "Fine hasn't a clue about biology."

When the majority of information in the academic reaction section is decidedly against the author of the work in terms as strong as this, perhaps you would do better to not post it as a defense, especially when it central premise isn't backed by any legitimate hard scientific research of its own. Looks a whole lot like evolution vs. creationism.

If you are willing to admit that you are in no position to advance a position, then perhaps you would do well to not make the attempt. I am not being the least bit disingenuous. I have made my position clear and have brought forth legitimate evidence to back it up. I have considered alternate points of view only as far as the evidence warrants it and I see no reason to engage it further. If your going to attempt to paint my position as incorrect than you will need evidence equal to or superior to my own. You have provided neither.

If I come across as aggressive then I will consider that a bonus. While it wasn't my intention, I will not be made to feel guilty speaking the truth or shamed into accommodating falsehoods because someone feels entitled to spread them. There is bias on both sides, but so far only one side seems to have hard science backing them up.

One other thing. At what point did I say anything regarding psychology? I didn't. I referred strictly to the physical structure of the brain. The differences in physical structure alone are in fact an open and shut case. The only thing open to debate is what these differences reflect in terms of ability. A case I never made.

Me and my tall horse will be taking our leave now. Don't make me come galloping back.

 

[Eamar]

snip

Still arguing against points you decided I'm making because you perceive me as disagreeing with you, rather than what I'm actually trying to say? Ok.

(And yes, I did link to the Wikipedia page for a book because, wonderful though modern technology is, it doesn't allow me to send you a physical book through the interwebs. You don't like people misrepresenting things, kindly stop doing it yourself. Yes, the quote you pulled out is correct, I acknowledged that it was hotly disputed. Equally, Diane F. Halpern, a leading psychologist, said it was "strongest in exposing research conclusions that are closer to fiction than science". Yes, she had criticisms too, but she also acknowledges that not all the research on this is irrefutable. Which was my point. Again, stop misrepresenting me. And while we're on the subject, what exactly puts you in a better position to draw conclusions about this stuff than me? Are you a scientist involved in this research? Because I'm not the uneducated, anti-science luddite you seem to think I am.)

Anyway, all that is kind of beside the point. I'll boil it right down for you: the only reason I jumped into this conversation was because you were condescending and rude to Vault when she disagreed with you. Not to say that the science you linked to was bullshit (I've never said that). Not to attack you. Not to say I necessarily disagree with all the research on this. Just to ask you to be more polite. That's it.

Chalk this up as a "win" on your part if you want, I guess. Just perhaps consider being less condescending in future, you might get a better quality of discussion out of it (assuming that's something you want).

 

[Proto Taco]

'Identity' is a misnomer, it bills being trans as a lifestyle choice, not the physical malady which it is. I'm not 'cisgendered' but I sure as hell don't 'identify' as trans. I don't get guys, how they think, what their motivations are, why they do anything it is that they do, they are completely foreign to me. I also cannot think straight or function at a normal capacity without hormone replacement therapy. It's not a matter of emotions, rebellion or activism, it's a simple base need for me to function. Women will also never accept me, which is just a fact of life. I have no 'safe space', as the feminists are want to call it, so far I have only myself to rely on.

Now you can debate the nature of the soul and whether or not a female brain actually 'makes you a woman' (I hate that phrase) but I'm really beyond caring. Any crossdresser, 'shemale', or 'tranny' who tries to tell you differently, that they LOVE being 'trans', is nothing more than a performer and they make life an effing hell for those of us dealing with real, physical gender problems.

So I AM NOT cis anything
And I AM NOT 'trans' anything
But my brain IS female

Guess that puts me under 'other'

 

[Aramis Night]

snip

Still arguing against points you decided I'm making because you perceive me as disagreeing with you, rather than what I'm actually trying to say? Ok.

(And yes, I did link to the Wikipedia page for a book because, wonderful though modern technology is, it doesn't allow me to send you a physical book through the interwebs. You don't like people misrepresenting things, kindly stop doing it yourself. Yes, the quote you pulled out is correct, I acknowledged that it was hotly disputed. Equally, Diane F. Halpern, a leading psychologist, said it was "strongest in exposing research conclusions that are closer to fiction than science". Yes, she had criticisms too, but she also acknowledges that not all the research on this is irrefutable. Which was my point. Again, stop misrepresenting me. And while we're on the subject, what exactly puts you in a better position to draw conclusions about this stuff than me? Are you a scientist involved in this research? Because I'm not the uneducated, anti-science luddite you seem to think I am.)

Anyway, all that is kind of beside the point. I'll boil it right down for you: the only reason I jumped into this conversation was because you were condescending and rude to Vault when she disagreed with you. Not to say that the science you linked to was bullshit (I've never said that). Not to attack you. Not to say I necessarily disagree with all the research on this. Just to ask you to be more polite. That's it.

Chalk this up as a "win" on your part if you want, I guess. Just perhaps consider being less condescending in future, you might get a better quality of discussion out of it (assuming that's something you want).

Feel better? Did all of that appealing to emotion help? You may feel justified for attempting to defend your friend. I feel equally justified in defending the truth. The difference is I have been good enough to not stoop to passive aggressive emotional manipulation as a means to secure some kind of moral high ground. You want to dress me down? Ok. I am not a scientist. I never even went to college. I'm a straight white male(evil, entitled, etc.) born to a prostitute mother and a drug dealer of a father. Raised as poor white trash and abused throughout childhood. Thrown out of home at 17. Spent a few years homeless. Managed to graduate high school early while homeless. Lost my virginity when my first GF drugged and raped me. Lived in an area made up almost entirely of gangs and druggies(tweakers mostly). Could not go to college since I was unable to afford it and didn't qualify for any grants. Eventually went to prison for a weapons offense. So yeah, I'm pretty much as far from being a scientist as one can get these days. Does any of that magically make me wrong? NO.

I'm not sure why you think that pointing out that I'm not a scientist in that field makes the slightest difference. I'm not sure why you think that allowing people to spread dishonest BS unchallenged is the means to "a better quality of discussion". We must have widely different ideas about what that means. I would like to move past arguing with people with a religious mindset about gender. It has no place in discussions of science. Even a luddite like me understands that.

 

[Aaron Sylvester]

I have an odd feeling that a whole bunch of people voted "other" just for giggles :S

I think you'd find that you're wrong on that front. There's a diverse range of gender identity outside the other four listed.

Interesting.
Makes me wonder why we even have genders then.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

I have an odd feeling that a whole bunch of people voted "other" just for giggles :S

I think you'd find that you're wrong on that front. There's a diverse range of gender identity outside the other four listed.

Interesting.
Makes me wonder why we even have genders then.

Something that humans are very good at, and do constantly, is categorising and labelling things, even if it isn't really all that useful to do so. Just part of who we are.

 

[Aaron Sylvester]

Something that humans are very good at, and do constantly, is categorising and labelling things, even if it isn't really all that useful to do so. Just part of who we are.

"Do you remember that person we met last friday in the evening?"
"It was a party, there were lots of people"
"Oh yeah. Still, do you remember the person I'm thinking about?"
"Name?"
"Dunno"
"Man or woman?"
"Can't say"
"Ethnicity?"
"No clue"
"Well describe them somehow!"
"Umm...wearing jeans."
"......."

And thus we have categorization. It's useful occasionally.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

Something that humans are very good at, and do constantly, is categorising and labelling things, even if it isn't really all that useful to do so. Just part of who we are.

"Do you remember that person we met last friday in the evening?"
"It was a party, there were lots of people"
"Oh yeah. Still, do you remember the person I'm thinking about?"
"Name?"
"Dunno"
"Man or woman?"
"Can't say"
"Ethnicity?"
"No clue"
"Well describe them somehow!"
"Umm...wearing jeans."
"......."

And thus we have categorization. It's useful occasionally.

Sorry, I meant "even if it isn't *always* really useful to do so". Obviously it's useful for identifying someone else that we're referring to, but the preconceptions our minds form around those categorisations is what's sometimes the problem.