What's Makes A Man/Woman?

[Finis Rerum]

XX and XY chromosones. If you were born as a male then you will never be a female and vice versa, regardless of how you feel about it.

You do know that it's possible to have both a Y chromosome and a natural vagina, right?

Yes, and we call those people intersex. But that wasn't the question.

 

[09philj]

XX and XY chromosones. If you were born as a male then you will never be a female and vice versa, regardless of how you feel about it.

You do know that it's possible to have both a Y chromosome and a natural vagina, right?

Yes, and we call those people intersex. But that wasn't the question.

I can't be bothered to rewrite my crash course in prenatal development from earlier, so here it is again.

Ah genetics, genetics. So fascinating, so complex, so imperfect. Within every cell lies all the information needed to create a being that is largely, if not entirely, unlike you. Conception is not the end point in the creation of a human being. It's the start of a long and messy process, filled with opportunities for things to drastically deviate from what their DNA says they should be. In this particular case, of interest to us is precisely how a person comes to acquire a male reproductive system, or lack thereof, and a generally masculine brain to go with it. Neither of these things develop without an external trigger, which comes in the a mixture of a few different androgenic hormones which are released to every foetus in the uterus. In normal development, a foetus with XX chromosomes will not be sensitive to the hormones and develop a female reproductive system, and all the other relevant physical traits, and a generally feminine brain. A foetus with XY chromosomes, on the other hand, will be sensitive to the hormones and will get a male reproductive system and brain. This is, of course, merely an idealised view of development. In practice, a small minority of foetuses, for one reason or another, often an abnormal X or Y chromosome, don't respond to a hormone they should, or do respond to a hormone they shouldn't. This goes some way to explaining why some people are trans (and intersex), although it's only a factor, and there are many other things both in and out of the womb that can influence a person's identity. Talking about the human brain in terms of genetics is reductive and unhelpful, as is any such notion of a "true" man or woman. There is more to being a man or woman than being male or female.

Basically, there's more to gender than "a feeling", it's more fundamental than that. We can't entirely transplant the reproductive system (yet), but we can reshape the body into something that an individual feels more comfortable with, and that is the real point; to make an individual as happy as possible.

 

[Silvanus]

Yes, and we call those people intersex. But that wasn't the question.

This is simply factually incorrect. Psychology and law aside, it's scientifically wrong, even if we're talking about biological sex. You don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Signa]

Your ideas of gender are your own, and for you to decide how to define. I couldn't even tell you what I think makes me a man, but I know I'm a man. If the gear between your legs isn't enough to prove to yourself what you are, then you should get a DNA test done to make sure you're not intersex. If that's not enough, then just remember that whatever you feel is in your head, and it's up to you to figure out how much that actually matters to you to display externally. Just remember, people will treat you as what they see from you, so if they see a man, they will treat you like a man. If they see a man in woman's clothing, they will treat you like that. If you're comfortable with that for your own expression, that's great! I just ask that you don't require others to conform to what is in your head, as I have seen so much of lately. Your head is you, not me.

 

[Silvanus]

Your head is you, not me.

By the same token, your perception is you, not the truth. It's valid for somebody to correct somebody else if they're mistaken in how they've perceived something.

 

[Terminal Blue]

If he lied I want a proof he lied, which should be in no short supply rather than heresay.

You can want what you want. There is never going to be any "proof" of anything, because all we have to go on is a single student crying to the media when they didn't get their way. Institutions are not going to stoop to the same level of unprofessional conduct just to soothe your anxieties.

And there's a difference between lying and misrepresenting. Lying is when I say something which didn't happen. Misrepresenting is when I infer something which didn't happen by carefully wording things that did happen. I have no doubt that the ethics committee expressed concern over damage to the institution's reputation, because that is one of the things an ethics committee exists to weigh up. However, the intention is very clearly to give a misleading impression that this was the primary motivation and that what is at stake here is some kind of political suppression of important research rather than a student proposing to do highly inappropriate masters dissertation and being rightly picked up by an ethics committee for it.

Heck, I've seen numerous news outlets describe him as an "academic", which kind of illustrates how grossly out of line with reality the narrative is.

If what he did had merit he could have continued it further from master's level or encouraged other organizations to deal with an issue, if what he done would have made no effect then why are they so afraid of its effects and if he was stopped by the ethics commitee from where the "social media" explanation came from?

1) Because he would have fucked up his degree, and thus the university would be failing him by letting him continue.
2) Because his research could have caused emotional or psychological harm to its participants, which he was not equipped with the research skills or the time to avoid.
3) Because any backlash could have caused damage to the institution while contributing nothing of value to it. It would have an entirely negative impact from their perspective.

Everything you say he could have done, he can still do. Heck, there are people with actual PhDs who are making the same argument he was intending to make. The reason they aren't doing the research (although I know some have written on this topic before) is because actually doing research is a big deal, it takes a long time and a lot of effort to do it properly and most people advancing this kind of argument aren't fundamentally very interested in trans issues, it's just a convenient outlet for their conservative views.

If Caspian was really so deeply motivated by this one conversation he had with a surgeon (because that's the basis of his argument, he spoke to a surgeon once) that he really, really wants to do the research, he still can. All he needs to do is finish his taught degree, actually learn what they're trying to teach him and then apply to do a PhD and see if he can find a supervisor willing to accept it. Of course, he'll still have to face an ethics board again but hopefully by then he will have learned enough and have a better proposal. Then he can spend 3-6 years of his life working on this, which is what it actually takes to turn out a good piece of research.

And the institutional oversight is behind a thought paywall.

Yes, welcome to Earth. I'm sorry to inform you that the "knowledge economy" is exactly like all other sectors of the economy, meaning you don't have a magic and special right to speak freely. Noone's interested in your super important special personal thoughts, that's what your blog (or god forbid, your twitter account) is for. In academia, you have to go through the process if you want to speak or to have a voice. Freedom of speech is not an academic value and never has been, which is why these conversations never involve the "free speech" of actual academics. Academics know that their jobs are not licenses to blurt out whatever thought comes into their head, but are contingent on the quality and relevance of their speech, as well as the procedural correctness of how it is conducted. These are skills acquired over many years of specialised training, and even that training is no guarantee that a person will actually be able to work or speak in an academic environment. It depends largely on whether an institution sees them as enough of an asset to take on.

It's only non-academics who assume that academia has to be some kind of groovy free-association space where everything goes.

Also if I read it right the university in question recieves funding from the UK government so it's definitely the public's right to know.

Nope. In this case it's the individual's right to disclose, which he did. The issue is that he did so in a highly manipulative way which accords the university no option to respond, and without waiting for internal procedures to run their course.

But this is exactly why universities seek to avoid damage to their reputations, because trials by media are very seldom fair or balanced.

 

[KissingSunlight]

I want to thank everyone who has posted. I did want to get a wide diversity of opinions on this. I have moved on from this question with a better understanding thanks to all of you.

Your ideas of gender are your own, and for you to decide how to define. I couldn't even tell you what I think makes me a man, but I know I'm a man. If the gear between your legs isn't enough to prove to yourself what you are, then you should get a DNA test done to make sure you're not intersex. If that's not enough, then just remember that whatever you feel is in your head, and it's up to you to figure out how much that actually matters to you to display externally. Just remember, people will treat you as what they see from you, so if they see a man, they will treat you like a man. If they see a man in woman's clothing, they will treat you like that. If you're comfortable with that for your own expression, that's great! I just ask that you don't require others to conform to what is in your head, as I have seen so much of lately. Your head is you, not me.

I have a live and let live attitude about life. So, I understand and agree with most of what you posted. It's the last couple of sentences that made want to respond.

There are a lot of terms and buzzwords that gets thrown around when it comes to the issue of transgender. Most of which I still don't understand. It's just a community trying to understand themselves better, because the science hasn't caught up to explain exactly why they are who they are. At the end of the day, what the community wants is basic respect. For example, if you see someone walk by you in a dress, and you think it's a guy. Please, don't do this...
If you can find that agreeable, then I think we can make some progress.

 

[Satinavian]

Yes, and we call those people intersex. But that wasn't the question.

This is simply factually incorrect. Psychology and law aside, it's scientifically wrong, even if we're talking about biological sex. You don't know what you're talking about.

Oh, really ?

Intersex as term for all kinds of biological sex that doesn't fit neatly into the male/female scheme is nowadays normal usage. It also is used this way by the UN and has found itself in various legal codes. And if i google "Intersex science" i can find lots of papers using the term.

And you claim science tells otherwise ? How does science do it then ? (Only biological sex, only humans and i don't want only a list of all the possibilities, i want a system of classicfication that is used instead)

 

[Headsprouter]

A man? Other than a miserable little pile of secrets, I'm not sure.

A woman? I don't have a quote for that one, sorry. It's possible Dracula meant the human race when he said "man", though.

Cishet male, about to dig himself an ignorant little hole, most likely. I had a semblance of a post that went into answering your question, but I've scrapped it because really, what's it worth if I'm just going to go into no specifics, cite no sources and constantly remind people to not hurt me?
Gender is enough of a mindfuck as it is, nevermind people somehow coming up with new ones. I don't think saying you're genderfluid and wearing "boy" and "girl" clothes on certain days is the best way to smash the gender binary, I'll leave it at that.

Congrats on coming to your realisation, OP. I can barely realise what I want to have for breakfast nevermind my identity.

 

[Silvanus]

Oh, really ?

Intersex as term for all kinds of biological sex that doesn't fit neatly into the male/female scheme is nowadays normal usage. It also is used this way by the UN and has found itself in various legal codes. And if i google "Intersex science" i can find lots of papers using the term.

And you claim science tells otherwise ? How does science do it then ? (Only biological sex, only humans and i don't want only a list of all the possibilities, i want a system of classicfication that is used instead)

Yes, Intersex is a valid umbrella term. However, people whose chromosomes are not XX or XY can be medically designated as sexually male or female.

Medically, chromosomes are not solely definitive of biological sex, but people seem to have it in their heads that they are.

 

[Terminal Blue]

I kinda doubt that academies are above that and as long as they don't reply (which they can do in an official capacity) there's no reason to believe the man is wrong.

Oh, academics are not above it. Like people in any profession, academics ***** like champions. However, noone is going to come out "in an official capacity" and talk to the media because:

1) It's extremely unprofessional, and academics have actual careers which could be harmed by displaying any lack of professionalism.
2) Speaking "in an official capacity" would ultimately make no difference without institutional backing. If it helps, I can say that I'm speaking "in an official capacity" right now.
3) Everyone knows that trials by media are unfair. There are already internal disciplinary procedures for handling allegations of misconduct, but these are not matters for public discussion because the potential for misrepresentation or mudslinging is very high. The only people who will go to the media are people who think that they, personally, have something to gain from doing so. In other words, people who are not actually interested in finding out what happened or deciding whether it was appropriate so much as inciting public sympathy and promoting their own name.
4) It's bad media strategy. As it stands, all we have is one lone student crying unfair about a decision which didn't go their way. It blew over pretty fast. Dredging it up again weeks after the fact isn't going to convince anyone, it's just going to put the whole thing back into the public eye.

And if it was a point they made it's certinely should be criticized, like if I'd want to enlist there and get the answer that I can't:
1) Because I don't have good enough grades.
2) Because I'm a dirty jew.

Even if 1 is correct it is still an (in this case) antisemitic answer and deserve to be called out and explained.

Well, if you got that answer, then someone is probably going to lose their job. Universities have very, very strict anti-discrimination policies, far stricter than most employers (because of their role in dealing with young people). Hatespeech is also a crime, so you could also go to the police if you so wanted, although they will probably be less effective than just reporting the problem to the institution.

I mean, you could call up your publicist straight away and go to the media with that, sure, but it would make no difference other than potentially prejudicing the internal or police investigation which would inevitably occur. Now, if you went through the internal investigation and at the end the institution did nothing or didn't go as far as you'd like (which has happened, I know a staff member who racially abused a student and kept their job - albeit with greater oversight and mandatory anti-racism training) then going to the media might be a good idea because at that point it is an institutional problem.

But running straight to the press is not even going to get you an explanation, because at that point there is nothing to explain. All they can tell you is that they're investigating.

Again, bring me the proof.

Proof of what. I'm describing basic generalisations about masters degrees and research and explaining how an ethics board things. I have a masters degree, I've taught masters students as a GTA, I know people who have served on ethics boards and I've even heard anecdotal stories of actual misconduct on the part of ethics boards (like male academics questioning whether someone can do a piece of research because they're a woman and they might be too emotionally fragile) so I'm not even ruling that out as a possibility. That's why we have internal oversight.

But Masters students do not have the training (or more importantly the time) to do a piece of research of the scope being described. Like, it is so out of line with the scope of what is possible for an MSc research project that I'm amazed I would have to explain this even to people without a background in research. It's PhD level research at least, and as mentioned PhDs take years to complete and then months or years to edit for publication. Your MSc is not the place to change the world, and every year many, many students have to be talked down from trying to do Masters dissertations which are far too ambitious or impossible. The vast majority listen and take that on board, and in doing so they learn an important lesson about managing a piece of research.

Secondly, there are very clear and obvious ethical concerns with researching people who are emotionally vulnerable, and when noone wants to take part in your research because they're traumatized that kind of suggests it might be a valid concern.

Thirdly, yes there is a clear risk of damage to the institution. As mentioned, universities often take the risk of reputational damage on the chin when research is clearly important or making a contribution, but it's proportional to the ammount they get back. With a taught masters student, they get nothing back. Worse than nothing, in fact, because by letting them do a project which is utterly impossible within the timeframe they are setting that student up to fail, which also reflects badly on them.

I can bet you would have changed your tone if it wasn't aligned to your favour. Nobody is asking for full free speech (which is a strawman), but there is a sane limit to how far people can thought police and this is a case of it.

"Aligned to my favour". Lol, wut.

I have no objection to people doing case studies on people detransitioning. Ideally, those people should have some kind of background or long term commitment to studying trans issues more generally and a willingness to develop the requisite contextual knowledge. What's not acceptable to me, and actually kind of bullshit, is someone with no research experience deciding on the basis of a single conversation with a surgeon who has performed SRS reversals that detransitioning is some kind of escalating phenomenon which demands we overturn a best practice founded on decades of research into transgender people. True, on one hand I have a political problem with that because it's recognisably dangerous, it's stigmatising to a very vulnerable community and dog whistling to people who want sticks to beat trans people with, hence why Caspian's academic defenders and "friends" are mostly conservative Jungians who think that trans people are delusional and TERFs who think that trans people are sexual deviants. However, my biggest problem with it is that it's just bad practice. It may meet the standard of free speech, but it doesn't meet the standard of accurate, complete and relevant speech, and speech which doesn't meet that standard has no place in an academic setting.

It took me 2.5 years before I knew what the conclusion of my research was going to be. Before that, I had a vague idea or hypothesis but I didn't have the knowledge to apply it as a direct claim and know that I could justify it every step of the way back. Deciding ahead of time that detransitioning is some kind of escalating threat which will blow our whole understanding of the medical ethics of treating transgender people out of the water is not exhibiting any kind of responsibility to the truth or the kind of restraint I would expect as a researcher (and bear in mind, in research terms I'm still a baby).

If I were to propose this piece of research, I would simply propose to investigate the self-perceived life histories of a small number of detransitioners (like, maybe two or three depending on the precise length of the project) with the goal of figuring out what they feel led them to make a bad decision. From there, it should be easy to identify questionable factors in their treatment which might be worth following up in future research. Achievable within the timeframe, much less ethically risky, less blatantly politically motivated and consequentially less likely to call the institution into any kind of disrepute. It's not going to change the world and blow all our minds with radical mind bullets, but unless you're an established researcher with several published books you aren't going to regardless.

Part of why masters students are there is to learn how to properly frame and propose a piece of research. I just did it, because I have a masters and I learned a lot from doing one. Students who aren't willing to learn in this way are not going to do well.

They have the ability to respond, especially to what they did and did not say. All you do is engage in victim blaming.

Not really. There is nothing to respond to while the internal investigation is in progress.

And lol @ victim blaming. Sorry, but if being subject to procedure is victimhood, then I'm a victim too. I've gone through an ethics board. Heck, I had to spend a summer doing some pretty fundamental corrections after my upgrade viva before being approved. I didn't realize that muh free speech was being so cruelly trampled, otherwise maybe I would have gone to the media and got some free self-promotion out of it!

 

[Erttheking]

A man is pride, power, stoicism, independence, recklessness, lust
A woman is tenacity, wisdom, control, soul, willpower, caution, creation

I've always enjoyed being a man so I can't comment on being trans but I'd recommend picking the traits you like from either.

....Uh.

I'm a rather cautious man who enjoys writing. And I'm rather shit at being stoic. And, you know, I'd like to think that I'm fairly smart.

So...what does that make me?

 

[Delicious Anathema]

Assuming there's no intersex disorder:

-Do you have a penis and testicles?

-Do you have a Y chromosome?

-Can you drive well?


If yes to the above, congratulations, you're a man. Embrace it, it's a great thing.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

-Can you drive well?

Ignoring the rest of the sludge, how did this stereotype become a thing?

Car insurance companies used to charge men more for insurance for a good goddamned reason. Hard to argue with Actuary tables.

 

[Delicious Anathema]

-Can you drive well?

Ignoring the rest of the sludge, how did this stereotype become a thing?

Car insurance companies used to charge men more for insurance for a good goddamned reason. Hard to argue with Actuary tables.

How did it become a thing? Do you even drive?

Men usually are in the most devastating car crashes because of drunk driving/high speed, but the most frequent (harmless but annoying) day-to-day driver stupidity and bad parking is almost a female monopoly.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

-Can you drive well?

Ignoring the rest of the sludge, how did this stereotype become a thing?

Car insurance companies used to charge men more for insurance for a good goddamned reason. Hard to argue with Actuary tables.

How did it become a thing? Do you even drive?

Men usually are in the most devastating car crashes because of drunk driving/high speed, but the most frequent (harmless but annoying) day-to-day driver stupidity and bad parking is almost a female monopoly.

See, I generally count the dude careening down the street at 8 miles above the speed limit , switching lanes like he was in a Furious movie to be a worse driver than the gal that made me wait a few more seconds at a stop sign because they didn't signal their right turn.

I take annoying well. I mean, I hang out with gamers.

 

[Delicious Anathema]

-Can you drive well?

Ignoring the rest of the sludge, how did this stereotype become a thing?

Car insurance companies used to charge men more for insurance for a good goddamned reason. Hard to argue with Actuary tables.

How did it become a thing? Do you even drive?

Men usually are in the most devastating car crashes because of drunk driving/high speed, but the most frequent (harmless but annoying) day-to-day driver stupidity and bad parking is almost a female monopoly.

And how does that get simplified into "women can't drive" when in reality no one can drive but you'll probably live another day with a female driver

I mean, should we add "ignore your own faults and blame women" to your list of "you might be a man if" items

Serious accidents happen less than the everyday bickering, that's my explanation for why the stereotype exists.

Also, it was a joke. Way to make a big deal out of nothing.

 

[Erttheking]

-Can you drive well?

No, I suck at it and get overly paranoid.

What, am I not a man now?

 

[Strazdas]

-Can you drive well?

Ignoring the rest of the sludge, how did this stereotype become a thing?

Car insurance companies used to charge men more for insurance for a good goddamned reason. Hard to argue with Actuary tables.

There was a myth that women are exceptionally bad in terms of spacial awareness and driving was the task that requires a lot of it. The reality is that while yes, there is a difference, it is negligible. Women tend to be more "careful drivers" and less road rage which is what the insurers reflected.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Also, it was a joke. Way to make a big deal out of nothing.

Jokes have punchlines. That was a stereotype based on nothing you got called out on.