LGBTQI - The NYT says genderqueers are Real!

[mgambino]

Don't know if anyone here saw this, but comic artist Sophie Campbell (formerly Ross Campbell) of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Glory, Wet Moon, and Jem spoke out about being in transition. The response within the industry has been overwhelmingly supportive, which is pretty cool to see.

[Robin Of House Hill]

We need a boilerplate like the feminism thread, for example...:

This is an LGBT++ inclusive zone. Trans identity is accepted here without question. This means that posts in this thread must accept these premises:

- Trans women are women. Trans women are female. Trans men are men. Trans men are male.

- Gender is not a strict binary. Genders other than 'male' and 'female' can exist.

- Transgender is not a third gender. Transgender is a word that further describes a gender such as male or female.

- Transgender is an adjective. It is neither a noun nor a verb*.

- Neither gender nor sex is determined by reference solely to genitals, birth certificate, chromosomes, or a combination thereof.

- The appropriate place to pee, shower, or change is not determined solely by reference to genitals, birth certificate, chromosomes, or a combination thereof.

- Cisgender predators do not need nondiscrimination laws in order to harass people in bathrooms. As of this writing no cases of bathroom harassment by persons claiming to be transgender are recorded**.

Furthermore:

- Bisexuality exists.

Any discussion outside these premises should be taken to another thread.

*Exceptions exist. If you aren't sure if it's an exception, assume it's not.

**I am aware of one hoax and one well-publicized incident where the plaintiffs claim that the mere thought of a trans woman in their bathroom is inherently harassing.

----

Reminder: If one were to accept the absurd premise that transgender women in women's rooms would increase the risk of cisgender women being harassed or assaulted by disguised cisgender men, the plan of putting transgender women in the men's room is just saying that it's okay if transgender women get harassed and assaulted a whole bunch as long as the cisgender women are a little bit safer

Reminder: trans men exist and basically make the whole argument look extremely stupid if you consider for a moment that trans men exist

Reminder: no, trans women don't actually just walk around lookin' exactly like cis men and demand you treat us as women

like, not unless the place you're walking around in is called "LGBT Center of Wherever"

Feel free to debate or ignore the thing up top, add LGB stuff, rephrase it so that neurotypicals can read it etc. I tried to keep it within stepping distance of broader LGBT-aware society but I obviously have my own perspective. I left off anything about accepting peoples' stated identity without question because IME when online that is trollbait.

Since I cannot agree to the points that conflate, or treat identically, sex and gender. I guess I'll just have to shut up. I know you said these were open to debate, but I don't realistically, see any solution.

[emberling]

Don't take that martyr attitude. This thread is yours as much as it is any of ours. If we're going to put up some hard-and-fast rules they have to be ones that don't boot anyone out who's here in good faith. That means you. That means if you take this position of Humbug, it is terrible because indistinct reasons* and I will huff off and loudly let it not be fixed to be not terrible then it just isn't going to happen. If that's what you want then please be honest about it.

*I don't think anyone here has managed to figure out your criteria for 'conflating gender and sex,' and we have spent a great deal of effort trying

my best guesses here are - but they are only guesses and included only, I hope, to demonstrate how wrong my guesses are from such vaguery:

- you think 'transsexual' should be included somewhere

- you think that it is objectionable to acknowledge that people who are wrong like to incorrectly claim that sex has anything to do with a birth certificate

- you think that sex is in fact determined solely by genitals; i.e. you assert that my sex is male; i.e. getting rid of this shit from transphobes is exactly the point of the whole exercise and it is right and proper that you also should not say this here, if it is something that you believe

- you object to sex and gender having the same list of common misconceptions applied to them, despite them actually being subject to identical common misconceptions. perhaps a rephrase to "Gender is not blah blah. Sex is not blah blah" would be better?

orrrrrr

- you object to 'another gender, such as male or female' which I just noticed and in fact I object to that too, it needs to be fixed (we shouldn't assert in the rules that male and female are genders, and 'transgender female' etc. is generally an awful term that I associate with misgendering)

see, look, you helped

[Weeping Sore]

It's a drawback of the internet that there is no separation between internal debate and external presentation, so that when individuals within the group disagree it becomes fodder for those who have no reason to view the group positively. As in "Look at all those x's. They can't even agree on y and then they expect us to go along with it".

Which is why party platforms are hashed out behind closed doors before being presented publicly.

At the same time, disagreement is inclusive for those who might not initially define themselves as part of the group, in the sense that if there is room for disagreement, maybe there is room for me*.

*in the sense of "one", not just me. Maybe that's obvious.

[Robin Of House Hill]

Don't take that martyr attitude. This thread is yours as much as it is any of ours. If we're going to put up some hard-and-fast rules they have to be ones that don't boot anyone out who's here in good faith. That means you. That means if you take this position of Humbug, it is terrible because indistinct reasons* and I will huff off and loudly let it not be fixed to be not terrible then it just isn't going to happen. If that's what you want then please be honest about it.

*I don't think anyone here has managed to figure out your criteria for 'conflating gender and sex,' and we have spent a great deal of effort trying

my best guesses here are - but they are only guesses and included only, I hope, to demonstrate how wrong my guesses are from such vaguery:

- you think 'transsexual' should be included somewhere

- you think that it is objectionable to acknowledge that people who are wrong like to incorrectly claim that sex has anything to do with a birth certificate

- you think that sex is in fact determined solely by genitals; i.e. you assert that my sex is male; i.e. getting rid of this shit from transphobes is exactly the point of the whole exercise and it is right and proper that you also should not say this here, if it is something that you believe

- you object to sex and gender having the same list of common misconceptions applied to them, despite them actually being subject to identical common misconceptions. perhaps a rephrase to "Gender is not blah blah. Sex is not blah blah" would be better?

orrrrrr

- you object to 'another gender, such as male or female' which I just noticed and in fact I object to that too, it needs to be fixed (we shouldn't assert in the rules that male and female are genders, and 'transgender female' etc. is generally an awful term that I associate with misgendering)

see, look, you helped

No martyr attitude, just resignation to the probability that we we never agree and that will result in this ongoing discord.

To clarify:

Gender: Man/masculine, woman/feminine, non-binary. I've put them in that order so you wouldn't object to being sandwiched between man and woman. Clearly, gender is non-binary because there are people who are non-binary and no credible evidence to the contrary.

Sex: Male/Female (mostly binary) Why? Because every species on the planet that does not reproduce asexually, is comprised of males and females, except for a few species that have the capacity to transform from one to the other, or reproduce by parthenogenesis. Homo Sapiens possesses neither of these capabilities. I am aware that there are anomalous conditions (genetic, such as xxy and xyy, and congenital adrenal hyperplasia, etc.), which is why I used the word, "mostly."

While medical intervention has allowed me to avoid this definition of, "male, "pertaining to the sex that produces sperm cells and fertilizes the female egg to beget offspring", it has not allowed me to avoid , "an XY chromosome carrier." That one kicks me in the face every time I think about it. Do I feel that I am male? Absolutely not! So why use that definition? That is easy. Because that it what our adversaries will use. In fact, they are already using it in crafting legislation to prevent us form using bathrooms and locker rooms. If I use an alternate definition in an argument with them, I'll lose, because I'd be the only one who believes it. Everyone believed the Earth was flat, until it was proven to be round. Got proof? I'll gladly look at it, but please, it has to be more than hypotheses. If it is generally accepted throughout the scientific/medical community, it has validity for me. Until then, I'm not going to be the only one who believes the world is round. I'll use the best argument I can with the definitions in general use.

I don't believe we have the luxury of using definitions because they make us feel good. If that makes me evil, so be it.

[TerraPrime]

Robin:

If you accept that there are anomalies like intersex individuals, then it seems that you already accept the scientific view of sex also not being binary, correct?

[Crom Dubh]

Perhaps a different method of examining it that incorporates both emberling and Robin's idea: Gender and sex, for many (the majority, i.e. cisgendered/cissexual), are focused on a binary between male and female, typically expressed by one's biological sex at birth. However, for those who fall outside that gender-sex binary, or identify with a sex/gender at the opposite end of the typical binary, more flexible forms of gender/sex are applicable. Neither outlook invalidates the other. Am I missing some nuance (am cisgendered heterosexual myself, so quite possible), or is that acceptable?

[Robin Of House Hill]

Robin:

If you accept that there are anomalies like intersex individuals, then it seems that you already accept the scientific view of sex also not being binary, correct?

TP,

It bothers me a bit because I can't really categorize it. Spectrum seems wrong, because there are far too few data points. It's 99.9%+ binary. In regard to intersex, are we talking about a different sex, or one of the other two where either the genetic encoding or adrenal surplus has caused a physiological difference?

Perhaps a different method of examining it that incorporates both emberling and Robin's idea: Gender and sex, for many (the majority, i.e. cisgendered/cissexual), are focused on a binary between male and female, typically expressed by one's biological sex at birth. However, for those who fall outside that gender-sex binary, or identify with a sex/gender at the opposite end of the typical binary, more flexible forms of gender/sex are applicable. Neither outlook invalidates the other. Am I missing some nuance (am cisgendered heterosexual myself, so quite possible), or is that acceptable?

I want to think a bit more, before trying to address what you posted, but I did want to point out why the term cisgendered, as opposed to cisgender, is problematic. This sentence should illustrate. I am whited, but some of my friends are blacked.

[Crom Dubh]

I want to think a bit more, before trying to address what you posted, but I did want to point out why the term cisgendered, as opposed to cisgender, is problematic. This sentence should illustrate. I am whited, but some of my friends are blacked.

Ah okay, the second one does sound silly.

[karaddin]

Robin the rates of intersex are higher than the rates of transsexuals, and are much higher than most people realise. There are a whole bunch of different things that fall under that header, from genitalia that aren't solidly one or the other, to chromosome differences, they all count regardless of which type they are.

What's wrong with defining sex as how the brain is sexed? At least for binary individuals, I haven't seen the research done on non-binary brains yet, but trans women have brains that match the brains of cis women, trans men match cis men - to me this indicates a sexing of the brain that is easily the most legitimate as the brain is the source of truth for the lived experience of the individual. Using the definitions our opponents use yields them a huge amount of ground instead of opposing them from the start.

[Galactus]

Robin the rates of intersex are higher than the rates of transsexuals, and are much higher than most people realise. There are a whole bunch of different things that fall under that header, from genitalia that aren't solidly one or the other, to chromosome differences, they all count regardless of which type they are.

What's wrong with defining sex as how the brain is sexed? At least for binary individuals, I haven't seen the research done on non-binary brains yet, but trans women have brains that match the brains of cis women, trans men match cis men - to me this indicates a sexing of the brain that is easily the most legitimate as the brain is the source of truth for the lived experience of the individual. Using the definitions our opponents use yields them a huge amount of ground instead of opposing tem from the start.

"Brain sex" is pretty much as fuzzy as genitals, and generally suffer the same problem. (IE: There's a clear correlation, but not a 1--to-1 one)

I think as far as gender goes, I think going with "whatever the person identifies as" works. For sex I think you're pretty much going to have to make some kind of grab-bag definition (IE: "Has at least a couple of the following traits with regards to...") It's a useful biological definition (just as say, species is) but it doesen't neccessarily have a "hard" definition. I doubt there is one single definition that would be useful.

I want to think a bit more, before trying to address what you posted, but I did want to point out why the term cisgendered, as opposed to cisgender, is problematic. This sentence should illustrate. I am whited, but some of my friends are blacked.

I always assumed the verb-form was deliberate, to highlight the constructionist aspect.

[karaddin]

I have no idea what you are talking about, the studies I have seen have consistently shown the size of the area of the brain that they are measuring is consistent with the identified sex, this is not the case with cissexual individuals even after cross sex hormone treatment. Brain sex does not meant any of that bullshit "men are better at maths, women are better at language", it's the size of certain parts of the brain I'm talking about.

[TerraPrime]

TP,

It bothers me a bit because I can't really categorize it. Spectrum seems wrong, because there are far too few data points. It's 99.9%+ binary. In regard to intersex, are we talking about a different sex, or one of the other two where either the genetic encoding or adrenal surplus has caused a physiological difference?

As a biologist, I can tell you that nature is messy and defies neat categories. We invent categories to create conceptual space for those that which do not fall into the categories, if that makes sense.

Take Kinsey's other famous research, the gall wasps, as an example. He has shown that there's a gradation of characteristics and traits that are minute and small when comparing only 2 samples, and seemingly pointless, but, when the comparison is expanded to include tens of thousands of wasps, you start to see a gradient of trait that varies according to the environment, some seemingly driven by adaptation and others seemingly stochastic.

The examination of intersex individuals in humans is rather new, and I expect we'll know more in another decade or two. But I will expect it to show that there's a distribution of inter-sex-ness across human samples, and that individuals whom we might conveniently put into one of the binary sex are actually intersex individuals.

[Galactus]

The examination of intersex individuals in humans is rather new, and I expect we'll know more in another decade or two. But I will expect it to show that there's a distribution of inter-sex-ness across human samples, and that individuals whom we might conveniently put into one of the binary sex are actually intersex individuals.

This.

Though the point is that most of those intersex people (who might very well be even a majority) do for most purposes fit into the gender binary, with whatever bits and pieces that don't can't easily be distinguished except by a molecular biologist.

For someone into visual design it may be very good to know the names and definitions of all the infinite shades between red and blue, but most people make do with red, blue, and maybe mauve and purple.

[Robin Of House Hill]

What's wrong with defining sex as how the brain is sexed? At least for binary individuals, I haven't seen the research done on non-binary brains yet, but trans women have brains that match the brains of cis women, trans men match cis men - to me this indicates a sexing of the brain that is easily the most legitimate as the brain is the source of truth for the lived experience of the individual. Using the definitions our opponents use yields them a huge amount of ground instead of opposing them from the start.

The problem with advancing theories regarding sex, no matter how "right" they feel, is that our opponents will summarily reject them and start waving the most commonly accepted things that determine sex. If they do that, and they have already started using the one definition we cannot beat, chromosomes, they will cast themselves in the role of science believers and we will look like lunatic science deniers. How many doctors and scientists with real degrees do you think they can line up who will categorically state that the determinant of sex is genetic and that XX = female and XY = male? Just as there are social and religious conservatives, science and medicine has its share, as well.

To put forth the views you suggest would require overwhelming agreement from the medical/scientific community, which I am afraid simply does not exist. It has to be more than the few who agree with us,

[karaddin]

Those that have done the research will put forward their findings, those that have not will not with the exception of the sell outs. And yes there will be some just as there are with climate change denial, but they are far from the majority.

I just can't do this right now though, figure this shit out I don't care, I just don't want to deal with more transphobic shit in this thread.

ETA: I'd just like to point out we are talking about how we are defining sex IN THIS THREAD I thought. Surely we here are trusting of the scientists that are actually doing the research over bigots out for the Christian dollars? We don't need to bring the general public along for how we use terminology in this thread.

[brook]

I've had this tab open and wanting to read it for ages now and the current direction of this thread finally inspired me to do so. There is a lot I already knew but a fair bit I didn't in here and either way I found the whole thing very interesting (and on topic) http://www.nature.com/news/sex-redefined-1.16943

[Robin Of House Hill]

I've had this tab open and wanting to read it for ages now and the current direction of this thread finally inspired me to do so. There is a lot I already knew but a fair bit I didn't in here and either way I found the whole thing very interesting (and on topic) http://www.nature.com/news/sex-redefined-1.16943

"The idea of two sexes is simplistic. Biologists now think there is a wider spectrum than that."

While interesting, it will be a long while before society, in general, think any of that is true.

[Weeping Sore]

How many doctors and scientists with real degrees do you think they can line up who will categorically state that the determinant of sex is genetic and that XX = female and XY = male?

Any geneticist worth their salt will tell you that genotype does not equal phenotype, that is, there are a lot of mediating processes between the genes and their expression.

Moreover the Y chromosome itself is a transcription error that proved advantageous to animals between 180 and 140 million years ago.

[TerraPrime]

Any geneticist worth their salt will tell you that genotype does not equal phenotype, that is, there are a lot of mediating processes between the genes and their expression.

Moreover the Y chromosome itself is a transcription error that proved advantageous to animals between 180 and 140 million years ago.

Sexes already exist prior to the evolution of the Y chromosome (or dimorphic sex chromosomes), though. Like in some flies, sex is determined by dosage of the X, and in some worms, individuals go from hermaphrodite to male or female depending on the environment.