Gender as opposed to DNA

[Deleted]

You just never know!

[Ayla]

A good thread this one. I am not an expert but read and enjoy discussing this subject and have four thoughts on which I would like your comment . First development theory now seems to be converging on affect regulation as a unified theory of development. Under this body of research, gender is seen to be a bio, psycho, social construct. The 3 components are seen to be interdependent and each a major influence/determinant of gender identity. Second I met with a leading feminist writer and sociologist who also trotted out the feminist argument that gender is entirely a social construct. If this were so then why would I suffer from intense gender dysphoria and why would the only treatment that addresses this require hrt. I am not clear as to how a social construct requires a hormone rebalance to address dysphoria. Third, I also find it difficult to understand how the variety of NB identities can be explained without reference to brain gendering. Fourthly, the most recent research on trans gendered folk suggest that trans is correlated with specific gene mutation sequences. (Paper being published early next year as presented at the recent ANZPATH conference.). But do understand that genetic research only identifies correlation not causality.

Safe travels

Aisla

[Deleted]

Nov 25, 2014 19:31:14 GMT 8 Ayla said:

A good thread this one. I am not an expert but read and enjoy discussing this subject and have four thoughts on which I would like your comment . First development theory now seems to be converging on affect regulation as a unified theory of development. Under this body of research, gender is seen to be a bio, psycho, social construct. The 3 components are seen to be interdependent and each a major influence/determinant of gender identity. Second I met with a leading feminist writer and sociologist who also trotted out the feminist argument that gender is entirely a social construct. If this were so then why would I suffer from intense gender dysphoria and why would the only treatment that addresses this require hrt. I am not clear as to how a social construct requires a hormone rebalance to address dysphoria. Third, I also find it difficult to understand how the variety of NB identities can be explained without reference to brain gendering. Fourthly, the most recent research on trans gendered folk suggest that trans is correlated with specific gene mutation sequences. (Paper being published early next year as presented at the recent ANZPATH conference.). But do understand that genetic research only identifies correlation not causality.

Safe travels

Aisla

We can assume that the feminist has expressed her own one dimensional biased views, however given the number of hours we have all devoted to examining and discussing our own intricate workings relative to how we internalize our own varied and unique views of ourselves whether it be non binary or binary, one must come to the conclusion that the issue is one which the mainstream cis world would much rather sweep under the carpet. Unlike things in the natural world which are quantifiable and can be touched and seen, this gender business is much akin to having a discussion about spiritual things, it takes a certain amount of faith for someone outside of this forum to be able to wrap their mind around the concepts, and it's not something that can easily be wrapped up in a neat little package for public consumption.

[Deleted]

Well gender is a social construct, but that doesn't mean it's not real and can have tangible effects on people's lives. I also don't like the concept of brain gender as that is inherently neurosexist and a tool of oppression. If you go down that route then you end up back in the position of believing that men are the providers and women are the carers because they're wired that way.

We all construct our gender identities, subconsciously and sometimes consciously, just like we construct our wider identities. Some is based on physical stuff, some on social stuff, both are valid as they effect how you view yourself and others view you.

[Deleted]

Nov 25, 2014 23:48:52 GMT 8 @dreadfaery said:

Well gender is a social construct, but that doesn't mean it's not real and can have tangible effects on people's lives. I also don't like the concept of brain gender as that is inherently neurosexist and a tool of oppression. If you go down that route then you end up back in the position of believing that men are the providers and women are the carers because they're wired that way.

We all construct our gender identities, subconsciously and sometimes consciously, just like we construct our wider identities. Some is based on physical stuff, some on social stuff, both are valid as they effect how you view yourself and others view you.

I think in the beginning it probably needed to be that way. Especially due to the dominance of either Testosterone or Estrogen in the body. Men are generally larger than women and generally stronger so men would be more able to go out and hunt possibly dangerous animals and the women would tend to the "home" and nurture the children and gather. But we are way past that time when the men needed to go out and hunt possibly dangerous animals. I can drive10 miles and "hunt" all the meat I need at the grocery store. Same way with women. They don't need to nurture quite so much because we have vaccines to keep children from getting ill and everything else and then at the age of 5 we send them to school and someone else teaches them. Or some prefer homeschooling.

Personally I believe it is a hold over from evolution, yeah even the thinking part of it. Maybe even kind of like the appendix, it used to serve a purpose but not anymore. Just a holdover. It very well have been hardwired to be that way for the future success of mankind. I mean I really don't or can't even comprehend how it would feel to be cis. But it don't have to be that way because there are men now that are nurturers and women that are providers.

I think the gender issues have always been around, just my personal opinion though, but today we have a lot more time to explore ourselves internally and recognize it. Throughout history though much of our time would have been taken up by just surviving. I've wondered this before, are we the new rung on the evolutionary ladder? Or are some of us just now recognizing what has been in mankind's minds all the time?  I think we have more opportunities now than ever in the past to create our own self identities when in the past we may have needed to conform to the identities given us to secure the future of the species. Its something to think about. 

[Ayla]

Nov 25, 2014 23:48:52 GMT 8 @dreadfaery said:

Well gender is a social construct, but that doesn't mean it's not real and can have tangible effects on people's lives. I also don't like the concept of brain gender as that is inherently neurosexist and a tool of oppression. If you go down that route then you end up back in the position of believing that men are the providers and women are the carers because they're wired that way.

We all construct our gender identities, subconsciously and sometimes consciously, just like we construct our wider identities. Some is based on physical stuff, some on social stuff, both are valid as they effect how you view yourself and others view you.

I don't think that brain gender is neuro sexist at all.  In reality it is neuro human.  Gendering attributes, preferences etc is largely absurd  but in any case they should be accessible and available to all. The fact is that brain structure does vary between sexes and it is a fact that brain chemicals aka hormones impact the functioning and pathways of the brain.  It is also a fact that the most common treatment for gender dysphoria is the use of cross sex hormone therapy and it is also a fact that brains have plasticity and are impacted by social interaction and learning.

Much as I can see why a 100 per cent commitment to gender as a social construct best serves the feminist paradigm, it needs to and is changing as other interdependent factors are discovered and understood.  This may be an inconvenient truth for feminists but it is nonetheless a truth.

I hope that I am not occurring as aggressive or vexatious as in the end I don't really think it matters what the root cause or determinant  of gender identity is.  We each have our individual identity, whether we understand, accept and fully express this identity is a question for each individual and whether and how I choose to do this, is to me, an important and critical part of my life journey.

safe travels

aisla

[Deleted]

Yes, but needing cross sex hormones, surgery etc isn't gender, it's about physical reality. If having a certain genital configuration and secondary sex characteristics doesn't make you a particular gender, then having a strong physical need for the genital configuration and secondary sex characteristics of a particular sex doesn't make you that gender either.

If you go down the road of saying that there is something biological about gender, lets call it the 'trans gene' for sake of argument, it's only a small step from that to say if you lack that gene then you can't be trans and then we're right back at the start of being told we can't be such and such a gender because we we born as a different one. Down that path madness lies.

Gender is about a structural frame work, a language even, that is used to assign meaning to certain behaviours, presentations and performances, the fact that the brain is also a physical organ and not some weird glowing blob of light, and that they can be physical difference between typical male and female brains doesn't mean it has an affect on behaviour. Believing that the physical configuration of your brain, it's sex as it were, affects the psychology of an individual, a brain's gender, is neurosexism. And neuro sexism is a tool used to oppress anyone who isn't white, male, cis, het, middle class and able bodied.


This refute of a recent study says it better than i do.

theconversation.com/new-insights-into-gendered-brain-wiring-or-a-perfect-case-study-in-neurosexism-21083

[Ayla]

Only had a very quick read and. I like their take on this but as I say it is a take, a lens or a perspective. Showing that m and f having the potential or ability to express unexpected qualities given their physical sex does speak to variations in structure, conditioning/experience etc. Again however I still needed hrt to have my brain open up pathways and fire up receptors which consequently radically changed my thinking, emotions and behaviours. These were not driven by social factors, just plain old hormones which resonated with a physical organ, the brain. Perhaps the 2 perspectives are akin to the different approaches and truths of natural versus western medicine?

As usual I really appreciate your perspective, insight and reading. I just don't get out enough. Learning is the stuff of life.

Safe travels

Aisla

[TessaJames]

From my experience I think DF and Shan's endocrinologist are right on about gender being a learned social construct. And like Shan and others here, I grew up and still live in a chemical stew that may have any number of impacts on our development. Modern science has created over 80,000 different compounds with less than 5000 having ever been tested for toxicity. Understanding our origins still doesn't change the culture we inhabit and we negotiate this playground now as the new kids on the block. Yes, the freaky looking ones, in my case!

Understanding does give me some comfort in knowing this happens to all kinds of people. Accepting my transgender reality later in life I have decades of male socialization to deal with. The relief from not trying any longer to be a man is wonderful. Therefore I attempt to avoid the woman only stereotypes too, who needs a new straightjacket?

[Deleted]

Makes you wonder at how resilient the human body is to be able to take multiple deviant tangents to the original course that was set in the womb and still remain a viable living entity and not the blob from some extraterrestrial planet!
(Just one of my wild and whacky thoughts) 

[Deleted]

Let's see, no time here...

Des womb transition. Endo receptors, central nervous, skeleton, left testicle, the conflict or now blending of female wired body with some kind of different not female mind..

Gotta be a link here.

The other conversations here, I need time.

I have so little time, this forum is alive...

[Taka]

dearest df.
i want to read your whole post properly, but don't have time.

right now i just want to sort our some wrongly assigned vocabulary.
phenotype is the visible characteristics. male phenotype is male looking genitals, female phenotype is female looking genitals. the third phenotype is intersex, visibly ambiguous or undeterminable genitals. this is the physical sex.

the karyotype is the genetic makeup, in terms of chromosomes.
it's the 46th chromosome pair that determines genetic sex. it normally consists of either two x chromosomes or one x chromosome and one y chromosome. there are cases where a person has more than the 46 chromosome pairs. down's is one case that does not cause intersex conditions because the 47th isn't a sex chromosome. but there are also cases of xxy or xyy (or even more x's or y's), that often do lead to intersex conditions or under-/overdeveloped genitals and/or gonads.

the y chromosome determines if a human is genetically male or female. it is always a male if there is at least one y chromosome, never a male if there is none. if the physical sex is the opposite of the genetic sex, fertility is not possible.
this means that an xx male or xy female can never be fertile (with the exception of egg donation for the female, if she has a well developed uterus). xxy or xyy have a possibility of fertility, though it's very low.


anyway.
now it's time to drag in edge to tell us what biology really says about this.

[Deleted]

I should fact check.

certainly it's possible for women who are genetic chimeras to have cells of 36xy karotype present in their bodies and still be fertile, but that's not the same as being xy.

[Taka]

chimerism and mosaicism are a little bit different... i was talking about 46,xy. should have specified, right..
in butterflies, this can create a specimen that is perfectly male and perfectly female, one each their side of the body.
hasn't happened in humans yet, as far as medical records show.
fertility as both sexes seems to still be rather impossible for humans.

[Whisper]

since there is not physical biological test yet to determine gender identity, that i know of, i'm afraid that skepticism and disbelief goes with the territory. even with a test, i imagine there could be false readings and mistakes. and then there are those that would be entirely against testing gender identity to prescribe gender. and there are those that would find such tests evil, if they ever to get to that point.

i have never had my chromosomes nor dna tested. hopefully, i never will, which would probably mean i would be charged for some crime was committed with dna evidence.

learned or biological doesn't matter to me. the arguments will just change, for and against. to me, it's the preconceived belief to hate, passed down generations, which is the real culprit.