Can someone please explain... (trans)

Miranda Yardley defines himself (his choice of pronoun) as transsexual, and has had full SRS surgery. I think more recently he has begun to refer to himself as a gay man,

Which is a rather strange thing for a former self-confessed autogynephile to do..

following concerns and active work to address the damage happening to women's sex based rights.

Or perhaps not.

a disorder, which may be neurological rather than psychological in origin, and makes them feel that their bodies are 'wrong', in the same way as a tiny number of people feel that some body part (such as one of their limbs) doesn't belong to them.

It may not be ‘in the same way’ or have the same aetiology though. You don’t know for a fact that there is no such thing as core gender identity.

I think I'm done with this conversation, it goes nowhere productive and I find the paternalistic lecturing to be in experience the same as all other sex based patronising talking down to as if you're some stupid, emotional child that is so very common to hear from males when you're biologically female. Again, it's a wholly sex based experience that this is pushing the buttons of.

I respect the right of others to believe whatever they want, however they want, in whatever way suits them, so long as they leave others alone and uninterfered with and respect their equal freedom of belief. I am never going to react well if someone however pisses on my leg while insisting to me that if I would just understand and educate myself properly then I too would believe it really was just raining.

Good question, delirium. If sex isn’t binary, what are the sexes that aren’t male and female and why do transwomen need to be included with women, if there are other options?

What are these other sexes?

I’ve seen a lot of trans activists change biological female and male for ‘AFAB’ and ‘AMAB’. For instance something to do with female contraception services and it was mentioned that it also applies to ‘AFAB non-binary folks’ which is really just another way of saying biological female and acknowledging something is only relevant to females and not males, despite a lot of the same people then claiming biological sex is a construct.

gender identity is biological in origin

What is the mechanism by which the biological characteristic gender identity changes? Clearly it must do because if it doesn't that would invalidate gender fluid people.

I think the “biological underpinning” is a result of a fudge between there being a biological reason for people perceiving themselves as being of the opposite sex, and a biological reason for that actually being physically true. The same way that there are parts of the brain that look like they correlate to religious feeling, but that they exist doesn’t do anything to prove that god is real.

There’s a flaw of perception in some people relating to their sense of self that might be biological, and some people are jumping forward with that as representing a chunk of female-ness in a male body. It’s really not. Also, the studies are not particularly great, as I understand them, and don’t account for brain plasticity. Nobody’s proved that any of this is innate.

Excellent point Michelle.

It is not however possible to maintain respect for and inclusion for female people who believe in sex being binary however, if all female single sex spaces are rendered mixed sex and the gender belief being forcibly imposed upon them. In this sense, those female people are being required to validate a belief system they do not share in, with nothing less than their bodies.

Oh, and “human” obviously

.* They also recognise that their gender identity is not congruent with those physical characteristics, although that is a nuanced argument given that gender identity is biological in origin and therefore, to be more accurate, a trans girl is recognising biological characteristics like her penis as well as biological characteristics like her gender identity.*

Have I missed something? Where is the evidence that "gender" biology is biological in origin. If you mean most people accept that that the sex of their body is their actual sex fine. However, what evidence is there for a biological reason for a person not accepting that they are the sex they are? Also if that is the case is there also a biological reason for people who believe themselves to be trans racial/able/human. ?

You may notice too that the pattern of issues for female people listed above are ones that female people tend to be sensitive regarding, because it's been the basis of sex based oppression for millenia.

Which makes it a bit of a stretch for someone male to be explaining why their oppression isn't important, it isn't sex based, sex isn't a thing anyway, and they just need to prioritise the needs of much more oppressed people that in their belief system are males and directly of the oppressing class.

I think intersectionality is supposed to be a thing, isn't it? Is your transactivism intersectional in recognising the specific issues and perspectives and 'lived experience' of someone born female and holding these sex based beliefs, and quite possibly those beliefs being impacted upon by other things specific to sex based understanding of females such as culture, religion, safety, stuff like that?

As you say Positrans it comes down to freedom of belief, and the right to be agnostic or atheist regarding that belief and to hold beliefs of your own.

All fine, so long as neither attempts to force their belief system on others, to compel it by law or to create imagined crimes of heresy.

In this sense: there has to be respect for and space given to female people who believe in binary biological sex, and perceive people by their sex, and require privacy, dignity and ability to group by sex. If that was not under attack, I doubt anyone here would be bothering to debate. It is perfectly possible to respect TW belief by providing third spaces for example (or whatever TW would choose for those spaces to be called) that meet their gender identity need and desire to not group themselves by or use facilities for their biological sex. It is not however possible to maintain respect for and inclusion for female people who believe in sex being binary however, if all female single sex spaces are rendered mixed sex and the gender belief being forcibly imposed upon them. In this sense, those female people are being required to validate a belief system they do not share in, with nothing less than their bodies.

And to those who believe in sex as a binary, this is quite simply sex based discrimination of female people being made to provide a non consenting service to male people who's feelings, wishes and choices are given considerably more care and priority than theirs.

Are you a fan of this kind of discrimination against female people to better provide for male people? And do you believe that having to choose between performing a belief not shared whatever the personal cost or losing access to any service is a fair choice to present to one, single, sex based group of female people? (For whom those facilities were designed and provided in the first place). Because I, emphatically, am not.

I'd like to know how many legs humans have. Is it two? Or is it a lot more complicated than that?

...it would be unconscionable to use the pretext of science to enact policies that overrule the lived experience of people’s own gender identities

But Positrans you’re saying the state of being transgender is a scientific fact and are using the pretext of science to enact policies that overrule the lived experience of women and girls.

In some of the worst cases this has allowed male born people to be housed in women’s prisons and those women have been further abused, in some cases sexually up to rape.

Young girls are losing their sporting places and scholarships. They are losing their right to privacy while undressing.

Why is your science OK to support this?

They also recognise that their gender identity is not congruent with those physical characteristics, although that is a nuanced argument given that gender identity is biological in origin and therefore, to be more accurate, a trans girl is recognising biological characteristics like her penis as well as biological characteristics like her gender identity.

out of interest, how do you see this working for the gender fluid people - those who are 'female' some of the time and male the rest of the time? Presumbly they don't suffer a 2 days a week incongruence?

Also, it is now being argued that being trans does not need to involve gender dysphoria - what are your thoughts on that?

Hi Positrans you also said you believe in biological sex, so what do you mean by that please?
You also said you can’t do our research for us but to come to your conclusions, you must have read stuff, what is it you’ve read please (other than the one link you’ve posted)?
Thanks

But actually, on reflection, I think you ave a basic misunderstanding of the distinction between sex and gender @Positrans

Which is not surprising if you're a transwoman, as being socialised as masculine, the system of gender as a system of oppression of women totally benefits all natal males (whatever their identification). You'd have no reason to be conscious of sexism; and whatever discrimination you face now, is much more to do with your transgression of cultural ideas about men and masculinity, than sexism against women.

I thought you meant that it is rare in trans people. If you are saying it is rare in the general population, I completely agree.

Gender dysphoria is rare in the general population and is also in the minority in terms of the suggested 300,000 to 500,000 trans people in the UK. Unless of course, gender dysphoria is now wide enough to embrace things like the sense of discomfort children commonly have with their bodies as they go through puberty.

Why do you think there's been a push over the past few years by trans activists to say that people are trans without needing to have gender dysphoria?

and maybe I didn't phrase that question very well (the whole concept is a bit of a mind scrambler) - could you complete this sentence please?

I am female because..... (with the evidence not just 'I know I am' please)

and what evidence do you use when justifying that this overrides the binary of biological sex? Have you had any tests to prove it?

You're trying to narrow humans down to 2 sexes based on gametes. Sex is way more complex than that

Human cultural understandings of sex may be 'way more complicated' (that's kind of what Judith Butler argues in Gender Trouble) but the actual science is pretty straightforward.

And variations in people's chromosomal make-up are precisely because as an animal species, we reproduce sexually. So, at the point of conception (large gamete + small gamete) and in the process of chromosomes merging, our genetic make-up is formed from the mixing of the genes of our male & female progenitors (or parents, in a biological sense).

That's why we aren't carbon copies of one parent.

And, in a very simplified way, that's how evolution works - via change & mutation ...

Again, it's kind of a pointless discussion - I will talk about ovotestis, you will then say intersex people have asked not to discussed, and I will then say that trans people don't want you to discuss their experiences either and so on and so forth and at the end, we're both in the same position - you with your binary view of sex, and me with my complex and nuanced view of sex.

You are entitled to believe any crap you want
However people with a male body are incapable of understanding what it is to be female. They can behave in a way they think might be feminine but they are still male and no amount of repeating meaningless mantras will change that. Their reality is that of a trans person

thank you for your response @Positrans - please could you address my question upthread as that is the answer I am most (genuinely) interested in.

how does your femaleness manifest?

You were born male and view yourself as a 'tomboy' and have no way of knowing how females experience being female so for the life of me I can't see where 'femaleness' (for want of a better word) can enter your life experience at all?

@9toenails

Thank you for your interesting post - I enjoy philosophy. I will try to answer some of the points you raise:

"It would not be gaslighting to point out that the bush is in fact a bush rather than a bear. Could that be going on here?"

I am by nature a sceptic, so would say yes, it is possible, just as it's possible I'm not typing this, and that I am a brain in a jar being stimulated by a clever scientist, but I have no particular reason at this moment to doubt any of those things - I merely acknowledge the remote possibility of them.

"Think of another example, anorexia nervosa (a common enough analogy with trans in this regard): a sufferer might describe their experience of themselves as that of a person who is overweight when actually the opposite is the case. What a person with anorexia thinks she is experiencing misrepresents how things actually are."

The analogy with anorexia is spurious. A trans person sees exactly what their body looks like in a mirror - it's that reality that she reacts to. And of course, if you affirm an anorexic, you kill them whilst all the evidence suggests that affirming a trans person saves them so they are clearly not analogous conditions.

"Many other examples; there are those, I am told, who experience themselves as being a reincarnation of some historical figure. And so on."

Again, this is a spurious analogy. Someone with the condition you describe believes themselves to be someone else. This is the opposite of being trans - a trans person knows who they are and they don't conflate themselves with anyone else - they merely observe their gender identity, their body, and the incongruence between the two.

"I am not cannot be mistaken about it seeming to me I see a bear, even though it is actually a bush over there, or about it seeming to me I am Napoleon Bonaparte. And so on."

Those are not comparable scenarios. The impression of a bear is a logical one, derived from what you can actually see - if something looks like a bear, it is reasonable to assume it is a bear until better information becomes available. Seeming to yourself that you are Napoleon, can only be a delusion unless you actually are Napoleon. The former is a healthy mind working logically with the information before it, the latter is an unhealthy mind working from a delusion.

"'I seem to be dead and alive at the same time' could not be true if construed literally; there is no such thing as being alive and dead at the same time."

This is not actually the case - there are several philosophical approaches under which this might actually make sense to some degree. Start with the ship of Theseus and see where it leads you with this. Your body contains almost no matter from the you of 30 years ago. Where is that person now?

"It is possible transgender people make such a mistake, involving contradictions of sex (male/female, man/woman) -- rather than life (alive/dead)."

Trans people don't see themselves as two logically incompatible things simultaneously. Your assumption that they do, may be derived from the assumption that sex is a simple binary. That's not the case. A trans person recognises their physical characteristics - they typically trigger gender dysphoria, and if they weren't aware of them, trans people wouldn't have medical interventions to change them. They also recognise that their gender identity is not congruent with those physical characteristics, although that is a nuanced argument given that gender identity is biological in origin and therefore, to be more accurate, a trans girl is recognising biological characteristics like her penis as well as biological characteristics like her gender identity.