Can someone please explain... (trans)

[WednesdayAllTheWay]

So I've been trying to follow this trans situation for a while but now having skin in the game in the form of a child (and also noting through work how more and more people are identifying as the opposite gender) I need to understand it better.
Feel slightly embarrassed asking but:

1. How exactly do the words sex and gender differ in this area?
2. What reasons do trans people give for wanting to change their physical bodies? As in what do people believe they will get from this that they couldn't get in the body they were born with?
3. What are children being taught at school about this?

Thanks!

I would point out that some people don't produce gametes, then you'll talk about the class who do, and I will say if you don't produce them, then your not in the class who do

And I would say you fundamentally misunderstand what 'of the class' actually means. It does NOT mean an individual has to produce a large or small gamete to be defined by it. You can be a gamete non-producer and still be of one class or another.

waits for gamete non producer to be adopted as a term for postmenopausal women

True titchy. Back to the "do humans have two legs" analogy.

Yes humans as a class each have two legs.

Can a human have one or no legs? Yes they can.

It's so complicated, isn't it?

Females be they pubescent, post pubescent, fertile, non fertile, menopausal, postmemopausal are all still female
Transwomen, transgirls, non binary males, gender fluid males are all male and have nothing physically in common with any female human on the planet

I will say if you don't produce them, then your not in the class who do

So people who don't produce eggs aren't female?

Says a person who claims to be female while not being an egg-producer?

We can divvy women up based on whether their egg-production system is working optimally or has a fault if we must - though the one's just as female as the other - but I fail to see how this means faulty gamete-production represents a third sex.

And even if it did, that wouldn't allow one to place a person with a defect in their sperm-production capacity into the same category as people with fully-functional egg-systems.

I’m still not clear on why, even if you did prove it, a biological mechanism that caused an otherwise male sexed person to believe themself to be a female sexed person would override the biological reality of that person having XY chromosomes and a penis.

If it’s true, it’s true- hurrah for science - but women still need single sex sports teams and prisons.

It's like gravity. How do I navigate in a world subject to gravity? Do I take its effects on a scale that is meaningful for me, that I can grasp, make sense of, and be able to operate in the real world, or do I worry about General Relativity and how that's now being influenced by Quantum Gravity and decide I'd better not leave the house.

@testing987654321

True titchy. Back to the "do humans have two legs" analogy.

Yes humans as a class each have two legs.

Can a human have one or no legs? Yes they can.

It's so complicated, isn't it?

Or three legs!

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5522419/Chinese-baby-born-THREE-LEGS-extra-limb-removed.html

@Typesofcatalogue

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 should have posted a link with my earlier post about this. This wasn't idle speculation on my part, I've seen a fair amount about research into similarities between BIID and gender dysphoria and the idea that this is a neurological condition (with some people suffering from both conditions simultaneously) is that of the scientists working in this area.

Here's one such paper.

www.researchgate.net/profile/Michael_First/publication/7745889_Desire_for_amputation_of_a_limb_Paraphilia_psychosis_or_a_new_type_of_identity_disorder/links/56a63d4508aeca0fddcb4b04.pdf

The diagnostic category that most resembles the phenomenology of this condition is Gender Identity Disorder (GID), with which it shares several key features. In both conditions, the individual reports feeling uncomfortable with an aspect of his or her anatomical identity (gender in GID, presence of all limbs in this condition) with an internal sense of the desired identity (to be the other sex in GID, to be an amputee in this condition). Other similarities include: onset in childhood or early adolescence; successful treatment by surgery for some subjects, frequently mimicking the desired identity (cross-dressing in GID; pretending to be an amputee in this condition); and for a significant subgroup of each, paraphilic sexual arousal by a fantasy of being the desired identity [in GID fantasizing about oneself as an anatomical female (called autogynephilia; Blanchard, 1991), in this condition fantasizing about oneself as an amputee (apotemnophilia)].

For an easier read for a non-specialist, there's this:

the-gist.org/2011/07/body-integrity-image-disorder-neurological-and-psychological-theories-to-explain-the-desire-for-amputation/

Interestingly, BIID may actually be some form of identity disorder and has in fact been compared to gender identity disorder (GID). In a report for the journal of Psychological Medicine, First and colleagues point out the similarities between BIID and GID, a disorder in which individuals are similarly distressed with some part of their anatomy because they feel it is at odds with their ‘internal sense of self’. Both disorders typically originate in childhood.

That's really interesting, OldCrone, thank you.

@Typesofcatalogue

I can’t prove it’s not there, but that’s a long way from proving it is.

Yes and that’s a fair comment. But for decades clinicians and researchers have proposed the existence of gender identity as an educated deduction. A reasonable hypothesis for something observed across centuries and cultures.

Can you post some links to this? If it's been going on for decades there should be loads.

I find the comparison between BIID and GD quite compelling. For many people with GD, psychiatric treatment appears not to help sufferers accept their bodies as they are. This is also true of BIID. One possible explanation for this is that the disorders are neurological rather than psychological in origin.

From the second link I posted earlier:
In one study, an individual was reported as saying “I felt like I was in the wrong body; that I am only complete with both my arm and leg off on the right side.”

This sounds very similar to some of those with gender dysphoria (right down to 'born in the wrong body' - although apparently we're now supposed to believe that nobody ever said that).

This is a recent article with lots of links to studies in this area:
www.discovermagazine.com/mind/understanding-the-disorder-that-drives-people-to-amputate-healthy-limbs

I saw this on Twitter recently - it's a statement by the Endocrine society and it sums up the broad consensus quite well and has links to some papers:

www.endocrine.org/advocacy/position-statements/transgender-health

"The medical consensus in the late 20th century was that transgender and gender incongruent individuals suffered a mental health disorder termed “gender identity disorder.” Gender identity was considered malleable and subject to external influences. Today, however, this attitude is no longer considered valid. Considerable scientific evidence has emerged demonstrating a durable biological element underlying gender identity.1,2 Individuals may make choices due to other factors in their lives, but there do not seem to be external forces that genuinely cause individuals to change gender identity."

You could use that as you starting point for further research.

This statement isn't new, @Positrans, it's from 2017. Here are some of the comments I posted a couple of years ago when someone else was trying to use it to prove that gender identity was biological:

Thie Endocrine Society statement cites 5 distinct references from journals (3 of them are cited 3 times each to bulk out the reference list).

The first reference is a very short literature review, Saraswat A, et al. Evidence Supporting the Biologic Nature of Gender Identity. Endocr Pract. 2015 Feb;21(2): 199-204.

This paper concludes: "Because the sample sizes of most studies on this subject were small, the conclusions must be interpreted with caution. Further research is required to assign specific biologic mechanisms for gender identity."

Despite this, the Endocrine Society use it to claim that "the data are strong for a biological underpinning to gender identity".

Brava - TalkingtoLangClegintheDark

This wasn't idle speculation on my part, I've seen a fair amount about research into similarities between BIID and gender dysphoria and the idea that this is a neurological condition (with some people suffering from both conditions simultaneously) is that of the scientists working in this area.

Yes it’s interesting OldCrone but in terms of clinical solutions the BIID sufferer is aiming for a damaged body, that can never be healthy. Whereas the end result of the GID sufferer is aiming to be just a man or woman. They are healthy things to be.

There is a difference between ‘amputee’ and ‘woman’ as clinical end points, surely?

There is a difference between ‘amputee’ and ‘woman’ as clinical end points, surely?

Do you believe that people can change sex?

The person who wants to be the opposite sex and undergoes all the available medical procedures in pursuit of this aim, will become a permanent medical patient, reliant on taking cross sex hormones for life, and will have to undergo risky operations whose results are often unsatisfactory. They will be sterile and will have impaired sexual function.

And Types, you didn't read this paper did you? Or did you just not understand it?

www.researchgate.net/profile/Gunter_Heylens/publication/51856870_Gender_Identity_Disorder_in_Twins_A_Review_of_the_Case_Report_Literature/links/59ef5e98458515ec0c7b6057/Gender-Identity-Disorder-in-Twins-A-Review-of-the-Case-Report-Literature.pdf

Whereas the end result of the GID sufferer is aiming to be just a man or woman. They are healthy things

Except they can never really.change sex no matter how many body parts they remove, so how is that different from people who have want to remove limbs etc

[quote OldCrone]And Types, you didn't read this paper did you? Or did you just not understand it?

www.researchgate.net/profile/Gunter_Heylens/publication/51856870_Gender_Identity_Disorder_in_Twins_A_Review_of_the_Case_Report_Literature/links/59ef5e98458515ec0c7b6057/Gender-Identity-Disorder-in-Twins-A-Review-of-the-Case-Report-Literature.pdf[/quote]
Yes. I skimmed it. But it shows there likely is a genetic link because there was a higher incidence of GID in identical twins, compared to non identical. Hence genetic link.

Why what do you think it means?

No they can never ‘actually change sex’ but the aim to be a man or a woman is different than aiming to be a disabled person when you’re not one.

Lots of people have to face up to being a life long medical patient, on medication for life, with a less than perfect solution. There isn’t a cure for everything. Hence transsexuality is a painful life long condition for some.

Yes it’s interesting OldCrone but in terms of clinical solutions the BIID sufferer is aiming for a damaged body, that can never be healthy. Whereas the end result of the GID sufferer is aiming to be just a man or woman. They are healthy things to be.

They're aiming to reconstruct themselves as the opposite sex involving taking cross sex hormones and sometimes having unnecessary surgery. Not my idea of healthy.

No they can never ‘actually change sex’ but the aim to be a man or a woman is different than aiming to be a disabled person when you’re not one.

This is your personal opinion.

But it shows there likely is a genetic link because there was a higher incidence of GID in identical twins, compared to non identical. Hence genetic link.

Why what do you think it means?

It was a very small sample, and there were more pairs of identical twins in which one was trans and the other wasn't than pairs where both were.

And as the authors say:

Since sample size is still limited and genotype studies are lacking, conclusions must be drawn with caution.

No they can never ‘actually change sex’ but the aim to be a man or a woman is different than aiming to be a disabled person when you’re not one.

So the aim to be a disabled person when you're not disabled is unhealthy. I agree.

But you think the aim to be a man if you're a woman or vice versa is healthy? Even though you become a medical patient for life and have to undergo risky operations when there is actually nothing wrong with your body?

What about the aim to be a different species? Healthy or unhealthy?

As identical twins are to all intents and purposes clones I would think that the fact that any pairs at all can have one trans and one non trans proves that GID is not genetic.

@HollowTalk - slightly less serious than some posts but your post about your daughter no platforming you made me genuinely laugh. Has she listened to My Back Pages by Bob Dylan - chorus lines "Ah but I was so much older then , I'm younger than that now" My son loves it ( at the grand old age of 24 )