How do people think you can change sex?

[CuriousBogInTheNight]

I've obviy not followed closely enough but genuinely how has it become controversial to say you cannot change sex?! Sex is encoded from the moment of conception... Are people thick or have they tried to change the meaning of the word sex?

Don't know, @334bu. Presumably there are some crime stats which might enable someone to compare the % age of women attacked with the %age of transwomen and gay men attacked. The vast majority of sex workers would be female, I'd have thought, but I know very little about this area.

@LonginesPrime
If the other person genuinely doesn't understand that this information is material to some people (or wilfully ignores the fact that it might be), they likely won't disclose it, so it becomes the responsibility of any man who cares about natal sex to ask beforehand and hope for the truth, I guess.

Exactly. I think there are major deceptions (e.g. undercover police having relationships under false pretences) and minor deceptions (every single little detail which people don't disclose on a one night stand, or early in a relationship). I think most would consider this a major detail, but I don't know where the threshold is, or what would be considered material.

[quote Kosmin]@EyesOpening
I'm assuming it's so they can give informed consent!

But what information is required to make informed consent? Isn't that arguable?
As I said, I would think many would argue that TW should be disclosed, but presumably those who say TWAW would disagree.[/quote]
I'd say that the sex of the person is pretty high up on that list, second only maybe to any sexually transmitted diseases they might have. I think I've seen that it's illegal not to anyway, in the UK, so someone's opinion whether it's relevant or not, is irrelevant.

@CuriousBogInTheNight

I've obviy not followed closely enough but genuinely how has it become controversial to say you cannot change sex?! Sex is encoded from the moment of conception... Are people thick or have they tried to change the meaning of the word sex?

One big problem is confusing sex with gender op.

I think if someone sees transphobia on this thread then they should report it immediately, but every post I've read is talking about science based biological FACTS.
I understand some people don't want to accept that due to their gender belief system, but the great thing about science is that it's provable and able to be demonstrated.
Science will not be rewritten to appease the feelings of the minority I'm afraid. It must be quite upsetting to realise that no matter what name you give something or how many times you repeat something, it does not change the established laws of physiology, anatomy, genetics, chromosomes, biology, sex and evolution.

Sex changes are impossible and the surgery attempted to 'change' the outward genitalia is brutal, rudimentary and barbaric.
Although some posters will call it a 'penis', a surgically created 'penis' is little more than a tube of flesh ,and skin usually taken off the forearm (leaving a huge scar and often motor and functional problems with the arm and hand), and fashioned into a tube which is then stitched onto the groin of the patient. Sometimes it is 'shaped' at the end to represent a glans. In a second surgery a rod is inserted, or an artificial chamber which can be inflated with saline, pumped up from the 'scrotum' where a small sac is located filled with fluid, to allow the tube to become more rigid to allow for penetrative sex. It is 'pumped' up manually by squeezing the 'scrotum' like a pump allowing the saline to flow into the chamber. It can be let down after intercourse. The urethra is elongated using donor tissue from another site to allow it to be stretched down the 'tube' so that urination can take place from the 'tube'. The problems are numerous. Infection, tissue breakdown, sepsis, urinary incontinence, persistent UTIs, urine spraying out in all directions due to poor placement of the new urethra. Scarring of the urethra meaning that urination has to take place by inserting a catheter. Not to mention that the cosmetic results are poor at best. Obviously, it comes at a cost of sexual function and pleasure. Some surgeries try to preserve the original clitoris to allow for sensation, but this does not always work and so the patient faces a life of no orgasm ever again. 'Erections' are manually achieved through the pump. It's NOT a functioning organ. It's NOT a penis. The scrotum can contain prosthetic 'testicles' which essentially are silicone balls. Obviously they are non functional and for appearance only so the patient is infertile.
Male to 'female' surgeries are just as complicated and Frankensteinian. The penis is amputated and the skin inverted into a cavity which is surgically created. Prior to the operation electrolysis is performed to remove hair, but if this is not completely removed, hair can start growing inside the new cavity. Again, sexual pleasure may be taken away forever due to amputation of most of the glans and nerve endings in the penis. The testicles are removed and the scrotal skin used to create 'labia'. The resultant surgically created 'hole' has no lubrication and will close up and scar together if not manually dilated with surgical dilators for the rest of the patients life. It is often a poor depth (depending on the original penile length). Complications include, as above, sepsis/infection, loss of function sexually, urinary incontinence. Obviously there are no ovaries or uterus so the patient is infertile and unable to bear children, experience menstruation or childbirth. There is sometimes glans tissue fashioned into a rudimentary 'clitoris' but this does not guarantee sexual pleasure. It's NOT a vagina. It's a surgical wound that must be manually maintained.

The operations are irreversible for the most part (especially if an ovariohysterectomy has also been performed in TM).

They are brutal.
They are cosmetic only (although even that is debatable given the appearance of some).
They are rife with complications.
They cost a fortune.

And they still don't create vaginas or penises. Rudimentary facsimilies at best.

@RVN123 that’s absolutely brutal.

I just saw a comment to a trans women from someone saying surgeries and make up don’t make a women.
The trans women replied that nobody asked, lots of comments saying that surgeries and make up enhance the women already there/ being a women is as simple as identifying as one.

It’s interesting to me because this trans women is clearly very beautiful, and is being called so by many, many jealous of her beauty.

Would people be this supportive and say the same supportive messages if said trans women still looked very masculine?

I only ever see such support on trans posts where it is difficult to see any masculine features.

@RVN123,

Although I am a firm believer in sex as a protected characteristic, and that sport, prisons, medical facilities (not so sure about loos and changing rooms) should be sex-segregated, using ‘science’ to ‘prove’ you cannot make a penis or vagina is not a strong argument, unless you believe that breast enlargement surgery is also a myth (a bag of silicone is not breast tissue) and that refashioning a big toe to replace a missing thumb is just having a toe on your hand (would you say that to someone who had undergone that surgery?).

In a science journal, of course we need to define our terms very carefully. In everyday life, we tend to use a lot of euphemistic language which is not scientifically correct. It is the ‘big black bastard’ argument- I can call you that if you are large, black and were born out of wedlock, as it is true.

In addition, the constant denial that gender ‘is a thing’ and the claim that this is science, is way beyond where most unbiased scientists in the field would go. This is still a very open debate, with some scientists arguing that gendered behaviour (‘gender’ for short) is, at least in part, innate and is caused by a combination of chromosomes and hormones present in the uterus. Yes, others disagree, and it does tend to swing with fashion (as hard to prove), but the science is far from clear on this one, either way.

As to what is transphobic and what isn’t, I think of myself and being Jewish. A statement that Jews go disproportionately into some fields (banking, medicine etc) said neutrally is not antisemitic. If someone says ‘Jews control the money’, though, is, regardless of if they subsequently back it up with statistics.

There is more nuance here than you want to allow for.

There is no nuance in biology - people are either male or female and people with disorders of sexual development are still either male or female not some mysterious third sex

@Theeyeballsinthesky,

If that is in response to my post, I am struggling to see the relevance.

The nuance is with regard to use of language and bigotry (fairly clearly from my post), not biology.

The truth is not always acceptable, especially if used provocatively (moron and spastic come to mind here, both of which can be scientifically correct, but have gone out of fashion).

But gender is socially constructed. Depending on where and when you were brought up, the same behaviours will be considered appropriate for different gender identities. That means that your gender identity cannot be inate, but depends on your understanding of how your inate personality traits fit with the gender parameters of the society you live in.

@GAHgamel

The most compelling studies that evidence an innate element for gendered behaviour are functional imaging of brain activity in neonates.

Clearly gendered behaviour is also heavily influenced by environment.

To claim that ALL gendered behaviour is a social construct, though, is way beyond what most neurologists would claim. As I said, this is still not proven one way or the other.

There is more nuance here than you want to allow for.

Whether or not any of the various aspects of traditional gender roles are partly influenced biological sex or anything scientific, they still don't apply to anything like all women or all men. So they absolutely cannot be what makes a person a man or a woman. So I don't see how they can in any way forward the TWAW argument.

Feminists have been fighting for generations to dismantle the sexist stereotypes surrounding womanhood. To suggest that performing traditional gender roles is even a part of what makes a woman is frankly regressive, sexist and offensive.

@lazylinguist,

So, it is fine for you to offend whom you please, but I should not make a scientific argument because you find it ‘regressive and offensive’. I see.

I think you are really stretching my point (to put it mildly), that some gendered behaviour may be innate, into a desire to unwind years of feminist gains (it would also be somewhat self defeating for me!)

Individuals are individuals and everyone should have equal rights. However, that does not mean that we should not be able to discuss biological reality, regardless of what it tells us.

@TheReluctantPhoenix I didn't say that gendered behaviour was a social construct, I said gender was a social construct. The behaviour may be inate, but the meaning we attach to it depends on the societal context.

using ‘science’ to ‘prove’ you cannot make a penis or vagina is not a strong argument, unless you believe that breast enlargement surgery is also a myth (a bag of silicone is not breast tissue) and that refashioning a big toe to replace a missing thumb is just having a toe on your hand (would you say that to someone who had undergone that surgery?).

I don't really get the analogy. Are you saying that adding a silicone bag to an area which already contains breast tissue is exactly like completely fabricating a body part? As for the big toe, I doubt very many recipients of such a graft are under any delusion that everyone around them will not notice that there is something different about their hand.

So, it is fine for you to offend whom you please, but I should not make a scientific argument because you find it ‘regressive and offensive’. I see.

I didn't say you couldn't make arguments you believe to be scientific. Feel free. I am not harmed by hearing or reading views which I disagree with, or which I consider regressive or offensive.

I still think there is a big difference between saying 'Certain aspects of traditional gendered behaviours (which far from everyone of that sex actually displays) may be influenced by biological sex' and 'Performing traditional gender behaviours of the opposite sex makes you that sex'. I mean, the latter is quite patently not true, since there are gazillions of people who do lots of things or have lots of preferences more associated with the opposite sex but who are not trans.

@TheReluctantPhoenix you said: The most compelling studies that evidence an innate element for gendered behaviour are functional imaging of brain activity in neonates.

I would be really interested in reading this research. Please can you either link to it or give references?

Thankyou!

What makes for a "most compelling stud[y]"? It sounds like confirmation bias.

You cannot change sex.

@AlfonsoTheDinosaur

What makes for a "most compelling stud[y]"? It sounds like confirmation bias.

Or cherry picked.... the field is notorious for not reporting the bulk of studies which show no significant differences.

@RVN123

I think if someone sees transphobia on this thread then they should report it immediately, but every post I've read is talking about science based biological FACTS. I understand some people don't want to accept that due to their gender belief system, but the great thing about science is that it's provable and able to be demonstrated. Science will not be rewritten to appease the feelings of the minority I'm afraid. It must be quite upsetting to realise that no matter what name you give something or how many times you repeat something, it does not change the established laws of physiology, anatomy, genetics, chromosomes, biology, sex and evolution.

Sex changes are impossible and the surgery attempted to 'change' the outward genitalia is brutal, rudimentary and barbaric.
Although some posters will call it a 'penis', a surgically created 'penis' is little more than a tube of flesh ,and skin usually taken off the forearm (leaving a huge scar and often motor and functional problems with the arm and hand), and fashioned into a tube which is then stitched onto the groin of the patient. Sometimes it is 'shaped' at the end to represent a glans. In a second surgery a rod is inserted, or an artificial chamber which can be inflated with saline, pumped up from the 'scrotum' where a small sac is located filled with fluid, to allow the tube to become more rigid to allow for penetrative sex. It is 'pumped' up manually by squeezing the 'scrotum' like a pump allowing the saline to flow into the chamber. It can be let down after intercourse. The urethra is elongated using donor tissue from another site to allow it to be stretched down the 'tube' so that urination can take place from the 'tube'. The problems are numerous. Infection, tissue breakdown, sepsis, urinary incontinence, persistent UTIs, urine spraying out in all directions due to poor placement of the new urethra. Scarring of the urethra meaning that urination has to take place by inserting a catheter. Not to mention that the cosmetic results are poor at best. Obviously, it comes at a cost of sexual function and pleasure. Some surgeries try to preserve the original clitoris to allow for sensation, but this does not always work and so the patient faces a life of no orgasm ever again. 'Erections' are manually achieved through the pump. It's NOT a functioning organ. It's NOT a penis. The scrotum can contain prosthetic 'testicles' which essentially are silicone balls. Obviously they are non functional and for appearance only so the patient is infertile.
Male to 'female' surgeries are just as complicated and Frankensteinian. The penis is amputated and the skin inverted into a cavity which is surgically created. Prior to the operation electrolysis is performed to remove hair, but if this is not completely removed, hair can start growing inside the new cavity. Again, sexual pleasure may be taken away forever due to amputation of most of the glans and nerve endings in the penis. The testicles are removed and the scrotal skin used to create 'labia'. The resultant surgically created 'hole' has no lubrication and will close up and scar together if not manually dilated with surgical dilators for the rest of the patients life. It is often a poor depth (depending on the original penile length). Complications include, as above, sepsis/infection, loss of function sexually, urinary incontinence. Obviously there are no ovaries or uterus so the patient is infertile and unable to bear children, experience menstruation or childbirth. There is sometimes glans tissue fashioned into a rudimentary 'clitoris' but this does not guarantee sexual pleasure. It's NOT a vagina. It's a surgical wound that must be manually maintained.

The operations are irreversible for the most part (especially if an ovariohysterectomy has also been performed in TM).

They are brutal.
They are cosmetic only (although even that is debatable given the appearance of some).
They are rife with complications.
They cost a fortune.

And they still don't create vaginas or penises. Rudimentary facsimilies at best.

People will disagree with your post (a minority of course) but it doesn’t make it any less true.

Everything you say, is based on fact. Very informative post.

@AlfonsoTheDinosaur and @ErrolTheDragon..

I think that the reverse is true of this board; anyone who suggests (with evidence) that elements of gendered behaviour are innate is roundly pooh-poohed and the evidence is not even properly evaluated.

I find neonate studies the most compelling as it is hard to assert that there is a societal bias in a baby who is a few days old (although people have tried).

I said, very carefully, above, that this is still an ongoing area of research, and the science is still open. I feel that I have far less bias here than most.

See two interesting studies below (yes, the first is on macaques, but it is far easier to control variables ethically with non-human subjects, and there is little reason to suppose that humans would be dramatically different in this area).

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4726418/

www.math.kth.se/matstat/gru/5b1501/F/sex.pdf

When cosmetic surgeries like breast enlargement or buttock implants cause horrible side effects/kill people, it’s in the news. Most Cosmetic surgeries that people pay for as enhancements would have little success if they were as incomplete and harmful as SRS. The only surgeries I can think of that would be this risky, ongoing and partial are where they are saving a life or helping someone who’s lost a huge amount of function, eg facial reconstruction after an accident.

What really worries me is that the ideological aspect makes people see SRS as something it’s not - whether they think it will actually fully change their sex, or think it will make them happy and solve all their painful feelings. Then if they end up with complications, pain, disappointment or illness, it’s hard for them to say they’re not happy, especially if they’re fully convinced you can change sex and this is their “true self”. What if they’ve crowdfunded or been generously given money for the surgery etc. It must be so hard when there’s this huge force of affirmation telling you this is what you need to be the woman/man you are inside.

I’ll stand up as a GC feminist and say I do think gender has its place and in some cases arises out of biological differences. Gender to me is a range of behaviours, tastes, likes and dislikes, expressions of who we are, interests. The problem arises when the sexed are limited by society as to what they can do by gender stereotyping. But that doesn’t make it any less true that men are on average bigger and stronger than women and I can understand a man associating his strength with his masculinity. There’s a link and crossover with biological sex at various points. When a woman gives birth and then feeds and cares for her tiny baby, the birthing is biology, the breastfeeding is biology, is the caring biology? I think women do have a more powerful urge to care for children than men do, on average, and that then feeds into the women = carers and have to pick up men’s pants gender stereotypes.

I also think we use gender stereotypes to signal our sex, and while people should be able to opt out of that, it’s also fine to opt in IMO. Signalling and emphasising our sex to each other - and using/subverting gender to signal other things, like gayness, artistic statements, personality etc - is part of being human.

So I don’t agree with abolishing gender - just gender stereotypes, limitations and prejudice. Our limitations should only be the biological ones (eg who can give birth, who is stronger, etc which is why we need single sex spaces).