Goldsmiths University Diversity officer facing sack

[Athos]

not solely, but the point was that it throws the trans skeptic position into doubt

It's not a matter of 'doubt' about what is true/untrue. It's about what is/is not, predicated on differing bases of conception.

 

[Pickman's model]

Despite what any of us may feel about socially constructed roles, the gender that most of us are assigned from birth derives from medics declaring a baby to be girl or boy at birth based on a swift visual look at the baby's genitals.

yeh and any self-constructed or -realised gender which arises later arises DESPITE years of (as it turns out) frequently inappropriate socialisation: you read about people who realised they were in the wrong body at an early age, before the time when those in the right body start thinking much about sex. or gender.

 

[Dowie]

yeh and any self-constructed or -realised gender which arises later arises DESPITE years of (as it turns out) frequently inappropriate socialisation: you read about people who realised they were in the wrong body at an early age, before the time when those in the right body start thinking much about sex. or gender.

and of course examples like this:

http://documentarystorm.com/dr-money-and-the-boy-with-no-penis/

where the assumption that someone could just undergo surgery and be raised as a female would be fine...

 

[littlebabyjesus]

yeh and any self-constructed or -realised gender which arises later arises DESPITE years of (as it turns out) frequently inappropriate socialisation: you read about people who realised they were in the wrong body at an early age, before the time when those in the right body start thinking much about sex. or gender.

Yeah, there have been moments on this thread when I have felt people downplaying this, framing it as some kind of lifestyle choice to be trans that somehow diminishes the concept gender.

 

[Dowie]

It's not a matter of 'doubt' about what is true/untrue. It's about what is/is not, predicated on differing bases of conception.

I don't see why it isn't - some people are trans skeptic and want to frame it as a choice or as men having a thing for dressing as women etc.. the fact there are biological traits associated with it and a lot of evidence from psychologists that trans people genuinely feel they are of a particular gender then a trans skeptic position is silly, untrue and is thrown into doubt. Not to mention that the position is rather damaging to trans people who want to be treated fairly. Frankly the positions are not equal, nor just simply matters of opinion - the trans skeptic position is the weak one that goes against the evidence.

 

[Pickman's model]

Not in the case of gender, which is not a matter of biology. Haven't you read Butler ffs?

let me put it this way, for the hard of thinking. if trans women have brain activity patterns which are similar to those of 'born women' then it would be reasonable to assume there is some commonality.

 

[Athos]

I don't see why it isn't - some people are trans skeptic and want to frame it as a choice or as men having a thing for dressing as women etc.. the fact there are biological traits associated with it and a lot of evidence from psychologists that trans people genuinely feel they are of a particular gender then a trans skeptic position is silly, untrue and is thrown into doubt. Not to mention that the position is rather damaging to trans people who want to be treated fairly. Frankly the positions are not equal, nor just simply matters of opinion - the trans skeptic position is the weak one that goes against the evidence.

You keep missing the point. Biological evidence that defines gender is only evidence if gender is defined biologically. There are other bases for defining gender, most of which are considerably more nuanced than the idea that trans women are simply men who have a thing as dressing as women.

 

[Idris2002]

You have missed the point cesare and idris are making entirely.

He knows fine well what our point is.

 

[Athos]

Yeah, there have been moments on this thread when I have felt people downplaying this, framing it as some kind of lifestyle choice to be trans that somehow diminishes the concept gender.

Actually, diminishing the concept of gender (in the sense of moving beyond it) seems to me the only way to resolve the impasse of competing rights.

And the only way to resolve the dichotomy that trans women are both the victims of societally created gender stereotypes, and are complicit in perpetuating them.

A first step would be considering how the concept of gender has arisen, and what purpose/interests it serves.

As ever, I suspect the answer will be it has arisen to serve capital, in turn suggesting the solution is to move beyond that mode of production. And indicating once again the importance of class struggle overarching intersectionalist squabbles.

 

[8ball]

Yeah, there have been moments on this thread when I have felt people downplaying this, framing it as some kind of lifestyle choice to be trans that somehow diminishes the concept gender.

I think it needs to be seen as something that manifests within the existing conception of gender or it doesn't make any sense at all. It takes an understanding of cultural gender roles, their proposed immutable linkage to biological sex, as well as an understanding of dualism before you can perceive yourself to be in the 'wrong body'.

 

[cesare]

Actually, diminishing the concept of gender seems to me the only way to be able to resolve the impasse of competing rights. And to resolve the dichotomy that trans women are both the victims of societally created gender stereotypes, and are complicit in perpetuating them.

Alternatively (and to paraphrase Butler) accepting that gender is something that you do, rather than what you are, seems to me to be a way to start to resolve the dichotomy.

 

[Blagsta]

well there is growing evidence whether you like it or not - examples posted in my previous post... genes, brain structures... frankly there is likely to be more found as research into this area progresses - that isn't to say that it isn't multifaceted but there do seem to be some biological traits at least related to or commonly found in transsexualism, ergo the trans skeptic position is a bit dubious

The idea that brain structures determine behaviour is quite outdated. Behaviour can change brain structures. It's the relationship between the two that's important. Dialectical, if you like.

 

[Dowie]

You keep missing the point. Biological evidence that defines gender is only evidence if gender is defined biologically. There are other bases for defining gender, most of which are considerably more nuanced than the idea that trans women are simply men who have a thing as dressing as women.

sure there are, I'm not missing that it is multifaceted but I am pointing out that the trans skeptic position is dubious - if you want to dismiss biological evidence and define gender only in terms of some other criteria and then dismiss evidence from psychologists etc.. then... well whatever definition of gender you end up with that excludes trans people would seem to have no actual basis in reality and is mere opinion/mental masturbation

 

[Dowie]

The idea that brain structures determine behaviour is quite outdated. Behaviour can change brain structures. It's the relationship between the two that's important. Dialectical, if you like.

I'm not sure there is a claim that one determines the other rather just evidence of a link... either way my point was just that there seems to be evidence that there is more to this than just a lifestyle choice, genetic evidence too not just brain structures

 

[likesfish]

Look like behave like a woman woman
Look like behave like a man man

Their maybe people who fall in the middle shouldnt really be too much of an issue

 

[Belushi]

I'm finding this a fascinating discussion, making me think about issues I haven't really thought a lot about :thumbs :

 

[Blagsta]

I'm not sure there is a claim that one determines the other rather just evidence of a link

Yes, there are links. They are not one way, as you appeared to be suggesting. It's not about one determining the other, rather it's a dynamic relationship. Considering brains as isolated from social context tells us very little.

 

[killer b]

Look like behave like a woman woman
Look like behave like a man man

Their maybe people who fall in the middle shouldnt really be too much of an issue

That's that sorted out then. Finally!

 

[co-op]

Not all trans* people are born as men or women. There are other biological combinations.

Yes, as I've acknowledged upthread. Why do you feel the need to point this out to me, and not to trans lobbyists who also have ignored the (numerically tiny) other groups?

 

[8ball]

I'm not sure there is a claim that one determines the other rather just evidence of a link... either way my point was just that there seems to be evidence that there is more to this than just a lifestyle choice, genetic evidence too not just brain structures

Genetic evidence?

 

[Blagsta]

Genetic evidence?

Genetic evidence is never that clear cut either afaik, environment can alter gene expression.

 

[Athos]

sure there are, I'm not missing that it is multifaceted but I am pointing out that the trans skeptic position is dubious - if you want to dismiss biological evidence and define gender only in terms of some other criteria and then dismiss evidence from psychologists etc.. then... well whatever definition of gender you end up with that excludes trans people would seem to have no actual basis in reality and is mere opinion/mental masturbation

I suspect that there's the potential for negative consequences attached to whichever conception of gender is preferred.

 

[Dowie]

Yes, as I've acknowledged upthread. Why do you feel the need to point this out to me, and not to trans lobbyists who also have ignored the (numerically tiny) other groups?

Not really - for example someone can consider homosexuality not to exist/to be a lifestyle choice, it doesn't make it so. Fact is there have been genetic traits* and certain brain structures** linked to transsexualism - it isn't just someone choosing to be a different gender to the body they were born in... not to mention people who are born with both sexual organs or with some level of ambiguity or with issues with chromosomes...

they've not been ignored - I've mentioned a couple of times over the past pages...

 

[8ball]

Genetic evidence is never that clear cut either afaik, environment can alter gene expression.

Hmmm... I very much doubt there is a significant pool of epigenetic data in this area.

 

[Dowie]

Genetic evidence?

I linked to a couple of papers in the previous page - one re: genes and one re: brain structures

*http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3402034 "A significant association was identified between transsexualism and the AR allele, with transsexuals having longer AR repeat lengths than non-transsexual male control subjects"
**http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v378/n6552/abs/378068a0.html "Our study is the first to show a female brain structure in genetically male transsexuals and supports the hypothesis that gender identity develops as a result of an interaction between the developing brain and sex hormones5,6."

 

[co-op]

I've pointed out several times that trans women are not men - they are women*! You keep trying to justify your position by referring to men and oppression carried out by men. Is there actual evidence of trans women oppressing women? If not then is it not a massive assumption to assume that because men have oppressed women and some/lots of trans women were born in male bodies (others have some medical issue or are born with some ambiguity) then that is relevant to trans women. If anything it is cis women who hold a position of power and privilege over trans women.

I am not "justifying my position by referring to men and oppression carried out by them". I was criticising your facile description of women who object to trans women in women only space as being "hung up about sexual organs". I was pointing out that those sexual organs have a significant place in feminist critiques of women's oppression, therefore this is not just some little "hang up". That place revolves around trying to understand why so many men have ended up oppressing women so insistently for so long that it has become a normal part of most human cultures (over recent centuries). You can't simply wipe this context away or trivialise it

Have you now accepted this? You keep ignoring it.

Would you accept a non-trans person describing a trans person's desire to transition as "just having a hang up about sexual organs"? That is equivalent trivialisation (I'd argue it might be less so) - another question you haven't answered.

 

[cesare]

Yes, as I've acknowledged upthread. Why do you feel the need to point this out to me, and not to trans lobbyists who also have ignored the (numerically tiny) other groups?

I don't need to point it out to people that aren't trans exclusionary.

 

[Blagsta]

I linked to a couple of papers in the previous page - one re: genes and one re: brain structures

As I pointed out, that doesn't necessarily tell us very much

 

[co-op]

I don't need to point it out to people that aren't trans exclusionary.

Do you need to point it out even when I have acknowledged it and even though the debate is clearly not about these groups? What are you trying to establish?

 

[8ball]

I linked to a couple of papers in the previous page - one re: genes and one re: brain structures

Cheers.