Urban v's the Commentariat

[Pickman's model]

I've never made it past N. And not through lack of practise either.

hyperventilate before the belch

 

[DownwardDog]

I've never made it past N. And not through lack of practise either.

Switch to the Rotokas language from PNG - only 12 letters.

 

[revol68]

how many five year old ask for nose jobs?

Yes thankfully children are largely protected from those kind of social pressures until their teens but gender typing begins from they are born.

This common argument that people make in defence of gay or trans people that they are "born this way" to me seems reactionary, an extremely defensive line of argument but one that can be effective precisely because it dovetails with conservative notions of sexuality and gender.

It is something of a slap in the face though to years of feminist and queer struggle against biological determinism.

 

[SpineyNorman]

I once managed to belch 'the archbishop of canterbury'

 

[rekil]

I belch 'Ohhhh Yeaaah' like in the Yello tune. Pretentious wanker.

 

[Libertad]

Impressive.

 

[SpineyNorman]

This thread seemed like the most appropriate place to leave this:
Wellesley Students Complain That a Statue of a Man in His Underwear Is “Sexual Assault”

Best comment from the studes:

Matelli's statue does not speak to the power of art to inspire dialogue but rather to the power of the nearly nude, white, male body to disturb and discomfit. Even unconscious and vulnerable, he is threatening. "Arms outstretched, eyes closed," he lumbers forward, quite literally unable to acknowledge the presence of his (in this context) largely female spectators. What a perfect representation of the world outside of Wellesley, where women and people identifying as women are often subject to a similar ambivalence. "I'm not even conscious that I'm wandering through your lady landscape," the statue says. "I do not have to experience you. I feel about you the same way I feel about the snow. But you have to experience me, and I don't care."
What does this statue do if not remind us of the fact of male privilege every single time we pass it, every single time we think about it, every single time we are forced to acknowledge its presence. As if we need any more reminders.

 

[smokedout]

Yes thankfully children are largely protected from those kind of social pressures until their teens but gender typing begins from they are born.

This common argument that people make in defence of gay or trans people that they are "born this way" to me seems reactionary, an extremely defensive line of argument but one that can be effective precisely because it dovetails with conservative notions of sexuality and gender.

It is something of a slap in the face though to years of feminist and queer struggle against biological determinism.

strikes me as quite dangerous to take a political theory, that gender is a social construct (which I agree with) and then to say that must mean biological transsexualism, which is essentially an argument about chemistry, can never exist - no matter what the testimony of thousands of people, or what at least some medical research suggests

its an argument that also rests on essentialism incidentally, the assumption that someone born male could never have a medical/biological drive to be female without social factors involved, because they were err born male. the truth is no-one knows, including you, whether transsexuality has some kind of physical (born) factors behind it, which could be as simple as something to do with body mapping or sexual circuitry and nothing to do with gender essentialism - although you'd expect it to be vastly exacerbated due to a highly gendered society. political theory should follow the facts, not the other way round, and in this case the facts are not yet known.

 

[frogwoman]

This thread seemed like the most appropriate place to leave this:
Wellesley Students Complain That a Statue of a Man in His Underwear Is “Sexual Assault”

Best comment from the studes:

I quite like that statue of the bloke in his underwear, its a lot nicer than other statues I've seen and a lot less objectionable politically than for example 'war heroes' on horseback etc...

 

[frogwoman]

Notably, no self-identified rape survivors piped in to say that the statue reminded them of their own experiences, but that didn't hold back the tide of speculation that it might traumatize them

 

[andysays]

...its an argument that also rests on essentialism incidentally, the assumption that someone born male could never have a medical/biological drive to be female without social factors involved, because they were err born male. the truth is no-one knows, including you, whether transsexuality has some kind of physical (born) factors behind it, which could be as simple as something to do with body mapping or sexual circuitry and nothing to do with gender essentialism - although you'd expect it to be vastly exacerbated due to a highly gendered society. political theory should follow the facts, not the other way round, and in this case the facts are not yet known.

I for one find it difficult to imagine (though maybe it's the fault of my imagination) how anyone could be literally born with what you call a "medical/biological drive" to be something other than what they physically or biologically are.

We are all born as we, as individuals, are. The very fact that we are all defined as either male or female from the moment of our birth is, it seems to me, the very essence of gender essentialism. The idea that everyone can be fitted into the gender binary, and that this fitting in is the most important aspect of our identities is social rather than essential or in-born.

In the interests of helping me, and perhaps others, to understand what you mean, have you got any other examples of cases where you think people are literally born with what you call a "medical/biological drive" to be something other than what they physically or biologically are?

 

[smokedout]

In the interests of helping me, and perhaps others, to understand what you mean, have you got any other examples of cases where you think people are literally born with what you call a "medical/biological drive" to be something other than what they physically or biologically are?

otherkin

there are people who have strong desires to have limbs amputated etc which its been suggested might be something to do with neurology and body-mapping, but no-one knows. thats the point really, no-one knows, just like no-one knows whether people are 'born' gay or not, both sides of the argument have their political uses, but it shouldnt really be a political argument imo.

 

[andysays]

otherkin

there are people who have strong desires to have limbs amputated etc which its been suggested might be something to do with neurology and body-mapping, but no-one knows. thats the point really, no-one knows, just like no-one knows whether people are 'born' gay or not, both sides of the argument have their political uses, but it shouldnt really be a political argument imo.

Firstly, just because it may be to do with neurology doesn't mean it is therefore inborn. As I understand it, our neurology develops at least in part as a response to our experiences, and is therefore influenced, to an extent which is not yet fully understood, by our socialisation.

Interesting examples you cite. I think most people would take the view that both "otherkin" and people who have strong desires to have limbs amputated etc are in some way mental ill, and that they would benefit from therapy rather than body modification.

Do you agree with that conclusion? And do you think that "biological transsexualism" (by which I understand a wish to have one's body modified in some way to more closely resemble a male, if one has been previously categorised as a female, or a female, if one has previously been categorised as a male), comes into a similar category to "otherkin" and people who have strong desires to have limbs amputated etc?

 

[emanymton]

I for one find it difficult to imagine (though maybe it's the fault of my imagination) how anyone could be literally born with what you call a "medical/biological drive" to be something other than what they physically or biologically are.

We are all born as we, as individuals, are. The very fact that we are all defined as either male or female from the moment of our birth is, it seems to me, the very essence of gender essentialism. The idea that everyone can be fitted into the gender binary, and that this fitting in is the most important aspect of our identities is social rather than essential or in-born.

In the interests of helping me, and perhaps others, to understand what you mean, have you got any other examples of cases where you think people are literally born with what you call a "medical/biological drive" to be something other than what they physically or biologically are?

I'm a thin good looking man, trapped in an ugly fat man's body.

 

[rekil]

the equivalent of teenagers hating it when other people like the same band. I'm the only oppressed in the village.

That reminded me of this stuff.

Following rapidly on from his disgust that the Globe theatre has cast yet another white woman to play Cleopatra who was Greek, twintersectionalist 'mediocre dave' is "just fed up with queers being everyone's pet political cause. So patronising, and to the exclusion of all the other issues"

It's like when Nirvana got big and those who nearly saw them in the camden toilet were calling them sellouts, and going but what about the The Something Somethings?

No #solidarity? Is this a little bit homophobia? A microaggression? Worth a call out? Surely support for the Russian LGBT community should be unconditional and not contingent on skin colour or the level of media coverage their struggle has garnered, and which won't last very long anyway.

 

[smokedout]

Firstly, just because it may be to do with neurology doesn't mean it is therefore inborn. As I understand it, our neurology develops at least in part as a response to our experiences, and is therefore influenced, to an extent which is not yet fully understood, by our socialisation.

Interesting examples you cite. I think most people would take the view that both "otherkin" and people who have strong desires to have limbs amputated etc are in some way mental ill, and that they would benefit from therapy rather than body modification.

Do you agree with that conclusion? And do you think that "biological transsexualism" (by which I understand a wish to have one's body modified in some way to more closely resemble a male, if one has been previously categorised as a female, or a female, if one has previously been categorised as a male), comes into a similar category to "otherkin" and people who have strong desires to have limbs amputated etc?

no, otherkin was a joke, the other was an example of what you asked for outside of transsexualism, most people might view people with this bodily dysmorphia (a desire to have a limb removed) as mentally ill, but what most people currently think isnt particularly relevant to science

 

[andysays]

no, otherkin was a joke, the other was an example of what you asked for outside of transsexualism, most people might view people with this bodily dysmorphia (a desire to have a limb removed) as mentally ill, but what most people currently think isnt particularly relevant to science

So we're talking about science now? Just now you seemed to be arguing with revol68 not over whether something was scientifically correct but if it was appropriate to use something (the idea that gender is a social theory) you claimed was simply a political idea, to supposedly argue that biological transsexualism, (which you claim is essentially an argument about chemistry, though that claim is just as contentious as your suggestion that gender is simply a social theory) can never exist:

strikes me as quite dangerous to take a political theory, that gender is a social construct (which I agree with) and then to say that must mean biological transsexualism, which is essentially an argument about chemistry, can never exist - no matter what the testimony of thousands of people, or what at least some medical research suggests...

Contrary to what you've claimed, it seems to be you who is dealing in essentialism.

I also find your implication that we can talk about what is scientifically correct, as if that were utterly separate from what people (either in general or from the testimony of the thousands you mention) think, or from the wider social and political contexts in which that science is situated, to be a source of confusion in your argument - you're really not making it clear what you're trying to say or on what basis you're arguing it.

 

[andysays]

I'm a thin good looking man, trapped in an ugly fat man's body.

Me too mate. The question is, what's the appropriate response

• body modification
• psychotherapy
• a bit more exercise, a little less cake, and a bit of acceptance...

 

[cesare]

I for one find it difficult to imagine (though maybe it's the fault of my imagination) how anyone could be literally born with what you call a "medical/biological drive" to be something other than what they physically or biologically are.

We are all born as we, as individuals, are. The very fact that we are all defined as either male or female from the moment of our birth is, it seems to me, the very essence of gender essentialism. The idea that everyone can be fitted into the gender binary, and that this fitting in is the most important aspect of our identities is social rather than essential or in-born.

In the interests of helping me, and perhaps others, to understand what you mean, have you got any other examples of cases where you think people are literally born with what you call a "medical/biological drive" to be something other than what they physically or biologically are?

We are not all defined as male or female from the moment of our birth and not everyone can be fitted into the gender binary. This isn't the first time it's been pointed out to you either: http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...-lgbt-terminology.319196/page-3#post-12841595

 

[smokedout]

So we're talking about science now? Just now you seemed to be arguing with revol68 not over whether something was scientifically correct but if it was appropriate to use something (the idea that gender is a social theory) you claimed was simply a political idea, to supposedly argue that biological transsexualism, (which you claim is essentially an argument about chemistry, though that claim is just as contentious as your suggestion that gender is simply a social theory) can never exist:

the science is pretty relevant to whether you can claim something is or isn't true at a biological/genetic/other empirically measurable level, and the science is currently inconclusive when it comes to a biological basis for transsexuality although it is starting to look like there might be

 

[andysays]

We are not all defined as male or female from the moment of our birth and not everyone can be fitted into the gender binary. This isn't the first time it's been pointed out to you either: http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...-lgbt-terminology.319196/page-3#post-12841595

Perhaps I'm not expressing myself clearly enough. I'm well aware that not everyone can be fitted into the gender binary (and my understanding of exactly how that works was aided by the thread you cite).

I should have said above that an attempt is made to define us as male or female from the time of our birth (and in the vast majority of cases such a definition can be made accurately or unproblematically). The definition has a social rather than a biological imperative.

What I find more interesting personally is not the tiny number of cases where the definition is problematic, important though those are for those directly affected, but the reasons behind the gender binary being seen as being the most important defining part of everyone's identity, and the implications for the vast majority of us who can be so defined, even though we needn't be.

 

[andysays]

the science is pretty relevant to whether you can claim something is or isn't true at a biological/genetic/other empirically measurable level, and the science is currently inconclusive when it comes to a biological basis for transsexuality although it is starting to look like there might be

The total of all my experience, both direct and what I've read etc, leads me to the conclusion that everything which we conceptualise, which includes how we relate to the world around us, both physical and social, and how we conceptualise ourselves, is fundamentally social in nature.

Our very conceptualising of ourselves as having an identity including being male or female, or in a small number of cases not fitting into one or other of those positions, is, for me at least, a product of our socialisation rather than something which can ever be reduced simply to biology/chemistry/genetics.

 

[cesare]

Perhaps I'm not expressing myself clearly enough. I'm well aware that not everyone can be fitted into the gender binary (and my understanding of exactly how that works was aided by the thread you cite).

I should have said above that an attempt is made to define us as male or female from the time of our birth (and in the vast majority of cases such a definition can be made accurately or unproblematically). The definition has a social rather than a biological imperative.

What I find more interesting personally is not the tiny number of cases where the definition is problematic, important though those are for those directly affected, but the reasons behind the gender binary being seen as being the most important defining part of everyone's identity, and the implications for the vast majority of us who can be so defined, even though we needn't be.

The genetic/biological numbers aren't *that* tiny though. In 2000 Anne Fausto-Sterling* conducted a medical review of the frequency of sex variations, producing number estimates based on medical literature between 1955 and 1998 - numbers based on reported sex variations rather than those that go unreported because they're just not known about and - for example - 1 in 1666 births are not XX and not XY; 1 in 1000 births are XXY (Klinefelter); 1 in 100 births differ from "standard" male or female; etc etc.

We don't know the extent to which gender dysphoria is biological or social or a combination of both, and to perpetuate binary political positions without scientific foundation based on social and/or political perceptions without sufficient scientific understanding seems short sighted and exclusionary to me.

*"How sexually dimorphic are we? Review and synthesis" American Journal of Human Biology 12:151-166.

 

[andysays]

...We don't know the extent to which gender dysphoria is biological or social or a combination of both, and to perpetuate binary political positions without scientific foundation based on social and/or political perceptions without sufficient scientific understanding seems short sighted and exclusionary to me...

I am as certain as I need to be that it's a combination of both, personally. smokedout claimed above that it was all reducible to chemistry; I disagreed. We could argue the relative importance of each factor (assuming we can actually seperate or measure them definitively) but I personally am not particularly interested in that.

As I said before, what interests me far more is how the social process of imposing a gender identity on all of us works and what its implications are for all of us. I obviously can't insist that everyone discusses the aspect which interests me.

 

[smokedout]

I am as certain as I need to be that it's a combination of both, personally. smokedout claimed above that it was all reducible to chemistry; I disagreed. We could argue the relative importance of each factor (assuming we can actually seperate or measure them definitively) but I personally am not particularly interested in that.

err bollocks did I, I said there may be a biological mechanism at work, no-one knows, but that that shouldn't be dismissed (and needn't be dismissed) because of the idea of gender as a social construct

 

[andysays]

err bollocks did I, I said there may be a biological mechanism at work, no-one knows, but that that shouldn't be dismissed (and needn't be dismissed) because of the idea of gender as a social construct

Err, bollocks, you did. here's the full post with the relevant bit highlighted

strikes me as quite dangerous to take a political theory, that gender is a social construct (which I agree with) and then to say that must mean biological transsexualism, which is essentially an argument about chemistry, can never exist - no matter what the testimony of thousands of people, or what at least some medical research suggests

its an argument that also rests on essentialism incidentally, the assumption that someone born male could never have a medical/biological drive to be female without social factors involved, because they were err born male. the truth is no-one knows, including you, whether transsexuality has some kind of physical (born) factors behind it, which could be as simple as something to do with body mapping or sexual circuitry and nothing to do with gender essentialism - although you'd expect it to be vastly exacerbated due to a highly gendered society. political theory should follow the facts, not the other way round, and in this case the facts are not yet known.

The last bit seems to suggest that no political theory, no matter now provisional, can be put forward until "the facts" are known.

The scientific method is based, among other things, on the idea that "the facts" may never be known, all we can do is arrive at better and better approximations of the "the facts". So at what point do we have your permission to begin to to form political theory?

You also seem to ignore the possibility that the development of scientific knowledge aka "the facts" is in itself a social process influenced to a significant extent by our social and political conceptions.

 

[cesare]

I am as certain as I need to be that it's a combination of both, personally. smokedout claimed above that it was all reducible to chemistry; I disagreed. We could argue the relative importance of each factor (assuming we can actually seperate or measure them definitively) but I personally am not particularly interested in that.

As I said before, what interests me far more is how the social process of imposing a gender identity on all of us works and what its implications are for all of us. I obviously can't insist that everyone discusses the aspect which interests me.

I don't think smokedout did argue that "it was all reducible to chemistry" - what he seems to be arguing (and he'll correct me if I've misunderstood him) is that we don't know the extent to which gender dysphoria is biological or socially based. And even if we did have that scientific certainty it wouldn't invalidate the dysphoria experienced.

 

[smokedout]

precisely, and thats what I thought I said

the truth is no-one knows, including you, whether transsexuality has some kind of physical (born) factors behind it, which could be as simple as something to do with body mapping or sexual circuitry and nothing to do with gender essentialism - although you'd expect it to be vastly exacerbated due to a highly gendered society.

 

[revol68]

If in regards to any other issue but gender dysphoria people put forward speculative biological mechanisms for gender they would get called out as the reactionaries they are. Now part of this double standard is obviously motivated from the best of intentions, to support a massively discriminated against minority but that is based on the assumption that their experience has to be biologically/medically validated in order to be respected.

Why do we speculate that there is some kind of biological mismatch between the persons sex and gender when the obvious reason for such mismatch is the deeply entrenched gender typing in our society that expects certain sexed bodies to behave, think and even feel in certain ways, going so far as to mutilate intersex babies in order for them to categorised into this violent binary.

As for the science, well science isn't some neutral form of knowledge, it is tied up in society and more often reproduces its prejudices, hence studies into men and women's perfomance on tests of emotional intelligence, spatial awareness etc are unnecessarily sexed. The results showed a gradient of results, with women tending to score higher on emotional intelligence whilst men higher on spatial awareness, but it wasn't a one to one correlation. Many women were characterised as male brained and men as female brained. The sexist ideology at work is obvious when you imagine someone defining height in terms of male or female heights based on the spread of height by sex averages, I would be female heighted at 5.6. This is before we point out the obvious fact that men and women are clearly socialised different, so it would be surprising if this didn't show up in such tests.

Also social construction doesn't ignore biology, it is quite possible that people experiencing gender dysphoria are neurologically or biologically different than those who don't, the problem isn't that though but how this body encounters the social construct of gender. For example say there is a "male" neurology why would it be in conflict with female genitalia, after all we know that many women have "male" brains but don't experience it as in conflict with their sex.

Like I said the speculation about such biological mechanisms producing an innate conflict at the level of the body sans socialisation is driven not by reason or science but the ideological pervasiveness of gender, its naturalisation where it disappears into sex, hardly suprising when sex has been the basis for subjugating half the worlds population for centuries. It should also come as no surprise that Iran has some of the highest rates of sex changes as it is a society with rigidly defined gender typing including violent persecution of homosexuality.

None of this denies trans peoples experience of gender dysphoria, anymore than arguing for social understandings of depression denies or cheapens the experience of the depressed. The idea that it does stems from capitalist societies disavowal of the social, instead things are either innate or free choices made by transparent rational individuals, so if something isn't biological or medical they should just "get over it". Likewise arguing for a social approach to depression doesn't mean judging or condemning people for taking medication to make navigating life easier, nor should a social approach to understanding gender dysphoria mean condemning or judging people undergoing hormonal treatment or surgery.

 

[Combustible]

If in regards to any other issue but gender dysphoria people put forward speculative biological mechanisms for gender they would get called out as the reactionaries they are.

Called out by who? The only people who would denounce anyone who thought there could be some biological differences between the brains of those who identify as male and female are those who have dogmatically decided the answer to what is as far as I know an undetermined biological question. And just because science isn't neutral and can reproduce societal prejudices doesn't mean you can correctly decide the answer to scientific questions based on your dogma. What do you do if reality doesn't conform to how you think it should be and there is a biological mechanism at some level for gender? Do you become a raging sexist because now there is a biological justification for gender roles in society or do you ignore it no matter how convincing because it doesn't fit in with your preconceived world view?