Transgender Thread.

[PeterJB]

Instant victory in any prison brawl.

 

[Com Fox]

Throwing something in on the controversial topic of MtF Trans people in sports:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4329600/Outrage-transgender-weight-lifter-wins-comp.html

I would say that Trans Men and Women should have their own category in sports like this for the sake of fairness of the competitors BUT, there isn't enough of Trans Men and Women to make it any sort of competitive, not to mention there is this whole political controversy on segregation especially towards Trans people that would turn this idea to make sporting competitions fair and competitive, into massive political statements.

 

[TRGTspecialist]

I would say that Trans Men and Women should have their own category in sports like this for the sake of fairness of the competitors

Out of interest, what specifically about the IOC's guidelines on transgender athletes do you think is unfair?

 

[Com Fox]

Out of interest, what specifically about the IOC's guidelines on transgender athletes do you think is unfair?

FtM are simply enterened at no cost, I can understand this but from what I've seen FtM Trans winning these big events is almost impossible. I think it is unfair on the FtM athletes.

Section 2.1, simply says you need to declare it, that feels way to simplistic and easily exploitable.

Section 2.2 and 2.3, Simply suggests that testosterone level is the only contributing factor to the difference of male and female athletes, and doesn't apply to bone mass and muscle mass that doesn't simple go away immediately when you transition when you've built that up for 30 years. This event massive victory proves it, I hardly believe that she is on even level with the cis female and trained massively harder than them to achieve a 19kg win without either massive Steroids overdose or she still possesses quality's that she has as a male, since she would've fit with the testosterone level to even enter.

 

[TenEightyOne]

bone mass and muscle mass that doesn't simple go away immediately when you transition when you've built that up for 30 years.

To clarify; surely we're talking about the period from menarch to the end of an Olympic career... 15 years max?

 

[homeforsummer]

A parent whose baby has been given a health card that does not specify a sex – believed to be a world first – has said the aim is to allow the child to discover their gender on their own.

So, what do we think? Just popped up on one of my feeds.

I'm not entirely sure about it. There seems to be a very fine line in not wanting to ascribe stereotypes to a gender, and doing something to make a statement. This seems to fall a little too far towards the latter.

Firstly, this child was presumably born as either a male or a female physiologically, which I think is the point of the M or the F on a birth certificate, rather than a way of trying to define their gender for the rest of their lives.

Secondly, this statement by the parent bothers me somewhat:

“I want to raise my kid in such a way that whatever their gender is, it doesn’t have to give them angst.”

Surely drilling the idea into a young child's head that they're neither one gender nor the other - when presumably, every single one of the friends they make at pre-school, and school, and onwards will be identifiably male or female - will create far more angst, stress and confusion than is likely in a more conventional situation. They'll figure out pretty quickly what sort of genitalia they have, and that that alone makes them different from those with different genitalia, so having a parent that doesn't believe in gender identity seems like it'll cause more problems than it solves.

We're already growing up in a society where, for the most part, younger people - and kids in particular - are far more aware and far more accepting of LGBTQ issues than older generations. Over time it will be easier for people to come out as LGBTQ because people are increasingly raised with there being no stigma to such things. I was in London while the Pride parade was going on, and it was full of kids dressed in rainbow flags - clearly accepting of people whatever they identify as, even though they've presumably grown up under prescribed and not at all harmful "boy" and "girl" genders.

So in this particular case, why not let the child grow up as whatever sex they were born as and figure it out along the way, like everybody else does - only without the fear of being different that has made such things so difficult in times gone by?

 

[PeterJB]

A lot of people will be very disappointed if that baby's identity matches its biology.

 

[Joey D]

Gender is different than sex though. I suppose I get not assigning a child a gender but unless the child is born as a hermaphrodite than their sex should be whatever they biologically are.

 

[Famine]

Gender is different than sex though.

I've never heard a convincing argument for this. Gender was simply a word we started using to mean sex when the word sex started to mean bumping uglies (thanks, DH Lawrence) instead of sex, because of Edwardian prudishness.

I'm acutely aware that this is poking a hornet's nest with a freshly opened can of worms on the end of a ten foot pole, but the idea that gender is what you think you are rather than what shaped tube pokes through your pelvic girdle is an horrendously recent invention. If people want to use it that way they're more than welcome, but it's not incorrect to use the terms interchangeably.

 

[Joey D]

I've never heard a convincing argument for this. Gender was simply a word we started using to mean sex when the word sex started to mean bumping uglies (thanks, DH Lawrence) instead of sex, because of Edwardian prudishness.

I'm acutely aware that this is poking a hornet's nest with a freshly opened can of worms on the end of a ten foot pole, but the idea that gender is what you think you are rather than what shaped tube pokes through your pelvic girdle is an horrendously recent invention. If people want to use it that way they're more than welcome, but it's not incorrect to use the terms interchangeably.

Hmm, I didn't know that, but I also attended college during a time when it was being taught that gender is a social construct as and sex is what you biologically are. Anthropology and sociology seem to be big on teaching progressive views on most things so I guess it doesn't really surprise me all that much.

 

[Roo]

I've never heard a convincing argument for this. Gender was simply a word we started using to mean sex when the word sex started to mean bumping uglies (thanks, DH Lawrence) instead of sex, because of Edwardian prudishness.

I'm acutely aware that this is poking a hornet's nest with a freshly opened can of worms on the end of a ten foot pole, but the idea that gender is what you think you are rather than what shaped tube pokes through your pelvic girdle is an horrendously recent invention. If people want to use it that way they're more than welcome, but it's not incorrect to use the terms interchangeably.

That answers a question that's slightly puzzled me - if someone's changing their body (sex) to match how you feel you are (gender), surely they'd be transsexual rather than transgender, as it's the sex that's changing? I always assumed transsexual was another of those words that aren't used because they became a slur or something.

 

[Famine]

Hmm, I didn't know that, but I also attended college during a time when it was being taught that gender is a social construct as and sex is what you biologically are. Anthropology and sociology seem to be big on teaching progressive views on most things so I guess it doesn't really surprise me all that much.

"Sex" (from 'secare', meaning to divide in two) also later came to mean literal genitals in the 1930s (as in 'her aching sex' and 'his throbbing sex' - never thought I'd be typing that out on GTP), I presume as a measure against censorship. That and DH Lawrence's earlier use of the term to mean actual banging promoted the word gender (from 'genus', meaning type) to replace the word sex to describe male/female.

I understand why people want to compartmentalise genital-sex from head-sex, and I understand that they see sex and gender as a way of doing it with single words, but ultimately they meant the same thing until very recently when people started using them to mean different things. Language evolves and all that, but it's over decades rather than years. People are going to be using sex and gender as synonyms for a good long while yet.

That answers a question that's slightly puzzled me - if someone's changing their body (sex) to match how you feel you are (gender), surely they'd be transsexual rather than transgender, as it's the sex that's changing? I always assumed transsexual was another of those words that aren't used because they became a slur or something.

From what I understand, transgender means literally any state in which what's in the head doesn't exclusively match what's in the pants, but transsexual specifically means that what's in the head is the exact opposite of what's in the pants. Someone who is transgender may have man parts but identify as a woman, or a man, or nothing, or both some of the time, whereas someone who is transsexual will have man parts but know they are a woman all of the time. Typically, gender reassignment surgery (and you may wonder if it should be sex reassignment surgery, since it's the pants part that's being reassigned) is performed because the individual is transsexual and wants the nethers to match the head, but I'm sure that there will be cases when it's performed because the individual is transgender and wants the nethers to match the head they have most often.


However, last time I was involved in a discussion on this topic I was called transphobic for suggesting that no-one knows what's in your pants when you go into a public toilet unless you do so naked, so that may not be an expert testimony on the subject.

 

[Com Fox]

Doesn't this more belong in the Transgender thread?

I think Sex is different from Gender but both are binary. Gender is what goes on up in the brain (and reason why Gender dysphoria exists) and Sex is the overall body.

The concept of Gender assignment spreading around I find silly. Just because a doctor looks at your parts and says your a Male or Female doesn't mean anything about you apart from your body. Sure Gender can be left out but this is biological Sex. They try to find your biological sex not determine your gender from an early age.

 

[PeterJB]

I would concede that gender and sex are not entirely the same thing but at best what you can say is that gender is binary and you can be one or the other, regardless or sex. But the idea that you can be agender or genderfluid or genderqueer or pangender or other kin is plain nuts.

 

[Exorcet]

I would concede that gender and sex are not entirely the same thing but at best what you can say is that gender is binary and you can be one or the other, regardless or sex. But the idea that you can be agender or genderfluid or genderqueer or pangender or other kin is plain nuts.

At this point I'm leaning toward the concept of gender, when not identical to sex, having no meaning for individuals. Males and females (the sexes) as groups will display different attributes and we can use those general trends to define masculine and feminine, but individuals of either sex can deviate from the average by a huge degree. What purpose does someone having a gender (and having that be separate from sex) even serve?

Going back to the story posted by homeforsummer, I don't really see any benefit. The baby has a sex, and that's set in stone. That sex also says nothing about the child and having M/F or any other letter on a card isn't going to influence their life at all unless they're surrounded by sexists. If anything this move makes it sound like the meaning M or F letters actually have a purpose and that people should worry about them.

 

[Famine]

Doesn't this more belong in the Transgender thread?

Probably. I'll move it shortly.

I think Sex is different from Gender but both are binary.

I would concede that gender and sex are not entirely the same thing but at best what you can say is that gender is binary and you can be one or the other, regardless or sex. But the idea that you can be agender or genderfluid or genderqueer or pangender or other kin is plain nuts.

Considering that I got called transphobic last time for wondering about the toilet thing, I'm entirely okay with the concept of your head-sex being 'fluid' - for reasons @Danoff brought up last time, and was then called transphobic for mentioning.

The idea that you know what gender you should be in your head relies on knowing what being that gender feels like. If someone were to ask me, a 'cis-male' (pants-male, head-male) what feeling male is like, I wouldn't even know where to start. And I'm supposed to know, because, you know, male. I was born with it - yay, male privilege. I have no idea what males feel that's different from females because I have no reference point for feeling female. I don't know if how I feel is how males feel and not how females do simply because I'm male. I have no idea if I feel the way females feel, or I can't, or if there's any reason why I do or can't feel how females feel. I don't even know that males do feel things differently from females...

With that in mind, the notion of fixed gender identity seems absolutely insane. When @Danoff brought it up before he challenged anyone - trans or 'cis' - to prove that they knew that they felt male or female without reverting to societal roles or just plain sexism. No-one did, and instead he just got labelled transphobic, which was a very curious reaction as it would seem that the challenge applied to everyone equally and was fulfilled by no-one equally...

 

[homeforsummer]

Doesn't this more belong in the Transgender thread?

Probably. I'll move it shortly.

Wasn't aware we had one - thanks for moving the posts.

Interesting to see peoples' responses. Broadly what I expected. As a kind of social experiment I suppose I'm interested to see how this story or other similar ones progress, but I can't help feeling that it's largely down to a parent wanting to enforce almost a religious attitude to a particular subject on their child. Because the parent doesn't identify as a particular gender, they're forcing gender neutrality on their kid too.

For all the claims of wanting to let the child decide who they are, it seems like it could cause the kid even more confusion later in life when they could instead grow up as a "boy" or "girl" (in quotation marks to separate gender from sex) and figure things out themselves in a society that's now generally accepting of gender fluidity.

 

[Lizard]

The idea that you know what gender you should be in your head relies on knowing what being that gender feels like

And the honest answer is no one does know until they do it.

The feeling is usually a dislike of the gender you are currently and a liking of certain aspects of the opposite gender like clothes or behaviour styles. No one knows for sure until they do it.

It is one of those things that if you aren't scared then you likely haven't thought about it enough. Clinics often take things as slow as they can for this reason.

 

[Famine]

The feeling is usually a dislike of the gender you are currently and a liking of certain aspects of the opposite gender like clothes or behaviour styles.

To me that presupposes that there's male and female clothes, and male and female behaviours, and that 'normal' (or 'cis'sexuality) requires males to feel one way about clothes and behaviours and females to feel the other. I don't see why that's necessarily the case.

Aside from the physical requirements of certain types of underwear, the idea of male and female clothes is societal. And, let's be honest, there's not exactly a huge distance between a skirt and a kilt, or a dress and a cassock (or a toga), and that's without even getting into things like zip vs button flies, left and right hand jackets and other semantics. I mean, I'll grant you high heels (outside of Rocky Horror) as a more distinctly female clothing type, but there's really a finite distance between high heels and other lifted heels. And that's without even visiting the concept that most of us wear shorts and a t-shirt at the end of a day, or that my wife keeps robbing all my clothes.

As for behaviours... what are we talking about here? Flower arranging, weepy films and rosé seems a tad sexist, so the only one I can come up with that's more likely to be female than male is falling onto dicks, and that's not exactly exclusive either (and more sexual identity than gender).


As I mentioned, I'm male, but I haven't got the faintest idea what it is that makes my head male and not female - or even if it is. Unless we're to accept that men don't wear skirts, watch Bridget Jones or like dicks, which all seems terribly sexist and based on societal norms rather than anything innate to one gender or the other, I'm not sure what the reference points for male-ness and female-ness of the psyche are.

 

[GranTurismo guy]

To me that presupposes that there's male and female clothes, and male and female behaviours, and that 'normal' (or 'cis'sexuality) requires males to feel one way about clothes and behaviours and females to feel the other. I don't see why that's necessarily the case.

Aside from the physical requirements of certain types of underwear, the idea of male and female clothes is societal. And, let's be honest, there's not exactly a huge distance between a skirt and a kilt, or a dress and a cassock (or a toga), and that's without even getting into things like zip vs button flies, left and right hand jackets and other semantics. I mean, I'll grant you high heels (outside of Rocky Horror) as a more distinctly female clothing type, but there's really a finite distance between high heels and other lifted heels. And that's without even visiting the concept that most of us wear shorts and a t-shirt at the end of a day, or that my wife keeps robbing all my clothes.

As for behaviours... what are talking about? Flower arranging, weepy films and rosé seems a tad sexist, so the only one I can come up with that's more likely to be female than male is falling onto dicks, and that's not exactly exclusive either (and more sexual identity than gender).


As I mentioned, I'm male, but I haven't got the faintest idea what it is that makes my head male and not female - or even if it is. Unless we're to accept that men don't wear skirts, watch Bridget Jones or like dicks, which all seems terribly sexist and based on societal norms rather than anything innate to one gender or the other, I'm not sure what the reference points for male-ness and female-ness of the psyche are.

This is what confused me a lot at first. It seemed completely about what is socially seen as male and female, but AFAIK it's to do with the properties of the brain. There are some physical differences between the male and female brains, what I know specifically is that there are different quantities of grey and white matter. There are probably some other differences but I know little of the subject.

 

[Danoff]

This is what confused me a lot at first. It seemed completely about what is socially seen as male and female, but AFAIK it's to do with the properties of the brain. There are some physical differences between the male and female brains, what I know specifically is that there are different quantities of grey and white matter. There are probably some other differences but I know little of the subject.

Citation needed. If this were the case, there would be such a thing as a gender test. You could go to the doctor and have them tell you your gender. You might even be able to have a doctor tell you not only the physical gender of your unborn child, but the mental gender.

 

[GranTurismo guy]

Citation needed. If this were the case, there would be such a thing as a gender test. You could go to the doctor and have them tell you your gender. You might even be able to have a doctor tell you not only the physical gender of your unborn child, but the mental gender.

Only going off what I have heard, as I said I know little of the matter.

 

[Eh Team]

I'm reading through this discussion and I haven't the faintest clue as to why people think this gendering is a discovery mission of your life. I fully support the cause of people feeling that they got the wrong body and want a sex change, I just fail to comprehend how gender is a discovery or can be fluid even. After reading this thread and taking my own understandings of the word fluid I get to a point where people change what gender they are/want to be on a mood basis? To me gender is the same as sex (which as I understand may make me phobic in some eyes and minds) so the only time in which a person, to me, is transgender is when they are in the process of having their sex change. Once that process is done, they have then become that gender and are no longer transgender because they are no longer transitioning.

Am I looking at it too strictly logically or does this actually make any sense? Help me understand please.

 

[Imari]

Unless we're to accept that men don't wear skirts, watch Bridget Jones or like dicks, which all seems terribly sexist and based on societal norms rather than anything innate to one gender or the other...

What if that's all it is? It can be sexist and based on societal norms, but perhaps some people find that the only "acceptable" method of behaving in the way that they want to behave within their society is to explain it as "I am mentally another gender". That may be a strictly incorrect rationale for their behaviour, but in some ways western society still has pretty defined roles for men and women.

 

[Danoff]

What if that's all it is? It can be sexist and based on societal norms, but perhaps some people find that the only "acceptable" method of behaving in the way that they want to behave within their society is to explain it as "I am mentally another gender". That may be a strictly incorrect rationale for their behaviour, but in some ways western society still has pretty defined roles for men and women.

Then they should be fighting a much easier fight - which is that people need to broaden their views about what it means to be a man or a woman, rather than an almost impossible fight - which is that people should call you by whatever gender you choose (at a particular moment).

They should also be fighting a much more philosophically consistent fight - which is that your genitalia does not always match what people expect when it comes to your personality, rather than a philosophically inconsistent fight - which is that there is such a thing as a gender-specific personality, and yet to not assume your personality based on gender.

If your goal is just to fit in and be accepted, trying to force people to use a particular language is not the easiest or best way. It's harder and creates a confusing inconsistent message.

 

[Dan]

If your goal is just to fit in and be accepted, trying to force people to use a particular language is not the easiest or best way. It's harder and creates a confusing inconsistent message.

Especially if that language is used by 1% of the population and using the wrong pronoun (Ze/Zer, Xe/Xer) can result in jail time. Have a look at Bill C-16 in Canada.

 

[LeMansAid]

Then they should be fighting a much easier fight - which is that people need to broaden their views about what it means to be a man or a woman, rather than an almost impossible fight - which is that people should call you by whatever gender you choose (at a particular moment).

They should also be fighting a much more philosophically consistent fight - which is that your genitalia does not always match what people expect when it comes to your personality, rather than a philosophically inconsistent fight - which is that there is such a thing as a gender-specific personality, and yet to not assume your personality based on gender.

If your goal is just to fit in and be accepted, trying to force people to use a particular language is not the easiest or best way. It's harder and creates a confusing inconsistent message.

Totally on board, and like you posted in this thread previously......

The part I struggle with is seeing that as a consistently held principle, particularly in conjunction with some of your statements in the Feminism thread, and another older exchange that I recalled.....

I was at the neighborhood playground with a little girl who fell and hurt her ankle. Her parents live within eyeshot of the playground but were inside their house. I walked her home, but I was careful to make sure my daughter was with us and I'm not sure exactly what I'd have done if my daughter wasn't there.

I won't walk up to a couple with a 4 year old girl and say "you have a beautiful daughter"... because they'd think I'm a pedophile. My wife could do that and they'd love it. It's not because they hate men, and it's not because I'm incapable of expressing that sentiment. It's because men don't generally express things using the exact same words as women, and when you try, it isn't received the same because the sexes are not identical.

Most people don't like how I look. I wear biker rags during the summer (because my motorcycle becomes my primary means of transportation). I work a blue collar dirty job and I usually have to go out into public between my shift and home. Add all this up and I usually get rich folks who practically run for me, business owners who follow me around, and thugs who think I'm looking for a fight.

So why would you put yourself at that disadvantage?

Nothing will change if we don't change it. If the only men left accompanying little girls are predators, then we've managed to reinforce rather than confound the idea that man + little girl = abuse. Same thing with "biker" clothes, tattoos, piercings, suits, dresses, make-up, dreadlocks, boobs, penises, and countless other things. We need people being themselves out there, challenging preconceptions and betraying stereotypes. I get that reality means that it'll be a "choose your battles" deal, but I'm a bit confused by what appears to be you going in two directions at once in regards to this.

I remember thinking to myself at one point "Ugh, why do so many of the people at environmental rallies have to look like the epitomisation of the hippy stereotype? It's embarrassing". Then I thought "Well, if I believe in this cause and I'm not out there doing something about it, presenting an alternate visual, then I can just shut the hell up about their appearance". I'm not ok with being merely an armchair social commentator. If I'm not willing to apply it at least in general where "the rubber meets the road", I can "shut the hell up." I need to be willing to place myself at a certain amount of discomfort for the sake of doing my bit for broader change. It's just that it looks to me that in one scenario you're saying that we need to challenge society's biased restrictions, and in the other you're throwing your hands in the air saying "Oh well, that's how things are". It looks inconsistent to me.

*Please note - my aim is not to have a go at you, but to understand.

 

[Daniel]

Citation needed. If this were the case, there would be such a thing as a gender test. You could go to the doctor and have them tell you your gender. You might even be able to have a doctor tell you not only the physical gender of your unborn child, but the mental gender.

Smith et al. (2015) performed a review of various studies of brain scans and behavioural reports on transsexual* individuals. While there is no wholly conclusive evidence (thanks to a very low amount of studies performed), there are differences present in the structure of white matter in the brain whereby MtF have similar values to born women, and FtM have similar values to born men (Rametti et al., 2011). Both transsexual groups (i.e. FtM and MtF) had not yet begun HRT.

Smith et al. recommend further studies in order to better understand brain differences in transsexual individuals.

*I used transsexual throughout rather than transgender simply because both studies referred to it as such.

 

[Danoff]

Smith et al. (2015) performed a review of various studies of brain scans and behavioural reports on transsexual* individuals. While there is no wholly conclusive evidence (thanks to a very low amount of studies performed), there are differences present in the structure of white matter in the brain whereby MtF have similar values to born women, and FtM have similar values to born men (Rametti et al., 2011). Both transsexual groups (i.e. FtM and MtF) had not yet begun HRT.

Smith et al. recommend further studies in order to better understand brain differences in transsexual individuals.

*I used transsexual throughout rather than transgender simply because both studies referred to it as such.

Thank you for posting that. It's interesting at the very least.

The part I struggle with is seeing that as a consistently held principle, particularly in conjunction with some of your statements in the Feminism thread, and another older exchange that I recalled.....

This is not the first time you've looked for inconsistency there. I don't see the issue with those statements. You're trying to claim that I'm undermining my own message, but I am being philosophically consistent across all of those. I recognize that people profile, and I do not tolerate it when people act on the results of profiling without evidence. Those are separate things. One is an 'ism, the other is statistics. How that undermines the message that people should be philosophically consistent while making it easier on themselves to achieve acceptance is beyond me right now.

Nothing will change if we don't change it.

My statement was that the particular avenue that seems to be preferred for change undermines itself.

If the only men left accompanying little girls are predators, then we've managed to reinforce rather than confound the idea that man + little girl = abuse. Same thing with "biker" clothes, tattoos, piercings, suits, dresses, make-up, dreadlocks, boobs, penises, and countless other things. We need people being themselves out there, challenging preconceptions and betraying stereotypes. I get that reality means that it'll be a "choose your battles" deal, but I'm a bit confused by what appears to be you going in two directions at once in regards to this.

I remember thinking to myself at one point "Ugh, why do so many of the people at environmental rallies have to look like the epitomisation of the hippy stereotype? It's embarrassing". Then I thought "Well, if I believe in this cause and I'm not out there doing something about it, presenting an alternate visual, then I can just shut the hell up about their appearance". I'm not ok with being merely an armchair social commentator. If I'm not willing to apply it at least in general where "the rubber meets the road", I can "shut the hell up." I need to be willing to place myself at a certain amount of discomfort for the sake of doing my bit for broader change.

Well let's think about the quest for change in some of these cases. Do we need a big social movement to accept people who don't want to be accepted? Seems counterproductive. So much of the point of what you talk about above is precisely to be an outsider. If it was accepted (ear rings), they'd do something different (gauges).

It's just that it looks to me that in one scenario you're saying that we need to challenge society's biased restrictions, and in the other you're throwing your hands in the air saying "Oh well, that's how things are". It looks inconsistent to me.

Hopefully this post has cleared that up. Pick your battles is not a terrible summary, but I don't mean it from the perspective of picking battles that you can win (which is how it's typically used). I mean pick the battles that are actually worth fighting. Because some of the battles you mention are not only not worth fighting, they're altogether pointless.

Edit:

Let me take it one step further. There are things you can't do much about when it comes to appearance. Other things are entirely choice. You can learn about someone based on the choices they make, and some of those choices are literally tattooed on their faces. All you need to see that principle is to evaluate how one should react when they see a swastika tattooed on someone's body, and no apparent attempt to morph it into something else or remove it. Surely you can see how this manifests itself in less extreme forms.

 

[LeMansAid]

Well let's think about the quest for change in some of these cases. Do we need a big social movement to accept people who don't want to be accepted? Seems counterproductive. So much of the point of what you talk about above is precisely to be an outsider. If it was accepted (ear rings), they'd do something different (gauges).

I don't understand where you're pulling the "outsider" aspect from. I hope it's not taken from where I talked about people "challenging preconceptions" and "betraying stereotypes" by (the crucial bit) "being themselves". Maybe you've read something there in such a way, but nothing I said was remotely meant to endorse a forced betraying of oneself for the sake of change. The idea that only hippy-looking people care about the environment is not true. I need to be the change. It's not true that a man that says someone else's daughter is beautiful is a paedophile. You need to be the change.

It's going against the grain, by being ourselves. I recommend it to people that want to remove their penis, people that want to gain a penis, people that want to describe another's daughter as beautiful, and people that want Hippy Hill Forest to not be cut down.

Smith et al. (2015) performed a review of various studies of brain scans and behavioural reports on transsexual* individuals. While there is no wholly conclusive evidence (thanks to a very low amount of studies performed), there are differences present in the structure of white matter in the brain whereby MtF have similar values to born women, and FtM have similar values to born men (Rametti et al., 2011). Both transsexual groups (i.e. FtM and MtF) had not yet begun HRT.

Smith et al. recommend further studies in order to better understand brain differences in transsexual individuals.

*I used transsexual throughout rather than transgender simply because both studies referred to it as such.

Where would that get us anyway though? An alternate signifier of gender? Yay, we'll go from boobs, penises, and vaginas, to the shade of brain matter.

Just as with....

A parent whose baby has been given a health card that does not specify a sex – believed to be a world first – has said the aim is to allow the child to discover their gender on their own.

.... I think it ends up being an enslaved obsession with gender under the guise of there being a freedom in regards to it.

It's a bit like with homosexuality. We never needed proof that it was biological, we just needed to let people live their lives. Here's the thing though - finish the second sentence in the same manner as I finish the first for you, without saying anything sexist - 1) "I know I am homosexual because...... I feel attracted to people only of the male sex.", 2) I know I am a man because..........". Keep in mind that knowing of one's homosexuality in dependent on interaction with other humans, while knowing of one's want for alterations consistent with transitioning should not be. It should be something that a man should be able to express without any knowledge of other humans.

Homosexual is a logical and sometimes useful descriptor. Outside of certain medical situations, when would male/female be useful or relevant descriptors if we were simply allowing people to live their lives how they chose, without constraining them with gender preconceptions?

The child with the blank gender details on it's birth certificate is sadly being left to find it's gender, rather than left to disregard it. For me it's a situation of the parents defeating their own purported aims by having an intense focus on what they claim to be trying to dissolve the importance of.