# What makes a woman?



## quinnthequail (Jun 2, 2015)

I was reading this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/opinion/sunday/what-makes-a-woman.html?_r=0
And it was saying that there was such thing as a 'female' brain. Do you think it's true? A woman can't be defined as someone with female genitalia because what about the transgenders: the men who identify as a woman? Without a sex change, they still identify as female. 

However, is it sexist to say that there is a 'male' and 'female' brain, and if so what is it based on? Something I can see is perhaps the X and Y chromosomes in the last pair- and that would affect the brain, however if that's true then how can men identify as a woman if they have a supposed 'male' brain?

What are some thoughts?


----------



## conscius (Apr 20, 2010)

Yeah I think there is such a thing as a female brain and male brain. I remember reading some research long time ago about gay people and the hormones in the womb that makes their brain overly masculine or overly feminine, or in short, makes their brain deviate from the developmental norm. I won't be surprised if there are similar findings amongst trans people, in terms of influence of hormones on the brain. But the point is that the very fact that such comparisons can be made scientifically, probably indicates there is a way to differentiate female and male (or masculine and feminine) brains.


----------



## Groovy (Jan 4, 2015)

I think that biologically there are certain things eg hormones that classify someone as a woman, but I honestly don't believe in gender stereotypes or roles as I truly think that they're social constructs that have been used to constrain both genders - 'fit in or you're out' kind of mentality. 

Personally, I am indifferent to the whole concept of gender as I think it's created more conflict than harmony, I like *individuality*. 


TL;DR: Representation of gender shouldn't go beyond genitalia.


----------



## quinnthequail (Jun 2, 2015)

conscius said:


> Yeah I think there is such a thing as a female brain and male brain. I remember reading some research long time ago about gay people and the hormones in the womb that makes their brain overly masculine or overly feminine, or in short, makes their brain deviate from the developmental norm. I won't be surprised if there are similar findings amongst trans people, in terms of influence of hormones on the brain. But the point is that the very fact that such comparisons can be made scientifically, probably indicates there is a way to differentiate female and male (or masculine and feminine) brains.


Where do these hormones come from?


----------



## conscius (Apr 20, 2010)

quinnthequail said:


> Where do these hormones come from?


From the mother. Like prenatal hormones. That is one major theory about homosexual orientation. I wonder if similar things can be said about trans people.

Some researchers have of course tried to challenge that, not to say hormones don't matter, but that there is more to it. I will post an abstract from a paper by Melissa Hines, from a few years back. Hines is at Cambridge and studies development of gender in early years.

Prenatal endocrine influences on sexual orientation and on sexually differentiated childhood behavior



> Prenatal endocrine influences on sexual orientation and on sexually differentiated childhood behavior
> 
> *Both sexual orientation and sex-typical childhood behaviors, such as toy, playmate and activity preferences, show substantial sex differences, as well as substantial variability within each sex. In other species, behaviors that show sex differences are typically influenced by exposure to gonadal steroids, particularly testosterone and its metabolites, during early development (prenatally or neonatally). *This article reviews the evidence regarding prenatal influences of gonadal steroids on human sexual orientation, as well as sex-typed childhood behaviors that predict subsequent sexual orientation.
> 
> *The evidence supports a role for prenatal testosterone exposure in the development of sex-typed interests in childhood, as well as in sexual orientation in later life, at least for some individuals. It appears, however, that other factors, in addition to hormones, play an important role in determining sexual orientation. These factors have not been well-characterized, but possibilities include direct genetic effects, and effects of maternal factors during pregnancy. *Although a role for hormones during early development has been established, it also appears that there may be multiple pathways to a given sexual orientation outcome and some of these pathways may not involve hormones.


----------



## quinnthequail (Jun 2, 2015)

conscius said:


> From the mother. Like prenatal hormones. That is one major theory about homosexual orientation. I wonder if similar things can be said about trans people.
> 
> Some researchers have of course tried to challenge that, not to say hormones don't matter, but that there is more to it. I will post an abstract from a paper by Melissa Hines, from a few years back. Hines is at Cambridge and studies development of gender in early years.
> 
> Prenatal endocrine influences on sexual orientation and on sexually differentiated childhood behavior


So, the hormones of the mother determine whether the child is homosexual (or trans by extension)? I don't think I see the correlation between the hormones that a person possesses and how they are sexually attracted to. For example, even if a girl is considered 'butch', (possible because of the hormones in the mother's womb?) it doesn't necessarily mean that she is lesbian.


----------



## angelfish (Feb 17, 2011)

The more I think about this the more I think that man/woman differences are very nebulous. We have certain parts and we can change those parts. We have certain hormones and we can change those hormones. A trans male is never going to be the same as a biological male but then no two biological males are going to be exactly the same, either. It'd be cool if we could focus less on the gender binary and more on individual empowerment for everyone regardless of "what" they are.


----------



## conscius (Apr 20, 2010)

quinnthequail said:


> So, the hormones of the mother determine whether the child is homosexual (or trans by extension)? I don't think I see the correlation between the hormones that a person possesses and how they are sexually attracted to. For example, even if a girl is considered 'butch', (possible because of the hormones in the mother's womb?) it doesn't necessarily mean that she is lesbian.


Well I think the assumption is that it does something to the brain in terms of who the person finds attractive or what kind of gender they identify with...when they get older. This, of course, would be the biological explanation. If someone suggests that orientation or gender or whatever, are social constructs or fabrications, then this would not apply.

I think the only way it can be proven beyond doubt is to find exactly what hormone and in what amount and in what sort of way, affects orientation and gender, then artificially expose a series of developing fetuses to it, to see what results in comparison to control group.

And as you can imagine, there are a bunch of problems with trying to do a study like that.


----------



## quinnthequail (Jun 2, 2015)

angelfish said:


> The more I think about this the more I think that man/woman differences are very nebulous. We have certain parts and we can change those parts. We have certain hormones and we can change those hormones. A trans male is never going to be the same as a biological male but then no two biological males are going to be exactly the same, either. It'd be cool if we could focus less on the gender binary and more on individual empowerment for everyone regardless of "what" they are.


I agree- however there has the be a palpable difference between the two genders otherwise why else would transgenders feel uncomfortable with their original gender?


----------



## quinnthequail (Jun 2, 2015)

conscius said:


> Well I think the assumption is that it does something to the brain in terms of who the person finds attractive or what kind of gender they identify with...when they get older. This, of course, would be the biological explanation. If someone suggests that orientation or gender or whatever, are social constructs or fabrications, then this would not apply.
> 
> I think the only way it can be proven beyond doubt is to find exactly what hormone and in what amount and in what sort of way, affects orientation and gender, then artificially expose a series of developing fetuses to it, to see what results in comparison to control group.
> 
> And as you can imagine, there are a bunch of problems with trying to do a study like that.


I think that yes that would be breakthrough in science, however what would you did with this knowledge? You can probably imagine what could happen if we knew exactly the hormone and quantity of it. If people possessed the power to change the amount of hormones in the mother's womb, well they could decide how that child would act and possibly their orientation (if it was shown that hormones do in fact change sexual orientation).


----------



## angelfish (Feb 17, 2011)

quinnthequail said:


> I agree- however there has the be a palpable difference between the two genders otherwise why else would transgenders feel uncomfortable with their original gender?


I'm not suggesting there's no palpable difference - only that the boundaries may be more complex and nuanced than they seem. An individual in a male body may feel very culturally male, or kind of neutral, or very culturally female. Same with an individual in a female body. I'm seeing it a bit more like skin color, I think. Sure we can group "black" and "white". But where exactly do the lines get drawn? Is someone with male genitalia but female hormones and a preference for being culturally female a man or a woman? What about someone born with both genitals or neither? I think it gets rather difficult and subjective - to the point that I think it becomes maladaptive to continue attempting to assert a binary (this statement not aimed at you - just society at large). Binaries are pleasing because they are easy, but clearly this is more complex.


----------



## conscius (Apr 20, 2010)

quinnthequail said:


> I think that yes that would be breakthrough in science, however what would you did with this knowledge? You can probably imagine what could happen if we knew exactly the hormone and quantity of it. If people possessed the power to change the amount of hormones in the mother's womb, well they could decide how that child would act and possibly their orientation (if it was shown that hormones do in fact change sexual orientation).


Is that not also similar to people these days who try to influence the sex of their newborn?


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

I was going to say I'll believe the brain male female thing when one can predict sex based on a scan but it seems like there might be semantic issues in a social realm more so than science based on the article.
I think defining man or woman holds a similar issue with any definition, we often make arbitrary lines and this is naturally limiting.
You can remove many aspects of what we use to define what a woman or man is and socially we'd still refer to them as men and women.
But we still have categories due to what seems to be the crux of our psychology 
Exemplar theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I suspect this is a problem inherent to categorization that the lines we draw can be difficult to justify beyond some degree of arbitrariness. The great example of this is the color spectrum in which one asks at what point does orange become red and so forth, they're just categories for the sake of our ability to simplify things and speak more specifically.
Some people don't think this is the case for sex but I'm still skeptical considering that sex is made up multiple things and it's quite unclear what wins out in many contexts to define one's sex. 

I suspect many would wish to keep an eye on possibility of a continuum fallacy. 


> X is one extreme and Y is another extreme.
> There is no definable point where X becomes Y.
> Therefore, there is no difference between X and Y.


But I don't think this is likely to be true on account that it's not a denial of differences but so much as those differences don't inherently exclude one from being recognized as a man or a woman. 
That when a woman loses her breasts or either sex loses reproductive capacity we don't say they're not a man or woman.
Interestingly enough though there are the socially prescribed traits which people presume is innate to each sex which contradicts itself.
As things like masculinity and femininity as I've seen them are defined by what is typically male and typically female, but that then becomes rather weird in a sense of where does one draw the line on what is typical to either sex.
Especially considering many women are able to be described as masculine and men feminine on many attributes and behaviours. The sensible thing to do then is that by default, being a man, doing what ever one does naturally is what a man would do as the alternative is to say a man isn't a man for not following prescribed behaviour which makes no sense, tries to make concrete out of the abstract.
http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/30900/1/What's wrong with essentialism (LSERO).pdf

So I feel there are linguistic problems and psychological limitations to conceiving such things accurately. 
Categorization is a rather odd and interesting thing.

I'm even skeptical to the way many trans people use language in trying to express such things and I think it not a fault of there's but the paradigm we're forced to communicate within.
Because if we didn't have gender stereotypes I imagine one then couldn't resort to the language of saying being a woman as much as detailing the qualities more specifically that they're thinking about in aspiring to what feels like their true selves in a way in which we all negotiate our identities to varying degrees.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_perception


----------



## quinnthequail (Jun 2, 2015)

conscius said:


> Is that not also similar to people these days who try to influence the sex of their newborn?


Are you talking about how women chang their diet when they are pregnat or try to time the conception? In that case, this is all speculation. Diet _might_ influence the sex of the baby, and the timing _might_ change the sex of the baby. However, changing your hormones, if scientifically proven and shared with the world, _would_ for sure change their behavior and hormone balance. 

I'd say that the craze in people as well as the power in the parents is significantly different from changing their diet than actively changing and dosing themselves with hormones.


----------



## mikan (May 25, 2014)

If you claim you're a woman regardless of your biological gender, then you are a woman


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

mikan said:


> XX chromosomes


I think one could argue that makes one a female, but with the term woman is seems to not only include biology but also social aspects.
We can't actually see one's chromosomes without a test, only a phenotype and thus one may technically have a variation in their biology that allows for them to develop in a way that presumes them a man despite having that sex chromosomal pairing. 
Sex redefined : Nature News & Comment

So even that has its difficulties though I do think that majority of people likely do follow this pattern in which their chromosomes lead to developmental outcomes of the other aspects of sex's definition of hormone balances, secondary sex characteristics, genitals.
Though I think what gets interesting for me is if I change the other aspects that are included in the definition of sex, how meaningful are one's chromosomes to the definition of sex?
If one changes hormone balance, secondary sex characteristics and genitals, is one still the sex they were born?
You don't necessarily have to answer that it's just a query to show how messy it can be in some circumstances, though be amazing if one does regardless as I haven't a clue of how to answer that.

I tend to pose the thought that if one was born blind due to some genetic reason, then science alleviated this symptom and they could see, would one still refer to them as blind?
In what ways is our assumed biology relevant to being truer than our phenotype and the social realm.


----------



## Ode to Trees (Aug 25, 2011)

duplicate post


----------



## Ode to Trees (Aug 25, 2011)

There are also XY karyotype humans with female phenotype who look very pretty, are tallish, have lean body, and are attractive (very often more attractive than stereotypical XX females); however, they are not able to get pregnant due to missing uterus and fallopian tubes. Jamie Leigh Curtis is just one of those females who strongly identify with being female (has Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome) but was given female sex hormones do develop breasts). Females with AIS have external female genitalia. It seems that testosterone influences not only male genitalia development but also influences brain in male fetuses. Apparently, human brains are female until 8th week of development. There are new findings that specific gene activation is needed in both male and female fetuses, but mainstream scientists still believe that a default sex in humans is female. Gender is much more that one's biological sex; it is much more about a sociological/psychological identity than about purely genetic one. While a positive reinforcement of one already feminine physical characteristics is important, we cannot deny influence of hormones on a female brain. Most humans that have XY karyotypes with AIS are raised as females. However, it is not just about how they are raised. I think that is about how they feel as females. I think that main thing that influences one's gender is one's brain. The influences on human brain (in utero and postnatal) are dominant factors how one feels and identifies with a specific gender - male or female. 

Interesting video and the site about female brain The Bayesian Heresy: Female is nature's default gender setting


----------



## celestia (Jun 10, 2015)

mikan said:


> If you claim you're a woman regardless of your biological gender, then you are a woman


then what is a women?


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

celestia said:


> then what is a women?


Depends what ones beliefs are.
Some believe that being a woman means putting make up and dresses on.
Some think it's being able to get pregnant.
Some it's secondary sex characteristics.
Some think it's based on sex chromosomes and nothing else.

tl;dr version

* *




There's a difficulty in defining things and this has been seen in cognitive research that our categorization is based on a network of beliefs, some innate and others learnt.
So for example, say you see a lemon.
One then squishes the lemon with a truck, is it still a lemon? People would typically say yes, it's still a lemon.
Then it's painted red, still a lemon? Yes.
Then we inject the lemon with a sweetener changing it's taste, is it still a lemon? People tend to still respond yes.

So then we go, how is it still a lemon when it contains basically known of the attributes we consider normative of a lemon.
That is, it's no longer round, it's no longer yellow, it's no long sour and yet it's still a lemon to most human beings.
The reason for this is thought to be a belief of how it became a lemon which would likely be informed our understanding of how lemons come from lemon trees and thus our belief of it being a lemon is largely derived from our categorization that to be a lemon, one must come from a lemon tree. 
Similarly, there is such a issue with what is a woman or other biology things.
We are reluctant tot say that something has changed into something else based on our beliefs of nature and so on.
So even as someone perhaps has a sex change many don't consider it meaningful enough to say that they changed their sex, likely based on certain beliefs about where qualities that define sex come from.

Not considering transgender people you can have interesting time playing with hypothetical of how people respond to variations in people. For example, how many people would say that one is no longer a woman because they lost their breasts to breast cancer or are unable to get pregnant or somehow lost their genitals in some form. You can take away a lot of what we use to define sex or the gender roles of how people think women behave and still not change the overall conclusion that one is a woman.

So with a sex change we can play the game of, well if they change their genitals, if they change their hormone levels and their secondary sex characteristics are that of what we consider normative to a particular sex of which they weren't born and say is this person a woman? Many still reject it and would say that is a man no matter how womanly they may look.
Often the basis is the belief of how one becomes a man or woman, often this resorts to chromosomal claims which are interesting considering there are variations in which people have alternative sex chromosomes yet are still acknowledged as the sex that isn't normative to that chromosomal pairing as we don't have access to chromosomes to make such judgment.
Like if you found out that you had a androgen insensitivity syndrome or something else and you were born with XY chromosomes, do you think this would alter your identity as being a woman?
I don't think it's alter my identity as being a man if I found out I was born with XX chromosomes. 

It's a issue of our psychology in that it's actually quite difficult to define what things are accurately and the way we categorize things can be somewhat varying based on what sort of beliefs we've acquired to the nature of the world.
But as far as I can see there is no meaningful definition that can be truly inclusive to all that we categorize as women.

If being a woman is about not having children, then one excludes sterile women, if it's about genitals then one excludes those who've had the misfortune of having them damaged or when one does have some operation to change then they should be inclusive based on that surgical change if they are to be consistent in their beliefs.

Perhaps a useful resource on considering this.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/essential-accidental/


----------



## mikan (May 25, 2014)

celestia said:


> then what is a women?


Because people assign personality traits to each gender, I don't know why they exist.
Here is what defines a woman:
Motherhood, modesty, beauty, elegance, grace


----------



## Glory (Sep 28, 2013)

women can't hold their ambien


----------



## SpectrumOfThought (Mar 29, 2013)

I'd be massively disappointed if those couple of millions of years of evolution haven't made males and females different. Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't our male and female ancestors fulfil different roles in whatever limited capacity?


----------



## celestia (Jun 10, 2015)

biology. before anyone pulls the "what about the intersex ppl" card
_According to the Intersex Society of North America (ISNA):

1 percent of live births exhibit some degree of sexual ambiguity.[120]Between 0.1% and 0.2% of live births are ambiguous enough to become the subject of specialist medical attention 
1% is the high estimate. Here is a contrasting opinion:

According to Leonard Sax intersex should be “restricted to those conditions in which chromosomal sex is inconsistent with phenotypic sex, or in which the phenotype is not classifiable as either male or female”, around 0.018%. This definition excludes Klinefelter Syndrome and many other variations. 
Most people harping on intersex conditions to say biological sex “doesn’t exist” or is “a social construct” are trying to use conditions used in Leonard Sax’s definition.. ANYWAY, I will use the high estimate of 1% for simplicity’s sake. 

*That means 99% of the time people are unambiguously male or female. *_


----------



## OrangeAppled (Jun 26, 2009)

I think it is biological. I don't believe in "male" and "female" brains as far as most of the gender constructs people apply to them. There are structural differences, true, and hormones affect the brain, but when it comes to identity, I think it is largely about environment. I think identifying as male or female is about psychological and social development.

I think that there are more differences between individuals than between men and women as a whole. 
I think many aspects of gender are constructs (with some exceptions related to biological functions, such as pregnancy), but I think it is natural for humans to organize themselves with contracts, and so I don't think "gender" is unnatural in itself. I think a lot of concepts were born of internalizations of the physical body as symbols. In this respect, they represent truths or shadows of truths, but these have gotten distorted, shifting with culture and time periods and agendas within them.



celestia said:


> biology. before anyone pulls the "what about the intersex ppl" card
> _According to the Intersex Society of North America (ISNA):
> 
> 1 percent of live births exhibit some degree of sexual ambiguity.[120]Between 0.1% and 0.2% of live births are ambiguous enough to become the subject of specialist medical attention
> ...


I saw some documentary a long time ago about this and it indicated that when biology and all primary and secondary sex characteristics (blah blah blah) are taken into account, that even the so-called ambiguous can be classified as male or female. In the past, doctors just jumped to "fix" stuff very quickly on babies with deformities, and so they basically were turning boys into girls. Once they hit puberty, these children would not have been so ambiguous, and that is also when they would start having problems. If you took all those people out of the stats, the numbers may drop dramatically lower.


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

celestia said:


> biology. before anyone pulls the "what about the intersex ppl" card
> _According to the Intersex Society of North America (ISNA):
> 
> 1 percent of live births exhibit some degree of sexual ambiguity.[120]Between 0.1% and 0.2% of live births are ambiguous enough to become the subject of specialist medical attention
> ...


Could you provide a link to the source as it seems you may have added your own bits to that as the formatting doesn't make it clear what is your own writing just by the post alone.
I've gathered some sources I think cover what you were sharing.

* *





Intersex - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> The population of intersex depends on which definition is used. According to the ISNA definition above, 1 percent of live births exhibit some degree of sexual ambiguity.[SUP][120][/SUP]Between 0.1% and 0.2% of live births are ambiguous enough to become the subject of specialist medical attention, including surgery to assign them to a given sex category (i.e., male or female).[SUP][121][/SUP] According to Fausto-Sterling's definition of intersex, on the other hand, 1.7 percent of human births are intersex.[SUP][121][/SUP]According to Leonard Sax intersex should be "restricted to those conditions in which chromosomal sex is inconsistent with phenotypic sex, or in which the phenotype is not classifiable as either male or female", around 0.018%. This definition excludes Klinefelter Syndrome and many other variations.[SUP][122][/SUP]
> The ISNA claims that there is no concrete definition of what counts as intersex, therefore statistics on the prevalence of biological sex variations may be controversial. The INSA cites Anne Fausto-Sterling's article[SUP][123][/SUP] that reviewed medical literature from 1955 to 1998, in which an attempt was made to gauge the frequency of intersex conditions.[SUP][124][/SUP] The following is a summary of those frequency statistics:


And this would be the page from the ISNA
How common is intersex? | Intersex Society of North America

And this would be the abstract from Leonard Sax.


> Anne Fausto-Sterling s suggestion that the prevalence of intersex might be as high as 1.7% has attracted wide attention in both the scholarly press and the popular media. Many reviewers are not aware that this figure includes conditions which most clinicians do not recognize as intersex, such as Klinefelter syndrome, Turner syndrome, and late-onset adrenal hyperplasia. If the term intersex is to retain any meaning, the term should be restricted to those conditions in which chromosomal sex is inconsistent with phenotypic sex, or in which the phenotype is not classifiable as either male or female. Applying this more precise definition, the true prevalence of intersex is seen to be about 0.018%, almost 100 times lower than Fausto-Sterling s estimate of 1.7%.





But regarldess of that, you didn't make a clear argument, I think you're attempting to but it's rather implicit if it's there at all.
I'm assuming that you're saying that because they're a small amount that their existence is insignificant to the definition of sex or complications with accurately sexing persons.
I'm also suspecting that you think that by bringing up that the difficulties in being quite strict to the definition that one is making a continuum fallacy 


> *X* is one extreme and *Y* is another extreme.
> There is no definable point where *X* becomes *Y*.
> Therefore, there is no difference between *X* and *Y*.


But I don't think anyone proposes that male and female doesn't exist just that it's not as a striaght forward binary as people tend to treat it if they truly do wish to eb accurate.
Again, the questions still raised as to what sex a person is when they have variations that don't perfectly align with our concept of male and female.
If one changes their hormones level is that enough to have changed sex? If they change their phenotype is that enough to have changed your sex.

Also, it is a social construct, saying something is a social construct doesn't negate the substance or play airy fairy. Saying money is a social construct doesn't somehow deny the existence of money nor the effects of it. Rather it's an acknowledgment of the obvious that our categorization of things, our models aren't in fact reality itself in the same way a map isn't reality but a way of interpreting and reality.
This helps detail a misunderstanding about social constructs.
Omniorthogonal: Social construction is not arbitrary

I also think it's a rather extreme position if anyone does say biological sex doesn't exist, but I think this could be a strawman of what's proposed in criticism of the binary model.

Because as detailed earlier there seems to be no current means of addressing the discrepencies that occur when certain aspects of what sex is defined as are incongruent with the sex we presume someone to be.
The same questions of if one changes hormone levels are they the opposite sex now? If one changes their genitals are they the opposite sex? If one changes secondary sex characteritcs does ti change?
Is it perhaps a task of having the majority of sex congruent to one side that makes one a different sex.
So we got


> Chromosomes (men = XY, women = XX)
> Genitalia (men = penis, women = vulva and vagina)
> Gonads (men = testes, women = ovaries)
> Hormones (men = high testosterone, low estrogen, low progesterone; women = high estrogen, high progesterone, low testosterone)
> Secondary Sex Characteristics (men = large amounts of dark, thick, coarse body hair, noticeable facial hair, low waist:hip ratio, no noticeable breast development, rough skin; women = fine, light colored body hair, no noticeable facial hair, high waist:hip ratio, noticeable breast development, smooth skin)


If one has genitalia, hormones and secondary sex characteristics of a female while having chromosomes and gonads of male, does the 3/5 mean female trumps male?
I pose these points again for your consideration to question how strong your belief is about sex, because to me this is rather concerning to the binary model and I've not yet seen anyone resolve this for me. 
Just seems obvious that our definition of sex is a tool, it's used to sex persons, this doesn't negate the existence of the biology but make a point to not assume that our tool is the reality. 

Perhaps you could make a point as opposed to just presenting information where one has to assume a point.


----------



## Morn (Apr 13, 2010)

quinnthequail said:


> I was reading this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/opinion/sunday/what-makes-a-woman.html?_r=0
> And it was saying that there was such thing as a 'female' brain. Do you think it's true? A woman can't be defined as someone with female genitalia because what about the transgenders: the men who identify as a woman? Without a sex change, they still identify as female.


Gender is biologically decided genetically, hence it should be defined by the presence of or lack of Y chromosomes.
This does not accommodate for transgenders, but too bad. Nature does not accommodate or make efforts to be inclusionary, it just exists.




> However, is it sexist to say that there is a 'male' and 'female' brain, and if so what is it based on? Something I can see is perhaps the X and Y chromosomes in the last pair- and that would affect the brain, however if that's true then how can men identify as a woman if they have a supposed 'male' brain?
> 
> What are some thoughts?


I'm inclined to consider the idea of labelling a brain as male or female, to be stereotyping.


----------



## Tad Cooper (Apr 10, 2010)

Chromosomes, hormones, secondary sexual characteristics etc.


----------



## KevinHeaven (Apr 6, 2015)

If she chooses to be one. (If she feels like one). Vagina makes you a female not a woman.


----------



## quinnthequail (Jun 2, 2015)

Morn said:


> Gender is biologically decided genetically, hence it should be defined by the presence of or lack of Y chromosomes.
> This does not accommodate for transgenders, but too bad. Nature does not accommodate or make efforts to be inclusionary, it just exists.
> 
> 
> ...


I would say that _sex_ is defined by the X and Y chromosomes, AKA physically. But gender is something mental.


----------



## Somniorum (Oct 7, 2010)

quinnthequail said:


> I was reading this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/opinion/sunday/what-makes-a-woman.html?_r=0
> And it was saying that there was such thing as a 'female' brain.


I'd just like to point out that the article's position was rather more complex than simply saying there's such a thing as a female or male brain. The whole point of mentioning brains at all was because the author stated our brains are formed due to our experiences - she seems to suggest that there's no inherent difference between male and female brains (at least, one would assume, at birth), but that our brains form due to our experiences - that is to say, the brain of men *living as men* will tend to form in certain ways differently than women *living as women* for a long period of time, due to certain shared experiences, fears, etc. Quote of relevance from the article: 



> Brains are a good place to begin because one thing that science has learned about them is that they’re in fact shaped by experience, cultural and otherwise. The part of the brain that deals with navigation is enlarged in London taxi drivers, as is the region dealing with the movement of the fingers of the left hand in right-handed violinists.
> 
> “You can’t pick up a brain and say ‘that’s a girl’s brain’ or ‘that’s a boy’s brain,’ ” Gina Rippon, a neuroscientist at Britain’s Aston University, told The Telegraph last year. The differences between male and female brains are caused by the “drip, drip, drip” of the gendered environment, she said.
> 
> ...


She's not arguing for a *biological* difference between men and women, neurologically, but simply differences that form due to *experience*, and she's upset that certain people, like Jennings (apparently - I haven't really followed the news about this) seem to be accepting and promoting a stereotypical view of what being female is, possibly due to not having ever experienced the *totality* of living as a woman for a long period of time.


----------



## quinnthequail (Jun 2, 2015)

KevinHeaven said:


> If she chooses to be one. (If she feels like one). Vagina makes you a female not a woman.


I really like this answer because it's true- I suppose you use the term females to refer to sex then and not gender? But I guess I was just curious what made someone choose to be a woman.


----------



## KevinHeaven (Apr 6, 2015)

quinnthequail said:


> I really like this answer because it's true- I suppose you use the term females to refer to sex then and not gender? But I guess I was just curious what made someone choose to be a woman.


What I meant is she may not be a female (has a vagina and you know other things) but still feels like one. for example Caitlyn Jenner  I meant they were born to choose. like they are born a woman but in a mans body didnt mean choose literally.


----------



## Hosker (Jan 19, 2011)

Their bodies.


----------



## Meltboy (May 14, 2013)

Perception.
My perception.
Your perception.
Their perception.


Also, God. God has been known to literally make a woman by extracting a man's rib and performing some sort of magic on it.


Another way of making a woman is; 2 people have sex and raise the child as a female/woman regardless of genitalia or brain gender.
A damn fine, sexy woman it'd be too.


----------



## Euclid (Mar 20, 2014)

It's a package deal. There are no primary or sexual traits, all traits are equal working together in a symphony that is womanhood. When we start cutting up the body in pieces, there is no longer a human being, let alone a woman. This is the fallacy of reductionism in biology, which should be superseded by a holistic approach that sees life as more than the sum of it's parts; It is how the parts fit together in mutualistic synergetic whole that constitutes life.


----------



## IDontThinkSo (Aug 24, 2011)

Natural vagina.

In the end, man and woman concepts only exist to simplify courtship rituals. 

You're attracted by someone, that someone is attracted by you, you talk and check sexual tastes, and voila. Enjoy the ride. No need to add useless cases in your mind.


----------



## Sourpuss (Aug 9, 2014)

An intense need to be a victim and to be respected while also given special consideration.


----------



## quinnthequail (Jun 2, 2015)

Hosker said:


> Their bodies.


How would you explain transgenders then?


----------



## quinnthequail (Jun 2, 2015)

Sourpuss said:


> An intense need to be a victim and to be respected while also given special consideration.


I hate to even respond to this, but let's not forget that many males plead to be victims and they live off being respected.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

There are 3 basic perspectives to differentiate. Biological, cognitive, socio-emotional. How do you define a woman in each? Or should 'woman' be a transcendental concept?

According to the dictionary a 'woman' is an adult human female. A female is defined as:

"Of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes:
_a herd of female deer"

_I'd say that the above definition falls under a biological definition. Socio-emotional would be the social gender construct. The feminized/masculinized brain theory could potentially explain gender-based cognition. Though it would definitely not necessarily align with the biological or social perspectives.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

quinnthequail said:


> I was reading this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/opinion/sunday/what-makes-a-woman.html?_r=0
> And it was saying that there was such thing as a 'female' brain. Do you think it's true? A woman can't be defined as someone with female genitalia because what about the transgenders: the men who identify as a woman? Without a sex change, they still identify as female.
> 
> However, is it sexist to say that there is a 'male' and 'female' brain, and if so what is it based on? Something I can see is perhaps the X and Y chromosomes in the last pair- and that would affect the brain, however if that's true then how can men identify as a woman if they have a supposed 'male' brain?
> ...


I think it's a lot more complicated than just "men have men brains and women and women brains". I don't doubt that men and women on average have differences in brain structure (numerous studies have indicated this). What I do have a problem with is people drawing conclusions from this that are not necessarily justified. 

Why do men and women _on average_ have different brains? I would bet it's a combination of factors, and not just nature _or_ nurture. Hormones probably play a role (so, rooted in genetics at some level), but so does socialization. Neuroplasticity probably has something to do with that. Neural pruning begins during adolescence, and any parts of the brain which aren't being used/fostered/exercised are pruned back. I think it's certainly possible that many behaviours are encouraged in males that are not encouraged in females, and vice versa, so when adolescence hits the parts of the brain which weren't being utilized are pruned back. Thus resulting in noticeably different brain structure. 

Often difference in brain structure is used as evidence that transgenderism is "real". Males with gender dysphoria have been studied and it seems that they often have more "female" brains. This is taken to mean that they were born with female brains, and were just born into the wrong body. I think that's an enormous stretch, personally. It seems completely reasonable to me that someone who says they are more feminine, or who says they identify with women more, is going to turn out to have a brain similar to the people that they identify with. The difference in brain structure _could_ be reinforced by the individual's behaviour as they develop. Or, the difference in brain structure might result in behaviour and preferences which are more similar to females than males. Maybe its, once again, a combination of both. 

My biggest issue with the gender debate is that nobody can ever produce a sensible, coherent, clear definition of what gender is. What does it mean to be a man without reference to women? Or to anatomy? I really don't think gender is something we're going to find with an MRI machine. It's a philosophical concept. Until we even know what we're talking about, I don't think there's much use looking for it in the lab. 

I honestly define man and woman based on biology. I am not referencing what someone identifies as when I talk about someone as a "he" or a "she". My dog is anatomically female, I have no idea what she identifies as. I just call her a she. When I see someone on the street, I don't know how they identify themselves. I just know that person appears female, so I call her a female. I'm not talking about their gender, I'm talking about their sex. That being said, there are legitimately people who don't fit into male/female, and are intersex. I do think our language is limited in this regard, but that's a bit of a different discussion. 

Long story short... I think gender is a social construct. I don't think it's sexist to say there are male and female brains, but I do think it's misleading and probably unwise. These are tendencies, and we don't fully understand where they come from or what it means. I would rather not talk about it very much at this point, because it is so easy to misuse. I do think that gender dyshporia is real. These people are experiencing something very real, and I'm not sure exactly how to explain it. But I find the idea that it's the result of a brain being one sex, and the body being another sex, is problematic on several levels.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

Limbs, organs, limbs.


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

Euclid said:


> It's a package deal. There are no primary or sexual traits, all traits are equal working together in a symphony that is womanhood. When we start cutting up the body in pieces, there is no longer a human being, let alone a woman. This is the fallacy of reductionism in biology, which should be superseded by a holistic approach that sees life as more than the sum of it's parts; It is how the parts fit together in mutualistic synergetic whole that constitutes life.


As Douglas Adams (Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy) wrote, "If you take apart a cat to find out how it works, the first thing you have is a non-working cat." The same principle applies.

The second difficulty is to assume *either* nature *or* nurture, instead of each influencing the other.
The third is given by P.J. O'Rourke, "If you ever want to hear the truth about yourself -- and in great detail, too -- just try calling your wife fat."


----------



## ConspiracyTheory (Apr 13, 2014)

Sara Torailles said:


> No, I don't. I feel like a woman because I think my testicles should have been chopped off before I went through puberty, I should have grown breasts, and my body is an unwelcome place.
> 
> I literally do not give a shit about following gender roles.


Your body is skin, tissue, and bones like any human. We label body parts as male or female, but they are all just skin and tissue. Women don't get to choose their bodies. Some don't have breasts, some have small breasts, same as men. These things are skin and tissue and don't make someone a woman inside. So I still don't understand how you can long for a certain type of organ anymore than I can understand why someone would wish they had 6 fingers or 4 fingers.. Testicles and breasts are irrelevant to your mindset UNLESS you are feeling the gender roles of society.

So in that sense, what is it that makes you see yourself as a woman?


----------



## Wtpmjgda (Dec 15, 2014)

I thought it too. There is a difference between male and female feelings, thoughts, etc. I dont think its because of difference in brain. Its due to variation in hormones.


----------



## deviantcode (Mar 3, 2015)

quinnthequail said:


> I suppose I'm happy with my body because I've never been unhappy with it. (Unless we're talking about specific traits and not the fact that I have a woman body). Perhaps it's because I'm cis, but I've always just seen it as just body parts. I mean take away gender role and stereotypes, there is no such thing as gender. So without gender, a body is just a body (in my opinion). What are your thoughts?


No such thing as gender? what is wrong with genders, I believe there is, and yes there is a push from who knows what force to neutralize everything. But this will fail eventually. If it prevails it will just end in us being a planet of robots with a slowly decreasing humane aspect to it. Or quickly decreasing actually.


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

ConspiracyTheory said:


> Your body is skin, tissue, and bones like any human. We label body parts as male or female, but they are all just skin and tissue. Women don't get to choose their bodies. Some don't have breasts, some have small breasts, same as men. These things are skin and tissue and don't make someone a woman inside. So I still don't understand how you can long for a certain type of organ anymore than I can understand why someone would wish they had 6 fingers or 4 fingers.. Testicles and breasts are irrelevant to your mindset UNLESS you are feeling the gender roles of society.
> 
> So in that sense, what is it that makes you see yourself as a woman?


Except... not.

Humans have these things called body maps in their mind. It's why we have phantom limbs and why body integrity identity disorder exists.

It's very telling that you would never say anything like this to a cisgender woman who asserts that she is a woman because she has breasts and a vagina, even though she is essentially saying the same thing according to what you've typed.

If you're looking to logic people out of gender and body dysphoria, please don't. It's akin to telling someone with depression that being depressed is illogical.

I mean, you really think that people just get hormones on some sort of whim? I'm sure the suicide, bullying, rape, and murder rates of transgender people would root out anyone who didn't have a serious need to transition and be seen as a woman.


----------



## ConspiracyTheory (Apr 13, 2014)

Sara Torailles said:


> You're not accurately describing trans women or trans men, and the fact that you're cisgender is abundantly clear.
> 
> Hypothetically, if you abolished gender roles, there would still be people who feel like their body should be altered through HRT and/or surgery, because it's not based in roles. It's based in an internal sense of sex not matching up with the sex that other people percieve you as.
> 
> ...


I'm not cisgender. Im genuinely trying to understand how does someone know what gender they are. I would like the answer, but not one that has flaws in logic. What is the actual thing that makes you know your soul, for lack of better word, is a female or a male? Because that answer should apply to non-transgendered people too. How does a woman know she is born in the correct body of a woman? What is the data that tells you that your skin and bones are not the correct one for you? 

How do they know their sex doesn't match? And it's not just a concept of identity that society created that they are trying to match? Because I see gender as a result of taking human potentials and isolating them superficially as "manly" and "womanly" And that cannot tell you your "soul" is female or male, because it's just superficial.

Your sex organs are just for urinating most of the time. They are irrelevant unless you're procreating. I can understand sexually being attracted to the same sex and believing that youre gay. That makes logical sense.


----------



## ConspiracyTheory (Apr 13, 2014)

Sara Torailles said:


> Except... not.
> 
> Humans have these things called body maps in their mind. It's why we have phantom limbs and why body integrity identity disorder exists.
> 
> If you're looking to logic people out of gender dysphoria, please don't. It's akin to telling someone with depression that being depressed is illogical.


Phantom limbs result from amputations, nerve endings muscle memory.. Can someone have phantom limbs for something that they neurologically never had? Can people have phantom limbs for wings? Like they feel like they should have been born with wings? How, if they don't know what it feels like?

Depression is logical because it's an existence of human emotion. Are you saying there's an emotion of womanhood and an emotion of manhood? If so, how do you identify it?


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

ConspiracyTheory said:


> I'm not cisgender. Im genuinely trying to understand how does someone know what gender they are. I would like the answer, but not one that has flaws in logic. What is the actual thing that makes you know your soul, for lack of better word, is a female or a male? Because that answer should apply to non-transgendered people too. How does a woman know she is born in the correct body of a woman? What is the data that tells you that your skin and bones are not the correct one for you?
> 
> How do they know their sex doesn't match? And it's not just a concept of identity that society created that they are trying to match? Because I see gender as a result of taking human potentials and isolating them superficially as "manly" and "womanly" And that cannot tell you your "soul" is female or male, because it's just superficial.
> 
> Your sex organs are just for urinating most of the time. They are irrelevant unless you're procreating. I can understand sexually being attracted to the same sex and believing that youre gay. That makes logical sense.


You're looking for an objective answer to a subjective question.

"What is the correct way to fit in category A?"

The simple answer is there is none. You literally can't prove anything about gender identity other than that it exists and transition works. You can argue day in and out about whether that makes you male or female, but there comes a point where you just gotta live for yourself and not try to prove anything to anyone.

Being gay places the same importance and values on genitals or roles. You see your partner as male and make the same scrutiny.


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

ConspiracyTheory said:


> Phantom limbs result from amputations, nerve endings muscle memory.. Can someone have phantom limbs for something that they neurologically never had? Can people have phantom limbs for wings? Like they feel like they should have been born with wings? How, if they don't know what it feels like?


That probably wouldn't exist in wings, but people have had limbs that they don't have these neurological connections to. Body integrity identity disorder.



> Depression is logical because it's an existence of human emotion. Are you saying there's an emotion of womanhood and an emotion of manhood? If so, how do you identify it?


It's self-evident, like depression.


----------



## ConspiracyTheory (Apr 13, 2014)

Sara Torailles said:


> I mean, you really think that people just get hormones on some sort of whim? I'm sure the suicide, bullying, rape, and murder rates of transgender people would root out anyone who didn't have a serious need to transition and be seen as a woman.


I beleive they believe it. 

But the person's soul is human (I can't tell how it's male or female yet), and they are in the grip of an archetype. They philosophically and emotionally identify with an abstract construct that society has labelled masculine or feminine. It's the result of an archetypal grip.

Archetypes are like roles people are compelled to play. They aren't static. They are like characters of a play. They grip a person and the person feels and believes a certain way and is compelled to act the part. This is life. 

For example, Non-tran women who dress up frilly and style their hair and take on hobbies that society told them women should, like shopping and beauty, are gripped in the same archetype. They are preoccupied with the same archetype as transgendered people. 
Women who have to "try" to be feminine by being frilly are having the same experience as transgendered people who identify with this..
Archetypal grips can be fleeting and change. Which means it is an artificial identity.

An example, Non-trans women who reject the frilly-women archetype and express themselves as more neutral or even masculine, are experiencing an archetype too, the same one that butch transgendered women experience. 

Transgendered peoples' very existence proves that both male and female sexes experience the same archetypal grips. This means that gender identity is not an inherent identity. Males and females experience "masculine" and "feminine" archetypal beliefs. So archetypes are not masculine or feminine, they are human. It is us who muddles human experiences into divisive identities.


----------



## quinnthequail (Jun 2, 2015)

deviantcode said:


> No such thing as gender? what is wrong with genders, I believe there is, and yes there is a push from who knows what force to neutralize everything. But this will fail eventually. If it prevails it will just end in us being a planet of robots with a slowly decreasing humane aspect to it. Or quickly decreasing actually.


Wait hold up- are you saying that without a definitive gender, we are not human?


----------



## quinnthequail (Jun 2, 2015)

Sara Torailles said:


> To be frank, I think that idea of gender is wrong. You can have a gender identity that divorces itself from roles. Butch MtFs and femme FtMs are exceedingly common. In fact, it's trans people who screw with gender roles far more than cisgender people, so much that I think the reason cis people fixate on roles so much is because cis people have a bigger gut reaction to people transgressing them.
> 
> I think most cis people theorize this way about gender because they've never really understood what it's like to have a mismatch between the body they have and the body they desire. They have nothing to lose by forsaking the concept of gender identity, like white people have nothing to lose by forsaking the concept of race. Like colorblindness, it seems fair on the surface, but in execution, it's just a tool to make people assimilate to the majority rule.
> 
> Gender abolitionists almost never attempt to actively erase the concept of themselves as a man or a woman, and that's why I often think it's bullshit. You never see a gender abolitionist taking HRT as an experiment. You never see a gender abolitionist attempting to castrate or excise themselves. You never see a gender abolitionist experimenting with the construction of their genitals or their secondary sex characteristics.


So explain to me then what you think gender is. If it's not gender roles, and it's not something physical, then what is it?


----------



## themonocle (Feb 18, 2013)

If they menstruate they are a woman. At least that's how we used to define it. Back when Judy Blume knew more than your male social science prof.

Silly people... Older women are the ones who bequeath you with that title. You are required to enter through rite of passage.


----------



## illykitty (Jan 29, 2013)

I've wondered this question a lot myself. I don't think there's a defining answer to this yet. It's probably a brain/body thing.

I mean a lot of transgender people feel they have the wrong body. It's like the thoughts and the brain have an unmatched relationship with the body. Maybe it's a more physical thing than anything else... I mean to be happy with that physical "shell".

I am happy having female parts, for instance, though body image is suffering. I wouldn't want to have male body parts. To me, that means I am a woman. Or is it simply an identity (consistently saying you're female, so you're female)? But I don't know enough about this subject, I'm just speculating and offering a perspective.

BUT I don't think that being a woman is based social constructs, like interests, a certain look or body type. I think it's damaging to think of it this way but also, I don't think it's valid. Lists of traits vary a lot from culture to culture, for what is considered feminine/masculine. So I imagine a huge majority (if not all of it) is social construct based on culture.

I really wonder what our concept of genders would be, free of media and social construct. Would it matter less, would we become more fluid or neutral? Would there still be some general patterns/behaviours? Or would it be just a body-centric thing (regardless of your birth gender, maybe the "correct" body which you would want is your gender)? It also raises the question of being other kinds of genders (having a body falling outside of the male/female category)... Where do people draw the line, if any? If we had the technology to have any sort of body we want... Then the whole gender thing might fly out of the window (or become really complicated).

Ahhh... So many questions and speculations going on in my head. It's a fascinating subject. :joyous:


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

quinnthequail said:


> So explain to me then what you think gender is. If it's not gender roles, and it's not something physical, then what is it?


I could explain it, but it's like a fish explaining water. You percieve water as something you drink, fishes perceive it as something they live in. It's two different perceptions of the same thing.

I could explain water chemically, but that wouldn't change the fact that the fish still uses it to breathe and I use it to drink.

So you're asking the fish why it breathes and you don't. It's because you're both fundamentally different. The fish has gills and you have lungs. Water goes through your digestive system, and water helps fish transport oxygen through their blood.

You can explain water as a chemical combination of two hydrogens and one oxygen, or you can talk about the social construct that revolves around the use of water. But that doesn't change the fact that if you rip a fish out of water, just like if you rip a trans person's gender identity away from them, you'll most likely end up with something dead.

It's a point along a spectrum. I don't believe that people aren't getting this. It's stupidly simple. Identity is what's inside, roles are what you present. Saying that gender identity is the role implies that you can change who you are internally like that.

I think you're looking for something that "legitimizes" trans people in your mind. All cis people do.

I mean, hypothetically, if we found out without a doubt trans people aren't the gender they experience internally, what on earth do we do with that information?

We already know transition is the only solution that has consistently worked in terms of quality of life. If we're going against current medical science and best practices to deny people transitions because of a psychoanalytic armchair philosophy on gender, then that's dangerous.

If you've ever been in theatre, people take different roles all the time without changing their identity. Identity can be a catalyst for many roles. You can have a certain identity and not have that be your role. It can affect the role, but only ever so slightly.

You can have any identity with any role. Cis people have the privilege of discarding a role and be perceived as a similar or the same identity. They have nothing to lose with gender abolitionism, which is why they don't take HRT to make a statement. They don't change their voice even. They don't attempt to mess with gender expectations at all, so how on earth do you expect trans people to empathize with their privileged armchair worldview when they haven't lived or experienced the brunt of gender?


----------



## ConspiracyTheory (Apr 13, 2014)

Sara Torailles said:


> I could explain it, but it's like a fish explaining water. You percieve water as something you drink, fishes perceive it as something they live in. It's two different perceptions of the same thing.
> 
> I could explain water chemically, but that wouldn't change the fact that the fish still uses it to breathe and I use it to drink.
> 
> ...


We don't want to see the perspective of the fish or the human. We want the perspective from the outside. Like the universe's perspective that created it all in the first place. 

You said the identity of the person is fixed even when playing a role. I agree. So from what I can see, that identity is without gender. The body is what isn't. Any view that the identity has a gender is an illusion cause by society or an arcehtype preoccupation.

The body you were born into, is the only fixed identity beyond a neutral core. And any other perception of identity is the result of some consciousness- an archetype or a society stereotype affinity, and each are artificial and malleable.

None of us are born with a gender. We are born into a physical form, which is only the basis for procreation. Irrelevant otherwise. Maybe if trans said they feel like they should be able to birth children, that would make some sense of why they should be in a woman's body. I've never heard that. 

It's always "I don't like my body." Which, nobody likes their body, so I don't see how it makes you born in the wrong body. If that's the case, hey I'm born in the wrong body too. I'm really Brad Pitt or J.Lo, but I was born in the wrong body and I want the outside to match the inner me.

Women are so sexualized and objectified it's not hard to see why people want to be the epitome of what society deems attractive. It doesn't matter what gender you are to feel that emotional pull.

Saying you are a woman in a man's body is just as understandable as saying you're a black person in a white person's body. It's a fixation on the outside body, which is irrelevant to the person inside. So it's a preoccupation with an archetypal grip, rather than a truth. What is the identity behind the role?


----------



## deviantcode (Mar 3, 2015)

quinnthequail said:


> Wait hold up- are you saying that without a definitive gender, we are not human?


I guess you could take it that way if you really want to. But no its not what I said and it's not the point. I am saying there is a female and male energy and both are important. And that there is nothing wrong with humans having a gender as do animals. Removing this and pushing for a generic neutral race is dangerous.


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

ConspiracyTheory said:


> We don't want to see the perspective of the fish or the human. We want the perspective from the outside. Like the universe's perspective that created it all in the first place.
> 
> You said the identity of the person is fixed even when playing a role. I agree. So from what I can see, that identity is without gender. The body is what isn't. Any view that the identity has a gender is an illusion cause by society or an arcehtype preoccupation.
> 
> ...


Except you ignore that transgender men exist as well.

If I wanted to be sexualized and objectified, I would just grow muscles. I have an objectively pretty face, and that would probably boost me from a 7 to a 9. If I wanted to be sexually attractive to myself, I would just find ways to ruin my metabolism and become fat.

I mean, again, you can philosophize all you want, that's great, but how is that information ever useful? You're not going to stop people from being transgender. TERFs already tried that, you're only doing something similar there.

Gender dysphoria is pretty fucking static as a condition. It's not something that goes away on a whim or anything.

The fact is, your dynamic archetype theory lends credence to the idea that firstly, transgender women are not really female and should be "cured" (which ignores exhaustive medical science research), secondly, that trans people can just grow out of it with time, which is also not supported by medical science.

Again, why don't people who push this theory ever experiment with hormones? It surely can't be because they're cis or anything.

To push it off as an archetype preoccupation ignores the humanity and variation of women. There's a lot of freedom in what it means to be a man or a woman. People focus on stereotypes because those are the only trans women who are accepted as "real women".


----------



## quinnthequail (Jun 2, 2015)

deviantcode said:


> I guess you could take it that way if you really want to. But no its not what I said and it's not the point. I am saying there is a female and male energy and both are important. And that there is nothing wrong with humans having a gender as do animals. Removing this and pushing for a generic neutral race is dangerous.


How is it dangerous? Gender, in my opinions, is strongly if not all based on gender roles. Taking that away, taking away that hierarchy, we are left with everyone being equal. How is that dangerous?


----------



## quinnthequail (Jun 2, 2015)

Sara Torailles said:


> You can have any identity with any role. Cis people have the privilege of discarding a role and be perceived as a similar or the same identity. They have nothing to lose with gender abolitionism, which is why they don't take HRT to make a statement. They don't change their voice even. They don't attempt to mess with gender expectations at all, so how on earth do you expect trans people to empathize with their privileged armchair worldview when they haven't lived or experienced the brunt of gender?


I'm sorry if I sound ignorant (I most likely do), but I really do want to try and understand gender. When you speak of roles, you make an analogy of a a theater. Except, people can step out of theater, and they know better than those roles. However, for humanity, we've always had an idea of what is considered 'feminine' and 'masculine'. I see that as a gender roles. So, I guess when I see gender I see people basing what their gender is from our history of what we think male and female is.


----------



## deviantcode (Mar 3, 2015)

quinnthequail said:


> How is it dangerous? Gender, in my opinions, is strongly if not all based on gender roles. Taking that away, taking away that hierarchy, we are left with everyone being equal. How is that dangerous?


Gender roles are not the core of it. They are the result of it. Taking them away is impossible because the majority of men and women naturally adhere to these " roles"


----------



## SpectrumOfThought (Mar 29, 2013)

Nothing. We have all internalized patriarchal concepts of sex and gender. Take off the patriarchy glasses, look at the world through the lenses of Feminism, and you will see that we are all the same <3


----------



## DeadlyRefridgerator (Jun 4, 2013)

Two X chromosomes.


----------



## quinnthequail (Jun 2, 2015)

deviantcode said:


> Gender roles are not the core of it. They are the result of it. Taking them away is impossible because the majority of men and women naturally adhere to these " roles"


I was being hypothetical.


----------



## quinnthequail (Jun 2, 2015)

SpectrumOfThought said:


> Nothing. We have all internalized patriarchal concepts of sex and gender. Take off the patriarchy glasses, look at the world through the lenses of Feminism, and you will see that we are all the same <3


Yes


----------



## deviantcode (Mar 3, 2015)

SpectrumOfThought said:


> Nothing. We have all internalized patriarchal concepts of sex and gender. Take off the patriarchy glasses, look at the world through the lenses of Feminism, and you will see that we are all the same <3


 how about we try not looking through any glasses and see what is actually there. Throw away all glasses. This feminist glasses thing really throws me for a loop.


----------



## Apolo (Aug 15, 2014)

Sourpuss said:


> An intense need to be a victim and to be respected while also given special consideration.


I think you just described the modern feminist.




DeadlyRefridgerator said:


> Two X chromosomes.


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

Give it another 50 years and nearly all of the bigots who whine about trans people existing will die off along with their ill-informed opinions.

It will be seen as ridiculous as people who are against interracial couples.


----------



## dizzycactus (Sep 9, 2012)

Sex is a reproductive role. 
All sex differences stem from that. 

So the physical or mental characteristics that divide men and women are not in themselves necessarily what _defines _them, but are just used as fairly reliable external indicators of it. 

I'm not quite sure what could be seen as the most fundamental driver of sex that ultimately does define it. XX is female, XY is male. But XXY? I'd have to say it's the lack of a second X chromosome that makes a male, since the Y chromosome is shorter than the X one, thus expressing the more recessive elements of the X chromosome, which leads to greater extremes which are expressed in things such as a wider spread of IQ scores to either extreme in males. I guess someone who is more into biology could confirm exactly how it works. 

But I do take the stance that sex is a physical reality and not merely perception. I think if you could maybe take a virus and use it to alter the genetics of every cell of your body, and that somehow lead to your body completely re-making itself according to that genetic change (which seems unlikely too, since you've presumably already grown under the influence of certain genes and changing them later wouldn't necessarily reverse that), then it might be legit to claim a sex change. Other than that, I don't think so.


----------



## Toru Okada (May 10, 2011)

Your biological sex is most important, followed by your sexuality, followed by whatever you want to call yourself because it's trendy. 



SpectrumOfThought said:


> Nothing. We have all internalized patriarchal concepts of sex and gender. Take off the patriarchy glasses, look at the world through the lenses of Feminism, and you will see that we are all the same <3


Enjoy the decline.


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

Biological essentialism, because treating gender dysphoria properly based on APA standards of care is literally denying someone's sex, and that is, like, the worst thing ever to happen to society. Like, worse than Hitler, gaiz.

Now if you excuse me, I will creepily fixate on a trans woman's penis and call her a man just because I have hangups that I don't want to admit.

And if she doesn't want to be called a man, and doesn't reveal her status right when she first meets me because of that (among other reasons), I will call her a liar because I have nothing better to do than to whine about how treating trans people as human is literally oppressing me.


----------



## johnnyyukon (Nov 8, 2013)

Girls,


I like 'em short, I like 'em tall
I like 'em big, I like 'em small
I like 'em with hair, I like 'em bald
To make a long story short, I like 'em all


----------



## KevinHeaven (Apr 6, 2015)

johnnyyukon said:


> Girls,
> 
> 
> I like 'em short, I like 'em tall
> ...


Poetic + !


----------



## Stelmaria (Sep 30, 2011)

quinnthequail said:


> I agree- however there has the be a palpable difference between the two genders otherwise why else would transgenders feel uncomfortable with their original gender?


Our individual experiences and worldviews are not the only experiences and worldviews that exist!

Gender dualism (and associated behaviour, roles etc.) is so heavily ingrained in our society, combined with a great deal of human diversity, with much biological overlap, it is almost to be expected that there will be more than a few who identity far more strongly with the opposite gender.

No single or small list of things "makes a woman".


----------

