Discussion of transgender issues

[Tetchytyke]

Like the bits about biological reality that a man who has a sex change is still physiologically and genetically male.

Are they, though? Even after hormone treatment, even after developing breasts? Even after having their penis and testes removed?

I'm not sure I can agree with you there. They retain some physiological signs of male sex, they lose others. Is there a value on how many you lose before you stop being male?

I do not believe it's right for someone identifying as a different gender to rewrite history and change the biological sex on their birth certificate, a document of public record.

Yet the most important defining characteristic on that document- your name- can be changed any time you want.

Interesting. Do you object to name changes?

I'm a hairy assed 30 something 6"3 bloke, complete with beard, I doubt you or anyone else reading this would be too happy if your wife/daughter/girlfriend found me in the female toilets at your local shopping centre/swimming pool because I'd decided to identify as female that day.

I wouldn't give a toss, to be quite frank. Toilets and changing cubicles don't need to be segregated by gender- we all poo out the same hole- and I'm more in favour of enclosed separate lockable cubicles than open plan areas anyway. I've not been in a gender-separated swimming pool changing area in ten years, up here the council ripped them all out and replaced them with changing villages. Much better. We can change as a family.

As an aside, gender neutral toilets would make my life a damn sight easier as I could keep more of an eye on my daughter when she goes off to the toilet.

 

[Bromley boy]

Just a quick point. Your "Why can't someone change their date of birth then?" question was just as much of a straw man (or perhaps I should say straw person!)...

In fact there are so many straw-people arguments in this thread that it presents a fire-risk!

That’s not a straw man.

I’ve never said he proposed to ban changing birth date. I asked him if he’s in favour of allowing that to be changed, as he’s evidently in favour of allowing sex to be changed.

He deliberately responded to my comment (ask Muslims for their views on trans gender individuals) as if I’d said “ban Islam”.

Thats the essence of a straw man: someone makes a reasonable point someone else can’t really answer, so they distort things and respond as if something completely different has been said, for dramatic effect.

It’s a technique people usually resort to using when they’ve lost the argument. .

 

[61653 HTAFC]

That’s not a straw man.

I’ve never said he proposed to ban changing birth date. I asked him if he’s in favour of allowing that to be changed, as he’s evidently in favour of allowing sex to be changed.

He deliberately responded to my comment (ask Muslims for their views on trans gender individuals) as if I’d said “ban Islam”.

Thats the essence of a straw man: someone makes a reasonable point someone else can’t really answer, so they distort things and respond as if something completely different has been said, for dramatic effect.

It’s a technique people usually resort to using when they’ve lost the argument. .

Though Arctic Troll wasn't suggesting that people should be allowed to change their birth date. You brought that up in a similar way to the opponents of marriage equality in the USA suggesting that gay marriage would lead to people wanting to marry their horses and so on. Perhaps straw man is not the correct term for that tactic.

It's fairly obvious that you and he are not going to find much common ground on this topic. There's probably some productive dialogue to be had, but it'll get further away from the case under discussion.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I’ve never said he proposed to ban changing birth date. I asked him if he’s in favour of allowing that to be changed, as he’s evidently in favour of allowing sex to be changed.

The date of birth is an absolute fact (*based on the calendar of the country you're born in). There is no dispute in it. It is not subject to human interpretation. Gender is different.

If a birth certificate were treated as a snapshot of time, I'd have less issue. But it is not, even with the 2004 changes. One can easily change name if one identifies with a different one. Your name is your biggest identifier of identity. I don't even see the need to be legally identified by gender at birth. My doctor needs to know what sex I am, the Government doesn't.

I really don't understand the controversy. On my Australian passport I've been able to choose gender X since 2011. But its going to cause the end of the world if we have it here?

Anyway, I'm out.

 

[Bromley boy]

Are they, though? Even after hormone treatment, even after developing breasts? Even after having their penis and testes removed?

I'm not sure I can agree with you there. They retain some physiological signs of male sex, they lose others. Is there a value on how many you lose before you stop being male?

But in that case you would still be fundamentally genetically/physiologically male. If you have you penis and testis removed you still won’t have periods, you won’t be able to carry children.

You will be a man who has had breast implants and his genitals inverted.

I have no issue with that person assuming a female identity, living as a female etc but the fact of the matter is that person is not biologically female. In the same way the earth isn’t flat, in the same way the sky is blue.

Yet the most important defining characteristic on that document- your name- can be changed any time you want.

Interesting. Do you object to name changes?

Incorrect. You can change your name by deed poll as often as you wish, but there are very few circumstances where the name on your birth certificate can be changed. That is because a birth certificate is a historical record.

You STILL haven’t answered my question - do you believe you should be able to change your DOB on your birth certificate?

Should I be able to retrospectively change other historical records? The figure on my tax return, the year my grandmother died, where does it end?!

I wouldn't give a toss, to be quite frank.

Come off it.

 

[Chris M]

What I'm asking is at what point do you think we say that assumed (by the individual) gender trumps biological reality? Should we stop distinguishing between men and women?

People do not "assume" their own gender and "biological reality" is a completely meaningless phrase. Gender and sex are not the same thing, neither defines the other, and neither are binary. Your comments here demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding of very basic issues, never mind some of the more complex ones.

There are very many situations where distinguishing between men and women is completely unnecessary, but allocation of prisoners to prison cells is not one of them.

No issue with any of that, although an obvious issue is what if inmates have sexual relationships and. conceive children in prison. But not sex offenders.

Obviously sexual relations, and possible consequences thereof, is an issue that would have to be considered but I don't think it would be an insurmountable one. "Sex offender" is a wonderful term to shout to get reactions but really not a very useful one in situations like this as it covers a wide range of different offences, including rape, voyeurism, being in possession of illegal pornography, and many others.

Someone who has attacked a 15yo might attack a mentally unstable, vulnerable young woman in a prison.

And they might equally attack a mentally unstable, vulnerable young man in a prison. If there is a risk that they will attack another prisoner they should be segregated from other prisoners, regardless of anything else - I think this is the third time I've tried to make this exact same point to you.

I have a suspicion that anyone who isn't a pro trans activist is anti trans, your view.

Wrong.

I have no issue with men or women identifying as a different gender.

Unfortunately this is not borne out by your other comments in this thread.

I do have an issue with documents of public record being rewritten and facts being denied in order to pacify sensibilities or avoid causing offence.

So you're against people changing their name, then? Or mistakes in official documents being corrected?
If you'd just have taken a bit of time to educate yourself about transgender issues before spouting off you'd understand that changing the gender that appears on your birth certificate isn't "denying a fact" but correcting a mistake - at birth a guess was made that the person was e.g. female, but that guess was wrong.

I'm not too happy about reports of surgery being offered to children and teenagers. Children and teenagers are often confused about sexuality, identity and any irreversible surgery should be left until they are mature enough able to make a decision there is no reasonable doubt they will live to regret.

Please can you share some of these reports of surgery being offered to children and teenagers?
Transgender surgery is incredibly difficult to get for the people who want it (look up "gate keeping" again) requiring a minimum time living as your correct gender (two years iirc), multiple medical and psychological reports spanning a good few years, and then time on a waiting list, and even then it's not available to children or teenagers. The only medical intervention given young transgender people is drugs which delay puberty, and even these often have to be fought for.

Now how about answering the questions you've chosen to ignore?

 

[Bromley boy]

You brought that up in a similar way to the opponents of marriage equality in the USA suggesting that gay marriage would lead to people wanting to marry their horses and so on. Perhaps straw man is not the correct term for that tactic.

WHAT? I said nothing of the sort - that is a bizarre and incorrect accusation.

It's fairly obvious that you and he are not going to find much common ground on this topic. There's probably some productive dialogue to be had, but it'll get further away from the case under discussion.

I thought these threads had been split off into a separate thread as it is an interesting topic of discussion, but it appears they have not.

In which case I apologise for going off topic and will ask the mods to do so now.

 

[Geezertronic]

What is the purpose of recording gender on a birth certificate?

Last time I looked, my birth certificate stated my Sex not Gender at birth

 

[cactustwirly]

The date of birth is an absolute fact (*based on the calendar of the country you're born in). There is no dispute in it. It is not subject to human interpretation. Gender is different.

If a birth certificate were treated as a snapshot of time, I'd have less issue. But it is not, even with the 2004 changes. One can easily change name if one identifies with a different one. Your name is your biggest identifier of identity. I don't even see the need to be legally identified by gender at birth. My doctor needs to know what sex I am, the Government doesn't.

I really don't understand the controversy. On my Australian passport I've been able to choose gender X since 2011. But its going to cause the end of the world if we have it here?

Anyway, I'm out.

But sex is 'absolute fact' as well. Changing your sex on your birth certificate, is the same principle as changing your date of birth, to make yourself appear younger for example.

Sex is not open to human interpretation (neither is gender IMO, but that's a different argument), it's based on whether you have a Y chromosome or not.

 

[Tetchytyke]

But sex is 'absolute fact' as well.

...except when it isn't.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Sex is not open to human interpretation

That must come as something of a shock to the athlete Caster Semenya, who has been vilified and humiliated for years-including having to take hormone suppressants- for not appearing feminine enough.

Changing your sex on your birth certificate, is the same principle as changing your date of birth, to make yourself appear younger for example.

No it isn't. It's like the Wicker Man in here, with all these straw arguments. I keep expecting Britt Ekland to walk in.

 

[cactustwirly]

...except when it isn't.

If you have 2 X chromosomes then you are female, or if you have XY then you are male. How is this not 'absolute fact'?

 

[Domh245]

it's based on whether you have a Y chromosome or not.

Just on that note, I was picked up on that the last time that gender and transexuality was discussed on here.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

...except when it isn't.

Biological sex is an absolute fact. Someone born with XY Chromosomes is male, while someone born with XX Chromosomes is female. No amount of surgery can change that. To deny biological sex and call it a social thing that is open for interpretation rather than the absolute scientific fact that is, in my eyes, is just as bad as a creationist trying to make out that evolution is merely an opinion (despite an overwhelming amount of evidence that proves it to be a fact) and that the bible is a reasonable alternative despite it merely being religious text. Totally false equivalents.

That must come as something of a shock to the athlete Caster Semenya, who has been vilified and humiliated for years-including having to take hormone suppressants- for not appearing feminine enough.

No it isn't. It's like the Wicker Man in here, with all these straw arguments. I keep expecting Britt Ekland to walk in.

The issue you raise there is an issue of social gender norms rather than biological sex. Gender norms expect certain things from people, such as what you cited, and Gender in itself isn't the same as sex; it's a cultural thing and not a biological one. Vilification and humiliation because someone doesn't appear feminine enough does not mean that the person's sex is open to interpretation.

 

[AlterEgo]

So you're against people changing their name, then? Or mistakes in official documents being corrected?
If you'd just have taken a bit of time to educate yourself about transgender issues before spouting off you'd understand that changing the gender that appears on your birth certificate isn't "denying a fact" but correcting a mistake - at birth a guess was made that the person was e.g. female, but that guess was wrong.

The birth certificate records the baby’s sex, not their gender role. This is a matter of biological fact.

The fact they can be changed is nothing to do with rectifying a mistake and everything to do with assisting the trans person with their “new” identity.

Some people think they’re Jesus. Some think they’re Napoleon. Some think they’re a different gender to their birth gender. It is only in the latter case that the medical profession takes steps to assist the person in living with their delusion. (I apologise that delusion seems an unnecessarily harsh word but I can’t think of another, softer one)

Trans issues are complex. I absolutely respect any trans person’s right to live in their assumed or preferred gender role, but I do not wish to be a party to their delusion.

There are a lot of people (and a LOT of women) who don’t, for example, consider trans women to be “actual” women.

 

[GatwickDepress]

The birth certificate records the baby’s sex, not their gender role. This is a matter of biological fact.

The fact they can be changed is nothing to do with rectifying a mistake and everything to do with assisting the trans person with their “new” identity.

Some people think they’re Jesus. Some think they’re Napoleon. Some think they’re a different gender to their birth gender. It is only in the latter case that the medical profession takes steps to assist the person in living with their delusion. (I apologise that delusion seems an unnecessarily harsh word but I can’t think of another, softer one)

Trans issues are complex. I absolutely respect any trans person’s right to live in their assumed or preferred gender role, but I do not wish to be a party to their delusion.

There are a lot of people (and a LOT of women) who don’t, for example, consider trans women to be “actual” women.

That's pretty damn offensive, to be honest.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

So you're against people changing their name, then? Or mistakes in official documents being corrected?
If you'd just have taken a bit of time to educate yourself about transgender issues before spouting off you'd understand that changing the gender that appears on your birth certificate isn't "denying a fact" but correcting a mistake - at birth a guess was made that the person was e.g. female, but that guess was wrong.

Birth certificates record a baby's sex, not their gender. You've said before that they're not the same thing, so I'm surprised you were ignorant of that fact. Someone also being female isn't an assumption, it is an observation based on their biology. Baby's are born as they were meant to be (as in not given any surgery) and so any genitals would show their biological sex (unless of course they're a hermaphrodite). To try and change the sex that is on your birth certificate would be denying a fact. Birth certificates are nothing more than a historical record of a person's birth, and so there is no mistakes when it is based off nature. Nature doesn't make mistakes. The person's gender is a social thing that has no bearing on a birth certificate and vice versa, and assuming a new identity wouldn't change that history. Pointing this out isn't an anti-trans agenda.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The issue you raise there is an issue of social gender norms rather than biological sex.

Except it wasn't. She was told by the IAAF she wasn't allowed to compete as a woman because she had too much testosterone. So much for chromosomes determining sex!

There are a lot of people (and a LOT of women) who don’t, for example, consider trans women to be “actual” women.

There are a lot of people with a lot of opinions, as you say above. What has it got to do with anything?

Someone born with XY Chromosomes is male, while someone born with XX Chromosomes is female

Except, as any biologist will tell you, they're not. Your chromosomes are just one part of what defines your sex; others include your hormone balance, whether you have a penis and whether you have testes or ovaries.

Intersex people, for instance, prove that life really isn't that simple.

I do not wish to be a party to their delusion.

That's lucky, because the contents of someone else's birth certificate have sod all to do with you.

 

[Tetchytyke]

any genitals would show their biological sex (unless of course they're a hermaphrodite)

So chromosomes don't determine sex, genitals do?

Make your mind up mate.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

Except it wasn't. She was told by the IAAF she wasn't allowed to compete as a woman because she had too much testosterone. So much for chromosomes determining sex!

Testosterone is a thing of hormones, not chromosomes.

Except, as any biologist will tell you, they're not. Your chromosomes are just one part of what defines your sex; others include your hormone balance, whether you have a penis and whether you have testes or ovaries.

So chromosomes don't determine sex, genitals do?

The only thing that changes in the majority of each individual humans is hormonal balance. Males would be born with both penises and XY chromosomes, and females would be born with vaginas and XX chromosomes. The score is two out of three, and the only reason you can change your genitals is because of surgery, which is completely against nature and is actually a human modification to somebody's appearance. At birth, the males and females have corresponding chromosomes and genitals. Intersex people on the other hand wouldn't count because they don't fit the typical definition of male and female bodies.

 

[Chris M]

For all those who are talking about either genitals or chromosomes defining sex or gender, it's far, far more complicated than that.
For those on Facebook there is a great post by a science teacher called Grace Ann explaining this: [source]

I just commented this on a transphobic post that was all like, "In a sexual species, females have two X chromosomes and males have an X and a Y, I'm not a bigot it's just science." I'm a science teacher so I responded with this.

First of all, in a sexual species, you can have females be XX and males be X (insects), you can have females be ZW and males be ZZ (birds), you can have females be females because they developed in a warm environment and males be males because they developed in a cool environment (reptiles), you can have females be females because they lost a penis sword fighting contest (some flatworms), you can have males be males because they were born female, but changed sexes because the only male in their group died (parrotfish and clownfish), you can have males look and act like females because they are trying to get close enough to actual females to mate with them (cuttlefish, bluegills, others), or you can be one of thousands of sexes (slime mold, some mushrooms.) Oh, did you mean humans? Oh ok then. You can be male because you were born female, but you have 5-alphareductase deficiency and so you grew a penis at age 12. You can be female because you have an X and a Y chromosome but you are insensitive to androgens, and so you have a female body. You can be female because you have an X and a Y chromosome but your Y is missing the SRY gene, and so you have a female body. You can be male because you have two X chromosomes, but one of your X's HAS an SRY gene, and so you have a male body. You can be male because you have two X chromosomes- but also a Y. You can be female because you have only one X chromosome at all. And you can be male because you have two X chromosomes, but your heart and brain are male. And vice - effing - versa. Don't use science to justify your bigotry. The world is way too weird for that ****.

Maybe instead of a science teach you prefer a peer-reviewed inforgraphic courtesy of Scientific American? https://www.scientificamerican.com/...xtraordinary-complexity-of-sex-determination/

Or perhaps someone's lived experience: https://medium.com/@QSE/the-xx-xy-l...ction-of-a-sex-and-gender-binary-4eed1e60e615

Alternatively perhaps an article in Nature is more to your taste: https://www.nature.com/news/sex-redefined-1.16943

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

For all those who are talking about either genitals or chromosomes defining sex or gender, it's far, far more complicated than that.
For those on Facebook there is a great post by a science teacher called Grace Ann explaining this: [source]


Maybe instead of a science teach you prefer a peer-reviewed inforgraphic courtesy of Scientific American? https://www.scientificamerican.com/...xtraordinary-complexity-of-sex-determination/

Or perhaps someone's lived experience: https://medium.com/@QSE/the-xx-xy-l...ction-of-a-sex-and-gender-binary-4eed1e60e615

Alternatively perhaps an article in Nature is more to your taste: https://www.nature.com/news/sex-redefined-1.16943

Wow, just think of the discussions that ought to emerge from this...

 

[Tetchytyke]

Testosterone is a thing of hormones, not chromosomes.

She was told she wasn't a woman because of her hormones, not because of her chromosomes. That is what I said. I'm not sure you quite grasp the point I am making.

the only reason you can change your genitals is because of surgery, which is completely against nature

Surgery is against nature?

I've heard everything now.

I'm done.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

She was told she wasn't a woman because of her hormones, not because of her chromosomes. That is what I said. I'm not sure you quite grasp the point I am making.

Originally the point I was trying to make was that you made out like her being turned down for her hormones somehow related to her sex being determined by chromosomes. On reflection I think I misunderstood your original statement.

Surgery is against nature?

I've heard everything now.

I'm done.

In the context of it being unnatural, yes it is against nature. I certainly wouldn't get plastic surgery, and if it wasn't for human intelligence, nobody would be able to. Surgery isn't really your natural look. But whatever, I guess if you feel like you're done then I won't even try and stop you.

 

[Antman]

None of us (I presume) were in Court to hear all the evidence.

Just saying.

Exactly, I'd much rather such things were decided in a court of law than an online kangaroo court.

 

[AlterEgo]

That's lucky, because the contents of someone else's birth certificate have sod all to do with you.

Indeed they don’t, but equally I don’t particularly like being lectured to that I have to entertain every aspect of their perception.

I’ll happily support anyone’s right to live however they want free from harassment or violence, and use appropriate pronouns, and never deliberately misgender someone, but you will not convince me that a trans woman is the same as a cis woman. They are not the same thing. To suggest so is delusion.

 

[AlterEgo]

That's pretty damn offensive, to be honest.

Just to clarify, are you offended, or are you offended on behalf of someone else? Or are you just trying to label my opinion as forbidden?

If you are offended, say so, rather than claiming something is, almost as a matter of course, just “offensive”.

Even if you are offended, it doesn’t change my view. A trans woman isn’t the same as a cis woman.

 

[AlterEgo]

There are a lot of people with a lot of opinions, as you say above. What has it got to do with anything?

Pre-empting people taking the moral high ground, for one.

I don’t know any women in real life who would consider a trans woman to be their equal. They may for example, accept their use of gendered toilets (I wish we would do away with gendered toilets tbh, it works fine in many many places!), or whatever. But having had this discussion many times, I’ve yet to find a woman who, without caveat, accepts that a trans woman is just a “woman”.

After all, women know what it’s like to be a woman. I don’t. I’ll take their lead.

 

[AlterEgo]

She was told she wasn't a woman because of her hormones, not because of her chromosomes. That is what I said. I'm not sure you quite grasp the point I am making.

But this was based solely on her ability to compete against women who are not intersex.

The fact Semenya is intersex puts her at a significant advantage compared to other competitiors who are not intersex - this was the basis of the whole controversy, badly handled by the authorities.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I don’t know any women in real life who would consider a trans woman to be their equal.

You should speak to more people.

It's been my line of work, so not to play top trumps, but I've been lucky enough to work with many trans people and LGBT+ people (including people transitioning to a male identity). Most in my social circle do accept the full spectrum of humanity. I think it is regrettable that more people have not had the same experiences. We might not get such offensive and tired cliches if people did understand.

But this was based solely on her ability to compete against women who are not intersex.

Caster is a woman. Born a woman, legally registered a woman, it's "undeniable fact" that "can't be changed". That's apparently all that counts, right?

What do you mean life is never black and white?