Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 47 of 47

Thread: Gender disphoria?

  1. #41
    Professor Cerebrum123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    7,418
    Amen (Given)
    13284
    Amen (Received)
    2544
    Quote Originally Posted by Leonhard View Post
    What is it about XY chromosomes that mean you're a man, despite anything else?

    Again, the only sexual difference is that instead of ovaries they have testicles. Otherwise, they have wombs, vaginas, labia minora and major, they looked exactly like girls when they were born, and that's what the doctor wrote down about them. They grew up as girls, matured with other girls as a teenager, grew breasts, wider hips. Their eye size to head ratio matches female proportions. Female voices. They identify as women, as they haven't noticed any off about themselves even in the slightest.

    The only symptom they have in common is that they never have periods.

    One teenage girl only found out due to her class being given a chromosome scan as part of a biology exercise and she surprisingly came up XY.

    I don't see how anyone can make a reasonable case, that this is a man. It's clearly a woman.
    I already explained. Hormones can easily sway the outward appearance, and even personality of a human being. Androgens themselves can cause a woman who has XY chromosomes and ovaries to look and act like a man. From what I understand if you did it early enough, and prevented estrogen from doing it's work you'd have the opposite situation. A person who looks just like a man, a penis, scrotum, etc., but with ovaries instead of testicles, and XX instead of XY chromosomes.

    When you take the chromosomes, the sex organs, and the fact of how reproduction works these individuals just aren't what they appear to be. If you do accept that your example as truly being a "girl", then you have to accept anyone who has gone through hormone therapy and a sex change surgery is truly the sex they have "transitioned" into. That's not how it works though. No amount of surgery, or hormones will change someone's ontology. A condition preventing proper development of someone's body is also not a "sex change", even if it appears to be that way on the surface.

    Outward appearance is can be quite deceptive. You have to go deeper if you want the truth. To be definitively sure of one's sex the only objective markers we have are the primary sex organs, and sex chromosomes. To base it on something that can easily be changed through a dose of hormones, or on someone's feelings/personality just won't cut it. Not if you want the truth of the matter anyway.

    Intersexed people have always been controversial. I'll have to track it down but one Church Father dealt with one case, though very shortly of a young person born ambiguously. He allowed the child to choose what gender to be, though the child would have to stick with that choice. The only caveat he added was that the child, when grown, couldn't marry, as some doubt would always exist as to the actual gender.
    That's not what I was talking about being "controversial". I meant the idea that the sex organs themselves, alongside markers like XY chromosomes are what determine male and female. Even this guy realized that something more objective was needed, otherwise there wouldn't have been that caveat put in place at all. Sex chromosomes are that objective marker that could have changed the whole situation had they been known about at the time. Now, there are some really rare cases where an extra chromosome is involved, but that's said to only affect males, so you'd still know what sex they really are.

    Anyway, I'm worn out and tired, and I need to do stuff. Can't promise I'll be getting back into this discussion.
    Safka, you are NOT "unknown", you were loved by many, and you will not be forgotten. I will always remember you Puginator.


  2. #42
    Professor Cerebrum123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    7,418
    Amen (Given)
    13284
    Amen (Received)
    2544
    Just as a correction to the above since I realized the error too late. Girls can have an extra chromosome, but Klinefelter Syndrome only affects males, same with XYY from what I understand. XXX can cause some problems for women, but they don't have a Y chromosome at all, so no ambiguity there.
    Safka, you are NOT "unknown", you were loved by many, and you will not be forgotten. I will always remember you Puginator.


  3. #43
    tWebber Leonhard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Denmark - Jutland
    Faith
    Catholic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    3,463
    Amen (Given)
    606
    Amen (Received)
    1986
    Quote Originally Posted by Cerebrum123
    I already explained. Hormones can easily sway the outward appearance, and even personality of a human being. Androgens themselves can cause a woman who has XY chromosomes and ovaries to look and act like a man.
    Going back to your earlier post, this is the only coherent explanation I can find. I've cut it down for clarity, but I've tried to reproduce it fairly.

    "They have XY chromosomes, therefore they are male. They also have testicles, therefore they are male. ... Androgen insensitivity is an unfortunate condition, but it doesn't change a man into a woman any more than Bruce Jenner's surgery and hormone therapy changed him into one."

    There's a statement here that XY chromosomes determine that someone is male. And testicles determine that someone is male.

    I get that.

    But instead of answering my question and explaining why that is as I clearly asked. In fact, it was the only question in the entire post and I put it right at the top. You instead write a post, twice as long, repeating rephrasings of the statement a number of times. That isn't an argument, nor even an explanation, it's just contradiction.

    I'm sorry Cerebrum123, because I can see you put effort into writing it, but your new post has no content for me to address beyond the old one.

    I won't be discussing Caitlyn Jenner in this thread or the controversy about that person.

    You have a few minor points I think would be good to address.

    If you do accept that your example as truly being a "girl", then you have to accept anyone who has gone through hormone therapy and a sex change surgery is truly the sex they have "transitioned" into. That's not how it works, though. No amount of surgery or hormones will change someone's ontology.
    ...
    Outward appearance is can be quite deceptive. You have to go deeper if you want the truth. To be definitively sure of one's sex the only objective markers we have are the primary sex organs and sex chromosomes. To base it on something that can easily be changed through a dose of hormones, or on someone's feelings/personality just won't cut it.
    I agree that if we accept that women with complete androgen insensitivity are truly women, then that does indicate that chromosomes can't be the unique identifiers of what a person's sex is. A person can be an XY woman. I don't know whether there are cases where we actually have XX men, though we'd have to consider that a theoretical possibility then, however far out.

    These people would be essentially infertile.

    As such, since in every respect, aside from fertility, they're male or women, then there is no reason to treat them as anything different, at all. Nor do I think they could objectively be considered anything.

    In this explanation, you have an opportunity to go further, but you just beg the question at the end, using your conclusion as an assumption, when that was exactly what I wanted you to explain.

    Your second point is that if we can't trust chromosomes we lose an objective marker which would be undesirable.

    But I'm afraid without explaining why we should take XX chromosomes as being women, or XY chromosomes as being male, regardless of other indicators, your argument falls flat. Appealing to this because it's "easier" or more "clear" or "won't cut it otherwise", without clarifiers are exactly just appeals to social constructions of gender. Something that you ironically repudiate in me. In this case, you'd be arguing for the status quo of a social construction that you prefer.

    It would only become objective, if you could reduce masculinity, and maleness down to the XY chromosome and show that it's a sine qua non.

    You haven't. No one has. And personally, I don't think you can reduce what it means to be a male, to a diploid's chromosomal makeup.

    So I'm afraid you simply beg the question.

    Anyway, I'm worn out and tired, and I need to do stuff. Can't promise I'll be getting back into this discussion.
    God bless, rest well. Return if and when you feel like it. I hope to see you back.

  4. #44
    tWebber Carrikature's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Oregon
    Faith
    Non-Theist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,413
    Amen (Given)
    1984
    Amen (Received)
    1022
    Quote Originally Posted by Trout View Post
    Lots of talk on this issue of late and I don't quite know what to think.

    There seems to be a distinction with the language we use to describe the discussion.

    Sex = biological?

    Gender = psychological?

    Reading several psychological opinions (including the WHO website) it seems that gender disphoria is still classified as a mental disorder. However listening to popular opinion, gender disphoria seems as normal as having two thumbs.

    At first blush the discussion seems rather straightforward: a man with gender disphoria is a man in every regard, every cell in his body has a Y chromosome. (With the exception of some of his sperm) but his brain is telling him differently.

    This can lead to all kinds of problems for the individual. Enough so that it can effect his life in very adverse ways.

    I can certainly see it as a disorder.

    It's hard for me NOT to see it as a disorder. Perhaps I'm mistaken?
    I'm skipping all the "when is a man a man" discussion to answer the more (imo) fundamental question. Is it a disorder? This bit from Psychology Today is how I understand the diagnosis of 'disorder' to be handled.

    Source: Psychology Today

    When considering if something is a symptom of a disorder, consider the three Ds: Is it psychologically dysfunctional? Is it distressing or handicapping to the individual or others? Is it associated with a response that is atypical or deviant?

    © Copyright Original Source



    That article expounds on each of the three D's mentioned.

    I think it's pretty easy to say that most cases would qualify as disorder, but that it's also possible for one of the D's to not be an issue. What I've learned from my wife about eating disorders points to much the same situation.
    I'm probably drive-by posting.

  5. Amen Trout amen'd this post.
  6. #45
    tWebber demi-conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,035
    Amen (Given)
    92
    Amen (Received)
    192
    Quote Originally Posted by Meh Gerbil View Post
    Also, I suspect the term 'classical' is an attempt to mask the words 'old fashioned' and 'dated'.
    When libs want to keep something old, it is 'classical'. Otherwise, it is 'old fashioned', also you need to stop being so 'dated' and accept transgenderism!!
    I haven't seen Democrats this frustrated since Republicans freed all of their slaves.

  7. #46
    Professor Catholicity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    the neighbor of the yellow brick road
    Faith
    Ecumenical Christian
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    3,471
    Amen (Given)
    1016
    Amen (Received)
    1398
    Quote Originally Posted by Leonhard View Post
    Going back to your earlier post, this is the only coherent explanation I can find. I've cut it down for clarity, but I've tried to reproduce it fairly.

    "They have XY chromosomes, therefore they are male. They also have testicles, therefore they are male. ... Androgen insensitivity is an unfortunate condition, but it doesn't change a man into a woman any more than Bruce Jenner's surgery and hormone therapy changed him into one."

    There's a statement here that XY chromosomes determine that someone is male. And testicles determine that someone is male.

    I get that.

    But instead of answering my question and explaining why that is as I clearly asked. In fact, it was the only question in the entire post and I put it right at the top. You instead write a post, twice as long, repeating rephrasings of the statement a number of times. That isn't an argument, nor even an explanation, it's just contradiction.

    I'm sorry Cerebrum123, because I can see you put effort into writing it, but your new post has no content for me to address beyond the old one.

    I won't be discussing Caitlyn Jenner in this thread or the controversy about that person.

    You have a few minor points I think would be good to address.



    I agree that if we accept that women with complete androgen insensitivity are truly women, then that does indicate that chromosomes can't be the unique identifiers of what a person's sex is. A person can be an XY woman. I don't know whether there are cases where we actually have XX men, though we'd have to consider that a theoretical possibility then, however far out.

    These people would be essentially infertile.

    As such, since in every respect, aside from fertility, they're male or women, then there is no reason to treat them as anything different, at all. Nor do I think they could objectively be considered anything.

    In this explanation, you have an opportunity to go further, but you just beg the question at the end, using your conclusion as an assumption, when that was exactly what I wanted you to explain.

    Your second point is that if we can't trust chromosomes we lose an objective marker which would be undesirable.

    But I'm afraid without explaining why we should take XX chromosomes as being women, or XY chromosomes as being male, regardless of other indicators, your argument falls flat. Appealing to this because it's "easier" or more "clear" or "won't cut it otherwise", without clarifiers are exactly just appeals to social constructions of gender. Something that you ironically repudiate in me. In this case, you'd be arguing for the status quo of a social construction that you prefer.

    It would only become objective, if you could reduce masculinity, and maleness down to the XY chromosome and show that it's a sine qua non.

    You haven't. No one has. And personally, I don't think you can reduce what it means to be a male, to a diploid's chromosomal makeup.

    So I'm afraid you simply beg the question.



    God bless, rest well. Return if and when you feel like it. I hope to see you back.
    Just an FYI if you have someone with an Appearance of a male with an XY chromosome or an appearance of a female with an XX its called Pseudohermaphrodism different case all together. Then there is Jacobson's syndrome XYY and Kleinfelter's XXY also Hirshito's where the body of a female produces extreme amounts of Testosterone. Once again these are exceptions not the rules. And then there is the rare Hermaphrodite (XXYY) where someone is born with both genital organs and hormones. still exceptions. Dysphoria (rare without excessive hormones and a product of nature/nurture) really appears to have a genuine hatred for one's body and the inability to grasp the beauty of the self. Its sad.
    A happy family is but an earlier heaven.
    George Bernard Shaw

  8. Amen Cerebrum123, LostSheep amen'd this post.
  9. #47
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Faith
    Christian (PCUSA)
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    181
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    43
    Quote Originally Posted by Trout View Post
    Would you disagree that it's a mental disorder and if so, shouldn't we as a society seek proper therapy instead of normalization of these individuals?
    Please be clear on what the disorder is. Gender dysphoria is serious dissatisfaction with your gender. By definition anything that disrupts your life is a disorder. This does *not* mean that living as transgender is a disorder. Adopting a transgender identity could, and for some people apparently does, deal with their dissatisfaction with their birth gender. In such cases the dissatisfaction is a disorder, but the transgender identity is not. It's the treatment for the disorder. When mainstream psychologists classify gender dysphoria as a disorder, they are *not* saying that "transgenderism" is a disorder.

    There are, of course, a number of issues raised by this, but none are solved by noting the dysphoria is considered a disorder:
    * Is the dysphoria worth worrying about?
    * Is treating it by living with a transgender identity successful? I guess more precisely, in what fraction of cases does it significantly reduce the dysphoria?
    * How does that success rate compare with trying to help the person accept their birth gender?
    * Even if it works, is it somehow unethical to live as a gender different from your birth gender?

    My understanding is that various forms of transgender life are on average more effective than trying to help people accept their birth gender. My understanding is that Scripture has nothing to say about this, as anything that might be quoted would also prevent treating other conditions that we routinely treat.
    Last edited by hedrick; 05-14-2017 at 01:17 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •