Announcement

Collapse

Psychology 101 Guidelines

Welcome to Tweb's couch. Please join us in discussing the joys of the human psyche. Watch in wonderment as the Tweb crowd has violent mood swings. help us understand what makes us tick.

Like everywhere else at Tweb our decorum rules apply.
See more
See less

Gender disphoria?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
    Alright, I just had to be sure I understood... so if you don't consider dna as destiny, and you understand that these women are born and develop identically to other girls, with the only exception that instead of ovaries they have testes.

    What is it that makes them men?
    Determining who is a man and who is a woman doesn't equal "destiny". That you equate such a determination as such is rather mind boggling.

    They have XY chromosomes, therefore they are male. They also have testicles, therefore they are male. It's really not difficult, and wasn't controversial until very recently AFAIK.

    I read an article about a different type of androgen insensitivity a while back. It wasn't complete like your description, so once the kids hit puberty they developed fully into men. They were a little more "feminine" in appearance, but they were male the whole time. In fact, you could simply take any male who was extremely early in development, remove the androgens and they would develop similarly. It's just how hormones affect development in humans. You can take an adult man and make them grow breasts with hormones, but that doesn't make them women. 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. He's a man regardless of his feelings, or his outward appearance. Just like the individuals you speak of aren't women.

    I also saw you bring up stuff like clown fish in a post to Meh Gerbil. It's a red herring. They aren't human, and they aren't even mammals. AFAIK no mammal can do what clown fish do with their sex. Not only that, but you are putting forth the idea that gender is a social construct, and then bring in an odd possibility of creatures changing their sex under certain circumstances. It has literally nothing to do with this topic, and only muddies the waters.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
      Determining who is a man and who is a woman doesn't equal "destiny". That you equate such a determination as such is rather mind boggling.
      For discussion here, DNA only is 'destiny' as blueprint, blueprint for human kid to grow up to reach telos of either adult man or woman. Of course, once you see it like this, trying to swap telos by mutilation, also hormones is just complete
      Remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return.

      Comment


      • #33
        Leonhard, I appreciate your passion and your hard work in this thread.

        I do however have to agree with Gerbil, it's obvious that you're guilty of using the exception fallacy. And I feel as though you've also used it to muddy the water a bit.

        In the op I outlined who I was talking about:

        A man in every physical sense of the word

        In my OP I outlined the terms in question:

        When using the word sex, I take that to mean the biological sex of the individual. This is assigned and readily observed through the physical traits of an individual.

        When using the word gender, I take that to mean the gender an individual identifies with psychologically.

        There are rare exceptions when an individual is born with a gender defect that makes biologic assignment not as clear - those arent the people I'm speaking of for the sake of this discussion. I'm speaking of those who have a clearly observable sex yet identify as the opposite.

        It seems as though the people in question have a mental disorder (gender disphoria)

        I don't say that in an attempt to disparage anyone struggling with gender disphoria, I only say it seeking a bit of personal understanding.

        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?
        The last Christian left at tweb

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Meh Gerbil View Post
          Every description I've heard of this is highly dependent upon stereotypes such that I doubt someone could describe this condition without stereotypes.
          If you feel like a girl in a boy's body what does it mean to feel like a girl, how does it differ from feeling like a boy, and how do you know the difference?
          Still waiting on answer to this by Leonhard (or others)!!!
          Remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return.

          Comment


          • #35
            Interesting interview on the subject (5 min)


            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
              Interesting interview on the subject (5 min)
              Apparently the idea of a man sentenced to a women's prison isn't as ridiculous as this Petkanas guy wanted to make it sound. Briebart and The Daily Mail apparently reported just such an incident earlier this month where a pre-op transgender individual was allowed to be housed in a female wing of a prison, but was moved back to the male wing when caught numerous times having sex with the women in the female wing. Unfortunately I've been unable to find a more reputable organization reporting on the issue. LGBTQ Nation also points out the lack of reputable journalists covering the topic, but makes the argument that moving the transgender individual back to a male section of the prison was transphobic, and that if the pre-op prisoner was engaging in sex with women in the female wing, then it was a form of lesbianism, and that consensual lesbianism is preferable to the sort of heterosexual rape that the transgender individual might be at high risk for in the male part of the prison.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                Apparently the idea of a man sentenced to a women's prison isn't as ridiculous as this Petkanas guy wanted to make it sound. Briebart and The Daily Mail apparently reported just such an incident earlier this month where a pre-op transgender individual was allowed to be housed in a female wing of a prison, but was moved back to the male wing when caught numerous times having sex with the women in the female wing. Unfortunately I've been unable to find a more reputable organization reporting on the issue. LGBTQ Nation also points out the lack of reputable journalists covering the topic, but makes the argument that moving the transgender individual back to a male section of the prison was transphobic, and that if the pre-op prisoner was engaging in sex with women in the female wing, then it was a form of lesbianism, and that consensual lesbianism is preferable to the sort of heterosexual rape that the transgender individual might be at high risk for in the male part of the prison.
                A couple other sources concerning Paris Green, the transgendered convicted killer who was moved out of the woman's section in prison after having sex with the female inmates:

                I'm always still in trouble again

                "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                Comment


                • #38
                  Yep, I noticed those in my google attempts, but they all seem even more tabloidish than The Daily News and Briebart. I was hoping a more mainstream news organization would carry a piece on it.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                    They have XY chromosomes, therefore they are male.
                    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.

                    They also have testicles, therefore they are male. It's really not difficult, and wasn't controversial until very recently AFAIK.
                    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.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Trout View Post
                      I do however have to agree with Gerbil, it's obvious that you're guilty of using the exception fallacy. And I feel as though you've also used it to muddy the water a bit.
                      Cerebrum's responses are the reason I put it out there. It's the typical simplistic narrative about sex that I encounter very frequently in popular apologetics. We didn't even know about chromosomes until last century, and certainly not sexual chromosomes. Yet suddenly they've become the magical essence of our sexuality.

                      No discussion about what a man or a woman is. The masculine, or the feminine. Just mechanical reductionism.

                      I aimed precisely to poke holes at that. Considering the responses gotten, I don't think it was unwarranted. I simply anticipated it coming up.

                      In the op I outlined who I was talking about: A man in every physical sense of the word
                      When using the word sex, I take that to mean the biological sex of the individual. This is assigned and readily observed through the physical traits of an individual.
                      When using the word gender, I take that to mean the gender an individual identifies with psychologically.

                      There are rare exceptions when an individual is born with a gender defect that makes biologic assignment not as clear - those aren't the people I'm speaking of for the sake of this discussion.
                      Understood, I'll limit my responses to that. I went off topic, I accept what you're saying here.

                      It seems as though the people in question have a mental disorder
                      I would go so far as to agree that there are many people with gender dysphoria where it can be characterized as a personality disorder, but there are also other cases of long persisting identity which is markedly different. There's no simple template of a transgender person, some classifications can be made, but we can't talk about 'the transgender person'. Caitlyn Jenner, for instance, I consider an atypical example. I've met the whole range from a young transgender teen, who's had a clear identity from when they were kids and never grew out of it, despite parents (and tough Baptists grandparents) wanting something different. I have met older people who had transitioned. I've met genderqueer twenty to thirty-year-olds. I've met some who simply never publically transitioned, but have outlets for their desires in various private settings where they feel safe about it.

                      While they all have common symptoms, I don't think the causes are entirely comparable between them. Nor are treatments, or what we should do in regards to them.

                      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?
                      Transitioning is not something anyone wants. It's a long, ugly process. Everyone is against you. If your family still loves you afterward you're lucky. If your job is progressive enough to not fire you on the spot, you thank God. It's expensive, both financially, emotionally and physically. You can expect (especially if you're an m2f transgender) to now be extremely likely to be the victim of assault and rape.

                      In Denmark, any course of transition that is sought via psychiatrists, go a long way to figure out if this is something you truly want. Are you mentally sound? Do you have unrealistic expectations about what you'll get from it? Is it just a sex thing?

                      It takes months of talking and therapy, but there are cases where it's considering that keeping the person from transitioning simply harms the person more than letting them.

                      I think the Church can give some admonishment, and at the very least I think people who transition should commit themselves to celibacy. Which is in the end not that uncommon for natural reasons you can expect.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        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.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          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.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            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.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              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 not here anymore.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                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!!
                                Remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Bill the Cat, 02-21-2024, 07:44 AM
                                73 responses
                                334 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cerebrum123  
                                Working...
                                X