Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Consul]

You appear to not understand the difference between the intersexed and the transsexual.

I do understand the difference very well! I also do understand that there can be intersexual males/females who are transsexual (by desiring to be females/males). But, in fact, nearly all transsexuals are non-intersexuals.

(Recall that being intersexual just means having some disorder of sex development or other, which condition doesn't necessarily prevent an individual from being either male or female!)

For some reason, you are ignoring all aspects of transpeople's claims to focus on biological sex, which has nothing to do with their claims (aside from the occasional delusional type).
That's why biologists have nothing to do with this. You are not going to call a biologist to diagnose transgender characteristics.

Yes, (as opposed to intersexuality) transsexuality and gender dysphoria are mental states diagnosed by psychologists/psychiatrists rather than by biologists/physiologists. – I am not at all ignoring the psychology of transsexuality!

And no, nature sorts itself into many sexes. You are indeed being reductionist. Consider two snails "penis fencing" - the first one to stab the other avoids pregnancy. Consider clownfish changing sex as part of their life cycle. A number of cold-blooded species can impregnate themselves. Leeches and worms have sex and impregnate each other. Some gobies can change sex at will. Clam shrimp have males, females, and multiple types of hermaphrodite genders.

Come on, I already explained to you very clearly that species of sequential or simultaneous hermaphrodites do not constitute any additional sexes/genders, because none of them produce any type of gametes other than sperm or eggs.

Moreover, once again, the multiple mating types occurring in isogametic species are not sexes. And species reproducing e.g. through parthenogenesis don't constitute a third sex either, because there is no type of gametes involved other than egg cells or sperm cells.

Of course you will say that humans are rarely hermaphrodites, and even more rarely functionally, which would miss the point. There are degrees of mental hermaphroditism in humans - and this fact has established beyond doubt, by the gender divisions of numerous societies and by many psychological studies, even some brain studies.

What do you mean by "mental hermaphroditism"?
I did some googling and learned that the term "mental/psychical hermaphroditism" was originally coined in German as "psychische Hermaphrodisie" by Richard von Krafft-Ebing (1840-1902), and used to refer to bisexuality.

"Psychical Hermaphroditism.
The characteristic mark of this degree of inversion of the sexual instinct is that, by the side of the pronounced sexual instinct and desire for the same sex, a desire toward the opposite sex is present; but the latter is much weaker and is manifested episodically only, while homosexuality is primary, and, in time and intensity, forms the most striking feature of the sexual life."

(von Krafft-Ebing, Richard. Psychopathia Sexualis. [12th German ed., 1903.] Translated by Franklin S. Klaf. New York: Stein and Day, 1965. p. 231)

I'm all in favour of not pandering to today's politically correct post-modern social Marxism. However, I am not in favour of ignoring history and science to make a point.

Neither am I! As far as I can see, I'm not guilty of having done so!

[Sy Borg]

To claim that hermaphrodites don't matter because their components are male and female (as opposed [x]-ale) is akin to claiming that only primary colours exist. It's akin to claiming that green and purple are not actually colours, just a mix of "true colours". Your reductionism results in ignoring major aspects of reality.

You don't need to look up mental hermaphroditism and if your source was any older it would displayed in the London Museum. My fault, I guess, I used an old word - "hermaphroditism" instead of the new word, "androgyny", which has seemingly lead you down a historical path.

Put aside the politics and think of this situation rationally. Logically, a woman will have the most feminine mind of all, and a woman will have the most masculine mind. Vice versa with men. Very feminine males and very masculine females logically tend to be gay or trans. Even old science textbooks of my time recognised varying mental genders (Bem) - male, female, androgynous and undifferentiated.

Look at Dylan Mulvaney, the actor whom an out-of-touch publicist hired and lost billions of dollars from Bud Light's stock price. What percentage of males would even be capable of Mulvaney's level of female impersonation? Would you be capable of doing drag work if you were so inclined? If not, do you know any males who could be as convincing in appearance, voice and mannerisms as Mulvaney? What do you think male life would have been like for a young person of that ilk?

Whatever, as I say, the John/Joan case is a slam dunk for the existence of inner sexual identity. The situation could not be more clear. You love academia and research. Look it up. It's grotesque and makes clear how deep and intractable our gender inclinations are.

[Consul]

Moreover, once again, the multiple mating types occurring in isogametic species are not sexes.

"Here lies one main reason to keep the distinction: many organisms present both mating types and sexes. The haploid gametophytes of heterothallic filamentous ascomycetes (such as Podosporina or Neurospora) are hermaphrodite, producing simultaneously both male and female gametes (microconidia and ascogonia, respectively), but microconidia can only fertilize ascogonia from a different mating type (Coppin et al. 1997). Similarly, the unicellular diploid sporophytes of ciliates (such as Euplotes, Paramecium, or Tetrahymena) are hermaphrodite, producing both a stationary (female) and a migratory (male) micronucleus, but can only exchange male nuclei with a partner from a different mating type (Phadke and Zufall 2009)."

—Nicolas Perrin: "What Uses are Mating Types? The 'Developmental Switch' Model" (2011)

[Consul]

To claim that hermaphrodites don't matter because their components are male and female (as opposed [x]-ale) is akin to claiming that only primary colours exist. It's akin to claiming that green and purple are not actually colours, just a mix of "true colours". Your reductionism results in ignoring major aspects of reality.

There we have it again—the false accusation of reductionism, which doesn't get less false through repetition!

(Non-mental) Hermaphrodites matter a lot to biologists and physiologists, and they've been studying them for a very long time. That there is no third sex in hermaphroditic species doesn't make them any less fascinating! If you want to learn more, I recommend this book:

* Avise, John C. Hermaphroditism: A Primer on the Biology, Ecology, and Evolution of Dual Sexuality. New York: Columbia University Press, 2011.

You don't need to look up mental hermaphroditism and if your source was any older it would displayed in the London Museum. My fault, I guess, I used an old word - "hermaphroditism" instead of the new word, "androgyny", which has seemingly lead you down a historical path.

Merriam-Webster defines "androgyny" as "the quality or state of being neither specifically feminine or masculine: the combination of feminine and masculine characteristics." – Fine, I'm happy with that! Yes, there are androgynous males/men and androgynous females/women.

Put aside the politics and think of this situation rationally. Logically, a woman will have the most feminine mind of all, and a woman will have the most masculine mind. Vice versa with men. Very feminine males and very masculine females logically tend to be gay or trans. Even old science textbooks of my time recognised varying mental genders (Bem) - male, female, androgynous and undifferentiated.

Yes, no doubt, there are (more or less) feminine males/men, (more or less) masculine females/women, (more or less) androgynous males/men, and (more or less) androgynous females/women. However, these four classes of individuals aren't additional sexes/genders, let alone mental ones!

Look at Dylan Mulvaney, the actor whom an out-of-touch publicist hired and lost billions of dollars from Bud Light's stock price. What percentage of males would even be capable of Mulvaney's level of female impersonation? Would you be capable of doing drag work if you were so inclined? If not, do you know any males who could be as convincing in appearance, voice and mannerisms as Mulvaney? What do you think male life would have been like for a young person of that ilk?

I'd rather not look at Mulvaney, who is a bizarre incarnation of Butler's gender-as-performance theory. I don't know, but many doubt s/he's genuinely transsexual; so "female impersonator" may be the right term for her/him.

How many real women do you know who appear and behave like Mulvaney?
Many accuse her/him of making a mockery of real women. (If you're a woman yourself, don't you feel offended too?)

Anyway, I've seen transsexuals/transvestites who are more passable as women (and much more natural-looking than "Barbie Doll" Mulvaney), but I myself would be much less passable in drag. (Well, who knows? I've never tried! )
By the way, as far as I know, Mulvaney has had facial surgeries, and may be taking estrogen.

Whatever, as I say, the John/Joan case is a slam dunk for the existence of inner sexual identity. The situation could not be more clear. You love academia and research. Look it up. It's grotesque and makes clear how deep and intractable our gender inclinations are.

I'm familiar with this tragic case. What you call sexual identity I call sexual identification. Sexual (or nonsexual) self-identification is part of one's multifaceted self-representation (to oneself or others), which is part of one's personality.
The irresponsible attempt to turn that poor boy into a girl didn't annul his male self-identification.
Nothing what I said about sex is in contradiction with the John/Joan case!

[Consul]

Yes, no doubt, there are (more or less) feminine males/men, (more or less) masculine females/women, (more or less) androgynous males/men, and (more or less) androgynous females/women. However, these four classes of individuals aren't additional sexes/genders, let alone mental ones!

There are many ways of being feminine, masculine, or androgynous; but there aren't many ways of being female or male.

[Sy Borg]

I give up. I cannot communicate concepts to you. You have your view and no amount of logic or evidence can shift you.

I'm familiar with this tragic case. What you call sexual identity I call sexual identification. Sexual (or nonsexual) self-identification is part of one's multifaceted self-representation (to oneself or others), which is part of one's personality.
The irresponsible attempt to turn that poor boy into a girl didn't annul his male self-identification.
Nothing what I said about sex is in contradiction with the John/Joan case!

You are just changing words. It's gender identity and it is absolutely real. Poor young John felt himself to be male and fought against being conditioned as a girl by a misguided doctor who believed that gender identity was not innate, but learned. The attempt to change him from his natural inclinations fatally damaged him.

It should be said that other boys who lost their parts during botched circumcisions had similar treatment but their mental sex was less masculine than John's, and they managed to adapt. Mental gender is clearly real - people kill themselves over it - so it should be respected rather than dismissed as madness or delusion. There's sixty years of research, attempts to remove queerness via electroshock, lobotomies, all manner of drugs, all manner of cognitive therapy - and non of it worked. That's why transpeople have surgeries etc. It was said that, "If you cannot change the mind to fit the body, change the body to fit the mind".

Much of that accumulated knowledge has been disregarded in recent years. It's as though we've regressed to the early 1960s and starting from scratch again. Much knowledge since that time is being disregarded by both sides of politics.

[Sculptor1]

Picking out odd cases is neither here nor there.
The case for gender dysphoria is well established.

Attempts to make gender a simple binary are a failure. A simple authoritarian attempt to control people.
It should be obvious that gender is a variable and moving feast.
Consider PeeWee Herman, Arnold Swazenegger, Jean Claude Van Damme, with Rock Hudson and James Dean (famously found covered in cigarette burns from his penchant for vioent gay sex)
This ought to alert you to the fact that masculinity is not handed out evenly; in the case of male attributed and objects of attration.
A similar list of women could as easily be offered from the most feminine attracted to men to the most masculine attracted to women.
SO why on earth would anyone assume that the physical body is going to align with an innate sense fo gender in the brain.
Well guess what IT DOES NOT.

The massive number of cases is irrefutable. As communications have improved in the 20thC it has become increasingly obviious where people once thought they were the only ones with this condition that cases have multiplied. Like any rare condition obsurity has vanished with the increasing medical knowledge of this condition.
It is simply ignorance to pretend otherwise.
The same sort of ignorance that for centuries denied the existence of female homosexuality.

[Lagayascienza]

Gender identity is real enough. The cause of GD and whether it is innate or not are irrelevant. The cause would only become relevant if it led to knowledge that could be used to change gender identity (brain surgery?). But even if that became possible, would anyone choose to change their gender identity? I guess if society made people miserable enough because of their gender identity some may decide to change it. Obviously, such a change would be better before, rather than after, surgical gender reassignment.

In the end, I think society should just leave people alone and let them be the gender they feel themselves to be. I don't understand why people have such a problem with it. Religion, intolerance/fear of difference?

I agree with what Sculptor1 said about masculinity and femininity not being evenly handed out. And, unfortunately for people with GD, secondary sex characteristics like can be harder to change than just popping some hormone pills, lopping off genitalia or implanting boobs. Bone structure, muscle mass and voice are very hard to change. I known trans people who underwent male to female surgery years ago but who still exhibit these male characteristics. I guess that is one reason to do gender reassignment early before secondary sex characteristic develop. However, surgical reassignment of minors comes with a host of other problems such whether minors can be said to fully understand the implications of surgical reassignment. I guess minors could be given hormones which could be be stopped if they change their minds and surgery could be delayed until they become adults. But maybe that is what already happens. I'll have to research it.

[Sy Borg]

In the end, I think society should just leave people alone and let them be the gender they feel themselves to be. I don't understand why people have such a problem with it. Religion, intolerance/fear of difference?

I think such phobia preceded religion. When you look at the Abrahamic societies that are most restrictive regarding such things, you have a lot of highly competitive tribes, and population would have been a big part of being competitive. So, queer people were probably seen as not pulling their reproductive weight.

While discrimination against queer people is longstanding, they keep on turning up, which puts paid to accusations of being "unnatural". It's just less usual. At one stage even left handers were seen as suspect and against nature.

People need to organise and there's always been tension between control and freedom, with no society being quite sure that the proportion of these attributes is ideal, and in what circumstances. What to control, and to what extent? Clearly, not all sex is acceptable, eg. coercion, children, animals so some rules must be made. Regulating queer people is essentially scope creep of society's brief to protect people from harmful practices, resulting in over-regulation.

[Lagayascienza]

It may have preceded religion. Still, when we look back to Greece and Rome, at the art and the literature and even the graffiti, we see a much more laid back attitude towards sexuality. And this is despite their devotion to a whole pantheon of gods and goddesses. There seems to be something inherently puritanical, rule-bound and controlling about the monotheistic Abrahamic religions. The slightest hint that someone might be enjoying themselves and they poke their nose in and start finger wagging.

[Sy Borg]

I see the sexuality of ancient Greece as one of those oddities that sometimes pops up in life. The Greek empire reminds me of the Cambrian explosion. After the Bronze Age collapse, there was a power vacuum, filled by Greek states. Meanwhile, the Cambrian explosion saw the rise of the first large, complex animals after a major extinction event.

The Cambrian is famous for its many oddities. Natural selection at large scales was yet to get into swing, so all manner of strange species emerged. Likewise, Greece was also breaking new ground in the west, and it too was replete with oddities. All of the major ancient empires had bizarre approaches to sex and relationships. I think of them as metaphors for the strange animals of the Cambrian.

It's hard for humans. We have these big brains that think all manner of things. We have our strongest sexual desires at an age when we are not legally allowed to have sex, a time when pregnancy significantly harms one's prospects. Our urges and the way we live are famously mismatched as we become ever more immersed in technosystems and ever less connected to natural systems.

There's not much in modern life that encourages sexual normalcy in lower and middle classes. If raising a family is too expensive to manage, then why bother following the rest of the traditional script?

[Consul]

I give up. I cannot communicate concepts to you. You have your view and no amount of logic or evidence can shift you.

Communication works better if the concepts used have clear meanings, which is not the case with identity, gender, and gender identity.

I'm familiar with this tragic case. What you call sexual identity I call sexual identification. Sexual (or nonsexual) self-identification is part of one's multifaceted self-representation (to oneself or others), which is part of one's personality.
The irresponsible attempt to turn that poor boy into a girl didn't annul his male self-identification.
Nothing what I said about sex is in contradiction with the John/Joan case!

You are just changing words. It's gender identity and it is absolutely real.

I'm changing words for the sake of clarity, since it's anything but clear what gender identity is. And if that's not clear, it isn't clear either whether or not gender identity is real.

It should be said that other boys who lost their parts during botched circumcisions had similar treatment but their mental sex was less masculine than John's, and they managed to adapt. Mental gender is clearly real - people kill themselves over it - so it should be respected rather than dismissed as madness or delusion. There's sixty years of research, attempts to remove queerness via electroshock, lobotomies, all manner of drugs, all manner of cognitive therapy - and non of it worked. That's why transpeople have surgeries etc. It was said that, "If you cannot change the mind to fit the body, change the body to fit the mind".
Much of that accumulated knowledge has been disregarded in recent years. It's as though we've regressed to the early 1960s and starting from scratch again. Much knowledge since that time is being disregarded by both sides of politics.

I do not condone any medical or psychiatric mistreatment of homosexuals, intersexuals, or transsexuals!

But what is a "mental gender/sex"? – Are you talking about a person's sexual self-representation or about something else?

(Generally, species of self-representation are self-identification, self-classification, self-conception, self-definition, self-perception, self-cognition (self-knowledge), self-belief, self-interpretation (self-understanding), self-evaluation.)

[Consul]

Picking out odd cases is neither here nor there.
The case for gender dysphoria is well established.

Yes, indeed, it's a real psychological phenomenon.

Attempts to make gender a simple binary are a failure. A simple authoritarian attempt to control people.
It should be obvious that gender is a variable and moving feast.

How do you define "gender"?

[Consul]

Gender identity is real enough.

How do you define "gender identity"?

[JackDaydream]

I have been reading this thread and wondering why it matters to some to have such issues with others' gender identity. However, it seems to stem from a need to put people into boxes as opposed to any fluidity. However, it is beyond the issue of forum discussion of philosophy and is connected with political protest about the right to self identify along the gender continuum.

The argument is often on the basis of transgender women not being 'women' and a very clear binary categorisation of gender distinction. However, while this argument goes back to lesbian feminism, especially the ideas of Janice Raymond in 'The Transsexual Empire', the approach is currently being used to support a backlash against transsexuals, and their wish to identify and live as their chosen gender, treating them as 'liars', in denial of their own authenticity on the grounds of biological essentialism

Of course, the issues of intersex and transsexualism are not identical. A person who is born with one of the varying intersex conditions may still identify clearly with the biological sex they were assigned to or decide to transition to the opposite one. While the nature of intersex and transgender or transsexual have such important areas of variance it does show that gender is a spectrum or continuum. The idea of the continuum includes both aspects of the physical and psychological. Aside from the area of intersex, all people have some androgyny as they foetus develops identically until the process of sexual differentian and most men are women have some of the opposite sex hormones. The ones who don't are androgen insensitive 'males' who appear female although having testicles and male chromosomes.

The idea of going beyond the binary offers a way of thinking which challenges essentialism. It goes back to the idea of androgyny. It offers a less rigid framework. Some people may identify as non binary and seek some surgery to make physical changes to feel comfortable and others may not. Similarly, some transsexuals may or may not. The assumption that a person must make changes to be accepted for their gender is based on biological essentialism. The idea of the binary allows for fluidity beyond duality and integration of the masculine and feminine rather than a duality of seeing people as 'good' or 'evil'. That is where the idea of 'gender as performance' or as socially constructed comes in because it involves so much of cultural rather than biological ideas about gender roles, behaviour and presentation.