Am I missing something ???

[Charlie Nicki]

I have a difficult time accepting the idea that gender is a social construct.  If that's true, then shouldn't it be possible to 'cure' transgender people by socially conditioning them?

I think we are naturally inclined to be one way or the other but society definitely tries to mold us a certain way based on our genitals. So that's the construct.

Imagine yourself being born in an island and growing up there alone, with nobody to teach you what you are or how to behave. Would you behave exactly the same way you do now? Probably not as some things you learnt before transition as one gender and then you learnt some others as the other one. That's the construct.

If I imagine that about myself, I think it's very likely I would develop traits and ways of expressing myself that are traditionally linked to both genders. But I wouldn't call it anything, just being human. Just being me. More of a something in between rather than a polarized extreme gender.

Gender roles are heavily influenced by society. It's just a matter of which one we feel more comfortable playing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Michelle_P]

I have a difficult time accepting the idea that gender is a social construct.  If that's true, then shouldn't it be possible to 'cure' transgender people by socially conditioning them?

That is well known to Not Work.  Take a look at the rather horrifying results that Dr. John Money got, including his most infamous case, where he claimed to have fully acculturated a male infant damaged shortly after birth to be a female child.  Eventually the intrinsic gender identity of the child overrode the conditioning forced on the child, resulting in classic gender incongruency symptoms including dysphoria and depression.

If it were actually possible to condition gender identity then Brenda would be alive and happily living.  This is clearly not the case.

Diamond and Sigmunsen have done additional research and publications in this area, well worth reading.

http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/2000to2004/2002-conversation.html

[Sophia Sage]

I have a difficult time accepting the idea that gender is a social construct.  If that's true, then shouldn't it be possible to 'cure' transgender people by socially conditioning them?

As Michelle points out, gender identity isn't the same as "gender" -- at least in terms of the categories of gender.  Furthermore, while I'd argue that all categories are social constructions, this doesn't mean that social conditioning can change or erase those categories.  What I mean is that categories only exist in our heads, not "out there." 

But just because categories exist only in our heads doesn't mean they are easily changed, let alone by something as crude as social condition.  What's in our heads may vary in malleability, depending how and when what got into our heads got there.  When it comes to categories, we are predisposed to construct many certain categories (namely "basic level categories") in particular ways -- mostly subconsciously and automatically (basic pattern cognition, and likely biological predisposition to construct certain categories, including gender), and to some extent in accordance with the norms of local culture... when we are incredibly young!  When we are learning language!  So these structures -- these neural pathways -- become more or less permanent. 

Beyond the construction of the categories of gender (which are relatively fixed) we have the practice of gender.  First there's the assignment of gender, which again happens automatically and subconsciously; we generally don't have to think about categorizing this person or that person by gender.  Then our cultural expectations of gender kick in -- we have ingrained expectations about how people (or anything) in a particular category are likely to behave, and we interact with them accordingly.  This is what it means "to gender" someone -- it's to make that assignment, over and over again, and then behave in interaction according to that automatic assignment.  Similarly, we gender ourselves -- make a categorical assignment -- based on our own internal and external maps of ourselves, and then "perform" (to varying degrees) according to gendered expectations.

To be dysphoric is to have conflicting internal and external maps -- and by external maps I mean the maps we construct from what we see in the mirrors.  (This includes all kinds of mirrors -- literal glass mirrors as well as the figurative mirrors of other people and how they're gendering us, even the various mirrors of self-reflection.)  The external maps can be changed; the internal ones cannot. 

So yes, in a way, we can cure transgendered people through social conditioning -- by changing the externally generated maps we have of ourselves and conforming to our categorical understanding of gender performance.  In the former case, it takes changing phenotypes (the face, voice, and body) to align with one's internal gender identity.  In the latter case, it takes adapting to social expectations -- how we interact with other people, which includes one's narrative.  Both of these actually socially condition not just ourselves but other people -- sometimes to the point where there are no longer map/territory incongruities. 

And if you've achieved that, then I'd say you've transsexed. 

[echo7]

What OP meant (had you exerted a little bit more perspicacity, you'd have come to the same conclusion) is that although she feels as womanly as a ciswoman, she can't honestly deny she's genetically a male. This is evident and irrefutable. It's a fact. I didn't feel insulted, at all. I'm even very comfortable with the notion. And believe me, the fact of thinking like this don't make OP or me less of a woman than you.

Now, dare I ask: do you feel insecure when someone reminds you of who you are, genetically? It shouldn't, because as you say, the mind is what matters the most. Why should you be bothered, right?

No hard feelings.

Actually, it does bother me what people think.  In many ways, [public] perception is reality.  For most of the public cis population, the phrase "biologically female" currently means that a person was born with 'female' DNA.  If we as the transsexual community (this is the transsexual subforum, after all) agree with that meaning, we reinforce the public perception that we are not real women.  It doesn't help us remove the social stigma of being something other than true women.

If we instead use "biologically female" to mean that we were born with a female brain and a female gender identity, then we can slowly help bring about the social change needed to be seen by the public as "women, with an unusual medical history" rather than the current view of "biological men who changed into women".

[Sarah.VanDistel]

Actually, it does bother me what people think.  In many ways, [public] perception is reality.  For most of the public cis population, the phrase "biologically female" currently means that a person was born with 'female' DNA.  If we as the transsexual community (this is the transsexual subforum, after all) agree with that meaning, we reinforce the public perception that we are not real women.  It doesn't help us remove the social stigma of being something other than true women.

If we instead use "biologically female" to mean that we were born with a female brain and a female gender identity, then we can slowly help bring about the social change needed to be seen by the public as "women, with an unusual medical history" rather than the current view of "biological men who changed into women".

Hi echo7,

I see your point. Interesting... Not sure if your hopes are not a little too...utopic? But they are certainly food for thought. Thanks for that!

Sarah

Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk

[Michelle_P]

Actually, it does bother me what people think.  In many ways, [public] perception is reality.  For most of the public cis population, the phrase "biologically female" currently means that a person was born with 'female' DNA.  If we as the transsexual community (this is the transsexual subforum, after all) agree with that meaning, we reinforce the public perception that we are not real women.  It doesn't help us remove the social stigma of being something other than true women.

As shocking as it may be to the folks out there relying on their 5th grade biology class skills to determine the fate of others, this idea is nothing more than an overly broad generalization.

We don't generally force persons born with Swyer syndrome, or complete androgen insensitivity syndrome to be raised as males, or force them on diagnosis, usually in their teen years, to switch to using the men's room.  (This may change in some states due to the current bathroom insanity, unfortunately.)

I am unaware of any capability that the average person on the street might have to generate detailed genotypes of strangers on the fly to determine their interactions, rendering any public perception of genotype irrelevant, if not dangerously ignorant.

Even at the genotype level there is a tremendous range of possible expression.

If we instead use "biologically female" to mean that we were born with a female brain and a female gender identity, then we can slowly help bring about the social change needed to be seen by the public as "women, with an unusual medical history" rather than the current view of "biological men who changed into women".

This might be closer to the truth, but again, even high resolution fMRI scans don't always produce obvious binary differences in what is very likely to be a continuum of variations in the brain.

All of these models attempt to preserve the Western culture model of a gender binary predicated on a single characteristic.  While a single go/no-go flag might be handy for bathroom police and the Texas legislature, that model is still a huge oversimplification, which guarantees that individuals not meeting the model in any aspect will suffer at the hands of the culture subscribing to that oversimplification.

Ultimately, we need to move the culture to accept the infinite continua of gender identity and expression and stop binding all of these different concepts to a single binary marker.  Arguments over which marker to use are not terribly productive.

[Janes Groove]

With today's technology you probably can't change your genotype yes, but that may not mean as much as you think. Maybe refer to my earlier post and research yourself if this matters to you. Or just focus on changing your phenotype as much as you can.  If you were a XY female with CAIS would the idea of having a Y chromosome bother you much? Or would you see yourself as a female with a rare condition?

I'm a bit suspicious of conflating CAIS women with most transgender women.  The fact is most transgender women do not have CAIS.  As I understand it CAIS is pretty rare.  Most of us are born with fully functional male anatomy and are raised and conditioned at our most impressionable years as males and are subject to the effects of normal levels of androgen.   All of which I suspect has pretty profound effects upon the formation of the brain architecture.  Yes I know the post mortem studies showing transgender women with female brain structures, but that research is still in it's infancy and we do not yet have the full picture of the effects or early exposure to normal androgen levels combined with male social conditioning.  It seems a bit like comparing apples and oranges.

[xFreya]

I'm a bit suspicious of conflating CAIS women with most transgender women.  The fact is most transgender women do not have CAIS.  As I understand it CAIS is pretty rare.  Most of us are born with fully functional male anatomy and are raised and conditioned at our most impressionable years as males and are subject to the effects of normal levels of androgen.   All of which I suspect has pretty profound effects upon the formation of the brain architecture.  Yes I know the post mortem studies showing transgender women with female brain structures, but that research is still in it's infancy and we do not yet have the full picture of the effects or early exposure to normal androgen levels combined with male social conditioning.  It seems a bit like comparing apples and oranges.

Of course it's not exactly the same thing but I was trying to point out the existence of a Y chromosome doesn't mean that much. Biological sex isn't always a monolithic thing. One's biology can be female in a lot of ways and male in some ways. It's probably better to consider each factor individually when it's medically relevant and not define people as "biological female/male" in daily life. 

Actually, it does bother me what people think.  In many ways, [public] perception is reality.  For most of the public cis population, the phrase "biologically female" currently means that a person was born with 'female' DNA.  If we as the transsexual community (this is the transsexual subforum, after all) agree with that meaning, we reinforce the public perception that we are not real women.  It doesn't help us remove the social stigma of being something other than true women.

I feel similarly. When even some trans women say themselves they are biologically males, to other people it sounds like our assigned sex is objective reality and our femaleness is an act, or a delusion. I am not saying we twist biology like "well I identify as female so my penis is a female organ". I care a lot about biology and science myself. But if people are going to talk about biological sex of trans people it should be a lot more nuanced than black and white statements based on 5th grade knowledge. (I don't mean to bash anyone here I was thinking of transphobes)

[Nora Kayte]

Wow I thought I was totally alone in how I think. But reading posts Down to Dena and Denas post I see there are a lot of sisters like us. I am happy to see it. Hard to find anyone locally so far though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Wednesday]

I want to propose both @Sarah Sage and @Sarah.VanDistel for the forums official rank of "Axiom Amazons" (or Axiom Warriors) lol

Joke. Both you brought nice food for thought. Anyway, conceptual frameworks are what they are, not a prison, just frameworks. You can feel imprisoned by them as much as you can feel liberated by the reference and guide they give you while in complete darkness.

As long as you assume any truth, in essence or not, interior or not, you got your axiom, your framework. It's just a tool.

It's so much fun to try to peek a look at their frontiers and beyond, but also easy to get lost (and I can't see how one may be free if don't know even slightly and just approximately where he goes and what he uses to navigate).

If we instead use "biologically female" to mean that we were born with a female brain and a female gender identity, then we can slowly help bring about the social change needed to be seen by the public as "women, with an unusual medical history" rather than the current view of "biological men who changed into women".

I see this kind of approaches like as just changing in a student exam "3" for "2" so his "5" as a the result of the addition of "2+3" now makes sense. It's not the language (the abstract formalism) which deserves attention, but the mechanics underlyng it. Only that way the student could progress beyond. Maybe I'm the utopist here, but definitely not the way I'd proceed.

[josie76]

I have looked at "gender" in what to me anyway seems a logical biological state.

First, there are so many regions of our brains that are now known to be gender demorphic. However there is not enough research now to know when each section gets into its finished state. What is known is some sections are "hardwired" in the second trimester, some in the third. Maybe some earlier. What that means is during the entire time of pregnancy it's possible for some regions to be wired female and some male depending on hormone trigger levels at each sections specific time.

So logically, it would be expected that people can span the entire range of being male and being female. Since these sections of our brains do so much more than is recognized by the general populace, the concept of "gender" is not at all a social construct. Some of the brain's structures have been connected to specific instinctual behavior. Others we know can effect how a person processes thoughts. Therefore logically gender is primarily a biological reality. Our society may well build acceptable roles based on gender but real gender is specific to the way any individual thinks.

A couple of known gender demorphic sections that have some functions identified by active brain scan technology:
Hypothalamus section iNH3 associated with maternal instinctual behavior in mammals
Corpus collosum: section connecting left and right hemispheres of the brain. Both dual directional and sigle directional neurons known to exist.