The Economist article on gender definition

[SadieBlake]

https://www.economist.com/briefing/2018/10/27/transgender-politics-focuses-on-who-determines-someones-gender

The Economist

I wish I saw a place for feedback as this article is fairly riddled with factual errors.

[Stevi]

Sadie,

I read the article.  I found it to be one of the more thoughtful and balance pieces I have seen lately in this present highly polarised environment.  Would you care to point out to me the errors you see.  I am not doubting you that they are there.  I would just like to know of any that, by knowing of them, might negate or weaken the points the article explores.

Thanks in advance,
Stevi

[SadieBlake]

For starters the article states that the history of ->-bleeped-<- begins in German in the 1930s is fatuously wrong and needed no more than a trip to Wikipedia --https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_history to correct -. Also the aricle cites two theories of the reasons for being trans -- essentially psychological reaction to a child's adverse environment or being intersex, and failing to cover the widely accepted understanding that in-utero brain development is the site of gender identity.

There's no mention of the current study of brain structure and the BSTc or fmri studies that have established that operation of trans brain tends to match those of non dysphoric cis gender people. Neither is there mention of earlier work based on left-right brain and behavioral / cognitive studies.

It presents the options for diagnosis as either self reflection or reliance on chromosomes, failing to mention the accepted practice of psychoanalytic diagnosis or the hardships that that presents for many trans people.

I could go on, those would be the low hanging fruit. Essentially I think the author started from a strawman proposition between current policy considerations in the US vs UK. Understandable given the focus of the publication, however still fundamentally flawed imo.

[Paige]

Thanks Sadie for starting this thread.

Paige

[Stevi]

Sadie,

Thanks for your reply.  Reading the article from the place that I am at, one of having to deal with issue personally, and already knowing much of what underlies the discussion at the level of the general population, I don't what what the general reader would take from this article.

I do not wish to be argumentative about any of this with you.  However, I will make a couple of comments.

The article does not actually say that ->-bleeped-<- began in Germany in the 1930's  It says sexual reassignment surgical intervention for a person's gender dysphoria began in the 1930's, in so many words.

While the writer does not delve into the more recent science that is reinforcing the basis for the current more mainstream thought on the nature and source of our gender identities as human beings, the writer does say:

Within the past 20 years a dominant theory about gender identities has emerged. Humans come equipped with an innate, gendered sense of who they are—not just those who wish to transition from one sex to another, but "cis" people (those content with their natal sex) and "non-binary" people who do not fit neatly into either category.

Take note of the words I emphasized.  I do not think it is necessarily the writer's duty to defend the theory by delving into the supporting research.  I think that is a summation of all the research into brain development, prenatal or otherwise.   I do wish it was more explicit that the source of the "innate, gendered sense" was the brain, itself.

I see the piece as an attempt to present the rationalizations for two different courses of action by two different governments.  The rationalization for the US government's course of action is founded on misinformation.  I think there is a place for an article such as this to allow more open-minded people to see the contrast in the thought processes.  For open-minded people who seem to stand against us, I think, they are driven by fear, not hate.  Yelling at them does nothing to assuage their fears.  Showing the contrast might allow them to  shift their views.

I have, for all intents and purposes, just completed my coming out.  I had to come out to a lot of friends who are largely right leaning.  Some of them actually made comments that were anti-gay or anti-trans in the past.  All but one was at the very least, OK with my course of action.  Most were affirming and supportive.  I do not know all of the reasons, but I have to think it is more information about ->-bleeped-<- in recent times.  But more than that it is knowing someone, me, who does not fit the image of what they feared.

Anyway, just some of my thoughts.  I was glad to see an article that wasn't rivaling the decibel level of a jet engine.

Take care, Sadie,
Stevi

[GingerVicki]

I believe that people over think things. I remember when I was a child I use to line up to go in the girls restroom and wear my sisters clothes. At that young age, before puberty, there was nothing sexual about it what-so-ever. That was just me expressing myself. I thought I was female. I personally believe that it is obvious when express so young and genetic markers really are irrelevant.

I do support the genetic research especially when DNA can be changed via a virus. I sex change without HRT would be fantastic. With that being said, information does need to be correct.

[SadieBlake]

Stevi, sure I'm a scientist myself and I don't like seeing work  mischaracterized. I think we agree that the article was highlighting differing policies in the US & UK. And let's face it, while there's no policy that is going to make everyone happy, Europe and Canada are far more accepting of us (it's true that there are reactionaries springing up all over right now and that there's no one policy that's going to make everyone happy.

I should also say that the same issue of the economist had an opinion piece that the proposed UK legislation that effectively makes changing gender-marker changes basically like informed-consent (no clinical opinion necessary) was a bad law. So the failure to really tell the full story of how it happens now seems pretty meaningful to me.

And to quibble on the details what the article actually says is "the history of the idea that somebody could change from one sex to another is recent, dating from around 1930 [viz the subject of the book&film "The Danish Girl]. My point was that the first (european) attempts at surgical remediation are certainly not the first idea of being able to change.

....

Ginger I don't think sex change via gene therapy will ever be a thing. All that development happens in-utero along with the brain-chemistry things. I think it's also unclear whether some more subtle genentic variations are part of the difference between trans and cis. In short it's complicated and of course even science that's clear as a bell can be hard with the people in our current administration, let alone anything that's nuanced.

[Johnni Gyrl]

I felt the Economist article was balanced fairly even throughout, though was tipping towards transgender and self i.d. rights in many places. For a mainstream outlet, it raises and puts forth the issues we want to see being discussed in a rational manner and obviously casts a wider net than a pro-trans website ever could.

I recently added an article here on the forums called 'All Aboard The Transgender Express' -

https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,241141.0.html

- so I know how hard it is to give a balanced view that would reach a mainstream audience and have them questioning their previously held beliefs and values, instead of dismissing trans issues as 'leftie propaganda / lgbt conspiracy to wreck family values / 1% elite plan to bring a new world order' / etc.... ( Take your pick from dozens of tin-foil hat conspiracy theories that are out there.)

So, for all the above reasons ( and without quibbling about slight historical or terminology errors,) I give the Economist article a massive thumbs up!

[AnneK]

One minor point, that David Reimer did not have "abnormal genitalia".  He was mutilated in a botched circumcision.

[tgchar21]

One minor point, that David Reimer did not have "abnormal genitalia".  He was mutilated in a botched circumcision.

Which is one of the reasons why I'm against routine infant circumcision. (Being circumcised also frequently reduces the quality of GRS for transwomen.)