Susan's Place Transgender Resources

Research Reaffirms Traditional Understanding of Gender

By Lauren Funk
Volume 14, Number 27
June 16, 2011

http://www.c-fam.org/publications/id.1883/pub_detail.asp (http://www.c-fam.org/publications/id.1883/pub_detail.asp)

NEW YORK, June 16 (C-FAM). New research reaffirms that gender is grounded in the biology of men and women, supporting the traditional understanding of gender agreed on by the international community.

[...]

The authors affirm that biological sex cannot change, and they renounce the concept of "gender identity," or the idea that gender, as a social construct or personal perception, is separate from one's biological sex.  Citing the work of psychoanalyst Charles Socarides, they explain that "there is no evidence that gender identity confusion – a gender identity contrary to anatomical structure- is inborn."

I sure would like to know where the research was in that article... all I'm hearing is opinion.  Peer-reviewed research, eh?  In what journal is the original publication?

We all know we're born with the bodies that match our chromosomes (certain intersex conditions exempted).  We all know how uncomfortable we are with that.  I'd wager our comorbidity rates are no higher or lower than the general population, except we're comorbid by virtue of having a DSM diagnosis for what's simply our everyday experience of our bodies.  And of course we have the same life problems after surgery as before, because nobody in this world--trans, cis, gay straight, martian--get a magic bullet to make everything go away.

Duh.

This "research" brought to you by the same sponsors of the Inquisitions! Where it doesn't matter that you're not guilty;
because we know what's best for you! You get to suffer the same, either way.


Dawn

"However, those who seek SRS are virtually always genetically normal men and women..." And they know this how? Who actually requires genetic testing prior to GRS? Having worked with a genetic testing lab on a computer project once, I know that genetic testing is half art, half science, and too expensive to perform without a good cause. Without data theirs is just another opinion.

Quote from: Zoë Natasha on June 18, 2011, 11:13:15 AM
I sure would like to know where the research was in that article

There is no research.  The "study" is actually a 125-page theoretical framework which makes lots of assumptions and references to other sources.  There is no data, analysis, or anything that resembles anything that any "real" scientists would call a study.

QuoteThe authors affirm that biological sex cannot change, and they renounce the concept of "gender identity," or the idea that gender, as a social construct or personal perception, is separate from one's biological sex.

Biological sex cannot change? Duh!

or the idea that gender, as a social construct or personal perception, is separate from one's biological sex. Duh again!

QuoteHowever, those who seek SRS are virtually always genetically normal men and women with intact sexual and reproductive organs and hormone levels proper to their sex, the paper says.  In these cases, according to the authors, "when an adult who is normal in appearance and functioning believes there is something ugly or defective in their appearance that needs to be changed, it is clear that there is a psychological problem of some significance."

Again, Duh!

Anyone who has ever claimed that SRS can be anything more than a cosmetic achievment is diluding themselves.

That is surely not the question. The proper question to ask is, is it acceptable for people to resolve these conflicts through SRS?

QuoteSexual reassignment surgery, because it proposes a surgical solution to deep psychological disorders, is categorically inappropriate – and thus medically and ethically unsound, according to the authors, and those individuals who undergo SRS continue to have "much the same problems with relationships, work, and emotions as before" their surgery.

Now, this is the nub of the paper. This is the issue that make the difference between what the authors are proposing and what others support or seek.

For this claim we need evidence. Evidence that, a significant number who undergo SRS continue to suffer real psychological harm. This, of course, must necessarily exclude those who suffer harm from legal or social intolerance, since that harm is not the based upon the issues of personal psychology that the paper is claiming exist.

I wonder if the Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute, will produce this?

I also wonder how many paper have been submitted to the UN, on this issue, which do not support this proposition?

Adition.

I've found the original paper and am in the process of reading it.

http://www.couragerc.net/Transsexual_Issues/Sex_Reassignment.pdf (http://www.couragerc.net/Transsexual_Issues/Sex_Reassignment.pdf)

Quote from: spacial on June 19, 2011, 04:23:39 PMI've found the original paper and am in the process of reading it.

Don't bother.  It is intellectually dishonest drivel that includes sources such as JONAH (Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality) and discusses radical feminist charicatures of transsexuals as if any of these discussions actually make any real arguments.

We'll leave out the fact that none of that is scientific, as we've already established the scientific credibility of the "study"

no matter what research it is, even if the conclusions make sense to me, i'll only accept them with reservation. and if it doesn't make sense, i'll demand some damned good evidence for me to reconsider its validity

from what you say, i don't even think it's worth reading, but i still will just to know what nonsense the public is being fed by those people

Quote from: explorer on June 19, 2011, 05:56:51 PM
from what you say, i don't even think it's worth reading, but i still will just to know what nonsense the public is being fed by those people

It's fairly typical.  It presents the various thousands of reasons people have come up with to deny the legitimacy of ->-bleeped-<-, while completely ignoring any evidence or arguments that do support the legitimacy of ->-bleeped-<-.

wouldn't this be more appropriate under Religious news?

To the believer no proof is required, to the skeptic no proof is sufficient.

It strikes me as odd in the original paper, how much emphasis is placed on reproduction and the ethical issue of surgery on 'healthy' reproductive organs. I have to wonder why that's a factor. Because trans guys and girls will suddenly, miraculously, start using their reviled and hated 'equipment' to make babies if SRS is denied them?

Mmm... yeah, I can see that being as likely as Churchill giving a rallying speech to the massed armies of snowballs about to march confidently into Hell on the fourteenth Sunday of the month, under the light of a blue moon.

The double edged sword of creating awareness in the hope of acceptance. Now that people are aware of those that transition they no longer think.. "oh that is just how they were born", but now it's oh they "changed to become that, they are not really that.. and I know this because it was on the tv/newspaper".

"ohh oohhh noo nooooo noooooooo..... I never "changed" anything lols.... I corrected an abnormality. It's not as a big of a deal as you think! lols". *sigh*.

Quote from: EmilyElizabeth on June 19, 2011, 08:16:08 PM
wouldn't this be more appropriate under Religious news?

That would be appropriate given the study's propensity to reference the Pope and other religious figures.

Well, I'm appalled. That "study" is a bigoted, radical, disgusting waste of real space and time.

The biological identity is written on every cell and cannot be changed.

I think the authors and the 'peer reviewers have made the classical scientific error of  1+1=3.

Just because you can identify XY or XX or any other combination does not define gender. It may define sex identity. But it does not identify gender. Peoples gender ID develops around 12 - 36 months.
OK little boys and little girls look like boys and girls because of how they are dressed. But they don't know the concept of boy and girl, that develops.

Oh BTW just because a paper is peer reviewed means nothing. I would like to know the impact factor of the journal, I suspect it is a minus number.

Cindy an XY female. Whose every cell knows her gender

Obviously the concept of 'Expert Evidence' is one the publisher is not aware of. That is, you are only an expert in an area you are qualified in.   As the author is a psychoanalyst, they are not competent to comment on genetics and fetal brain development.

In  other words, not a credible article.

Karen.

Quote from: VeryGnawty on June 19, 2011, 05:19:23 PM
Don't bother.  It is intellectually dishonest drivel that includes sources such as JONAH (Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality) and discusses radical feminist charicatures of transsexuals as if any of these discussions actually make any real arguments.

We'll leave out the fact that none of that is scientific, as we've already established the scientific credibility of the "study"

As you say, it isn't scientific in any manner.

I was more concerned at the claims in the report from C-Fam that this was some sort of report, presented to the UN.

The first point is, it isn't a report at all. It's a chapter from a book.

I tried so very hard to read the extract, positively, but it is clearly a polemical work, aimed at established member of the RC community, looking to be told what sort of opinion they should have on SRS.

It affirms the view that homosexuality is a mental illness of course. It acknowleges that FtM exists, yet only deals with this briefly, by pointing out that, since women don't have any sexual feelings, when they do this, it is more a manipulation of their appearance with, occasionally, a rejection of the more distasteful aspects of being a women. (Which, of course, we won't mention, so, let's quickly move on and forget that we even thought out it).

It does cite a few prominant accademics, but I have a feeling, even they would find some of the interpertations of their work, lacking in clarity.

I didn't chase up any of the references since there seemed little point. It was clear what the writer was saying.

Nothing to see here, to be honest. I can't even say that it was funny.