This is in part a response to a topic that was touched on in another post -
https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,148651.msg1347126.html#msg1347126

Right now I am re-examining everything I have come to believe about "gender", even its very existence.  I am post-op MTF who now identifies again as male. Is my gender strictly self-defined? Is my gender what society treats me as? Does the fact that some will see me as "less than a man" due to my medical history matter in how my gender need be defined?  Because my gender is interpreted differently by different people and I still find myself being "fluid" in my gender presentation (even if it is just a split second reaction to someone calling me "ma'am"), does that make me "genderqueer"?  I don't know.

I do feel that there is a biological boundary between the male and female sexes. There are a few exceptions to this binary that occur, but the fact that the binary is only 99% (or whatever it is) as opposed to 100% does little to dissuade me from feeling that this is a legitimate binary.  I think that a lot of what we call "gender" (and I still do believe there is such a thing) exists to help our species procreate. I can't get into it too deeply here, but I think that the patriarchy at one point probably served its purpose, at the expense of women, to help our species survive. However, as we move closer to social equality of the two sexes (we are still a LONG ways off) and intercourse is no longer necessary for procreation how much of gender do we really need?  Should any of it be retained? Is now something we choose and we can make up our own rules?  I am not sure of any of this. But these are questions that society is still navigating in many different areas besides just the trans ones we talk a lot about here.

In my case I got to the point that gender (at least as it applied to myself) was something that I didn't care that much about anymore. But I can't totally run away from it because in many (not all) interactions with other people, their perception of my gender will have an influence upon how we interact.

I guess right now some would consider me "genderqueer" (I didn't even know exactly what that term meant until a few months ago.) Since I am male sexed, to whatever degree gender still matters I still feel more comfortable identifying as male gendered.  It feels like my truth.

Anyone else think about these sorts of things?

Some people really don't have a gender.

IMO, gender is very complicated. It is a combination of how people treat you, the roles you play, how you see yourself, your physical sex, and how you are wired.

We are wired to figure out what gender people are. It's pretty much required for the propagation of the species, so it's a very powerful impulse, one that that I don't think can be overridden consciously. I think intellectually people can understand non-binary gender or agender but emotionally, we are so programmed to expect people to be gendered, that it's a hard pill to swallow.

Quote from: retransition on January 30, 2014, 12:56:39 AM
This is in part a response to a topic that was touched on in another post -
https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,148651.msg1347126.html#msg1347126

Right now I am re-examining everything I have come to believe about "gender", even its very existence.  I am post-op MTF who now identifies again as male. Is my gender strictly self-defined? Is my gender what society treats me as? Does the fact that some will see me as "less than a man" due to my medical history matter in how my gender need be defined?  Because my gender is interpreted differently by different people and I still find myself being "fluid" in my gender presentation (even if it is just a split second reaction to someone calling me "ma'am"), does that make me "genderqueer"?  I don't know.

I think the term "gender" varies in its usage and meaning depending on who you ask or when.  Context matters.  If you ask the average person in the street, they will probably say gender is the same as sex.  If you ask a sociologist performing research, then the term "gender" will refer to the social roles and expectations around sex, but not the same as biological sex (page 2 of this link addresses that http://libcom.org/files/Mary%20Holmes%20What%20is%20Gender%20Sociological%20Approaches.pdf).  Trans* people tend to use "gender" as referring to a person's gender identity, i.e., sense of being male or female or something else.  "Genderqueer" being one term used to describe certain kinds of gender identity.

I suppose that the question of what gender people would assign you to depends on how they define gender.  To the average person, the answer might depend on your biological sex status.  To a sociologist, it might depend on the roles you are expected to fill.  To a trans* person! the answer might be that you are what you say you are.  You say above that you identify as male, so to a trans* person, that would be what your gender is.  Whether you are genderqueer would depend on whether you identify in that way.

Quote from: retransition on January 30, 2014, 12:56:39 AM
I do feel that there is a biological boundary between the male and female sexes. There are a few exceptions to this binary that occur, but the fact that the binary is only 99% (or whatever it is) as opposed to 100% does little to dissuade me from feeling that this is a legitimate binary. 

I suspect that most people would agree that there is a biological sex binary (subject to certain individuals who blur those lines due to numerous different kinds of intersex conditions).  But the question is how does this apply to gender?  To the average person, they would be assumed to be the same.  To our hypothetical sociologist, it might be that some people live in a social gender different from their biological sex.  To a hypothetical trans* person, the answer might be that gender and sex are different things that are more or less independent of one another.  The sex binary might be legitimate because it's biological reality.  But that would not necessarily mean that the gender binary is legitimate because one might identify outside of the person's biological sex, and might not even identify within either of the two binary categories. 

I make a good example of someone who can blur things a bit.  If I dress the part, take T, cut my hair, etc. then I can give a good impression of being male with only my voice and manner raising questions.  If I dress the part, take E, let my hair grow, etc. then I give an even better impression of being female.  If I make little effort and don't take any hormones at all, then I get things like the first question I was asked when I saw a doctor about trans* hormone treatments ("ummmmmmm....can I ask in which direction?").  Apparently I can be pretty ambiguous even while being required to wear a suit and tie while presenting male at work.  Not something I like to go into in a lot of detail, but apparently I am biologically a little odd.

Quote from: retransition on January 30, 2014, 12:56:39 AM
I think that a lot of what we call "gender" (and I still do believe there is such a thing) exists to help our species procreate. I can't get into it too deeply here, but I think that the patriarchy at one point probably served its purpose, at the expense of women, to help our species survive.

Hmmmmm....several things I could say here. 

It is interesting how in hunter gatherer societies, there seems to be a nigh universal division of labor (i.e. sociological gender) based on biological sex.  Men hunt and fight wars.  Women are the gatherers and tend the home.  Some societies may provide a way for a person to switch between gender roles.  It seems that it does help society to procreate (the one who bears and raises children is less exposed to danger) and it has a basis in physical strength differences between sexes as well.  But I don't think one would hear about "the patriarchy" in those societies. 

The idea of "the patriarchy" is a pretty new one.  It seems to arise in post-industrial societies when a similar division of labor is maintained despite being rendered obsolete by social change.  For example, although not many people in such a society will hunt for subsistence, the job of going out into the workplace and "bringing home the bacon" is still seen as a man's job.  The job of tending the home and raising children is still seen as a woman's job. 

When one looks at how this benefits or harms men and women, the tendency is to point at the workplace, recognize inequality between men and women in the workplace, and conclude that women are oppressed by "the patriarchy."  But this way of thinking is, in my opinion, overly simplistic and narrow.  It is subject to criticism for disregarding the entire rest of life.  It also fails to consider distinctions between class, gender conformity, and other issues that may have a much greater impact on a person than gender.  It also paints with such a broad brush that it becomes meaningless because the experiences people have vary widely depending on their personal experiences.  I may draw some heat for saying that, and I'm only willing to spend a little bit of time arguing the issue, but most who study the issue beyond a sort of pop feminism (psychologists and sociologists, for example) seem to agree with me.

This is a very long way of suggesting a deeper and more nuanced look at "the patriarchy" and whether it is at "the expense of women."  The answer, I suspect, is that gender based social expectations have a major, major impact on our lives, but that the ways in which they benefit or harm people largely depend on what setting you are considering and on numerous factors that may often overwhelm simple maleness or femaleness.  I've written elsewhere on my experience of wondering why I never seemed to experience the things that some described as "male privilege" even while living as male, and how I do now experience things that I recognize as "female privilege" now, and how the difference had to do with my ability to comply with social gender norms.

Quote from: retransition on January 30, 2014, 12:56:39 AM
However, as we move closer to social equality of the two sexes (we are still a LONG ways off) and intercourse is no longer necessary for procreation how much of gender do we really need?  Should any of it be retained? Is now something we choose and we can make up our own rules?  I am not sure of any of this. But these are questions that society is still navigating in many different areas besides just the trans ones we talk a lot about here.

I agree.

Quote from: retransition on January 30, 2014, 12:56:39 AM
In my case I got to the point that gender (at least as it applied to myself) was something that I didn't care that much about anymore. But I can't totally run away from it because in many (not all) interactions with other people, their perception of my gender will have an influence upon how we interact.

I guess right now some would consider me "genderqueer" (I didn't even know exactly what that term meant until a few months ago.) Since I am male sexed, to whatever degree gender still matters I still feel more comfortable identifying as male gendered.  It feels like my truth.

Anyone else think about these sorts of things?

When you are me, you spend a lot of time thinking about them.  Gender still matters to me though.  I like being on the right side of it.  I often describe it as feeling like coming home after a long trip.  That feeling of things being where you left them and right where they belong is a pretty apt way of describing how it feels to me. 

Quote from: suzifrommd on January 30, 2014, 07:08:49 AM
IMO, gender is very complicated. It is a combination of how people treat you, the roles you play, how you see yourself, your physical sex, and how you are wired.

We are wired to figure out what gender people are. It's pretty much required for the propagation of the species, so it's a very powerful impulse, one that that I don't think can be overridden consciously. I think intellectually people can understand non-binary gender or agender but emotionally, we are so programmed to expect people to be gendered, that it's a hard pill to swallow.

My sense is that there is an innate need to classify, gender and group almost anything we experience.  It helps with decisioning, it provides a sense of security and it makes us lazy, simplistic and afraid of nuance and shades of grey.  Thankfully change is afoot.  An increasing percentage of humanity are ok with greater ambiguity, some even enjoy the associated hesitation and discomfort. 
As with any social change there will be those ahead of the wave, those who surf it and those who are left in its wake.  Gender's increasing nuance and fluidity is a feature of our times.  It is a good thing and promises greater individual  fulfilment and a richer community.

Some people separate physical differences from gender, equating gender to the expression of either male or female appearances or traits. There's female physiology and there's male physiology, but personally, I see a variety of people who aren't defined by their physical bodies. Science and society put labels on to each individual as soon as that individual is born. Because of society, that individual is then expected to conform to what society has laid out for someone of that gender. If that individual doesn't seem to "fit" within those guidelines, they are outside of the "norm". Even when someone is intersex or trans, they're expected to "pick a side". So it seems to a lot of people in society, gender is so paramount in importance that it's the very first question that's ever asked of anyone.

To me, it's complete bullocks to think everyone is either male or female and that's that. There exists a scale of variations and once you throw in that many aspects of gender are personal, individual preferences, well that kind of blows the binary for me. Sure, a majority of people are just fine in their cozy gender identity and what's expected of them, However, I think if you would ask even individuals who do not identify as trans or genderqueer at all if there have been times in their lives where they felt they could not do something or express themselves in a certain way simply because what ever it was would have been seen as having to do with the opposite gender of their assigned gender, you would get a lot of yes answers. To me, this is what is important – that there are people who are being stifled from expression, that there are people who are being ridiculed because of their expression, and that there are people who are being prevented from feeling comfortable about themselves because of the "majority rule" about gender. I'm not anti-binary, I'm pro-acceptance of the middle ground between the binary and the fact that cross-over isn't grounds to oppress, ridicule, or ostracize.

Quote from: insideontheoutside on February 02, 2014, 02:50:06 PMSure, a majority of people are just fine in their cozy gender identity and what's expected of them, However, I think if you would ask even individuals who do not identify as trans or genderqueer at all if there have been times in their lives where they felt they could not do something or express themselves in a certain way simply because what ever it was wouldn't have been seen as having to do with the opposite gender of their assigned gender, you would get a lot of yes answers. To me, this is what is important –

Great post and I agree with much of it - especially the quote I am pulling.  This is why I personally am not comfortable with the usage of the term "cisgendered" (or "cis").  To me that kind of language reinforces a false narrative that only people who declare themselves "trans" have ever struggled with gender identity related issues. I think that many (not necessarily all) people have had situations or thoughts or even periods of their lives where they felt some discomfort in being their gender. Labeling the full spectrum of how people relate to gender using a crudely primitive classification of "cis" or "trans" to me is not useful and creates an entirely new binary that's actual existence is debatable.  The cis/trans binary certainly makes it easier to reinforce stereotypes that further divide people instead of bringing them closer.

Quote from: Gerri_2013 on January 31, 2014, 05:44:36 AM
Gender's increasing nuance and fluidity is a feature of our times.  It is a good thing and promises greater individual  fulfilment and a richer community.

Yes - I totally believe this. And the story is much larger than just the trans community.  I believe that much of what we call "gender" is slowly becoming irrelevant. (I don't think it is totally irrelevant but I am keeping an ear open to hearing the thoughts of people who think gender no longer serves ANY purpose.)

One thing is for sure.  Much of what we call gender is a choice - either on an individual or societal basis.  It doesn't matter if we are talking about a natal female/natal male embracing certain cultural female/male stereotypes that she/he has to learn, or if is a society that makes a choice to enforce her/his compliance and adoption of a learned stereotype, more and more of us are learning that a lot of this is not natural - it is done either because we want to do it or someone else is pressuring us to do it. And of course, if so much of it is a choice, then there is nothing stopping someone of one natal sex of adopting what they please that is associated with the opposite natal sex. As long as this is empowering to the individual and not at the expense of someone else, I can't find anything wrong with it.  And of course, the relationship that exists between transsexuals and gender is constantly raising new questions and challenging old beliefs we have built up over millennia. What we have long been happy to just accept as "gender" is actually a fluid set of behaviors, expectations and (I believe) biological tendencies that can mean different things in different situations or in different contexts.  Maybe we will never be able to fully pin  down exactly what gender means and we will just have to accept its fuzzy and sometimes transitory nature (pun NOT intended). But just because we might not be able to figure it all out doesn't mean we should stop talking about it and trying to understand it. Finally, since this is uncharted ground let's watch out for situations where ignoring it altogether could create a vacuum that puts people, no matter what gender they define themselves to be, at risk.

As I recently said in another thread, I think the gender binary is oversubscribed.

I gender myself female mostly because it's easier. I'm learning that I'm not really one or the other, but I do have some preferences. For example, I prefer to present more female than male. I prefer more female-typical interactions with others.. That said, there are some things about me that are still decidely manly.. And I'm not all that fussed by it.

I apply a label to myself because society likes to go with the gender binary. In a perfect world, I'd just be Kelly and people would accept me as I am.

As usual, you raise so many interesting points.  Let me grab just one for now (and it sort of fits in with my train of thought tonight.)

Quote from: ThePhoenix on January 30, 2014, 08:10:39 AM

It is interesting how in hunter gatherer societies, there seems to be a nigh universal division of labor (i.e. sociological gender) based on biological sex.  Men hunt and fight wars.  Women are the gatherers and tend the home.  Some societies may provide a way for a person to switch between gender roles.  It seems that it does help society to procreate (the one who bears and raises children is less exposed to danger) and it has a basis in physical strength differences between sexes as well.  But I don't think one would hear about "the patriarchy" in those societies. 

The idea of "the patriarchy" is a pretty new one.  It seems to arise in post-industrial societies when a similar division of labor is maintained despite being rendered obsolete by social change.

I have not been that interested in feminism until recently and my sudden interest is, ironically, because I find it is helping me define how I wish to express my own masculinity since I am, in a sense, getting a second shot in how I wish to define it. When it comes to "gender studies" I am still catching up on trying to understand the historical relationships and power dynamics between the two sexes. (As someone who once identified as "female", acknowledging the fact that I was so uninterested in this topic as I went through my transition is embarrassing yet telling.) All that being said, so far I am basically with you in your understandings of the roots of gender dynamics. I agree that social changes led to bringing the patriarchy into clearer focus but I think it was not so much about division of labor as that the patriarchy's grip loosened ever so slightly allowing a few women access to the tools (you know, stuff that previously wasn't supposed to be all that important for women like being able to read and write, freely communicate with others, learn about politics and economics etc.) that allowed them to begin to expose and define the characteristics of a system of oppression.)

Quote from: ThePhoenix on January 30, 2014, 08:10:39 AM
For example, although not many people in such a society will hunt for subsistence, the job of going out into the workplace and "bringing home the bacon" is still seen as a man's job.  The job of tending the home and raising children is still seen as a woman's job. 

I agree with some of this. I agree that, despite the advances in gender equality, there is often an expectation that the man be the breadwinner. To what extent this is still important to individual people has to do with many factors, including their culture, how they were raised, what makes them happy ... all of the "entire rest of life" stuff you mentioned. I think a lot of men are too proud to let their wives be the breadwinner in the household even if it is not in their family's best interest.  I think a lot of women still want to concentrate on home and family and that is nothing to be ashamed of. In the "community" I move through I am seeing more and more guys being ok staying at home to take care of the kids if their wife has the passion and/or earning power to be better equipped to serve as the family's breadwinner. Most of my friends are white, educated (and intellectually curious) and progressive minded. I wouldn't expect to see men in certain other societal groups be as ok as I do with the one I am familiar with.  I think that this will become more and more common though across all social strata. 

So I am basically with you there as well. Here is where I start to depart.

Quote from: ThePhoenix on January 30, 2014, 08:10:39 AM
When one looks at how this benefits or harms men and women, the tendency is to point at the workplace, recognize inequality between men and women in the workplace, and conclude that women are oppressed by "the patriarchy."  But this way of thinking is, in my opinion, overly simplistic and narrow. It is subject to criticism for disregarding the entire rest of life.

If we define the primary problem with "The Patriarchy" as the ugly reality that women, on average, do not make as much as a man and do not have as many opportunities for advancement as their male counterparts within the workforce that is still something that is worth fighting to change (and I know you are with me here so let's take that as a given.) The problem is that it doesn't just live in the workplace.  It is everywhere when you stop for just a second and look for it.

It is in the way we still feel it is ok to sexualize a woman's body as an object in a way that we don't really do with men. (When it is done to a man it is the exception - not the societal norm.)  When Miley Cyrus completed the final act in her ascension to the pop throne formerly occupied by Britney Spears, she took it in much the same way Britney took it from Madonna - by letting herself be sexualized. You can argue that was her choice and that she was just sexulizing herself (or she was just letting us see her sexual nature.) You would be right. But we don't see guys having to do this. Daft Punk ruled the Grammy's and they don't even let us see their faces.  At the Grammy's a male entertainer was able to generate a ton of publicity just based on the fact that he wore a certain hat.

I am going to stick with music for just a bit (because I am a music geek).  Although I know I might be sounding like I think I am all "high and mighty" or enlightened someway I assure you I am not.  Most of the musicians I admire and enjoy have their careers built largely out of misogyny.  I admit I am "of a certain generation" that I can remember when it was "hip" to like Elvis Costello. I am STILL a fan of his early albums where pretty much all he does is spill his venom upon women in song after song after song. One exception is his semi famous ballad "Alison" where he briefly pauses to croon a few sympathetic words toward a woman he hadn't seen in a long time (an ex girlfriend?). After expressing his disappointment that she had dishonored herself sexually, Costello, the lyricist, uses deliberately ambiguous language that can be interpreted as saying that, because she has dishonored herself and the world is already killing her, maybe the best thing is just to get it all over with quickly and "put out the big light" for her. He wants to stop her saying more "silly things" ever again because he can't stand it to hear them. He concludes by assuring her, "My aim is true." What is he singing about? Sex? Murder? Both?)

If I stopped listening to songs with a misogynistic message that would mean I would have to drastically reduce my music library and give up a lot of music that I love but only now am beginning to recognize as sinister and creepy.  I am not sure I am going to do that. Right now I would say it is doubtful.  I am not proud of this.

I could go on and on with just music alone, but other examples are obvious too.  Even though every few years there seems to be an outbreak of people telling girls and women that "your body is ok the way it is" before getting back to the business of selling a notion of beauty that is often only possible through plastic surgery and/or starvation.  Women die this way. There are ads directed toward men who want to maintain their looks, but it usually directed towards things that are actually healthful - good diet, fitness ... that sort of stuff.  (I don't want to leave out the boner pills but that isn't necessarily about looks. Not sure how healthy they are - those 4 hour erections they mention in the disclaimer still manage to scare even me - even though ...)

I am fading fast and need to sign off.  I love this video -


Lastly, I want to say that the forces behind the patriarchy do not treat all men equal.  Some men get sniffed out as "lesser men" due to many factors, including perceived lack of masculinity in appearance and or mannerisms.  I KNOW you have seen this but I have to use the following video as an example of what I am talking about.



In the end I know you are just tossing ideas around, and yes there are a lot of conditions that unfairly elevate some members of our society over others. (That is a whole other discussion that I am equally passionate about.) I also see that you acknowledge that the patriarchy has a major impact on all of our lives.  However your challenging my statement (that the patriarchy's stranglehold on society is "paid for" largely at the expense of women) was helpful. When I made originally made the statement it felt awkward because I have never actually said it before. I too wondered if I might be guilty of being "overly simplistic". But when I run through it again I see with even greater clarity that it is not overly simplistic at all. It is just expressing a fundamental reality that I have largely chosen not to think about too much.

I think gender is dumb and I wish males and females were all mentally the same. Then we wouldn't need gender. 

i see the necessity of gender. it wouldn't exist if it weren't historically beneficial to our species.
us quirky cases really are exceptions. all of us who don't fit in, by being something other than cis and hetero.

but us quirky cases existing, probably is a good thing for the species. it may be that some of the qualities that come with non-hetero or trans* actually will be needed in the future. genetics is an interesting thing where there is often a yin/yang effect to different traits. like how the gene that gives immunity to malaria can also cause sickle cell anemia, but it's still really common because malaria would kill more.

currently, gender is so deeply genetically programmed in humans that we can't just socially deconstruct it. several future generations choosing people with less gender to propagate with, would be needed to make gender unimportant to people. whether that will happen is impossible for us to know. we can only do the best we can, live our lives as happily as possible. and if we all manage to get partners with the same lack of cis-hetero-ness, and get many kids, and a higher percentage of their generation turns out to be less cis-hetero...

but i won't live for a thousand years even.

Quote from: suzifrommd on January 30, 2014, 07:08:49 AM
We are wired to figure out what gender people are. It's pretty much required for the propagation of the species, so it's a very powerful impulse, one that that I don't think can be overridden consciously. I think intellectually people can understand non-binary gender or agender but emotionally, we are so programmed to expect people to be gendered, that it's a hard pill to swallow.

i don't think the wiring is to figure out what gender people are, really.
at least i can't relate to that at all. boy or girl never mattered to me. there are certain personality traits that attract me, which can be found in either gender or non-gender. there are physical traits that attract me, which can be fairly gender specific, but that's only because of biology. or i like to believe that.

still, i can't deny that i treat people differently according to something that seems to do with gender. if someone comes off as a woman, i'll treat them differently. but my way of defining this seems a little flawed, as some females would not be sen as women, while some males would. can't find out what the reason is, but i blame it on the gender blindness that often comes with pansexuality.

When I go to certain places, I make sure to wear a fake engagement ring.  The one time I forgot it, it took about an hour to get asked out.  I'm not interested in dating anyone, so I'm not on the market.  But it sometimes bothers me that my symbol of "I'm not on the market, leave me alone" is actually a symbol that means "I belong to some other guy, leave me alone." 

Your (retransition) point about the sexualization of women is well taken.  But I think that if you are not Miley Cyrus, then things manifest in quite a bit different way.

But not withstanding that single issue, I still think that life is a lot more complicated.  I've written elsewhere at great length on this, and given one of my favorite examples of interplay between male and female privileges and drawbacks.

Having lived on the male side of the fence for a while, I would say that life is a lot better now.  But some of that is about "fit" and about the extra sanction given for being perceived as both male and highly gender non-conforming.  Since living on this side of the fence "fits," of course it is better for me.  And since people perceived as male are sanctioned much more heavily for violating gender norms, of course I'm happier now that no one is physically attacking me for being perceived as a male-but-something's-not-quite-right-about-that-guy-who-gives-off-a-very-female-vibe. 

There are confirmed biological differences between many MTFs and other biological males. This image is from my blog and shows the radical physical structural differences of just one region of the brain in MTFs versus heterosexual or homosexual males. It also provides a comparison to a biological heterosexual female and the brains structures are far closer to the female structure than to any male structure.



The image above is the central nucleus of the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BSTc), in the thalamus. There are at least 8 other regions that exhibit similar structural differences (MTF region resembles the bio female region and nothing like a male region, hetero or homosexual).

Likewise in FTMs, there are multiple regions of the brain that show "male" structure instead of female structure.

There is now strong evidence that gender is a biological construct and it is based in the brain.

Further notes:

1. At birth, 1 in 30,000 females is XY.
2. At birth, approximately 1 in 100,000 males is XX.
3. Klinefelter's babies, XXY - what are they? Male or female? For a long time the belief was all Klinefelter's babies were males with strong feminine body types. Then they began to find Klinefelter's females, some of whom have given birth.
4. Some ancient cultures recognized as many as 6 different genders.
5. The code of Hammurabi contains laws for fair and equitable treatment of "male daughters".

In my opinion, gender is not a binary at all, based on the above evidence and even more. Society tries to treat it as a binary but biologically it is not.

Gender is biological, in your mind, and also socially too. People tend to group things into male and female even if there are unrelated into biology. The need to categorize in in our mind to organize things out. I think as a whole society over genders itself.

This reminds me of something ... if it weren't for "quirky cases" and men taking on female roles or women taking on male roles, history would need to be rewritten. For instance, there were plenty of women throughout history who were warriors or leaders (some quite respected). So if we look at the whole of human history, there has been a lot of variation on gender roles as well as the importance of gender itself. We're just currently dealing with the latest iteration of it. And unfortunately, from what I can see, plenty of people still associate anyone who is outside of the gender "norm" as a freak and/or someone they have cart blanch to ridicule. I suspect (hope) this will change over time, much like society's general view of homosexuality has changed over time. Then maybe someday I could stand in line at the grocery store and all the tabloids won't be making fun of the latest person in the public eye who comes out as trans.

Quote from: retransition on February 03, 2014, 02:10:21 AM
Great post and I agree with much of it - especially the quote I am pulling.  This is why I personally am not comfortable with the usage of the term "cisgendered" (or "cis").  To me that kind of language reinforces a false narrative that only people who declare themselves "trans" have ever struggled with gender identity related issues. I think that many (not necessarily all) people have had situations or thoughts or even periods of their lives where they felt some discomfort in being their gender. Labeling the full spectrum of how people relate to gender using a crudely primitive classification of "cis" or "trans" to me is not useful and creates an entirely new binary that's actual existence is debatable.  The cis/trans binary certainly makes it easier to reinforce stereotypes that further divide people instead of bringing them closer.

I totally believe this too. I really don't like the term. I use it on here because it's a way for people to immediately know what you're talking about. Generally I don't like catch-all terms because they're just that. They don't consider there's variation or a spectrum to damn near everything.

Quote from: LizMarie on February 03, 2014, 05:06:51 PM
There are confirmed biological differences between many MTFs and other biological males. This image is from my blog and shows the radical physical structural differences of just one region of the brain in MTFs versus heterosexual or homosexual males. It also provides a comparison to a biological heterosexual female and the brains structures are far closer to the female structure than to any male structure.



The image above is the central nucleus of the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BSTc), in the thalamus. There are at least 8 other regions that exhibit similar structural differences (MTF region resembles the bio female region and nothing like a male region, hetero or homosexual).

Likewise in FTMs, there are multiple regions of the brain that show "male" structure instead of female structure.

There is now strong evidence that gender is a biological construct and it is based in the brain.

Further notes:

1. At birth, 1 in 30,000 females is XY.
2. At birth, approximately 1 in 100,000 males is XX.
3. Klinefelter's babies, XXY - what are they? Male or female? For a long time the belief was all Klinefelter's babies were males with strong feminine body types. Then they began to find Klinefelter's females, some of whom have given birth.
4. Some ancient cultures recognized as many as 6 different genders.
5. The code of Hammurabi contains laws for fair and equitable treatment of "male daughters".

In my opinion, gender is not a binary at all, based on the above evidence and even more. Society tries to treat it as a binary but biologically it is not.

This is interesting stuff and I hope more research is done into this as time goes on.

I still personally believe that I'm intersex, and not just transsexual because of some variations in my physiology and of course my brain (and the fact that I was subjected to very high amounts of testosterone while in the womb). But where does that get me? I guess finding out what was going on with my mom when she was pregnant with me at least gave me something to make sense of it all. It was a validation that, no, the therapists were wrong and I'm not just some mixed up "girl" who "only thinks she's a boy". Perhaps for others, it could bring validation too and in the larger scientific community it could exemplify that there's even more variation to the XX ----- XY spectrum and that, quite possibly, some of these variations are not  "accidents" or abnormalities but could actually be considered normal. That could then trickle down into society so that every women without an hour glass figure and a large chest, every man with "softer" features, every person somewhere "in between" genders, and every person who's brain gender doesn't match their body's would be treated like a normal human being.

Quote from: LizMarie on February 03, 2014, 05:06:51 PM
There are confirmed biological differences between many MTFs and other biological males. This image is from my blog and shows the radical physical structural differences of just one region of the brain in MTFs versus heterosexual or homosexual males. It also provides a comparison to a biological heterosexual female and the brains structures are far closer to the female structure than to any male structure.



The image above is the central nucleus of the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BSTc), in the thalamus. There are at least 8 other regions that exhibit similar structural differences (MTF region resembles the bio female region and nothing like a male region, hetero or homosexual).

Likewise in FTMs, there are multiple regions of the brain that show "male" structure instead of female structure.

There is now strong evidence that gender is a biological construct and it is based in the brain.

Further notes:

1. At birth, 1 in 30,000 females is XY.
2. At birth, approximately 1 in 100,000 males is XX.
3. Klinefelter's babies, XXY - what are they? Male or female? For a long time the belief was all Klinefelter's babies were males with strong feminine body types. Then they began to find Klinefelter's females, some of whom have given birth.
4. Some ancient cultures recognized as many as 6 different genders.
5. The code of Hammurabi contains laws for fair and equitable treatment of "male daughters".

In my opinion, gender is not a binary at all, based on the above evidence and even more. Society tries to treat it as a binary but biologically it is not.

I agree with insideontheoutside - this is really interesting stuff. We still have no idea what it means but I agree there needs to be more research. The people who are not convinced the transsexual BSTc study's hypothesis   rightly argue that the sample size was so small that it is impossible to draw conclusions.   I think more research has to be done.

I have to admit that up until recently I didn't really think too much about this study - I had heard about it but it was more of an "urban legend" kind of thing.  I knew there was a study that some people believed showed that MTF transsexuals had "female brains" but I knew nothing beyond that. It is totally understandable that trans* people (including myself) want to have some biological evidence that validates their gender dysphoria so I took some time to look at it.

Chung W, De Vries G, Swaab D (2002). "Sexual differentiation of the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis in humans may extend into adulthood". J Neurosci 22 (3): 1027–33.
Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stria_terminalis

I think a lot of trans* skeptics are eager to dismiss any possible biological explanations for gender identity dysphoria as "pseudo science".  I consider myself generally skeptical of everything in life so I found myself at one point falling into this "camp".  But over the past six months of reading summaries of research and listening to personal stories I am beginning to be open to the possibility that some transgendered people's brains are different from their "neurotypical" natal gender peers.

So does this mean that some men are really born with women's brains and some women are born with men's brains? I am not ready to go there, primarily because even though the male and female brains develop along different paths (due to biological/hormonal and social factors) and adult male brains typically have certain characteristics that are different from females - this is not absolute.  In my current personal understanding of gender (which is evolving and changing almost everyday in some way since I became re-interested in the topic) there is no "male brain" or "female brain" as much as their are characteristics that one or the other is more likely but not required to have.

Let me take this a step further.  Let's say that more research is done and other scientists are able to confirm Dr. Chung's findings regarding the BSTc in MTF transwomen being much smaller than in non trans males (and they  are also able to rule out HRT as being the cause of this difference.) We still don't know what this means. There was another study that analyzed the size and weight of the BSTc - but this time the research was conducted on brains of men who had a confirmed history of pedophilia. They too were in the same size range as in the transwomen's brains.  Again, there wasn't a large enough sample size to make any definitive conclusions, but more research seems to be called for in this area.  Even though it would be very politically incorrect, one could make the argument that there is preliminary and unconfirmed evidence that transwomen's brains are similar IN SOME REGARDS to pedophiliacs.  To assume that the fact that some very preliminary evidence seems to support this as being possible, it is way too early for us to accept this as fact. It would be irresponsible to take such a stance. Is it possible that the size of the BSTc might impact our sexuality and/or perception of gender identity in some way?  Maybe, but what we need is more research.  (Brains! Brains! We must have BRAINS!!! Muhahaha).

Another theory that I once was very skeptical of but more and more sounds plausible to me (admitting that I am not a scientist and most of this is still way above my head) are some theories about the impact of atypical hormone exposure in utero. Some research is indicating that over exposure to testosterone while in the womb may cause that individual to develop autism spectrum related behavioral patterns.  (This research is pretty easy to find on the web.)  Could there be a link between gender identity disorder and autism? There seem to be high rates of individuals reporting feelings of gender dysphoria within the autism spectrum population.  Does this mean that in some cases gender dysphoria might be a symptom of "autism spectrum" within some people? Or could it mean that some trans* people who are clearly not "autism spectrum" by the current definitions, none the less share some neurological anomaly with autism spectrum people that triggers feelings of dysphoria?

All of this is purely speculative of course and I am just some dude typing ->-bleeped-<- in an internet forum.  A lot of what I am wondering about will turn out to be eventually confirmed as BS.  But the fact is - we still don't really know. And I know that some of this stuff is really hard to talk about (it is for me and thinking about it sometimes is scary) I think we can't push these questions away into some corner because we are afraid to look at them. Human beings have proven themselves throughout our history to have a tendency of trying to bury important scientific discoveries that are not in alignment with the current preferred ways of seeing the world. Shaking things up can be scary and talking about difficult things is ... well ... difficult. I think a huge reason why this is hard to talk about is that many of us have a sense that we have some sort of incorporeal "essence" (what many call the "soul") that is some how degraded by talking about it as nothing more than a product of assorted chemical interactions and structures within our brains. I am not religious (and I told you I am a skeptic) but even I experience this sense that there is a "me" beyond my body.  I will admit it feels so much better to say "I have the soul of a man" or "My soul is two spirit" or whatever than to say "My bed nucleus of my stria terminalis kinda got messed up".

But eventually we need to be ok to talk about some of this without immediately stigmatizing these discussions as forays into "transphobia" that need to be silenced. Looking at new possibilities and searching for as yet unknown paths to understanding is our responsibility. Even though the human race will hem and haw a bit (sometimes for centuries) we eventually get around to it and learn to better understand our world and ourselves.  But it is also our responsibility to remember that "theories" are just that and we do a disservice to everyone when we jump the gun in accepting them as truth and use them as tools of oppression. And even when we find verifiable correlations between some biological "anomaly" and how people form their identities, we must always remember that, for these individuals, we are talking about what is to them is something no less valuable to them than their "souls".  Which is another way of saying that no one should feel intimidated from presenting legitimate (even if preliminary) scientific findings but, it is my belief, that they should do what they can to do so in a socially responsible and ethical manner.

Quote from: izzy on February 03, 2014, 06:12:50 PM
Gender is biological, in your mind, and also socially too. People tend to group things into male and female even if there are unrelated into biology. The need to categorize in in our mind to organize things out. I think as a whole society over genders itself.

I agree with this, especially about the part of society over gendering itself.

Quote from: ThePhoenix on February 03, 2014, 05:02:41 PM
I've written elsewhere at great length on this, and given one of my favorite examples of interplay between male and female privileges and drawbacks.

Is this writing you did on this forum? Regardless, I am going to keep my reply short and take the time to read ALL of your posts to date on Susans (and try to read as much as I can within the threads to get context) so that I have a better base of understanding of your perspectives of gender and also because the ones I have read and the ones on this forum are always interesting.  Next time we talk I hope I will "know" you a little bit better.