Using "transgender" in this instance is not accurate, such it's such a wide-ranging and vague term. They should've said "transsexualism", which is a medical condition.

Quote from: Lonicera on August 02, 2014, 02:37:26 AM
I don't think that's the only plausible conclusions but may be very wrong. By age three a person has had considerable exposure to gender as a system and has typically learned at least one language to high degree. In my mind, the latter is very important because the complexity of language means it conveys and instils countless ideas without us even really knowing it. I'd suggest we internalise that and accordingly develop in relation to it.  Similarly, a child will have absorbed a great deal of knowledge about gender from surrounding society and will have engaged in performance of it on a daily basis themselves to increasing degrees as they age.

Flowing from this, I think I can conceive of a child having acquired a sense of gender identity that causes them to behave in such a way by that point in time or even earlier.

pardon my lack of precision... my point was not to imply all TG comes from that 3 year old's perspective, only that when you are faced with a 3 year old child who has no concept yet of how genitals and gender compare who hates the genitals they are born with and who identifies as the opposite gender normally associated with that particular genital, it must be something they are born facing.  There is no reasonable assumption that a 3 year old would be sophisticated enough to pick up the level of socialization on this topic that they become convinced of it in their baby brain with only 200 words to call upon.  It just stretches my disbelief a bit too far to assume a socialization cause for these kids.

SF

I agree with the subject addressed by the OP and by the author in that it is the condition of being transgender which is being examined    The article posits that transgender is increasingly being seen as biological in nature.  It does not deal with the reasons why transgendered folk may or may not be transsexual.  A further study focused purely on the causes of transsexualism should be consistent with this article.

Aisla

Quote from: Aisla on August 02, 2014, 05:27:33 PM
SF

I agree with the subject addressed by the OP and by the author in that it is the condition of being transgender which causes someone to be transsexual.    The article posits that transgender is increasingly being seen as biological in nature.  It does not deal with the reasons why transgendered folk may or may not be transsexual.  A further study focused purely on the causes of transsexualism should be consistent with this article.

Aisla

->-bleeped-<- isn't the cause of being transsexual. Whatever happened in the womb is the cause of being transsexual. Transgender is an umbrella term that covers a dizzying array of identities and behaviors. Transsexualism is the medical term for the condition of having gender dysphoria. Transgender was never a medical term. It's a one-size-fits-all term much like the LGBT acronym is.

SF

I should have said that the condition of being transgender is common to transsexualism rather than its cause.  However the article, as written and as titled, was appropriate and useful.  I also made the point that transsexuals are also transgendered so I expected that the findings in any article looking at the causes of transsexualism would both point, at least in part, to a biological explanation. What happens in the womb is finding increasing support as an explanation of both ->-bleeped-<- and transsexualism.

The most common definition of ->-bleeped-<- is someone who has gender dysphoria, ie someone who is uncomfortable with, and who does not identify as their birth gender.  The most common definition of transsexualism is someone who transitions because of their dysphoria, usually via medical, surgical, hormonal and other means, to align themselves with their gender identity.   Transgendered folk may become transexual, but they may not.

Aisla

Quote from: Aisla on August 02, 2014, 06:07:28 PM
SF

I should have said that the condition of being transgender is common to transsexualism rather than its cause.  However the article, as written and as titled, was appropriate and useful.  I also made the point that transsexuals are also transgendered so I expected that the findings in any article looking at the causes of transsexualism would both point, at least in part, to a biological explanation. What happens in the womb is finding increasing support as an explanation of both ->-bleeped-<- and transsexualism.

The most common definition of ->-bleeped-<- is someone who has gender dysphoria, ie someone who is uncomfortable with, and who does not identify as their birth gender.  The most common definition of transsexualism is someone who transitions because of their dysphoria, usually via medical, surgical, hormonal and other means, to align themselves with their gender identity.   Transgendered folk may become transexual, but they may not.

Aisla

I see what you mean. It really depends on how you define the words. I see transgender as an umbrella term for identities and behaviors that fall outside the expected norm for one's physical sex and so would include cross dressers, genderqueer, genderf**king, third gender, androgyny, etc. So some transsexuals have issues with being lumped into that definition of the term because they define transsexualism as a medical condition. I have the same issues with it, honestly. But it depends on how you define it.

SJ

I also see where you are coming from and appreciate the opportunity to correct my rather sloppy language.  I enjoy your thoughtful posts.   We are on the same page and have much in common.  Definitions, semantics can sometime be unhelpful.

Safe travels

Aisla

Quote from: Ducks on August 02, 2014, 05:22:33 PMpardon my lack of precision... my point was not to imply all TG comes from that 3 year old's perspective, only that when you are faced with a 3 year old child who has no concept yet of how genitals and gender compare who hates the genitals they are born with and who identifies as the opposite gender normally associated with that particular genital, it must be something they are born facing.  There is no reasonable assumption that a 3 year old would be sophisticated enough to pick up the level of socialization on this topic that they become convinced of it in their baby brain with only 200 words to call upon.  It just stretches my disbelief a bit too far to assume a socialization cause for these kids.

Eap, I just realised that I should've made it clear that I wasn't arguing that it's definitely not biologically innate, only that I could try to conceive of a purely hypothetical scenario where that's the case. I have no reliable evidence of either. Admittedly, the hypothetical is also an incredible stretch to me and would require a truly exceptional child. I appreciate that other people may see it as grossly overestimating a child's capacity for absorbing, interpreting, and acting on information but what I've seen in my rather limited reading, particularly in language acquisition, caused me to wonder if a rudimentary gender identity could develop that results in such behaviour and isn't totally outside the realm of possibility.

Out of curiosity, may I ask if the child in question is hypothetical or exists? I apologise if that's intrusive and you'd prefer not to answer.

With regard to the difference between transsexual status and transgender status discussed above, I'd like to agree that it's important to emphasise that existent studies have largely used post-hormone treatment trans women and trans men in their samples so that the extent of obvious direct applicability is limited. If I recall correctly, samples have sometimes included very small numbers of people that are non-binary and/or have never had hormone treatment too.

Having said that, I expect any hypothetical factors influencing gender for transsexual people could also possibly be present for a lot of transgender people too, at least the ones where 'identifies with a gender other than the one designated or assigned at birth' applies.

As for seeing transsexuality as a medical condition, I entirely support the right to self-define, the right to organise, and the right to approach things from a perspective that promotes personal growth or benefit but personally try to step cautiously around pathologisation given the hierarchies and problems it can generate. I often see it as a necessary illusion in order to ensure we get continued health funding rather than an accurate view of reality. I understand if the medicalised description does match the life experience of other transsexual people though.

Quote from: Lonicera on August 02, 2014, 07:02:20 PM
With regard to the difference between transsexual status and transgender status discussed above, I'd like to agree that it's important to emphasise that existent studies have largely used post-hormone treatment trans women and trans men in their samples so that the extent of obvious direct applicability is limited. If I recall correctly, samples have sometimes included very small numbers of people that are non-binary and/or have never had hormone treatment too.

Here is a research publication I posted earlier this year. The full article is available. It addresses some of the shortcomings of other studies you had described (they use pre-HRT individuals, use specific criteria for trans). The sample size for this study is very small in that the trans individuals studied may not be representative of the broader trans population. I'm afraid this will as always be an issue with trans research. I could be wrong but would think that small sample size would allow for outliers to degrade statistical significance which is not the case here.

I will be out this week for a work training, so I may not be able to log in for a while. I would be interested in your thoughts on the study, and can't wait to read more from my friends here. Take care all - Julia

Regional Grey Matter Structure Differences between Transsexuals and Healthy Controls—A Voxel Based Morphometry Study
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0083947
Author: L. Simon et al.
Published: December 31, 2013
Journal: PLoS ONE

Quote from: Stochastic on August 02, 2014, 08:12:31 PM
Here is a research publication I posted earlier this year. The full article is available. It addresses some of the shortcomings of other studies you had described (they use pre-HRT individuals, use specific criteria for trans). The sample size for this study is very small in that the trans individuals studied may not be representative of the broader trans population. I'm afraid this will as always be an issue with trans research. I could be wrong but would think that small sample size would allow for outliers to degrade statistical significance which is not the case here.

I will be out this week for a work training, so I may not be able to log in for a while. I would be interested in your thoughts on the study, and can't wait to read more from my friends here. Take care all - Julia

Regional Grey Matter Structure Differences between Transsexuals and Healthy Controls—A Voxel Based Morphometry Study
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0083947
Author: L. Simon et al.
Published: December 31, 2013
Journal: PLoS ONE

Ooo, just wanted to say thank you very much for taking the time to post the link and apologies for not encountering it before. It's proving incredibly fascinating thus far. Wishing you the best and hope your training goes incredibly smoothly for you!

Quote from: Lonicera on August 02, 2014, 07:02:20 PM
Eap, I just realised that I should've made it clear that I wasn't arguing that it's definitely not biologically innate, only that I could try to conceive of a purely hypothetical scenario where that's the case. I have no reliable evidence of either. Admittedly, the hypothetical is also an incredible stretch to me and would require a truly exceptional child. I appreciate that other people may see it as grossly overestimating a child's capacity for absorbing, interpreting, and acting on information but what I've seen in my rather limited reading, particularly in language acquisition, caused me to wonder if a rudimentary gender identity could develop that results in such behaviour and isn't totally outside the realm of possibility.

Out of curiosity, may I ask if the child in question is hypothetical or exists? I apologise if that's intrusive and you'd prefer not to answer.

I am that 3 year old, but I have heard several others since finding this site that indicate early onset of GD around that age.  I think you will find it isn't uncommon.

As for seeing transsexuality as a medical condition, I entirely support the right to self-define, the right to organise, and the right to approach things from a perspective that promotes personal growth or benefit but personally try to step cautiously around pathologisation given the hierarchies and problems it can generate. I often see it as a necessary illusion in order to ensure we get continued health funding rather than an accurate view of reality. I understand if the medicalised description does match the life experience of other transsexual people though.

Illusion?  Please explain how transsexuality is a necessary illusion?

It may be you are getting tripped up by the language and the over broad term 'transgender'?  I would hate to think anyone who is themselves transgender is defending the idea that it is an imaginary condition or somehow not 'medical' in nature.  Perhaps you're confusing late (in life) transition with a change in the environment that could cause the onset of transsexual feelings?  If so, remember that transitioning comes when life makes it possible, there are many reasons for someone to realize early on they are transsexual but won't transition or out themselves until they are unable to contain themselves another minute.  It may also be that you are finding the non-binary nature of some who are also transgender but not necessarily trying to match body and mind surgically.

There are many theories, most carry a hidden agenda at their heart.

QuoteIllusion?  Please explain how transsexuality is a necessary illusion?

I believe I didn't say that transsexuality and transgender identities are themselves an illusion. I apologise  for not being clear but I aimed to say the pathologisation of those things is something I regard as a largely necessary illusion in order to secure physical transition since an overwhelmingly cis-dominated society would conceivably rapidly remove funding if we didn't have the authoritative voice of medicine backing us.

Personally, I don't necessarily see transsexual and transgender identity themselves as a medical condition. I ascribe many problems to assigning gender in the first place, with enforcing that gender, and with treating sex designation like an indisputable category that is our destiny. I think describing our existence as a medical condition assumes the legitimacy of such a system and the present framework by presenting us as some kind of error that deviates from a natural or logical order. I believe this shift in position is reflected in the latest WPATH Standards of Care, and somewhat accepted in the new DSM due to the removal of GID, wherein the fundamental identity isn't seen as 'disordered' or a mental illness but that the depression, dysphoria, and other things resulting from the identity or social stigma are seen as warranting treatment due to the pain they cause.

It's largely a pointless semantic thing related to political ramifications that I happen to care about really.

QuoteI am that 3 year old, but I have heard several others since finding this site that indicate early onset of GD around that age.  I think you will find it isn't uncommon.

Thank you very much for sharing your personal experience and I hope it isn't patronising to say that I'm sorry you had to endure such fundamental pain from so early. I should have realised you were probably explaining your own experiences and not treated the experience like a theoretical toy to play with. I'm very deeply sorry for that.

I would never dare equate since I never ever experienced anything so debilitating but I seem to have assumed I would be a girl (or even was a girl in many cases) and a woman when I 'grew up' from very early based on memories so I want to categorically state that I am not dismissing biology. I have no evidence to justify that. My rather cold and callous point was that I still personally can conceive of a possible valid framework that doesn't rely on biological contributions as a counterpoint and prefer to wait for rigorously tested evidence.

QuotePerhaps you're confusing late (in life) transition with a change in the environment that could cause the onset of transsexual feelings?  If so, remember that transitioning comes when life makes it possible, there are many reasons for someone to realize early on they are transsexual but won't transition or out themselves until they are unable to contain themselves another minute.

Thank you again for sharing that, I definitely try to appreciate that many people deny or avoid their identity for a long time, or are alternatively aware but simply unable to transition or attempt to escape it as an option for innumerable personal reasons.

I would hopefully never ever seek to invalidate self-identity in the present or assume that lack of experience on my part means other people must be mistaken about theirs since that's an arrogant mind projection fallacy to me. Having said that, I do think it can be helpful to question the dominance of certain narratives in the LGBT community, or many other communities, and at least consider whether they're potentially damaging.

For instance, I don't see an issue if cumulative changes in personal performance of gender or sexuality over time do cause people to shift how they identify at different points in life. If they then say that they've always been the sexuality or gender they are now as a result then I respect that since they know themselves best. However, I fail to appreciate why people will often only accept a narrative that insists we have always been what we are now as legitimate. I think this is my root motivation behind trying to express that biological origins aren't a proven certainty. What's wrong with life simply evolving us to be something new in the present? Why must it be portrayed as denial and not just difference? What would be wrong with cumulative changes causing a person to shift from straight to bi/pan/gay/lesbian/asexual (or vice versa)? What would be wrong with first becoming trans after a given number of decades of being cis (or vice versa)? I worry the dominance of 'always known' in LGBT discourse has harmed a lot of people that simply didn't and don't feel that's true of their past. I also don't like how the dominance of that narrative paints retransitioners as people that made a mistake and are unlike us rather than simply people whose gender changed with time. Maybe it's why I tend to be unacceptably biased towards explaining things in terms of on-going social construction.

It's a personal question I tend to ask a lot because I am an example of the stereotypical 'child that simply knew' narrative. I started feeling considerable distress when very young, said I needed to be a girl from 7/8 onwards, and began researching transition at 11/12. If I look across my life then my gender identity feels deeply-rooted and immutable from very early.  What I, and many people I know or know of, wonder is whether that's because we absorbed the 'always known' narrative or other crushing cis-dominant expectations then retrospectively applied that as a lens without knowing to make sense of life in the now. In short, how accurate is my self-perception of past events and my identity of the past? If it matters at all that is. I like to ask whether in my case it might be that gender performance may have been very varied at given points in the past and I'm unwittingly cherrypicking memories since I'm 'doing' gender in the present in a way that creates such a perception of gender. Importantly, the ultimate nature of it doesn't change the validity of my self-understanding now, doesn't make identity less valid, doesn't make anything less real, and doesn't mean it's illusory or is likely to change in the present but it's interesting to consider the potential origins of present identity to me.

Anyhoo, I'm getting very off track now, I just thought I'd offer a personal explanation. Wishing you the best.

Lonicera, Ducks,Stochastic, SF et al

This is one of the most compelling, balanced and informed threads that I have read.  I appreciate the care, effort and thought that has gone into your posts.  Working through opinion and papers by oneself is a lengthy and often difficult process.  I now have a much better understanding of the different perspectives which are often tabled as opinion or fact in similar but less balanced articles.  Thank you for this, I am learning a lot, far more quickly than would have otherwise have been the case.

Safe travels

Aisla

Thanks Alisa, glad it helped you.  For me, getting mansplained and patronized by someone who hasn't lived the life, isn't particularly rewarding.  Like the article says, there is growing evidence it is biological, but nobody knows for sure... yet.  For most of my life, people assumed it was mental and a disease.  I hope we never go back to those days, I would not like to be threatened with electroshock therapy again.  I'm too old and too busy living my 'necessary illusion' to put up with that nonsense.

Quote from: Ducks on August 04, 2014, 10:36:49 AM
For me, getting mansplained and patronized by someone who hasn't lived the life, isn't particularly rewarding.  Like the article says, there is growing evidence it is biological, but nobody knows for sure... yet

Is this aimed at me? If not, then I deeply apologise for misunderstanding and what follows this. If it is then I can only ask if you think a disagreement about the potential origins of identity, which doesn't ever ever ever imply the identity itself is a choice or less legitimate in nature, warrants implicit misgendering via the use of 'mansplained'?

I'd normally give the benefit of the doubt because I know I'm quite formal but my gender marker isn't at all hard to miss. I really do apologise for hurting you and regret it but I'd encourage you not to resort to things like this because it's damaging and often petty or cruel. As I'm sure you're aware, this trope is used by bigots constantly when they insist any error, any oversight, any personality fault like arrogance, any assertiveness, and any preference for being un-emotive in writing is inherently male in nature and proves identity invalid. It's misogynistic nonsense too because it implies women can't ever be those things.

I try to assume the highest of people I'm talking to since I'd rather show my appreciation for them than patronise them but I failed in that if you felt patronised. I'm very sorry for that and will try to improve, if you have any specific complaint about my manner then please feel free to offer it.

However, with the greatest respect possible, you have no idea what life I have lived as part of dealing with being trans or in general. I have no doubt it doesn't compare to whatever you endured but to dismiss it entirely and make assumptions is hurtful. While I appreciate people volunteering details of life, I shouldn't have to tell you about intimate details of my life history or coping mechanisms to justify my position.

If identity being greatly influenced by initial biology matters to you so much, for whatever reason, then I respect that belief but I don't think it entitles you to intentionally attack me on an emotional level for offering alternative perspectives unless they're within the realm of obvious bigotry and malice.

QuoteI'm too old and too busy living my 'necessary illusion' to put up with that nonsense.

Either I'm writing poorly, which is very likely, or I think you're being disingenuous because I never said your life or identity were a 'necessary illusion'. I would never ever say that of any trans person. I said the pathologisation of the raw identity, not medical needs related to it, are a necessary illusion in my personal view. In my mind, my position advocates the exact opposite of seeing trans identity as a disease or mental illness, that's point of de-pathologising it.

Quote from: Stochastic on August 02, 2014, 08:12:31 PM
Here is a research publication I posted earlier this year. ...
Regional Grey Matter Structure Differences between Transsexuals and Healthy Controls—A Voxel Based Morphometry Study
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0083947
Author: L. Simon et al.
Published: December 31, 2013
Journal: PLoS ONE

I have an issue with the sample selection for this study. The transgender people were specifically chosen for homosexuality. The control group was not. This, with the low frequency relative to population of homosexuality, means that any difference found can't be reliably attributed to being transgender rather than homosexual. Honestly, I was too lazy, having found that, to bother checking the validity of their statistical tool choices.

Quote from: Lonicera on August 04, 2014, 11:24:46 AM
Is this aimed at me? If not, then I deeply apologise for misunderstanding and what follows this. If it is then I can only ask if you think a disagreement about the potential origins of identity, which doesn't ever ever ever imply the identity itself is a choice or less legitimate in nature, warrants implicit misgendering via the use of 'mansplained'? 

Yes, this was a response to you, and was not a comment on your gender, but on your debating style and the structure of your arguments.  I am not disarmed by your continual apologies for the things you say and how you say them, you obviously pick your words carefully.  I am further not disarmed by your attempt to reverse this on me.

I'd normally give the benefit of the doubt because I know I'm quite formal but my gender marker isn't at all hard to miss. I really do apologise for hurting you and regret it but I'd encourage you not to resort to things like this because it's damaging and often petty or cruel. As I'm sure you're aware, this trope is used by bigots constantly when they insist any error, any oversight, any personality fault like arrogance, any assertiveness, and any preference for being un-emotive in writing is inherently male in nature and proves identity invalid. It's misogynistic nonsense too because it implies women can't ever be those things.

Oh, now I'm a bigot? A misogynist?  Pretty thinly veiled, don't you think?  FWIW, Men and women communicate differently, I just can't hear any femaleness in your comments, and it has nothing to do with your assertiveness or arrogance, it is purely a gut reaction on my part.

I try to assume the highest of people I'm talking to since I'd rather show my appreciation for them than patronise them but I failed in that if you felt patronised. I'm very sorry for that and will try to improve, if you have any specific complaint about my manner then please feel free to offer it.

That was my starting point too - assume the best, try to help - not so much anymore.

However, with the greatest respect possible, you have no idea what life I have lived as part of dealing with being trans or in general. I have no doubt it doesn't compare to whatever you endured but to dismiss it entirely and make assumptions is hurtful. While I appreciate people volunteering details of life, I shouldn't have to tell you about intimate details of my life history or coping mechanisms to justify my position.

I read your introduction and all of your posts before I wrote my reply... you don't add up to me.  I do my homework.  (With the greatest respect possible)

If identity being greatly influenced by initial biology matters to you so much, for whatever reason, then I respect that belief but I don't think it entitles you to intentionally attack me on an emotional level for offering alternative perspectives unless they're within the realm of obvious bigotry and malice.

It left me feeling like everything you wrote in response to my posts was deliberately an attack on my experience, point by point, you made it clear that my truths were not valid.  I felt like you were saying "I'm sure it was hard for you, and it is OK for you to feel that way, but it is wrong... and here's how it REALLY is."

Either I'm writing poorly, which is very likely, or I think you're being disingenuous because I never said your life or identity were a 'necessary illusion'. I would never ever say that of any trans person. I said the pathologisation of the raw identity, not medical needs related to it, are a necessary illusion in my personal view. In my mind, my position advocates the exact opposite of seeing trans identity as a disease or mental illness, that's point of de-pathologising it.

Written poorly, or cleverly, your words did not match up to any discussion I've had or read, with anyone who has actually experienced transsexualism first hand.  Your last statement is a distinction without a difference.

Eve, I would love to support your journey but I just don't find it in me to take being talked to like this.  I have no need of trans-lessons from someone less than half my age and who hasn't even been alive as long as I've lived as a woman.  Get some time in situ and we can talk again when you have finished your transition and had a couple of years of being whole.  You will be surprised at how much balance you can achieve by living beyond the persecution and confusion that this has caused you since 7-8 years old.  You only have half the story - the hard half to be true, but only half.

give it some thought, try putting yourself in the opposite position, gain some empathy.

QuoteYes, this was a response to you, and was not a comment on your gender, but on your debating style and the structure of your arguments.

I think referring to it as 'mansplained' is inherently a comment on my gender. You could have called it cold, callous, manipulative, condescending, or any other number of things if you wanted to but you chose to use a word that portrays my gender as that of a man and my position in this conversation as that of a man despite not having a clue about my personal history beyond the little I've shared here.

QuoteI am not disarmed by your continual apologies for the things you say and how you say them, you obviously pick your words carefully.

Yes, I do try to craft things carefully and mess up a lot. I try to ensure I always include lots of 'in my view,' 'for me,' 'in my mind,' 'in my opinion,' etc so I don't ever appear to be making a claim on behalf of anyone else because it's wrong to do that in my view. I also try to use lots of first person pronouns in my sentences rather than just have statements so it's clear that it's from my perspective and not a generalised claim since that would be arrogant. I like to use conditional terms like 'might,' 'could,' 'maybe,' 'perhaps,' and 'can' so claims don't seem truly definitive since I want to convey my lack of certainty. I say 'I try' because I know that I fail a lot.

However, if you think I choose my words to the extent that I'm somehow crafting passive-aggressive attacks into things while appearing polite on the surface then I can only say that I think that's projecting unfair motivations on to me and that if it's happening then it's a purely unwitting thing that I loathe.

As for my 'continual apologies,' that's because I appreciate that I could be making a lot of hurtful errors that I'm simply oblivious to in the present. I don't want to harm people so often pre-emptively apologise to try to mitigate harm before or as it's done. I come from a family that constantly says 'sorry' when things totally unrelated to us happen because we feel inexplicable guilt for it.

QuoteFWIW, Men and women communicate differently, I just can't hear any femaleness in your comments, and it has nothing to do with your assertiveness or arrogance, it is purely a gut reaction on my part.

I've tried to study language to a relatively small degree and focused on the differences between speech of men and women. If I recall correctly, I believe research often shows women use more co-operative features, tag questions, general questions, hedging, indirect requests, etc whereas men are more declarative, certain, and commanding. I used to employ a lot of uncertainty due to anxiety anyway but after studying that I realised that features are often to do with submissiveness and expunged a lot of them from usage because it resulted in me being dismissed or ignored easily.

Equally, the way I write is quite a lot different to my speech patterns. I haven't been able to change that because it's more spontaneous so the submissiveness and shyness and lack of certainty seem to remain.

Because I tend to struggle with anxiety, I overcompensate by writing in a very, very, very formal way. I've tried to stop but I can't because I tend to end up shaking, crying, and having anxiety attacks at the slightest issue or confrontation if I don't use this register. It's a shield to keep situations controllable and detached for me, nothing more.

I also understand that it may be emotions clouding my interpretation but the way you've written that quote sounds like you're effectively saying if I don't somehow convey a mystical sense of femaleness then I'm not legitimate. I happen to know, or know of, lots of trans women and cis women that write in a similar fashion to me. I'm also of the opinion that designating language use as either male or female is quite harmful because it risks perpetuating subordination.

QuoteI am further not disarmed by your attempt to reverse this on me.

I think saying I'm trying to 'reverse this on' you makes it seem like you're under the impression it's some kind of calculated tactic. It's not but I understand if you think it is given that I do write in a cold manner a lot and I've obviously inexcusably hurt you by, as I said earlier, unthinkingly treating things like a toy to play with. I was just expressing my personal hurt at my interpretation of your comments, encouraging you not to do it, and trying to explain myself.

QuoteOh, now I'm a bigot? A misogynist?  Pretty thinly veiled, don't you think?

I didn't say you're a bigot, I said that it reinforces and relies on tropes used by bigots so should be avoided and I stand by that. I also didn't say you're a misogynist, I said I felt you're relying on an idea that can be seen as misogynistic. In my view, there's a difference since the latter says the view is rooted in misogyny but not that the person themselves is a misogynist. I think we're all unwittingly guilty of relying on such views sometimes.

QuoteThat was my starting point too - assume the best, try to help - not so much anymore.

I'm sorry that our exchange has deteriorated to that point. I might disagree that your help is needed or wanted but I also don't like the idea of causing strain or disappointment for you.

QuoteI read your introduction and all of your posts before I wrote my reply... you don't add up to me.  I do my homework.  (With the greatest respect possible)

I try to appreciate the need for people to ensure their security and to understand potential threats to them as much as they can but this assessment strikes me as unreasonably fearful. I don't like insinuations that I'm a liar or somehow invalid.

However, if it'll help with your concerns at all or help you to 'add' me up then please feel free to PM any questions you have.

QuoteIt left me feeling like everything you wrote in response to my posts was deliberately an attack on my experience, point by point, you made it clear that my truths were not valid.  I felt like you were saying "I'm sure it was hard for you, and it is OK for you to feel that way, but it is wrong... and here's how it REALLY is."

I am truly, deeply, and utterly very, very, very sorry for giving you that impression and making you feel I'm questioning your personal experience. Intent is not magic but I didn't ever intend to say that your experiences aren't valid. I tried to convey that I don't even know what the origin of gender identity is, whether it's largely biological or largely social construction or somewhere in-between. I can't claim 'how it really is' or somebody else is clearly 'wrong' if I don't know. My goal was to stress that my personal position is that the science supporting the assertion that gender identity is primarily determined by initial biology is flawed at present and that it is still possible to invent hypothetical alternatives that allow for the same experiences. That position doesn't question a person's experience of identity as deeply important and critical.

However, I do question people taking their personal experience and making categorical truth claims about the reality and the general nature of gender identity without sufficient evidence to justify it. Subjective experience of feeling that something is biological doesn't make it firm truth. If you think me discussing and seeking out rigorous evidence in that area is saying you're wrong then so be it.

QuoteWritten poorly, or cleverly, your words did not match up to any discussion I've had or read, with anyone who has actually experienced transsexualism first hand.

I can't explain the difference in our experiences because these are common topics for people in my age group and chosen social circle. In my experience, we often reject gender essentialism, biological essentialism, and question narratives that have been dominant for a long time in the hope that we can explore knowledge and ourselves more fully. I linked an example of somebody fairly prominent that I think does that earlier in the topic.

QuoteEve, I would love to support your journey but I just don't find it in me to take being talked to like this.

You do what you must do for your own happiness, I would never expect anything else.

QuoteI have no need of trans-lessons from someone less than half my age and who hasn't even been alive as long as I've lived as a woman.  Get some time in situ and we can talk again when you have finished your transition and had a couple of years of being whole.  You will be surprised at how much balance you can achieve by living beyond the persecution and confusion that this has caused you since 7-8 years old.  You only have half the story - the hard half to be true, but only half.

I do value you expressing how much difference experience makes and understand a lot will change but I regard all of this as irrelevant to the discussion of whether it is presently scientifically justified to assert that gender identity is definitely heavily influenced by initial biology or whether there are hypothetical alternatives as I have been trying to explore. I'm sorry if you cherish the idea that it is heavily biological based on personal experience or anecdotes for any reasons but that's not scientific fact yet to me, which is what I've focused on. I doubt transition will shift my focus away from trying to find truth.

I was going to comment on this thread, but it would be pointless.. Too many fixed ideas..

I didn't have a dysfunctional family and I was never sexually abused.  I think it could happen for many reason, one possibly being genetic predisposition.  I do have a female digit ratio with my pointer fingers being much longer than my ring fingers.  Apparently that means I wasn't exposed to as much testosterone while in the womb and my brain may not have adequately masculinized.  Also, despite my male skeleton and height, I do have pretty delicate features.  I have no idea though.