|
For transgender people, there are two types of dysphoria. Gender and Body dysphoria, and they are not necessarily present in each person, though the first can come as a result of the second. Body dysphoria is when a person strongly feels that they were assigned the wrong birth sex. For these people, going through puberty as the sex they don't believe themselves to be internally can be extremely damaging to their mental state, and in extreme cases consider suicide as the preferable option to having to live with a body they consider disgusting. For these types, sex-reassignment surgery is by definition medically necessary for them to live a normal life. Gender dysphoria is when one believes they are living in the wrong gender role that society has assigned to them as a result of their birth sex, and naturally stems from someone with body dysphoria, but not necessarily so. Even a person with body dysphoria might reject the notion of being required to perform in a masculine or feminine manner, regardless of their present physical sex.
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 03:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 1, 2024 16:08 |
|
|
Mukip posted:A caterpillar "transitions" into a butterfly; it was one thing and then it changed state and became something else. A biological male who believes he should be a female can undergo gender reassignment surgery, but he's still a biological male except his genitals have been mutilated into the broad semblance of an orifice. He has not transitioned into a new state of being; he has only attempted to ape a semblance of it. Except medical science and more importantly trans people themselves have decided that transition is the best approach. If you have some philosophical qualms about it, or just think it's icky, that's your prerogative, but to act like it's the same thing as teenagers pretending to be wolves or whatever just makes you seem like you don't know what you're talking about. PT6A and Mercury_Storm had the patience to explain the details better than I did.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 03:26
|
|
|
on the left posted:There's some pretty Who the gently caress has an imaginary friend at 10? That kid needs to be loving removed from her insane family.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 03:28
|
|
stuff on tumblr that shows how bad it can be:
|
Sharkie posted:Except medical science and more importantly trans people themselves have decided that transition is the best approach. If you have some philosophical qualms about it, or just think it's icky, that's your prerogative, but to act like it's the same thing as teenagers pretending to be wolves or whatever just makes you seem like you don't know what you're talking about. PT6A and Mercury_Storm had the patience to explain the details better than I did. The guy wearing a fursuit might be happier that way too; it doesn't make him a wolf-man. I find the posts made by others in this thread to be credible, although the subject does not appear to be nearly as settled as you say when it comes to the wellbeing of post-op transexuals.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 03:33
|
|
|
Mukip posted:the subject does not appear to be nearly as settled as you say when it comes to the wellbeing of post-op transexuals. Do you have any evidence to back this claim? Do you know of alternative therapies that none of the people in this thread or the trans thread have ever heard of? Or do you just find the whole thing icky?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 03:40
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Except fake. From what I gathered reading PYF, it's even more pathetic than that. They're basically assigning different identities to normal, everyday moods as far as I can tell. "Oh, I'm feeling happy today. It must be Darthonia, my pansexual Japanese half wood elf headmate fronting again." That sort of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 03:41
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Do you have any evidence to back this claim? Do you know of alternative therapies that none of the people in this thread or the trans thread have ever heard of? Well, this report suggests that post-op transexuals have an increased risk of suicide: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21364939 quote:RESULTS: quote:Conclusion This media report suggests they are not effective: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2004/jul/30/health.mentalhealth So clearly, the debate hasn't been settled at all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 03:51
|
|
|
Mukip posted:Well, this report suggests that post-op transexuals have an increased risk of suicide: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21364939 Cool let's look at what their findings were: quote:Our findings suggest that sex reassignment, although alleviating gender dysphoria, may not suffice as treatment for transsexualism, and should inspire improved psychiatric and somatic care after sex reassignment for this patient group. So trans people have a higher risk of suicide than people who aren't trans. This we know because, surprise, living in a society that is very discriminatory against you isn't healthy. The report doesn't link it causally to srs as you seem to be implying. Read that conclusion once again: they're not advocating "stop doing srs," they're advocating "perform srs and follow-up care." I'm also interested to hear if you have some alternative therapy that no one has heard of.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 03:58
|
|
|
Would anyone who is for gender reassignment surgery be suddenly against it if the brains of transsexuals were totally identical to those of the rest of their birth gender? All these arguments seem like after the fact justifications to support what we already believe.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 03:59
|
|
|
Spazzle posted:Would anyone who is for gender reassignment surgery be suddenly against it if the brains of transsexuals were totally identical to those of the rest of their birth gender? I would be less in favor of it as a theraputic measure if there was no scientific evidence supporting it, yes. However, since there is scientific evidence supporting it, I am in favor of gender reassignment surgery.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 04:01
|
|
|
Mukip posted:A caterpillar "transitions" into a butterfly; it was one thing and then it changed state and became something else. A biological male who believes he should be a female can undergo gender reassignment surgery, but he's still a biological male except his genitals have been mutilated into the broad semblance of an orifice. He has not transitioned into a new state of being; he has only attempted to ape a semblance of it. Gazpacho fucked around with this message at 04:10 on Jun 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 04:03
|
|
|
If my aunt had a penis, she'd be my uncle. Which is ironic, because this joke might not be the case any more.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 04:03
|
|
|
Are any feminists at odds with the strong assertion that women and men's brains are fundamentally different?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 04:09
|
|
|
ReidRansom posted:From what I gathered reading PYF, it's even more pathetic than that. They're basically assigning different identities to normal, everyday moods as far as I can tell. "Oh, I'm feeling happy today. It must be Darthonia, my pansexual Japanese half wood elf headmate fronting again." That sort of poo poo. There used to be a guy in my college dorm who always walked around with a fox costume and roleplayed the part too. This one time he was in front of me in the cafeteria line ordering food and I asked him if he's a fox how come he speaks English. He bared his teeth at me. I didn't see him after that. My theory is that he ran away to the forest to be with his real friends. I've always thought that poo poo like that is some sort of mental disorder that psychologists haven't officially categorized yet.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 04:11
|
|
|
on the left posted:There's some pretty Actually, since we're on the topic of transexualism the worst thing to come out of tumblr has got to be the 'truscum' label. Basically, truscum refers to anyone who believes that to call yourself transexual, you need to be experiencing body dysmorphia and either be seeking reassignment or desire it but can't due to outside pressures (like your family threatening to disown you). This makes the people who treat trans identity as a fashion accessory absolutely furious, because none of them experience any of these things. They're just people with some vague hobbies/traits typically displayed by the other genre who want to cash in the sweet, sweet oppression points which come with not being cisgender. So these people have declared 'truscum' their enemy and harass them with virulent hate messages, attempts to trigger their dysmorphia and so on and trying to have them excluded from the trans movement. just. why.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 04:14
|
|
|
on the left posted:Are any feminists at odds with the strong assertion that women and men's brains are fundamentally different? If some self-proclaimed 'feminist' deny the empirical fact of sexual dimorphism on some dumbass political ground then they're probably not worth listening to.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 04:19
|
|
|
on the left posted:Are any feminists at odds with the strong assertion that women and men's brains are fundamentally different? goatse.cx posted:If some self-proclaimed 'feminist' deny the empirical fact of sexual dimorphism on some dumbass political ground then they're probably not worth listening to. What exactly is a "fundamental" difference? How large does a difference in brain structure have to be to be counted as "fundamental", and must it be present from birth, or can it develop as a child is socialized into society? I'm not aware of any feminists who would deny the empirical fact of dimorphism,* but to say that this difference is "fundamental" implies a value judgment about its importance. Some feminists might say that the empirical differences are too small to be considered "fundamental". Some feminists might say that the differences are large enough to be considered, but are the product of socialization and are thus transient and changeable rather than "fundamental". Some feminists might say that sexual dimorphism in brain structures is "fundamental", and that society should recognize and account for these differences. I am not a neuroscientist, so I am not sure which of these models most accurately reflects reality. But I think it's worth remembering that earlier generations of racists made strong assertions about fundamental difference between races, based on the empirical fact of difference in skin color, hair texture, and so on. It turns out that these people were letting their political ideas about white supremacy cloud their scientific judgment. The empirical differences they saw were (A) totally unimportant and/or (B) the result of societal factors, rather than fundamental biological ones. As I said, I don't really know the brain science, and I'm not saying it's inherently sexist to speculate about this stuff. I just think we need to be especially careful about avoiding the same error that previous generations made. Fake edit: actually, I think many feminists would conceptualize biological sex as a continuum rather than a dichotomy. "Male" and "female" are not closed boxes, but two poles around which most individuals cluster. There are various kinds of intersex person living in the middle - what does "sexual dimorphism" mean to someone with an XXY makeup? But I don't think any feminists would deny that most individuals have most of the characteristics of either "male" brain structure or "female" brain structure, which seems like the spirit of your question. (Again, not a neuroscientist, if someone is please correct me.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 08:24
|
|
|
I'm not going to speak to being transgendered specifically, but here's what all the labeling seems to be about imo: In a given culture, various norms are recognized, but considering how obviously diverse actual human experience is, while a majority of the people in that culture might feel passably represented by those norms, not everyone is. Labeling becomes necessary when a group of people are, like a lot of people are pointing out, discriminated against for their preferences or ignored and need something to identify themselves to their opposition and the society at large. The labeling has also become the norm, so whenever someone doesn't feel represented by the overarching society, they pick these words to describe themselves. Plenty of people do this because they actually do feel disenfranchised, while plenty of people do it to draw attention to themselves, but the act of labeling is in itself a call for attention. In a society where people of sexualities differing from heterosexual aren't seen as abnormal, where they aren't persecuted for that preference and their needs as a group and as individuals aren't ignored, would it be necessary to point out that they aren't straight? From a political standpoint, probably not. From a personal standpoint, maybe. If I'm gay, having people around me know that would probably be useful, specifically someone of the opposite sex who might try to pursue me romantically/sexually. It is a part of interpersonal communication to make known your own preferences and how you see yourself. Also, in terms of the diversity of human experience, assuming that there are only certain paths to personal fulfillment-certain defined genders, certain very specific types of relationships, certain lifestyles, etc-is detrimental. If I'm only sexually attracted to women, being constantly told that I have to be with a man, that that relationship is the only natural and fulfilling one, it completely wrong, and trying to live that way is likely never going to lead to my happiness. And ultimately, if a person is doing something or seeing the world in some way that makes them happy, and this isn't hurting anyone, I don't see why it bothers others so much. If someone feels like they're asexual, wants to tell people about it, regardless of whether others feel like they aren't . . . actually, I haven no idea. If someone doesn't want to have sex, who cares? If others don't think that asexuality exists, it still doesn't become their business whether or not that person sees themselves that way. If someone thinks having a sex change will make them feel more themselves, go for it. How is that hurting anyone? One could argue that it hurts the person getting the change, but if it makes them feel better about their lives and themselves, no, it obviously doesn't. And if that person over there thinks they are a wolf, or whatever, fine; let them. Is the problem that somehow that perspective makes something like homosexuality look less legitimate? Don't worry; people who think homosexuality is bullshit don't need a dragon-spirit demisexual whatever to solidify their prejudices. They're going to feel that way anyways. And is it because one perceives these people as mentally ill or attention starved? How does that even matter as long as it's not hurting anyone? I've known people who believe themselves to be in constant communion with spirits and demons, and they can't manage a single sane interaction with someone else, and I've known people who think they're reincarnated alien vampires who can function just fine in everyday life. The tl;dr version: In some ways, labeling is useful. In someways, it's probably overkill. Does it matter? As long as no one is getting hurt or mistreated? Probably not. Again, all my opinion. Feel free to disagree. Edit: Also, I think there's demonstrate-ably something like four(maybe more; I always forget the exact number) other biological sexes besides accepted male and female, all of which fall somewhere in between. Most of them might be associated with disorders, but in deciding a child's biological sex, doctors would often refer to what is considered a normal penis size; anything below it was female. So some people would be between sexes, or intersex, and be labelled as male or female depending on what a doctor chose, only to find out this status later, even decades later. How should these people see themselves? We have these clearly defined ideas of what the two widely recognized sexes do and how they behave, but looking at individuals again proves much more diverse. Jiyensa fucked around with this message at 10:33 on Jun 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 10:22
|
|
|
Ponsonby Britt posted:What exactly is a "fundamental" difference? How large does a difference in brain structure have to be to be counted as "fundamental", and must it be present from birth, or can it develop as a child is socialized into society? I'm not aware of any feminists who would deny the empirical fact of dimorphism,* but to say that this difference is "fundamental" implies a value judgment about its importance. Some feminists might say that the empirical differences are too small to be considered "fundamental". Some feminists might say that the differences are large enough to be considered, but are the product of socialization and are thus transient and changeable rather than "fundamental". Some feminists might say that sexual dimorphism in brain structures is "fundamental", and that society should recognize and account for these differences. Yeah, I thought from what I've read that verifiable differences between the brains of men and women consist of a spectrum, rather than a strict "male brain/female brain" dichotomy. Mercury_Storm posted:Gender dysphoria is when one believes they are living in the wrong gender role that society has assigned to them as a result of their birth sex, and naturally stems from someone with body dysphoria, but not necessarily so. Even a person with body dysphoria might reject the notion of being required to perform in a masculine or feminine manner, regardless of their present physical sex. The concept of "gender disphoria" (as opposed to body disphoria) disturbs me. If someone feels content with their body, but feels that they were born into the wrong gender role, isn't the problem with gender roles, rather than that the individual was born the "wrong" gender?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 12:48
|
|
|
Spazzle posted:Why have we collectively decided that some going through a sex change is ok, but someone who wants to be a wolf is fair game for ridicule? Well, because transgendered people are beaten to death on an alarmingly regular basis just for existing in the world. People who believe they're wolves aren't. Nobody cares if you believe you're a wolf. People in general care massively if you're transgendered and there are quite easily observable structures that oppress you if you are. What are the structures that oppress people who think they're wolves? It's not as if the general public isn't willing to simply let you get on with your life feeling and acting like a wolf. I mean, so long as you're not going around in packs and eating people. That you're not going to have a very productive life in human society if you conduct all your affairs as if you were a wolf doesn't mean you're being oppressed. But there's absolutely no reason of principle or pragmatism why being trans should mean you're treated differently from any other member of your identified gender, and similarly no reason why the genders should not be treated perfectly equally, so the same argument doesn't apply to trans people in our predominantly and hitherto affirmedly cis society. Sucrose posted:The concept of "gender disphoria" (as opposed to body disphoria) disturbs me. If someone feels content with their body, but feels that they were born into the wrong gender role, isn't the problem with gender roles, rather than that the individual was born the "wrong" gender? Yes, massively. If there was no separation of behavioural, emotional and cognitive norms between men and women, it'd be pretty hard to argue that those who might've been transgendered in the society in which we actually live could be identified. There might still be people who felt like their bodies were the wrong sex, but without the correlation between gender and sex and therefore the norms associated with having a penis/vagina, it seems doubtful that this would be hard for anybody else to cope with. Smudgie Buggler fucked around with this message at 14:27 on Jun 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 14:18
|
|
|
Foucault would be rolling in his grave at tumblr and the rush to enumerate identities. Identity politics isn't per se a bad thing, in that done right theres something important to be gained in giving oppressed minorities some visibility and voice. The Gay community pioneered this poo poo with the idea of being IN YOUR FACE with alternative sexual and gender identities as a precursor to wider society chilling the gently caress out and actually engaging constructively. Still not a finished struggle (gay marriage, whacko homophobe churches, etc) but the tide is flowing neatly in the right way. But the urge to enumerate identities is complex. Part of where foucault was going with much of his analysis is that identity is not something essential to who people are but rather part of the social arangements they live in. Theres nothing "essentially" gay about a gay dude, other than a tendency to prefer dudes romantically/sexually, but all the other stuff, the lisps and foppish fashion awareness and other traits many people consider to be "gay" are simple social agreements that have been made and people adopt or are tagged with. Thus identity isn't part of who you are, but rather a constantly shifting and evolving set of power relationships that shape a persons subjectivity and are historical and contingent on whats going on. A variation of this is an idea from feminism of "performing" identies, as if they where a sort of character role. To put it bluntly, identities aren't real and reification of the power structures hidden behind these identities is not without consequence. This is not to necessarily say its a bad thing all the time. People can find joy in their identity and find community in them. But its important to understand that they also are part of the same complex system that ALSO oppresses us that has constructed little badges to enscribe on ourselves and if we *really* wanted to be free we might consider loving them off all together. It begs the question then, what exactly is an "identities" value if its a miserable existance as a disempowered tumblr moaner. Does it even make sense to say "I am multiple" when on some level everyone is, most people just aren't fortifying themselves in that bleak little foxhole. Its important to recognize that being gay, being black, being woman are important designations of who people feel they are and what about themselves they wish respected. And it should be respected in the interest of not being a fuckhead and affording other people respect and dignity. But when it comes to being an "otherkin transasian otter" , I cant help feeling what we are really seeing is the jibbering lunatic consequences of the whole system of identity. duck monster fucked around with this message at 15:22 on Jun 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 15:19
|
|
|
Hmm...People who claim to be upset with the "fringe Tumblr types" also have issues/ignorance with plain old transgendered people. This is a shock. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 17:40
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:Hmm...People who claim to be upset with the "fringe Tumblr types" also have issues/ignorance with plain old transgendered people. It sounds like you don't know what "fringe tumblr types" refers to. It refers to the likes of people claiming to have headmates, multiples, otherkin, etc. I don't have issues with trans people, but I do have issues with ignorant 15/17/19 year olds claiming they have some variant of multiple personality disorder (DID, yes I know, but they never use that term) via the whole "multiple systems" thing. Who then proceed to have conversations between the identities, which is goes against all criteria for DID, but if you tell them that suddenly you're a bigot. Not to mention the whole otherkin thing (including inanimate objects! Did you know there was at least one buildingkin running around?) and the weird pseudo spiritual side of the community (ran into a reincarnated goddess who was also an angel one time who walked the train of tears in a past life. Someone claimed to be a catfairy as well.) See also: the entire pronoun issue. Oh man, you don't like using pronouns she/her/herself even if you're a cis woman? Why not use bun pronouns! Like bunself. Great if you're a bunkin. What's that? Your wings hurt when people run through them because they can't see them? Mine too! Let's start a blog about our wings and complain about how they get cramped in the minivan. Not to mention the loving transethnics. Sorry, went on a bit of a tangent there, but there's a lot of variety of special snowflake bullshit. What I'm saying is that it sounds like you're equating "fringe tumblr types" like otherkin and multiples and transethnics with trans people. Which is a terrible idea. I don't know if you meant it that way, but that's how it read to me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 18:54
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:Hmm...People who claim to be upset with the "fringe Tumblr types" also have issues/ignorance with plain old transgendered people. No, I'm supportive of trans people (because it's a real thing), and I very much have a problem with weirdos like transethnics, otherkins, or people who have "headmates" (unless it's a mental illness, in which case it needs treatment instead of reinforcement anyway). Furries are a bit of a grey area -- I don't really give a gently caress what people do to get their rocks off, or if they just like dressing up as animals, but if they actually believe they are that animal, it's bizarre. The really offensive part is when people claim oppression based on others not recognizing that they're a dragon, or a fox or an angel. That's legitimately harmful to groups, like trans people, who face actual oppression and violence.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 19:15
|
|
|
I'm specifically referring to folks who have complained about "Tumblr/SJW poo poo" in the past, citing fringe folks, who inevitably have issues with fairly mainstream opinions on bigotry and transgendered people. This doesn't apply to everyone.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
SwingShift posted:It sounds like you don't know what "fringe tumblr types" refers to. It refers to the likes of people claiming to have headmates, multiples, otherkin, etc. That's generous. I was assuming it was a blanket term used to refer to leftists or people the speaker generally wanted to insult, but wasn't able to think of a more clever or original phrase. There were multiple people in a recent thread complaining about how being asked to not inject their ignorance into conversations is SJW censorship. Even for an empty pejorative it's grossly overused, like liberals or fag, where it rapidly starts to lose any meaning. boner confessor fucked around with this message at 20:10 on Jun 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 20:05
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:I'm specifically referring to folks who have complained about "Tumblr/SJW poo poo" in the past, citing fringe folks, who inevitably have issues with fairly mainstream opinions on bigotry and transgendered people. This doesn't apply to everyone. I do think it's super amusing that hateful individuals tend to justify their lovely opinions on the basis of angsty teenagers who don't know any better and ironically get triggered into hilarious angry vitriol by the mere suggestion they might have privilege
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 20:09
|
|
|
goatse.cx posted:If some self-proclaimed 'feminist' deny the empirical fact of sexual dimorphism on some dumbass political ground then they're probably not worth listening to. Girls like pink, boys like blue 
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 20:16
|
|
|
PT6A posted:The really offensive part is when people claim oppression based on others not recognizing that they're a dragon, or a fox or an angel. That's legitimately harmful to groups, like trans people, who face actual oppression and violence. I agree it's really offensive and is harmful, but I'd suggest that people who would discriminate against transgender people because of the existence of some teenager who thinks they're a fox are...ignorant, at best, and more likely just looking for another excuse to be bigots. Fox angel people aren't the ones out there trying to discriminate against transgender people or stir up bigotry against them (edit: as far as I know, it's not a group I pay a lot of attention towards); on the other hand, people who are actively trying to discriminate against people invariably bring those people up, though I don't believe that if otherkin didn't exist there would be fewer anti-trans bigots. I guess my point is that personally I feel bemused pity towards one group and contempt against the other. Otherkin provide a tool that bigots can wield, but it's still the bigot who's the one doing the actual oppression. Popular Thug Drink posted:That's generous. I was assuming it was a blanket term used to refer to leftists or people the speaker generally wanted to insult, but wasn't able to think of a more clever or original phrase. Zeitgueist posted:I'm specifically referring to folks who have complained about "Tumblr/SJW poo poo" in the past, citing fringe folks, who inevitably have issues with fairly mainstream opinions on bigotry and transgendered people. This doesn't apply to everyone. Agreed. You don't have to look far, at all, to see people slinging "tumblr/sjw poo poo" at people whenever the topic of transgender people is brought up. In fact I'm certain I've seen it applied more to transgender people, issues important to minority groups, leftists, etc., then I've seen it applied to otherkin. The existence of some escapist kid has gently caress all to do with actual lgbt or racial issues, and I've only ever seen it brought up as a smokescreen for someone's bigotry. At this point I just mentally replace it with "librul/pc" and that's never steered me wrong. It's like in the 90s when someone concerned with global warming would be accused of being a Gaia-worshiping neopagan or something. a medical mystery posted:I do think it's super amusing that hateful individuals tend to justify their lovely opinions on the basis of angsty teenagers who don't know any better and ironically get triggered into hilarious angry vitriol by the mere suggestion they might have privilege  You see it a lot among younger
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 20:37
|
|
|
So popular consensus is that the otherkin, multiples, and transethnics are probably not very valid claims and at worst are damaging serious movements with real goals. I'd like to know if there's been any sort of scholarly, or even semi-rigorous investigations about them. Because even if they're all nuts and pretty maliciously so, they're fascinatingly wierd communities. At least to me? What I'm still curious about are the claims of the nouveau sexualities, orientations, and genders. Trans I get, nonbinary, sure, but what about the demiromantics, homoromantic asexuals, and aporagender? Is there validity with some or any of these claims? It was once proposed to me that every conversation should begin with asking for preferred pronouns, as a person always has the right to change. I don't think that's a very realistic goal, but as long as we're talking thousand-year-project goals can we eventually strive for this? And again, just as a disclaimer, I really respect the movements that are in place and am trying to get a handle on where the movements are developing and trying to stay on the right side of history.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 20:47
|
|
|
goatse.cx posted:Is there any scientific basis for this? About a century of trying very, very hard to change the mind to match the body instead of the other way around and failing miserably.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 20:49
|
|
|
ZorajitZorajit posted:What I'm still curious about are the claims of the nouveau sexualities, orientations, and genders. Trans I get, nonbinary, sure, but what about the demiromantics, homoromantic asexuals, and aporagender? Is there validity with some or any of these claims? Validity in what sense? I mean the issue is your question is so vague that it's essentially unanswerable. I mean in one sense it's clearly valid in that it describes some aspect of their personality in the same sense that "I like ice cream" does. In another, I think it's rather unlikely these are the same sort of fundamental aspects of identity that things like gender or sexuality are. But just asking if they are valid claims is too unclear about what you mean to have any real discussion on.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 20:55
|
|
|
Trying to engage in a serious academic study or debate with the groups that basically were made up by people on tumblr is like playing a game of intellectual Calvinball. Edit: I think if you personally engaged with many of the adherents of transethnicism, otherkins, multiple systems, etc, you'd probably find that what they actually have are various, classified mental disorders or just a teenage desire for attention and acceptance by their own special clique. Adventure Pigeon fucked around with this message at 21:10 on Jun 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 21:07
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Validity in what sense? I mean the issue is your question is so vague that it's essentially unanswerable. I mean in one sense it's clearly valid in that it describes some aspect of their personality in the same sense that "I like ice cream" does. In another, I think it's rather unlikely these are the same sort of fundamental aspects of identity that things like gender or sexuality are. But just asking if they are valid claims is too unclear about what you mean to have any real discussion on. That's fair, this whole discussion is about identifying ourselves after all so definition really is at the crux of the issue. What I'm really looking for is someone that exists outside of the sphere of jibbering internet culture to be speaking on aporagender, etc. But failing that, some indication that demiromantics are a group that should receive greater inclusivity overall. In an applied sense, I'm writing a novel, one character is trans. It's an important part of the character's background, but by no means the totality of it. But no characters are homoromantic asexuals. Am I failing to be as inclusive as I could be?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 21:12
|
|
|
It's going to be difficult to find any studies on most of these terms as they a very new. Google trend searches on most of the terms show that they didn't exist before 2011 or even later and some like aporagender don't have even volume to show on a graph. A lot of these seem like vague personality traits that people are trying to place some big importance on to show how unique they are. The problem with this is that most of the people claiming these traits are teenagers and teenagers have a long history of feeling like they don't fit into societies norms. If there were people of all ages claiming to be demiromantic or aporagender or whatever, I would be more apt to take those descriptors seriously.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 21:25
|
|
|
ZorajitZorajit posted:That's fair, this whole discussion is about identifying ourselves after all so definition really is at the crux of the issue. What I'm really looking for is someone that exists outside of the sphere of jibbering internet culture to be speaking on aporagender, etc. But failing that, some indication that demiromantics are a group that should receive greater inclusivity overall. For your first point: you'd probably have to have decent journal access, or else find some fairly obscure conference papers if you're looking at things like aporagender. Assuming any academic work's been done on that at all. I'd caution you against throwing every term related to sex or gender you aren't familiar with into the same pile, though (not that you're necessarily doing that). Assuming there's any work on that at all, as beepo pointed out. I'm not familiar with it or that term myself. For your second, look at people whose lives are affected by bigotry in a material sense: it impacts their mental and physical health, their employment and marriage opportunities, etc. These are people it might be nice to be inclusive towards. Like, "inclusivity" isn't a very well-defined goal in and of itself - of whom are you trying to be inclusive, and to what end? Any book or film of less than infinite length is going to include some sorts of people and exclude others, so you have to prioritize, and have a reason for those prioritizations. Personally, I think it would be cool if more movies, tv shows, etc. had characters who were transgender but were presented as just you know, people, instead of caricatures. It took a while for gay people to achieve even the barest sliver of this sort of representation and there's still a longway to go. (acknowledging, of course, that those are two different issues).
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
ZorajitZorajit posted:What I'm really looking for is someone that exists outside of the sphere of jibbering internet culture to be speaking on aporagender, etc. That's too bad because apparently Aporagender is a Brand New Thing created by a tumblr blogger. If you were wondering why you never heard of it before or why there are no experts on it, it's because it didn't exist before 6/9/14. http://aporagender.tumblr.com/post/88328947879/aporagender-is-a-term-recently-coined-by-me Edit: I'd like to add that they claimed they coined it but from what I've looked into it doesn't seem to exist anywhere but on tumblr. There are only 440 results on google. ZorajitZorajit posted:
No. At least, I don't think so. It's good to write diversity into your works, obviously, and I love reading works that do that - but it's sort of impossible to write Every Single Identity into your novel, for example, because there are a) so many identities that's near impossible to list them all and b) not every person in a group all agree on how their group should be represented, so there's also that issue. And if you do it just to have a little checklist to mark off then your story would probably suffer in quality. PS: write your next novel about a homoromantic asexual. SwingShift fucked around with this message at 21:35 on Jun 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 21:31
|
|
|
Would any of the posters making the claim that a transgendered person has the brain structure of the gender they identify with please link to the scientific study they are referencing? Id like to go thru and read it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 22:40
|
|
|
Ponsonby Britt posted:Fake edit: actually, I think many feminists would conceptualize biological sex as a continuum rather than a dichotomy. "Male" and "female" are not closed boxes, but two poles around which most individuals cluster. There are various kinds of intersex person living in the middle - what does "sexual dimorphism" mean to someone with an XXY makeup? But I don't think any feminists would deny that most individuals have most of the characteristics of either "male" brain structure or "female" brain structure, which seems like the spirit of your question. (Again, not a neuroscientist, if someone is please correct me.) Neuroscience time! The brains of men and women do exhibit degrees of sexual dimorphism much as bodies themselves do, with some areas of the brain varying to different degrees. You're right in that there's not a binary situation but rather a continuum on which the brain lies, with one range considered more typically 'male' and the other 'female'. In particular, the interstitial nucleus of the anterior hypothalamus (INAH 3 to be specific) is known to show a considerable amount of dimorphism, analogous to the SDN-POA in rats. Studies have shown that trans people often have INAH 3 makeups closer to the range of their identified gender as opposed to their 'physical' sex. That said, while brains do exhibit sexual dimorphism physically, that doesn't necessarily translate directly to any functional dimorphism. Like any neural correlates of behaviours or consciousness, we don't know what effect, if any, these variations have. Pussy Cartel fucked around with this message at 22:51 on Jun 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 22:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 1, 2024 16:08 |
|
|
WorldsStrongestNerd posted:Would any of the posters making the claim that a transgendered person has the brain structure of the gender they identify with please link to the scientific study they are referencing? Id like to go thru and read it. Here's one: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7477289 Here's another one: http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/content/131/12/3132 There's also a theory that transgenderism could be caused by prenatal hormone exposure of certain types: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306453005001770
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 22:47
|
|