Serafina wrote:So outside of a society, you would have hard times telling which gender you are.
And yet, despite being so dependent on the society to determine who you are, you also totally reject what the judges may say as it wouldn't match your opinion... an opinion which funnily enough, is supposed to be based on the unarguable opinion that originates from the same society.
We're a split hair from a paradox here.
Define "outside of a society". If i GREW UP without ANY contact to other humans (leaving aside the impossibility of that), then YES, i would have problems telling that.
Otherwise, gender begins to manifest at an age of about 3-4 years - and you will need other humans to get to that stage anyway.
You seem to like to engage in totally hypothetical scenarios and then draw some random conclusion from them.
But if a human being could grow up outside of society, there simply would be NO gender identity.
Gender is defined as "everything that distinguishes between male and female". While sex is included there, it is only ONE criteria and by no means the most important.
When one discusses gender, sex is typically the least important factor.
There I'm afraid we will never agree. There is a fundamental opposition at play here, since I believe biology is part of what defines gender, as a continuation of what your role should be as a given life form, and life "knows" what it should be, it doesn't need debates, and I believe it matters more than you think it does.
So one human could live outside of any society, and be watched by watchers who could "scan" him/her and know what gender this individual is.
Using social science is fruitless if it's not going to alter your view about your gender. Basically, with or without a society, you made up your mind.
Now, if social interactions matter, it means that depending on the society you live in, you admit you could reconsider your gender, which then makes your absolutism completely absurd.
You're not looking for evidence from the society, you want society to obey you.
So by the same logic, using social science with ANYONE is fruitless, since they are not going to alter their view about their gender.
Not if you accept that social interactions may lead to a conclusion that's in opposition to your belief.
You don't, so that's why I said social sciences are totally pointless with you, you already made up your mind.
Ask yourself: When did you decide that you are male?
Of course, you didn't - no one does. Transsexual people might discover their actual gender later in life, but you have no means of actively deciding your gender.
Do you realize that you're switching both sex and gender regardless of coherency?
Hence, your attack is simply pointless, even more so since you do not explain why that should be a necessity.
"That" being?
Oh, and cut the "absolutism"-angle. If i would happen to live in an intolerant medieval society without no way to move out (say, the american bible belt) then i would either
-not dare (subconsciously) to discover my actual gender at all and try to settle into the gender role society has forced on me while being massively unhappy
-or just try it anyway and get killed (given that the murder rate of transwomen is 17 times higher in the USA) or eventually kill myself due to outside pressure.
I have neither the means nor the will to actually oppress anyone on that matter - unless you think that living as a woman alone is already too much and oppression of others.
The means, you've already showed them: torrents of insults and scare tactics like using anti-fundie websites and other bandwagon methods because you couldn't stomach that people would have opinions different than yours.
Your absolutism is about your refusal that members of the society may not agree with your position and you have shown that you request the majority to make the change.
You make appeals to social sciences and yet reject everything that comes from them. You're given examples of a third way such as the Hijra and your position amounts to nothing more than they're wrong, that despite the fact that their society is different.
You just reject all societal parameters.
You are not open to a change of mind, you're solely picking the evidence that fits your staunch belief. Anything else is wrong and quite bigotry (which is why I was amused seeing that the perfect continuation of your logic resulted in calling the Hijra bigots).
Now I'd rather condense some of the arguments into specific points.
---
Origin of "gender" ---
The study of biology and the study of society are two different things.
You claim that gender is a social science term.
Certain languages refute this idea. And more importantly, the
Oxford definition says that it is "the state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones)."
Precisely showing that gender is only meant, even if it uses social factors, to determine if one is male or female. Although this would somehow agree with you on what, in English, the term gender stems from, it also completely nixes your point about the fact it allows a dissociation between sex and the set of behaviours.
This is also why it's not useful to argue about society or not, because while I consider biology to be a factor that matters while you reject it. Biology doesn't care about society. I'll stop using the out-of-society scenarii because we don't even really agree on what defines gender, and obviously this definition is not the same across the world either.
---
Working on the brain vs altering the body ---
Body as everything
but the brain.
You consider that fixing TS will never be possible. That, we don't know.
You claim that the brain is not broken. The term you want to use does not matter. Your genes say you should have grown a male brain. Your body says you're male, and has grown as such. Only the brain has not followed the template properly. This, by definition, proves beyond any bickering that the brain
is faulty. Your own opinion is the fruit of that brain, not the fruit of your (ex?) testes or the masculine muscle mass you probably have.
"So helping human people is now a trans-humanist view? Lol."
Via technology. Which, in a nutshell, it actually is. And just like everything, there are two sides.
You miss the point I made about transhumanism and its relation to the entire doxa about the value of the body versus the brain, with transsexualism used as a vector in favour of the objectification of the entire body.
The medical origins of operations and treatments used and applied to transsexuals these days couldn't be more
irrelevant.
I never attacked, even less cared about the origins. I attacked the arguments made in favour of its actual and future use, and everything else that's planned ahead.
I also point out how it supports organ sales, a very lucrative market, while reducing bodies to fleshy blocks of Legos which would be recomposed at will, and I'm not convinced this is a good thing on the long term.
But then again, I don't pretend knowing what will happen to homo sapiens in the centuries to come.
"And again, your assertion that it would ever be possible to just "flick a switch" in the brain without any consequences is utterly ignorant, the brain is most likely way to complex for that to work."
Utterly ignorant? It has never been done as far as we know, so you're just as ignorant as me here.
Certainly, we'll never ever have a chance to find anything if we follow the route that argues that the body can be largely destructed to be rebuilt differently.
Moving on.
---
Drug addiction & HRT ---
The primary observation was both respond to a need expressed by the patient.
The difference lies in what is seen as bad or good, and what can be measured objectively.
Remember, anyway, that I pointed out from the beginning that the analogy wouldn't be perfect, and it's clear that it would be provocative to some extent. But similarities remain intriguing nonetheless.
Let's see all the not so positive effects of HRT for M2F TS:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormone_re ... -female%29
Opening with contraindications, since they're referred to later on.
Contraindications
- Absolute: history of estrogen sensitive cancer (for example breast cancer), history of thromboembolic disease (unless provided with concurrent anti-coagulation therapy), or history of macroprolactinoma.
- Relative: Liver, kidney, or heart disease and stroke (or any of the risk factors for heart disease: high cholesterol, diabetes, obesity, smoking); Strong family history of breast cancer or thromboembolic disease; Gallbladder disease; circulation or clotting conditions such as peripheral vascular disease, polycythemia vera, sickle cell anaemia, paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria, hyperlipidemia/hypercholesterolemia, hyperlipoproteinaemia, hypertension, factor V leiden, prothrombin mutation, antiphospholipid antibodies, anticardiolipin antibodies, lupus anticoagulants, plasminogen or fibrinolysis disorders, protein C deficiency, protein S deficiency, or antithrombin III deficiency.
Types of therapy
Estrogens
- As dosage increases, risks increase as well. Therefore, women with relative contraindications should start at lower doses and increase dosage more gradually.
Progestogens
- Progestins (synthetic progestogens) are associated with an increase risk in breast cancer, which is not seen with micronised (natural) progesterone.[23]
Anti-androgens
- Spironolactone is the most frequently used anti-androgen in the United States because it is relatively safe and inexpensive. Cyproterone acetate is more commonly used outside of the US.
- Spironolactone is a 'potassium sparing diuretic' that is also used to treat low-renin hypertension, edema, hyperaldosteronism, and low potassium levels caused by other diuretics. It can cause high potassium levels, hyperkalemia, and is therefore contra-indicated in people with renal failure or who otherwise have elevated potassium levels. Spironolactone prevents the formation of testosterone in the testis (though not in the adrenals) by inhibiting enzymes involved in its production[24][25][26][27] and is an androgen receptor antagonist (prevents androgens from binding to androgen receptors).
- Cyproterone acetate is derived from 17-alpha hydroxyprogesterone and suppresses luteinizing hormone (which in turn reduces testosterone levels), blocks androgens from binding to androgen receptors, and is a weak progestin. It has been used to treat prostate cancer. If used long-term in dosages of 150 milligrams or higher it can possibly lead to liver damage or failure.
- Other anti-androgens include bicalutamide, flutamide, and nilutamide. Unlike the two medications above, these do not lower testosterone levels but rather prevent testosterone and dihydrotestosterone from binding to androgen receptors. Because these have a weak action at the brain they do not lower libido or decrease erections. Two other anti-androgens that are rarely prescribed are ketoconazole and cimetidine. Ketoconazole has been used in those with prostatic cancer and hirsutism. Cimetidine has also been used in hirsutism. Ketoconazole has the potential of liver toxicity over long-term use and cimetidine is a relatively weak anti-androgen.
Hormone effects
Cardiovascular
- The most significant cardiovascular risk for transgender women is the pro-thrombotic effect of estrogens (Increased blood clotting.) This manifests most significantly as an increased risk for thromboembolic disease: deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) which occurs when DVTs break off and migrate through the venous system to the lungs. It is important for any person on female hormones to immediately seek medical care if she develops pain or swelling of one leg (especially calf) as this is the predominant symptom of a DVT, or if she develops symptoms of PE: chest pain, shortness of breath, fainting, or palpitations (even without leg pain or swelling).
- In practice this becomes very important to transgender women undergoing surgery. Ethinyl and conjugated oral estrogens should be withheld for a week before and until two weeks after surgery.
- DVTs occur more frequently in the first year of treatment with estrogens. However this may represent a 'screening by treatment' of patients who may have genetic predispositions to thromboembolic disease, with those who are more likely to develop DVTs doing so early on in therapy. However, if patients have a family history of thromboembolic disease, screening for known disease may be appropriate.
- DVT risk is higher with oral estrogen (particularly ethinyl estradiol and conjugated estrogens) rather than injectable, transdermal, implantable, and nasal estrogens.
- DVT risk also increases with age and with smoking, so many clinicians advise using the safer estrogen formulations in patients who smoke or are older than age 40.
- If screening is undertaken for known pro-thrombotic mutations such as Factor V-Leiden, antithrombin III, and protein C or S deficiency, it should be done so to increase the safety of hormonal therapy and not as a screen for who may undertake hormonal therapy. Given that the risk of warfarin treatment in a relatively young, well-informed, and otherwise healthy population is quite low and that the risk of adverse physical and psychological outcome for untreated transgender patients is high, a prothrombotic mutation is not an absolute contraindication for hormonal therapy. (See: Levy, et al. “Endocrine Intervention for Transsexuals” Clin Endo 2003. 59:409-418.)
- The antiandrogen bicalutamide is associated with an increased risk of heart failure when used as monotherapy (without any other drugs). A study of prostate cancer patients also showed an increased number of deaths unrelated to cancer among patients taking 150 mg/day bicalutamide. This prompted Health Canada to withdraw its approval for 150 mg bicalutamide as monotherapy. The increased death rate has not been observed where bicalutamide was combined with a method of reducing androgen production. The exact reasons for the heart failure and deaths have not been completely determined, however a likely cause is acute adrenal insufficiency and hypotension due to the action of DHT during episodes of bicalutamide withdrawal. Because bicalutamide is extremely lipophilic, it is difficult to avoid periods of low serum concentration due to the uptake of bicalutamide into fat cells.
Drug interactions
- Any drug can cause adverse reactions with other medications so it is wise to check with a doctor or pharmacist when starting any new medication.
- Of the estrogen formulations commonly used, ethinyl estradiol (commonly found in birth control pills) has the greatest number of adverse reactions.
Ocular changes
- Due to decreased androgens, the meibomian glands (aka., tarsal, palpebral, or tarsoconjunctival glands. A type of sebaceous gland on the upper and lower eyelids that open at the edges of the lids) produce less oil (oil that makes up the lipid layer of tear film which prevents the evaporation of the watery layer beneath) and a tendency for dry eyes may be a problem.
Gastrointestinal
- Estrogens may predispose to gallbladder disease - especially in older and obese people.
- Estrogens (especially oral forms) may cause elevations in transaminases (liver function tests) indicating liver toxicity. LFTs should therefore be periodically monitored in transgender women.
Neurological/Psychiatric
- Mood changes can occur - including the development of depression, particularly in those who take progestins. Medroxyprogesterone acetate, in particular, has been shown to cause depression in certain individuals, perhaps to its possible effect on dopamine levels.
- Migraines can be made worse or unmasked by estrogen therapy
- Estrogens can induce the development of prolactinomas, which is why prolactin levels should periodically be monitored in transgender women. Milk discharge from the nipples can be a sign of elevated prolactin levels. If a prolactinoma becomes large enough, it can cause visual changes (especially decreased peripheral vision), headaches, mood changes, depression, dizziness, nausea, vomiting, and symptoms of pituitary failure like hypothyroidism.
- Recent studies have indicated that cross-hormone therapy in transwomen may result in a reduction in brain volume towards female proportions.
Not so totally positive either, after all. But I guess they're acceptable.
True HRT addiction also
exists, and the effects of
withdrawal don't appear much positive at all, but let's put that on hold as well.
Notice, how the monitoring by doctors is necessary to know when to reduce dosage (like for any drug). If it were left to the discretion of the patient, as we can see, this would result into severe catastrophes, some of which if untreated, would most certainly lead to death.
However the same could be said about morphine, even perhaps hemp, even the medical types, and interestingly, both would be used to make one feel better, most of the time for a limited period, but which requires monitoring.
Risks of addiction do exist. They also exist for HRT. So as with morphine for example, one deciding to follow a medication outside of a doctor's surveillance would expose the individual to addiction. Overdose could happen.
And it does not stop there, because the addiction can be expressed as one towards the behaviour. And then, again, anything and anyone who encourage the increase of this behaviour, doctors included, are favouring the addiction as described in
this article.
It deals with the rise of the psychological addiction to adopt a behaviour that fits with the assumed need of being a woman, the same rise actually I talked about when opening up with the analogy. Once again, funny thing that while my wording isn't top class, the basic idea is actually
verified.
I can imagine some points will not satisfy you either, like point 6 for example, which puts a sexual motivator, along a psychological one, as the drivers of getting closer to the transition. It severely supports the AGP idea, so I suspect that this is pro-Blanchard in a way then.
Point 12 is equally baffling:
12. Withdrawal symptoms (psychological and physical)
When circumstances preclude transsexuals from acting out cross-gender variant behavior, they report discomfort and psychological withdrawals. Ironically, the vast majority of transsexuals report that they had no difficult living as members of their assigned gender prior the consideration of a change in sex. Transsexualism satisfies this diagnostic characteristic of being a behavioral addiction.
In the end, it appears that it's encouraged to begin HRT treatment as soon as possible, instead of monitoring brain development at the very early stages to guarantee no deviation of the proper growth pattern. In other parlance, what is being applied today is not be preventive
enough. It is not preventive
at all.
What about the damage? Let's call a cat a cat. The complete surgical transition in order to really match the physiognomic criteria of a feminine personality require immense destruction of the former body. Of course the new organs are supposedly healthy, but they actually don't allow reproduction, and as for any transplant, use of chemicals to suppress rejection is expected (until we get to the cloned functional ovaries and wombs). It becomes a bit hard for the common sense to see as positive the act of butchering the body and putting someone under treatment of many substances, perhaps too many to count.
Let's cite point 15 of the article from above: "5% of all post-operative, male to female transsexuals commit suicide, which is 50 times higher than that of the greater population."
And that's for the biological perspective.
Social damage is not to be minimized either.
It goes without saying that returning to the society and trying to be seen as a woman when the garland of operations doesn't get you to feminine perfection - and by near such perfection I don't mean the abnormal
Harisu standard but the reaching absolute certainty about the feminine physiognomy nonetheless - it's quite wishful thinking to believe that a transwoman could be seen as a woman by the majority of people on Earth, especially when looked at closely, which quite happens a lot in society, doesn't it?
At a good distance it may pass just as much as you may confuse a skinny man with long hairs seen from behind for a girl.
"The increase in happiness in transsexual people is objectively measurable (see: lower suicide rate due to treatment)"
Suicide is only the extension of the expression of one's state of mind. It's an extreme physical expression, instead of a vocal one transmitted to a doctor who's listening. So there's no difference here.
Now, it is correct that TS would often commit suicide when they don't have access to HRT. And yet, again, we have death (by suicide or not) resulting from withdrawal from narcotics or alcohol.
---
The "full man" treatment ---
Doesn't the treatment turn you further into what your body, built by your genotype, says you should not be?
Your genotype and your body, outside of your brain, say you should have (had) a male brain.
I'm not even trying to settle this definitely, it's a complex issue.
Do you think it could ever be possible that, somehow, you would start feeling good after being repeatedly said that you do look good as a man?
Oh, sure, i must be transsexual because i was unsuccessful as a man. What a nice prejudice (and YES, it is one objectively since it is not based on sufficient information).
This is again a reply dictated by emotion, since there is no such implied correlation in what I asked. I certainly did not mean that you were TS because you were unsuccessful as a man, whatever you mean by that. Namely, you don't turn TS after a failure of being a man.
Now, I would again direct you to point 12 of the article above.
Let me tell you something - there are a lot of transsexual people who were quite successful when they lived according to their sex. Balian Buschbaum for example was a successful athlethe (he is a transman) before he transited. He had no social problems either. Being successful is utterly unimportant, since that success does not make you happy (well - if we are talking about social things, not other success such as in sports etc.)
Good for him, but that's not a reply to my question.
Now imagine some technology, perhaps a small implant, which allows to either destroy or grow more neurons in the proper regions (if we go by certain studies like Zhou's, but some people dispute them). Let's imagine that this technique "realigns" the brain and you suddenly find yourself thinking the way your genotype says you should.
Do you take it, or do you reject it and take the route that satisfies your need to feel more like a woman?
I "discussed" that with Kor earlier.
The problem is that it is PURE SPECULATION, that any such treatment would most likely cause MASSIVE DAMAGE AND TRAUMA and that it would therefore be an utterly immoral thing to use.
Talking about speculation... how can you know it would cause "MASSIVE DAMAGE AND TRAUMA"?
Isn't it another emotion driven refusal to consider any alternative idea, no matter how wild it may be?
And furthermore - why SHOULD i take it? What advantage would that be to me?
I already listed the advantages.
I am HAPPY as a woman.
That I know, but it's only an expression of your brain. It's purely subjective, and what you're requiring from your body as such is considerably more taxing than what is advocated if the treatment I and Kor talked about existed.
The only problem i will have in the long run with my body is that i can't get pregnant (which would not be the case if we had medical tech that advanced) - which would not be the case due to this chip anyway.
The ONLY reason to take it would be if society is utterly intolerant and effectively forces me to radically alter my personality to confirm.
The society in question would still propose both. But the point is that you would be properly briefed on both's pros and cons.
In theory, the question was based on the idea that there were much less cons than going transition, and that was already established in the post you "replied" to.
But you actually didn't reply to the question at all.
A mere yes, or no, would suffice.
Indeed, such a treatment would most likely violate the integrity of my personality - possibly that much that you could say that the "current me" is dead.
The you at 30 may have little to do with the you at 10 with the actual path you chose anyway.
Point 12 of the article even alludes to a
decision of really trying to get closer to the aimed gender, which would prove that you are already going through a considerable change.
In the end, I can only wish you to get the best luck in the path you chose of course, but I'm still extremely reserved regarding the success of this process.
---
AGP, brain defect (?) and misc. stuff ---
AGP TS exist, and therefore the problem was the style, not the substance (1)
Did i say that there are no AGP-transwomen? No, i didn't
Mmm... the point was not directed at you. Although I need to remind you I never said you did, I can't help see the point you made in your later post:
And again:
AGP is NOT a valid category for transsexual people in general. AGP is also present in ciswomen and it has NOT been shown to have any categorizing value for transsexuality.
Such attempts are not accepted in the scientific community.
There are AGP TS and non-AGP TS. By definition that's a category.
Blanchard is discredited for proposing AGP as a cause for TS, NOT for studying AGP.
But as a mechanism for TS, it utterly fails since it does not explain
-transwomen who are attracted to men
-transmen of all sorts
-asexual transsexuals
-transsexuality in children
The current model can explain all of the above and is hence of superior explanatory value - and therefore the better theory.
All good.
If anything, and fantastically enough for a first try mind you, my
quick guess was nothing more than this theory by Blanchard whic is now rejected.
I don't remember reading about that theory though. It's not even listed on wikipedia as part of his biography.
Now, tell me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall his name and some of his sayings being cited out of context on anti-fundie cesspits, and this serving as excuses for ad hominems, from anything like being a Nazi to an anti-black racist and, lately, barely veiled accusations of being an eugenicist who thinks TS people don't have human brains at all or, even better, the suggestion that as some of epitome of misogyny, I support the idea that women's brains are not properly assembled by default (see below).
All of that is yours.
You are really promoting a lot of misconceptions about transsexuality.
Actually, my two quick guesses seem to be spot on, even if the former one was rejected several years ago.
You on the other hand, you spend too much time overreacting and misinterpreting what people write.
AGP, obviously - then the "you just need to be told that you look good as a man"-misconception,...
What misconception? I asked you a question, not made it a fact, genius.
the "gender=sex"-misconception...
You're not the final say on the matter and in some countries it's precisely the way I describe it that's in use, where gender intimately relates to sex. Live with it.
all that lacks now is that you assert that it's just due to repressed homosexuality and you have completed the quartet of anti-TS prejudice.
Wait. What?
. . . repressed . . . homosexuality? . . .
What the f--- . . . where did you get that from?
I don't even know if you like girls or men! How could I m . . . oh bother. You know what? Screw that.
This is just too dumb.
Serafina wrote:Mr. Oragahn wrote:There seems to be pros for both of you from what you both quoted. I can't allow myself to go through a document that's more than 170 pages long though.
That said the bit quoted by WILGA on page 15 sounds bollocks to me. It's not a proof, it's nothing more than a statement that stems off an opinion. I don't agree with what it says. To me the brain is the wrong element, and the claim made in the document is quite a lie since ALL scientific studies precisely show that it's the brain that's not assembled right.
Of course people don't like that since somehow it's more insulting to say something's wrong with the brain than something's wrong with the body. Yet no one is saying that transsexual people are dumb. I've even read a study (from the transkid website) that somehow shows that late transitioners are several points smarter than early and non-AGP transitioners, and that their scores or nothing lower to the human norm.
The science doesn't show that "the brain is not assembled right".
Depending on your interpretation of the current studies, they either show that
-we do not know yet what causes gender identity in a brain
or
-the brain of a transwoman is female and vice versa
1. Yes, and this presupposes that the problem is in the brain.
2. Which still means not the right brain in the right body.
How all of this doesn't equal "not the right brain"?
If you take the latter, you CAN NOT say that the brain is assembled the wrong way any more than you can say that the brain of a woman is assembled the wrong way (then again, given your earlier statements about feminism it would be no surprise to me if you did).
No, and that's just stupid.
Stop with that bullshit of you that's about using strawmen as an excuse for disgusting ad hominems.
(Seriously, who is the intransigent, pounding, vicious and name calling fundie here?)
I never said a woman's brain wasn't assembled the right way. I said a TS' brain wasn't assembled the right way.
Yes, I have problems with many aspects of feminism, yet I'm for defending women rights. But somehow some people just can't figure out the difference.
However I'm not going to spend my time explaining it to you here.
If you take the former, you can not say that either.
There are two major elements in the brain. The hardware, and the software. If it's not the first that's defective, it's the second.
However, considering that the software appears at some point in the brain as it grows active, it's absolutely clear that aside from excuses such as "the little evil fairies did it", t
the only thing which could lead to bad software is a defective assembly that generates said software/OS.
If for some reason, the source of the software construction problem were of a genetic nature, then some genes would be faulty, which is as far as it can go, and which is not exactly making the issue any better either.
No study made such a claim though, AFAIK.
Oh, and you can't be bothered to go over an ~85 (it's bilingual, the second part is in german) document? Seriously? Especially since the sites are not exactly fully filled with text.
Seriously. If either of you have something to quote from it, do it.
