incredible
who would think that?
This is a very touchy subject so hear me out. Anorexic can be caused by a type of body dysphoria; meaning you always see yourself as fat -- a disconnect between who you are and what's in the mirror. Same goes for people who feel like they need a part of their body amputated in order to be complete. Some surgeons preform amputations on these people, more out of fear that they'd try to preform amputation themselves. But is this healthy? This gets into a very complex discussion on what is health/mental health.
I'm totally for people changing their gender roles or adding things from opposite gender roles. Throughout history we see major roles associated with either men or women change. From the Greeks to the Sumerians to the Romans, the idea of what men and women do in society can change quite a bit. Today we might acknowledge it's more fluid and we don't have to be locked into these social constructions. We redefine gender as the social construction and sex as the biological XX/XY chromosome types.
When people throw around "mental illness" with "transgender" it is never to uplift, but almost always to denigrate. It's a conservative thing and it's terrible. If they are having trouble identifying with themselves, and want to change their bodies drastically, essentially mutilating themselves (to quote South Park, "You mean I'm just a man with a mutilated penis?") we should ask ourselves .. is that a good thing? Maybe you can look and act and be like a woman/men, but accept what you were born biologically as a man/women.
I wish there was a way to talk about body dysphoria in a way that was helpful and not hateful, and maybe talk about how progressives can be for gender role fluidity and transgendered individuals, yet also acknowledging that reassignment surgery may be a bad thing and a sign people's view of themselves may not be in line with reality or beneficial to their overall well being.
It's a very dangerous issue to touch.
Johns Hopkins got taken over by McHugh, who had a very clear (and stated) agenda to shut the clinic down. The evidence he compiled to do so was very sketchy - it didn't look at things like happiness or suicide rates. It looked at things like having heterosexual relationships (in the new sex) vs having homosexual ones. Nobody can quite figure out how it was scored and it overall feels very much like cherry picked junk statistics.
Also, not everyone who is trans needs or wants SRS, and many are happy without it. There used to be a lot less understanding of this, and it made things more difficult for a lot of people.
And ultimately? Yes, it would be great (and possibly change my own desire for it) if SRS was better, and allowed you to be fertile. This is true of most transgender treatments. It doesn't mean we should stop doing the not perfect things we have and stop pursuing better surgical options.
This is a form of survivorship bias - people who have meaningful things to say don't bother to speak on such a politicized topic. The same kind of reason freenet is full of criminality.
I know we are on Hacker News where everything must be done from first principles with whatever knowledge happens to be rolling around in the head of the person writing the comment, but this stuff is pretty settled folks.
The long-term implications of sexual reassignment surgery are far from settled.
Also, if an individual, for good or ill, cannot be trusted to make the permanent decisions about their body - who can?
Being transgender, even if we accept your premise, doesn’t.
A person with schizophrenia may imagine and feel things that aren't strictly real, but are nonetheless "real" in terms of what they experience. In that case, it would be harmful to legitimize those things, and it's important to help the person distinguish between what feels real and what is real. In no way am I equating transgender feelings to schizophrenia, but those same principles should apply.
No, but people like to misrepresent metaphors when it suits their worldview.
Edit: I guess that even though in this case there is misassignment at birth one could make the case that the transgender label applies. I don’t really have an opinion but one could also consider that intersex is something different: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex
Definition: "denoting or relating to a person whose sense of personal identity and gender does not correspond with their birth sex."
The definition is admittedly a bit weird when dealing with intersex people, but there you go.
It is not uncommon to hear of transmen who talk about always knowing they were male and were really confused when their penis didn't grow at puberty.
The point is the parts you're born with don't match how you feel. Just because the exact cause can be identified in this case doesn't make it invalid for others. If you had one of these kids at age 8 insisting they were a boy, but they still had a vagina... they'd be as trans as any trans man.
There is a biological basis for the feelings trans people feel.
It seems with trans people, they are assigned the correct sex (technically) but wrong gender at birth. We don't have a way to know the correct gender at birth and just assign it based on biological sex. This works well for most people, but obviously not all. Maybe someday we will understand these things in greater detail.
I suppose we could have a society that does not assign gender norms to kids until they reach a certain age. However this would be a massive overhaul to our entire society.
You could look at chromosomal sex, but even that can get weird. You have Kleinfelter's people (XXY), people who are XX but male because they have the SRY gene on one of their X chromosomes (XX Male/ de la Chappelle syndrome). You have people who have a Y chromosome but develop female because of androgen insensitivity.
You can even have people that are chimeras that literally have both XX and XY genes in their body; there is a report of somebody who was 94% XY giving birth.
There's a whole spectrum of intersex possibilities and ambiguous genitalia. Historically, doctors would pick which sex was surgically easiest to assign to the baby if their genitalia were ambiguous, and that was kind of disastrous because it's not just a societal construct and not just something you can flip at birth.
Biologically speaking the presence or absence of SRY is kinda the closest thing to technical that you can get; that is the gene that causes the ovotestis to develop into testicles and start secreting testosterone and anti-mullerian hormone. Pretty much all the other changes in sexual development are keyed by levels of sex steroids.
But as mentioned even if you have that, all kinds of things can cause that go weird; from your body not making testosterone, to it not being responded to correctly, to the womb environment introducing other chemicals that alter brain development.
And especially with brain development, we don't really know how it works. There's studies that look at - if you take a baby mouse, and remove its ovaries/testes, and give it hormone X, then it acts this way towards other mice that looks more male or female.
However, humans aren't mice and a lot of our sexual behaviors are pretty unique to the species (like face to face sex), and even then, our brains are way more complicated and complex. The difference between gender and orientation is almost impossible to see in an animal model (usually they look at things like, does the mouse try to mount female mice when they are receptive, does it exhibit lordosis posture, etc).
> However this would be a massive overhaul to our entire society.
Depends on the age involved but it really doesn't change anything the first few years. We'd have to get over the obsession with blue for boys and pink for girls and painting the rooms and gender reveal parties... but not much else. I mean historically (young) boys and girls wore basically the same clothes (just so more didn't need to be made/bought) and were treated the same because it really doesn't make any difference.
Bathrooms are kinda the first thing but really what other difference is there? Especially before puberty?
And let's not forget that even then, you're always going to have people who are ambiguous or fall between the cracks. Gender nonconforming, genderfluid, genderqueer - people who just don't feel one label fits them all the time. Even within the two-gender framework you have effeminate gay men, tomboys, and all sorts of other perfectly valid identities.
There's an excellent chart here - https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/beyond-xx-and-xy-...
You're thinking of "chromosomal sex".
There's all sorts of other things that can happen that lead to a mismatch between these things.
I have a boy and its obvious gender differences are innate, not learned. It was somewhat eye-opening as I was raised with the "gender is a construct" theory even though I was fairly skeptical of it. Other parents I've spoken to have noticed the same thing.
I think we're going to look back to this period and think "wait, did people really think gender was 100% social" the same way we think back to things like, say, phrenology or classifying homosexuality as a mental illness.
Things tend to happen for a reason. Why green? has the world gone mad? We're actually subservient to our genetics much more to our culture. Maybe green gets those people more mates, thus its been standardized. Maybe greeting others in a friendly matter means a larger social circle and more dates.
We're not terribly removed from animals and the mechanics of evolution control our culture, just like we see with animals. There's some wiggle room but for the most part is not arbitrary nonsense.
The same way many cultures, even ones with no connection, have standardized dresses for women, typically. A dress is a clever garment. Varying the hem determines how revealing and sexy it is thus a young woman would have a short hem and an older one not looking for a mate might not. On top of the design naturally showcasing the bust and the ability to trivially modify it to show more arms, back, and cleavage.
Going back to the story, gender is, in humans, a complicated mess. Probably is in other species too (it's not just male dogs who try to hump your leg… although is that a sign of trans male dogs or just reusing an existing behaviour for multiple situations, the female canine behavioural equivalent of male nipples?)
Yes, some things happen for a clear reason, but sometimes the reason is "that's not a harmful mutation".
That the fashionable seasonable colors is associated with the feminine gender is true, but it says nothing about whether it's an inherent trait, as you imply, or something created by society.
I have to say I'm quite suspicious of inherent genetic traits that only reveal themselves when the textile industry appears and has to find ways to get people to buy more product.
It is entirely reasonable to assume that there is a biological basis for the sex differences in men and womens fashion. There may not be proof that the sex differences are innate, but it's reasonable to propose that they are innate.
By the same token, it is unreasonable to deny that these sex differences are innate, until such time as proof is offered.
> I have to say I'm quite suspicious of inherent genetic traits that only reveal themselves when the textile industry appears
There's also every reason to believe that people were modifying their appearance before textiles were around. See scarification, use of colored clays / paints, etc. Even something like singing can be used as a way to attract mates. There's no reason to pick textiles as the sole use of fashion.
Regarding the example, I was picking on one given, particularly on the seasonable part. I realize people were adorning themselves before the industrial revolution. But then again, people of all genders were doing that.
I mean, I don't trust the processed food industry either, and will readily admit that they do everything they can to manipulate human desires for profit. Do people have an innate desire for Coke and chicken nuggets? No. But looking at what the industry does, and then using that to conclude that (most) humans have no instinctual tendency towards sugar and high fat foods seems mistaken.
Many more people are certain of their sex than of their gender. That's the whole point of analyzing cases like this.
There are a few gender differences that I find quite obviously to be social constructs.
Things like pink/blue or dresses/pants? There's nothing innate about those preferences, we're obviously taught "x is for boys" and "y is for girls" about a lot of things.
What I'm saying is that the assumption that gendered color preferences are pushed on children is, IMO, faulty. Most parents I've talked to have the same experience as me: their children identified their own gender, figured out what people of that gender do by looking around at the world, then started imitating that.
You're assuming that gender roles are pushed onto children. My experience (and the experience of most parents I know) is that parents are too busy to really care about trying to indoctrinate their children into the proper gender role.
The kids indoctrinate themselves.
Well of course. I'm not saying babies reinvent gender roles every generation. I'm saying the opposite. Society is the one who defines gender roles and teaches the kids what's expected of them. Like in the article.
>>> What I'm saying is that the assumption that gendered color preferences are pushed on children is, IMO, faulty
I never said pushed. But the fact that pink is seen as a feminin colour or that boys don't wear skirts because reasons is entirely made up. There's nothing innate about it.
>>> You're assuming that gender roles are pushed onto children.
I never said pushed. I'm saying it's not innate.
>>> The kids indoctrinate themselves
Again, that doesn't mean it's innate.
Why? It's reductive -- you are replacing a trait with the trait. A 'transgender person', for instance, refers to a person who is trans (among other things.) A 'transgender' focuses on a specific, singular trait of a person, while removing the 'person' from the discussion.
Socially, we typically use adjectives to refer to people who we don't like. Look at media coverage of 'the reds' or 'the gays'. It's a tool for making a combining a group of people and making them a homogenous 'other'.
but do we typically refer to people who we don't like using adjectives?
Also, the semantics change by using "the gays" as opposed to just "gays".
> It's reductive
Or just efficient. Is it not understood that "transgender" refers to a person? Do I need to refer to every red sox fan as a "red sox supporting person" now? The "homogenous 'other'" stuff sounds like cynical lib-pop psychology.
"Fan" is short for "fanatic" (noun) and not, for example, "fanatical" (adjective), so this statement seems to advance the point you are purporting to refute.
> Also, the semantics change by using "the gays" as opposed to just "gays".
Who says that?
I hear, "gay people", "our gay brothers and sisters", "the gay community", "the LGBTQ community", etc. But I only hear "the gays" from people who use it in an uninformed and disparaging way.
So again, you're making the point you're trying to refute.
That's kind of a tangent. It's easy to com up with other examples - e.g Engineer vs engineering trained person, scientist vs scientifically qualified person etc..
However, to focus on this point; Given the word fan is considered neutral, and people uncontroversial refer to themselves as others as fans, to me refutes the idea that you can derive the meaning of language from narratives around their origins..
> Who says that?
me, with as much authority as your original assertions
> But I only hear "the gays" from
but isn't that cause vs correlation?
> you're making the point you're trying to refute.
I don't follow your logic. I didn't supply the example your feel refutes my point. Plus, your example is biased by whatever circles you happen to run in - who gets to judge who is/isn't informed? Can I guess the people you are talking about (as uninformed) are also an outgroup relative to you?
There's likely more variation than we've previously realized due to social constructs.
If you consider a gender to be the distinct set of behaviors that achieve the highest genetic fitness for their matched biological sex, then there is likely to be much less variation than current political discourse would suggest.
There are, for example, a diversity of hair color, and that changes over a lifetime. Why would DNA's natural "experiments" with regards to gender be any different?
It's not that we political conservatives believe transgender people are faking it. Transgenderism is real. We conservatives acknowledge some folks are born with a sincere belief or feeling they are the wrong gender.
I personally sympathize with such people; it must be torturous and painful to be a particular biological sex, with hormones and chromosomes of one biological sex, but feel and believe you are a different biological sex.
Where we differ with leftists is how to view the transgender phenomenon. This article, for example, states that this "girl" became a boy due to a "rare genetic disorder occurs because of a missing enzyme which prevents the production of a specific form of the male sex hormone - dihydro-testosterone - in the womb." It was a genetic disorder; a birth defect.
Thus, this "girl" wasn't a girl at all. Biologically and scientifically speaking, he was a boy with an undeveloped penis.
So it is with transgender folks in the West. We see transgenderism as an outgrowth of the medical condition known as gender dysphoria. Folks suffering with gender dysphoria should seek help, whether that be a medical sex change operation or counseling.
To be fair: There ain't unified views on this on any side, I consider myself a pretty "leftist", never voted conservative in my life, yet I take great issue to the way the political left has picked up identity politics like it did.
At times it feels like they are demanding an unlimited right to "self define", spawning cultural oddities like "headmates" in the social media sphere, which basically normalize mental illness as something that shouldn't be treated but merely seen as being "different".
People identify as a pansexual muffin collectives and society is supposed to accept that "identity" with all seriousness, complete with "feeling" insulted when people don't use the "proper" made up pronouns to address them.
Yes, that's an example from the rather extreme end of this issue, but they do exist and to me they exemplify where this kind of "everything is made up, I am whatever I wish I am" thinking will ultimately lead.
It's not me doing that equation, that equation happened when you pick up the banner of "identity politics" and all kinds of weird folks rally under it to celebrate how weird they are. [0]
> There's a growing pile of evidence (such as the OP) that mental perception of gender is at least partly biologically based and independent of outward presentation
The OP, while being mostly anecdotal, is pretty much evidence that this whole "gender is 100% a social construct!" idea can't be the full story. These biological boys were misgendered by society, as a result society educated and treated them like girls, yet the boy from the story turned out to be.. a boy and feeling just like that.
If anything it's evidence for the exact opposite of "gender is a social construct".
> So it doesn't seem like transgender people are saying "everything is made up" — they're probably accurately describing a real phenomenon.
Actual transgender people, with mismatching biological gender and brain chemistry, most likely are nowhere near as prevalent as some circles pretend. While it is an issue that society should come to a resolution about how to deal with, I fail to see why it became one of the cornerstones of a whole political movement.
It seems like in doing so, the left has gotten a lot of bycatch in the form of mentally ill people suddenly having a justification for why they are not "mentally ill" but rather it's society's fault for not accepting them for their mental illness.
This might sound harsh, but I'm saying this as somebody with mental health issues himself who knows very well how difficult it can be to "fit in" and the doubts about if one should actually aspire to "fit in" or instead simply declare one owns "oddness" as a character trait and run with it.
It's not easy and imho everybody has to deal with this to a certain degree, regardless of how "normal" or "odd" they are, it's simply part of the experience of living as an individual in any society.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSMEtfqAdmM&list=PLjBnqlVZLi...
I agree there probably aren't that many transgender people, but the best estimates I've seen suggest that there are probably a little over a million in the US. It is a tiny fraction of the US population — less than half a percent — but on the other hand, cities with that many people are considered a pretty big deal. It seems like an issue worth considering — not the cornerstone of a political movement, sure, but I don't think it is the cornerstone of one, unless you're considering "trans rights" as a political movement of its own (in which case, that's kind of tautological).
Where did I criticize "transgender people"? I merely pointed out how identity politics, which is not just about transgender people but covers a whole field of people, has been pretty much been the sole focus of "leftist social politics". Probably because there ain't actually that much left it could pick up to rally behind, which in itself is already a success.
Nothing of what I said was intended as a direct reply to people making claims here, but rather as a discussion of the general phenomena which does include the claim of "gender is a social construct" but also includes plenty of people who normalize mental illness in the course of said discussion.
Look, my goal is not to make people who don't fit the mold "undesirable", this isn't an especially easy topic to discuss because there are no clear-cut answers and it can be very touchy for some people.
Somewhere in there, there is a very valid issue hidden of how do we deal with mental health issues. Do we consider them part of the course and accept people living with them affecting everybody around them? Do we consider them "broken" and "not compatible with society" and try to change their personality?
These issues seep into the general issues of psychology and sociology not being very hard sciences, so science can't give us any clear answers about what to do. In that regard, I find it disingenuous how the left, with the help of gender studies, tries to construct a consensus that ain't there and most likely won't be there for the foreseeable future.
I think it's a bit more extreme than that. It's not just they want to be able to self-define, but they also want to command others to accept those definitions. There are really two kinds of personal identity: the identity you apply to yourself and the identity that another person applies to you. They aren't the same, and are unlikely to align if the self-applied identity is unconventional.
In a way, their behavior could be interpreted as "revolting against categorizing humans by inventing ridiculous new categories", which might be a nobel and idealistic cause (as categories are often the source of prejudice) but it's also unrealistic because it denies certain biological realities of which none are subjective in any way.
Yeah, that's true, but for more conventional identities the possible misalignments are not as extreme and basic.
> Thus, this "girl" wasn't a girl at all. Biologically and scientifically speaking, he was a boy with an undeveloped penis.
Actually, scientifically speaking, a different developmental path than the one to which you are accustomed happened. There are real differences that conflict with a desire held by some that people fit in neat categories that do not exist as the clean, platonic ideal they want it to be.
I think "we" should accept the reality that gender is not binary rather than using the political process to harass people who are living proof of that fact.
His delayed sexual development doesn't change the scientific reality that he had, and still has, male hormones and male chromosomes. Biologically, he is a male.
So is this woman:
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/MedicalMysteries/story?id=54657...
That isn't normal & healthy development, any more than blindness is normal & healthy. Rather, AIS is a medical condition, a syndrome that causes suffering.
People exist who do not fit into either-or gender boxes. It is just reality.
The thing is, many of these young people had a strong sensation of being a "boy" despite societal pressure otherwise.
This notion of an internal representation of gender identity is backed by science, and this isn't even the only example.
So there is no argument here that these people are anything but boys with a different developmental path. But is suspect most could have told you that, despite what a non-invasive examination of their body would tell a biological essential-ists.
> Where we differ with leftists is how to view the transgender phenomenon.
Yeah, conservatives want to make it illegal or at least economically infeasible to be transgender. The irony here being that this type of developmental path would rock many conservatives in America to their very core if it happened in their family.
My claim, backed by science, is that this child was a biological male: he had male hormones and male chromosomes. His delayed development didn't change that scientific reality.
This is actually a nice way to reinforce my prior statement, so thanks. You're claiming someone was "biologically male" but hey that person didn't even express a penis until age 7-12. They're not even really intersex people, it's just the traditional definition of "biologically male" is comically incapable of dealing with this.
What's more, before that change most (there is other documentation of this) of the people you would have lectured about being biologically female felt a very strong affinity to the male identity. By happy coincidence, their hormonal cycle gifted them with anatomy they felt more comfortable with.
> he had male hormones and male chromosomes
Well, he specifically lacked some hormones, but...
Look, trans advocates for the most part don't disagree that a trans man and a person born to the traditional definition of men are exactly the same. They're obviously not precisely the same. What trans people want is an opportunity to be trans people without violence, discrimination, and fearmongering.
Trans activists tend to object to the biological essentialism argument not because it is founded on an observation of scientific facts about DNA (which, btw, a lot of people get wrong). They object to it because it's often used to justify acts of violence or discrimination by appealing to defending a biological norm that needs no guardians.
For example, something is a "disorder" has historical been used as a bit more value neutral word for variance, but the more it is used the more it has become synonymous with disease. Similar for "medical condition". For example, we don't call left handed people to have some form of mental disorder, as that would imply today that there is some form of problem rather than simple variance. It also don't match at all those people who are ambidexterity.
If we found a genetic marker for handedness, it would likely also not be called a genetic disorder. If the variance cause additional problem, then the additional problems would be the disorder and the handedness a simple side effect.
One could argue that gender is more important than handedness, but then we enter values and believes into the mix and that would definitely be political in nature.
A whole other issue is segregated bathrooms; I have yet to see people get past the label-flinging stage to ask the fundamental question: why are bathrooms segregated (hetero/cis M/F) in the first place?
I think a much better question would be "Why aren't they all private?" If you create individual bathrooms with lockable doors, you just label it "rest room" and you don't need to assign a gender or make a private matter a public issue.
Why should trans individuals have to deal with the question of which bathroom they "belong" in? What's next? Questioning which bathroom gay people belong in?
Making private individual bathrooms the norm would also eliminate many other issues. The line to the women's room tends to be longer than to the men's because using a urinal takes less time and the use of urinals is more space efficient, so a men's bathroom sometimes has more toilets plus urinals than a women's bathroom has toilets. This has caused some people to decry this as yet another form of sexism that they would like redressed.
Meanwhile, the men's room can have a long wait if you need to have a bowel movement. Lots of urinals is great if everyone just needs to pee, but problematic if that is not the case. Small public men's rooms often have only one toilet, the rest urinals. What if two men are traveling together and both need the actual toilet?
Historically, men's bathrooms tended to not have changing tables, reinforcing the expectation that only women change diapers. Individual bathrooms also eliminates that issue.
The list of problems it would solve is no doubt much longer, but you get the idea.
I think that just skips the original question by assuming the answer. Why is there no convention for privacy from other members of the same gender? You have to consider the economy of providing totally private bathroom facilities too.
> Why should trans individuals have to deal with the question of which bathroom they "belong" in?
Because everyone does.
> This has caused some people to decry
If those people have good arguments, let's hear them.
> The list of problems it would solve
But are we forcing establishments to provide these facilities? It's easy for Google to spend another million on individual cubicles to impress its employees; not all small businesses will find it so easy or rewarding..
> This has caused some people to decry
If those people have good arguments, let's hear them.
So, you are open to hearing these arguments, but out of hand dismissing my solutions.
> Why should trans individuals have to deal with the question of which bathroom they "belong" in?
Because everyone does.
But it isn't some big burden for most people the way it is for trans people. Trans people are a little bit like platypuses: they defy our established categories and don't readily fit our little boxes. That fact will never really change. But it doesn't have to be some big problem wrt bathroom use if we just have more private restrooms in public spaces.
I was homeless for nearly six years. I got off the street earlier this month. Private bathrooms allowed me to do things like brush my teeth without being thrown out. There is very much a classist double standard in what is socially acceptable use of a public bathroom.
Traveler brushing their teeth in a public bathroom? Totes fine. Homeless person doing the same thing? Excellent excuse to ban them from the premises.
Muslim washing their shoes and feet before praying in the hallway on a college campus? Totes fine. Homeless person washing their shoes or feet in the same bathroom? Misuse of the facilities and we need to ask you to leave.
There are lots of ways in which public bathrooms are burdensome for anyone who does not readily fit in with whatever the social norms happen to be. Some of the groups for whom it is burdensome lack the means to make their problem part of the public debate. Other than me occasionally commenting on it in public forums, I am not aware of anyone advocating for the rights of homeless people where it comes to public bathroom use.
There are old TV shows where, for example, cross dressers have to decide which bathroom to use. If someone is successfully passing for female socially and not trying to sleep with me, I gives a damn what bits are between their legs and I don't see why we need a public debate about their bits and bathrooms. There is an available robust solution that could make it a non issue.
Why is there no convention for privacy from other members of the same gender?
Most people are not actually comfortable pooping or dealing with their period, etc, in a public toilet with other people around. There are some people who cannot make themselves poop in public.
In private homes where we share bathroom facilities with our closest people, such as blood relatives or a spouse, the convention is that bathrooms are private and the door gets closed. Most folks don't want to use the toilet with witnesses, even when those witnesses are their most intimate friends and family.
So, I really fail to see why anyone would give push back on this idea. Most people do not actually like using public bathrooms to begin with and public facilities create undue friction for the most marginalized people, like homeless people and trans people. If private bathrooms were the default, we wouldn't even be having a public, nationwide debate about which bathroom trans people should be using. That wouldn't solve all their problems by any stretch of the imagination, but it would remove one burden from their life that is excessive and that unnecessarily sets them apart from other people.
If you think it is not excessive, try spending the day just not using the toilet at all. Most people use the toilet multiple times per day and cannot hold it for eight or ten hours straight. Unless they work from home and basically live as shut ins who get all groceries delivered, etc, this will be a nightmarishly large problem on an ongoing basis.
> So, you are open to hearing these arguments, but out of hand dismissing my solutions.
What do you mean? What "out of hand dismissing"?
> But it isn't some big burden for most people the way it is for trans people. Trans people are a little bit like platypuses: they defy our established categories and don't readily fit our little boxes
Are many (pre or none op) trans-women refused entry to male toilets? The controversies I hear are of the opposite nature.
> If someone is successfully passing for female socially and not trying to sleep with me, I gives a damn what bits are between their legs
Again - why are bathrooms segregated in the first place?
If it's to protected women from predatory men, is the suggestion that trans-women are not predatory?
> Most people are not actually comfortable..
This doesn't answer the question though. Why are toilets not totally segregated within the same sex already?
I have seen parks where toilets were in individual little rooms and sinks were outside and public. I have also seen arrangements where each little room had both a sink and toilet. They both work okay, though it is nice to have the sink be private as well. I don't see any reason why we can't work on coming up with new standard patterns to try to address issues like cost and space efficiency while improving privacy.
As for the existing toilet situation and why it is the way it is, my suspicion is that it was something that worked reasonably well historically when more than half of all people were rural residents. Sometime in the lifetime of my children, we crossed the point where more than half of all people live in cities.
Things that work reasonably well in a relatively homogenous small community or rural area don't work so well for highly diverse big cities. Times have changed. The ongoing national debate about bathrooms makes it clear that our current setup is now problematic.
I fail to grasp why you are so hung up on this detail. Historic precedent is very often a matter of "it was what they could afford in a poorer society than modern America" or "it was the first thing someone thought up without really studying the problem space in earnest." The fact that this is the status quo in no way whatsoever suggests that it is some kind of best practice that we should dread altering.
When I was growing up, I lived on the edge of town. In one direction, there was more housing, plus shops and businesses. In the other, there were wooded areas. It was really common for men to relieve their bladder on a tree somewhere while out and about. I also learned to relieve myself in the woods, though it is less convenient for a girl.
In a situation like that where it is logistically feasible and socially acceptable to just pee on a tree, there is less need for public toilets. But that does not translate well to the big city. You don't have sufficient privacy nor sufficient greenery. Peeing on a tree occasionally in a wooded area is not a threat to public health. The tree will consider it to be fertilizer and it will not cause the spread of disease amongst people.
But in the big city, if lots of people pee and poop on sidewalks or in alleyways, this is a public health hazard. There is currently a hepatitis A epidemic in Southern California that is killing people. It is related in part to large numbers of homeless people relieving themselves exactly that way.
Public toilets are just less of an issue in rural settings. People routinely just pee on a tree. In some parts of the world, population densities reach small city levels, but they are too poor to build the kind of infrastructure for modern bathrooms. People continue to relieve themselves in a nearby field. One result: Women get raped and sometimes murdered while trying to pee and poop.
Bathroom facilities are a real need in highly populated areas in a way that they just are not with fewer people. We now have 7 billion people on the planet. This is unprecedented. It should be no surprise at all that it leads to unprecedented problems in areas that no one would have ever expected.
https://www.livescience.com/54692-why-bathrooms-are-gender-s...
http://theconversation.com/how-did-public-bathrooms-get-to-b...
This wasn't really meant to answer your political issue, but just to provide a context of what is and isn't socially constructed.
The gender is a social construct argument is the voice that believes the opposite -- that gender roles and expression are learned behavior in our society. Our parents and peers teach us what it means to be a boy or girl from a very young age, and what is socially unacceptable for those genders. (They also commonly teach us, here in the US, that there are only two genders.)
In regards to gender differences I find some of the primate evidence[0][1] rather compelling. This doesn't mean that I believe any gender should be treated differently than the other of course but it seems rather obvious to me that some differences exist outside of any conditioning that human societies may provide.
[0]http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/09/101220-chimp... [1]http://www.bbc.com/news/av/science-environment-29418230/monk...
This reminds me of colour preference, where girls are more likely to say they like pink than boys and so people conclude pink is for girls and blue is for boys, yet if you ask what their favourite colour is, the top pick for both sexes is blue.
So the evidence on trucks doesn't support the claim you replied to, but maybe they'd be on firmer ground if they said boys had proportionately less interest in stuffed toy animals than trucks.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2583786/
It seems the duration shows the same pattern as counting the number of interactions:
"males interacted for a greater total time with wheeled than with plush objects while females did not differ in the duration of interactions with the toy types"
But consider something like the lower representation of women in math. If it happens because of genetically different altitudes/interests then it's inevitable, and there's no use complaining about it. If it's because of society discouraging women, that's just plain dumb.
(Btw: your examples are highly debatable. You can argue that consent and freedom of speech are social practices which respect objective moral/ethical facts).
That's not actually true. Even when something is the expected outcome of certain biological factors, that doesn't make it inevitable. With the right kind of intervention, very little is completely biologically determined. That's what medicine is all about. In many ways, culture is also about overcoming the limits and defaults of human biology. There's no reason to suppose that differences between the sexes can't be influenced into a direction that appears more desirable.
This varies across philosophical traditions. Common-law traditions do, in a sense, hold these sorts of rights as part of the origin story of the universe.
Let's start with this - what is gender?
I know what biological sex is, roughly; I thought gender was a synonym for it(this may be a translation/communication barrier).
From googling the topic, it appears that gender is defined as "the expectations a society places on an individual of a given sex", which makes the "gender is entirely a social construct" statement tautological.
I read about the "blank slate hypothesis", and it seems to be about something else entirely - it seems to be pretty vaguely referring to the "knowledge" and "experience" a human being might have from before they were born vs after. It seems rather naive to be aware of all the other biological differences between men and women but demand that they have no effect on "the mind", or more appropriately, on the expressions of will that a human being exhibits. I'm not an expert though, so maybe there's a deeper truth out there somewhere.
There are way more important things for society to deal with. This issue is a complete distraction for all but those who it affects directly.
I don't support making major changes to society in order to benefit an infinitesimal minority of mentally ill people.
If you don't want to pay attention to what's going on with transgender people, then go on and live your life — that is 100% your prerogative. If somebody tells you they're a woman, you can just let it pass without any burden on yourself — you don't have to think about the validity of their statement or the implications or what they've gone through in their life.
But if you loudly proclaim your lack of knowledge about transgender people while also loudly proclaiming that they should be treated disrespectfully, I don't think the transgender people are the ones being unreasonable in that situation.
Sure I can. My stance can be "I don't want to know very much about this topic and if you keep trying to bring it up ahead of much more important topics, then I will have to ignore you more loudly."
> If somebody tells you they're a woman, you can just let it pass without any burden on yourself...
That alone is certainly is not a burden on myself. The burden begins when the issue of societies behavior towards transgender people continually eclipses more important issues. I feel sorry for people whose issues get used to polarize people for political theater.
> ...if you loudly proclaim your lack of knowledge about transgender people while also loudly proclaiming that they should be treated disrespectfully,...
I don't know who is "loudly" doing anything or where this argument is coming from. Did I say something loudly? Is that the same thing as just saying the words "I don't care about this topic and please stop telling me about it...?"
All I said is - why should I care? If you say "because they're people", then I would say "we have more important types of people to worry about". For instance, who is doing anything about the sociopaths and psychopaths that seem to gravitate towards positions of power? Where's all the attention for that?
Personally, I have many causes I support. This doesn't have to be one of yours, but all I'm saying is, just because you want to spend your time on more important things doesn't mean you should spend your time telling people how unimportant transgender issues are.
You and I are actually on the same side. We both wish people didn't care very much if anyone switched genders. Beyond that, I think we all want to live in peace. In my opinion though, our common enemy are the very rude, petty and unintelligent people on both sides who turn social issues into a circus and present extreme narratives that make people fight and go to more extremes. That makes things hard for everybody on both sides, right? This article does not do that, but the reason it was posted (i.e. I feel a constant battle going on over the perception of the Transgender issue) does annoy me a tad bit and I talk a lot.
I once read that travelling helps people to be more accepting of foreign cultures. Too bad the Internet couldn't have done that instead.
The DSM is useful, don't get me wrong. But among the subjects of mental illness include Orgasmic Dysfunction and other such... "illnesses".
Being Homosexual was considered a mental illness in the 1970s. Today, it isn't, because we've all figured out that the thoughts behind it are messed up.
Transgenders are real, is what you are concluding. That's not really news.