1. I wasn't exactly expecting a debate so I wasn't particularly clear, it was an off-the-cuff comment and suggestion (hence the end). The central points intended were 1. race and sex are not analogous and 2. gender is associated with sex, not totally unrelated and not totally immaterial. I almost dropped a third comment saying race wasn'…
1. I wasn't exactly expecting a debate so I wasn't particularly clear, it was an off-the-cuff comment and suggestion (hence the end). The central points intended were 1. race and sex are not analogous and 2. gender is associated with sex, not totally unrelated and not totally immaterial. I almost dropped a third comment saying race wasn't analogous to sex and that's Dawkins' problem but I didn't want to bombard you.
But! Since you've brought this up, here's what I think is being missed.
"No, these people, in almost every single case, are *already* male or female. Atypical karyotype varations don't mean somebody isn't male or female. Male and female...It's vanishingly rare, like 0.002% of people rare, that that design is ambiguous."
1. These were examples explaining there are intersex people (as defined as people with ambiguous genitals [a commonly used definition]) and then there are people with other conditions that influence sex without ambiguous genitals. There's no universal definition of intersex.
2. Since it was an example, your point is non-sequitur. I didn't say anything about the odds of these conditions.
3. Because I said nothing about the rate of occurrence, whether they're common or not is irrelevant. I think you're assuming I was making the point "these conditions = transgender" which wasn't the point at all.
This is more along the lines of what I was getting to...
"Intersex people are very often conflated with trans people for the purposes of this question (all of the conditions you mention are intersex conditions or DSDs), yet they have basically nothing to do with each other."
Not quite (see comment 2). From the National Institute of Health, a transgender person "is someone who identifies with a gender other than the one that was assigned to them at birth." This is a mental experience.
Intersex is, again from the NIH, "a general term used to refer to individuals born with, or who develop naturally in puberty, biological sex characteristics that are not typically male or female." This is a physical fact about someone's body.
My point was these two aren't equal but they're not wholly unrelated either.
Let's use bipolar as an example.
Hypomania is an episode where someone feels excited, has more energy, an overly happy mood, etc, but it's not enough for most people to notice or to cause hospitalization.
Bipolar is a condition caused by genetics, brain chemistry, and environment that causes severe mood swings between depression and mania or hypomania.
To say that—because hypomania is mental and bipolar is physical—they, "basically have nothing to do with each other," isn't accurate. They have everything to do with one another. I picked hypomania for a reason, but depression works for this exercise too—because people *without* bipolar get depression/hypomania.
They're not synonymous but they're not totally unrelated either. Which brings me back to the central point: that physical, biological events cause mental events. Trying to address either in isolation doesn't tell the whole story.
Bipolar might not be the sole cause of hypomania and (clinical) depression, but it's very clear that things in the brain and the genes cause hypomania and (clinical) depression; just like the aforementioned conditions might not be the *sole* causes of feeling that your gender doesn't fit your biological body. But to say biology has *nothing* to do with it is incorrect.
There's nothing biological that can make someone feel they're a different race like there is with sex. They aren't analogous.
"There's nothing biological that can make someone feel they're a different race like there is with sex. They aren't analogous."
Yes, I agree that sex and race aren't analogous. But again, when we're talking about men who identify as women, we're talking, in 99.998% of cases, about people whose sex is not in question. So while I understand your point about them not being wholly unrelated, the prevalance seems relevant here, no? In discussions about pretty much any topic, you'd consider a continuous appeal to 0.002% of the issue a distraction, no?
The very question of what race somebody is is almost impossible to pin down when you think of it. Just one reason why the concept of race is so stupid. If two people have a child, that child will, in every case, be a different racial mix to either of their parents.
Barack Obama, for example, is considered black. But he has an equal claim to being white (he'd just be in for a world of pain if he ever did😅). So there's actually far better grounds for self-identifying as a particular race than as a particular sex. Because we're all a mixture of the different "races." You've got some African ancestry in you somewhere.
We're all a mixture of the different genders too. Where, by gender, I really mean gendered stereotypes. All of our personalities are a mixture of masculine and feminine stereotypes. Some men are widely considered feminine, some women are widely considered masculine, and until about five minutes ago, nobody thought that these feminine men and masculine women were in the wrong body. In fact, the idea would have seemed regressive and sexist.
So this is why I agree that sex and race aren't analogous. It's *gender* and "race" that are analogous. Everybody is a mixture of all the elements of both of these. And they are both of them externally categorised. Barack doesn't get to say he's white. Rachel Dolezal doesn't get to say she's black. And that's why Dawkins--and I--are asking why men get to say they're women.
But yes, as we used to be reminded by trans activists, sex and gender are different. And nobody, except for the aforementioned 0.002% have any grounds to claim they're a mixture. Sex isn't subjective. It's not based on feelings. I don't feel like a male/man. I AM a male/man. And this is true even if I prefer to wear dresses and makeup. Or even if I decide I want a feminine name. These things don't make me a female/woman. Any more than a woman who *doesn't* do these things becomes a man.
So I think the main point where we're disagreeing is whether there's something biological that makes us feel like we're the opposite sex. I had a look through the links you sent me, and nothing in them suggests this is true.
One of the other studies (sorry, I lost track) didn't think to compare trans women to gay men and instead compared them only to straight men. The thing is, gay people's brains are structured (in the same minor ways) like the opposite sex too (https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex/). And that's because most gender dysphoric young people just turn out to be gay if they can get through puberty unmedicalised.
Lastly, one of the other studies that found brain structure similarities in trans women and women was looking at the brains of trans women on oestrogen. But oestrogen is known to change brain structures in males. When looking at the brains of gender dysphoric males who were unmedicated, these differences weren't there.
So yeah, again, I'm not nearly as convinced as you that there is a biological component to "feeling like a woman." I don't have the first clue what "feeling like a woman" even means. And nobody has ever been able to explain it beyond regressive stereotypes like "liking makeup and dresses and Barbies." And even if these brain structure differences were consistently detectable, that's a long way from saying they relate to a felt experience of being a woman. Incidentally, I saw a great video on this topic yesterday (https://twitter.com/KnownHeretic/status/1700634899655606746?s=20).
1. I wasn't exactly expecting a debate so I wasn't particularly clear, it was an off-the-cuff comment and suggestion (hence the end). The central points intended were 1. race and sex are not analogous and 2. gender is associated with sex, not totally unrelated and not totally immaterial. I almost dropped a third comment saying race wasn't analogous to sex and that's Dawkins' problem but I didn't want to bombard you.
But! Since you've brought this up, here's what I think is being missed.
"No, these people, in almost every single case, are *already* male or female. Atypical karyotype varations don't mean somebody isn't male or female. Male and female...It's vanishingly rare, like 0.002% of people rare, that that design is ambiguous."
1. These were examples explaining there are intersex people (as defined as people with ambiguous genitals [a commonly used definition]) and then there are people with other conditions that influence sex without ambiguous genitals. There's no universal definition of intersex.
2. Since it was an example, your point is non-sequitur. I didn't say anything about the odds of these conditions.
3. Because I said nothing about the rate of occurrence, whether they're common or not is irrelevant. I think you're assuming I was making the point "these conditions = transgender" which wasn't the point at all.
This is more along the lines of what I was getting to...
"Intersex people are very often conflated with trans people for the purposes of this question (all of the conditions you mention are intersex conditions or DSDs), yet they have basically nothing to do with each other."
Not quite (see comment 2). From the National Institute of Health, a transgender person "is someone who identifies with a gender other than the one that was assigned to them at birth." This is a mental experience.
Intersex is, again from the NIH, "a general term used to refer to individuals born with, or who develop naturally in puberty, biological sex characteristics that are not typically male or female." This is a physical fact about someone's body.
My point was these two aren't equal but they're not wholly unrelated either.
Let's use bipolar as an example.
Hypomania is an episode where someone feels excited, has more energy, an overly happy mood, etc, but it's not enough for most people to notice or to cause hospitalization.
Bipolar is a condition caused by genetics, brain chemistry, and environment that causes severe mood swings between depression and mania or hypomania.
To say that—because hypomania is mental and bipolar is physical—they, "basically have nothing to do with each other," isn't accurate. They have everything to do with one another. I picked hypomania for a reason, but depression works for this exercise too—because people *without* bipolar get depression/hypomania.
They're not synonymous but they're not totally unrelated either. Which brings me back to the central point: that physical, biological events cause mental events. Trying to address either in isolation doesn't tell the whole story.
Bipolar might not be the sole cause of hypomania and (clinical) depression, but it's very clear that things in the brain and the genes cause hypomania and (clinical) depression; just like the aforementioned conditions might not be the *sole* causes of feeling that your gender doesn't fit your biological body. But to say biology has *nothing* to do with it is incorrect.
There's nothing biological that can make someone feel they're a different race like there is with sex. They aren't analogous.
"There's nothing biological that can make someone feel they're a different race like there is with sex. They aren't analogous."
Yes, I agree that sex and race aren't analogous. But again, when we're talking about men who identify as women, we're talking, in 99.998% of cases, about people whose sex is not in question. So while I understand your point about them not being wholly unrelated, the prevalance seems relevant here, no? In discussions about pretty much any topic, you'd consider a continuous appeal to 0.002% of the issue a distraction, no?
The very question of what race somebody is is almost impossible to pin down when you think of it. Just one reason why the concept of race is so stupid. If two people have a child, that child will, in every case, be a different racial mix to either of their parents.
Barack Obama, for example, is considered black. But he has an equal claim to being white (he'd just be in for a world of pain if he ever did😅). So there's actually far better grounds for self-identifying as a particular race than as a particular sex. Because we're all a mixture of the different "races." You've got some African ancestry in you somewhere.
We're all a mixture of the different genders too. Where, by gender, I really mean gendered stereotypes. All of our personalities are a mixture of masculine and feminine stereotypes. Some men are widely considered feminine, some women are widely considered masculine, and until about five minutes ago, nobody thought that these feminine men and masculine women were in the wrong body. In fact, the idea would have seemed regressive and sexist.
So this is why I agree that sex and race aren't analogous. It's *gender* and "race" that are analogous. Everybody is a mixture of all the elements of both of these. And they are both of them externally categorised. Barack doesn't get to say he's white. Rachel Dolezal doesn't get to say she's black. And that's why Dawkins--and I--are asking why men get to say they're women.
But yes, as we used to be reminded by trans activists, sex and gender are different. And nobody, except for the aforementioned 0.002% have any grounds to claim they're a mixture. Sex isn't subjective. It's not based on feelings. I don't feel like a male/man. I AM a male/man. And this is true even if I prefer to wear dresses and makeup. Or even if I decide I want a feminine name. These things don't make me a female/woman. Any more than a woman who *doesn't* do these things becomes a man.
So I think the main point where we're disagreeing is whether there's something biological that makes us feel like we're the opposite sex. I had a look through the links you sent me, and nothing in them suggests this is true.
This paper (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3030621/) clearly states that "there is no clear support for a genetic basis of transsexualism"
This story (https://www.newsweek.com/transgender-people-brains-wired-those-gender-they-identify-new-study-shows-939504) is based on this study (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4987404/) that found that the brain structures grouped exactly as you'd expect: female > trans man > trans woman > male. Note, that's a male/female grouping. But the story paints this as evidence that trans women's brains are like women's. It's like saying that if trans women were shorter on average than cis men, that's proof that they're like women.
One of the other studies (sorry, I lost track) didn't think to compare trans women to gay men and instead compared them only to straight men. The thing is, gay people's brains are structured (in the same minor ways) like the opposite sex too (https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex/). And that's because most gender dysphoric young people just turn out to be gay if they can get through puberty unmedicalised.
Lastly, one of the other studies that found brain structure similarities in trans women and women was looking at the brains of trans women on oestrogen. But oestrogen is known to change brain structures in males. When looking at the brains of gender dysphoric males who were unmedicated, these differences weren't there.
So yeah, again, I'm not nearly as convinced as you that there is a biological component to "feeling like a woman." I don't have the first clue what "feeling like a woman" even means. And nobody has ever been able to explain it beyond regressive stereotypes like "liking makeup and dresses and Barbies." And even if these brain structure differences were consistently detectable, that's a long way from saying they relate to a felt experience of being a woman. Incidentally, I saw a great video on this topic yesterday (https://twitter.com/KnownHeretic/status/1700634899655606746?s=20).