Gender therapy - An Anonymous Submission
Anonymous
Please submit anonymously
Julie Simpson wrote:
>
> In article <4ofcFNa00...@andrew.cmu.edu>, Vineeta Pal
> <vp...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
> >
> > i want to sincerely understand your experience. please don't take the
> > following questions as criticism. i am asking this out of genuine
> > curiosity. why was it that you were not able to "do a job" as a male
> > rather than as a female? what was "the pain" due to? what was
> > "dysfunctional"? (i want to go deeper into what it means to "feel like a
> > woman inside a man's body" and vice versa.) suppose we were living in a
> > (hypothetical) society where gender roles were not as mutually exclusive
> > as they are in this one. would the pain be less?
> >
> > vineeta.
>
Vineeta, your sensitivity in trying to understand the experience is deeply touching.
I'd like to reply largely in the feeling realm. If I may be boring for a paragraph, some science.
When I read the current medical, genetic and biological literature, it becomes increasing clear that that "male" and "female" are not well understood by the general populace. In utero we all start out "female". There is a dual set of structures (dimorphic) for expressing either "male" primary sexual characteristics (penis and testicles) or "female" structures (vagina and ovaries). The brain is also sexually di-morphic. "Males" and female process information differently and often respond to the same information very differently. Preponderantly, a place, usually on the Y chromosome sets up a masculining androgen bath which ends up in the expression of male primary and secondary characteristics. In the typical male, the brain and the body are masculinized during different periods of development. On the average, XY individuals have penises and testicles and develope masculine gender identities and adjust to whatever the "male gender role" and exhibit male sex typical behavior. A!
!
!
lso nominally, XX individuals have no androgen bath, have vaginas and ovaries. This is not always the case. One out of 2000 individuals are intersexed. There has been a recent study showing where persons who are called called M to F gender dysphorics have the same sized sexually dimorphic nuclie in the brain, as those persons who are assigned as Female at birth. This study in "Nature" showed these changes were different from straight and gay men and were independent of hormone administration. Increasingly, what has been called transexuality seems to be a painful case of intersexuality. Biologically there is evidence that parts of the brain are the same as other females.
So the old metaphor of "a woman trapped in a male body" is manifesting itself on histological slides under the microscope.
In considering "dysfunction", I wonder if this is not pathologizing. It wasn't until the 70's that homosexuality was removed from the list of pathologies. Certainly the condition is possibly one of the most painful in the human condition.
Perhaps the most healthy way to see the condtion is that of missassignment at birth where the assignement is based solely on genitalia. not on who the person is.
> Dysfunction: well, it seems as though most transsexuals find the problem
> to be the central issue in their lives. I guess because so much social
> interaction is based on gender (it's the first attribution people make of
> you when they meet you, whether they know you or not) when you feel
> they've "got it wrong" it feels as though no-one understands you truly
> and correctly. Which makes it hard to form meaningful relationships with
> anyone because you always get the impression they don't really know the
> real you. (as to who the real you is, well...).
I grew up in the fifties and went through gender reassignment earlier in life.
Although I was put with the rest of the girls at school, my family never knew
the deep despair I experienced. When momma told me women had babies
I had the most sinking feeling and knew something was very wrong when she said
I wouldn't.
It's hard to conceive of but, at the time there wasn't ever a word for the pain I was
experiencing. Phenominologically, "if there isn't a word for it, it doesn't exist." As I
grew up I had to completely hide the central and most important aspect of my being.
Shame, loneliness and isolation is frequently part of the experience of gender dysphoria.
I'm submitting this anonymously because very few of my friends and even past lovers
know of my early misassignment.
Life hurt and I found that life's pain abated when I saved up my money and brought
dresses and went out as the woman I am. I was also lucky, my body did not masculinize
to any extent. I experienced women as the same and men as the other but the world
did not see me in that fashion. I was not allowed to express the sensitive set of feelings
occurring inside of me. I was denied that pretty pink cotton dress I always wanted.
>
> As for "feel like a woman in a man's body", not all transsexuals
> subscribe to this cliche. After all, how does someone who has never
> lived as a woman know what the heck it means to feel like one? How do
> you, as a woman, verbalise what it feels like? I think often it's
> something that's very, very deep seated and hard to explain as a definite
> concept - kind of like having to explain the essence of what makes you
> "you".
We can't directly touch each other's experience, so you I agree to that extent.
I will say that from what I could see that my feelings and sensitivities matched
those of other women.
>
> I suspect that in a society where gender roles were not as mutually
> exclusive this would still occur, though it might not be as painful.
> Many writers (Hausman, Raymond, Greer) have made the excellent point that
> there seems to be an inordinate rise in the number of transsexuals which
> they link to the fact that medical technology makes the changes possible.
> While this ignores the fact that before the technology many, many people
> did lead cross-gendered lives or try to I think there probably is a
> causal factor in some cases.
Although it's impossible to answer the question relating to a society with less
stringent gender roles, I can say that the biological and anatomical role of the
average XY individual did not feel at all appropriate. I wanted to be soft, open
receptive and loving and not the aggressor or the consumer. Actually, how can
one carry on western dating rituals knowing you are the same inside?
>
> It's worth noting that some transsexuals feel from the very earliest
> moments in their life that things are awry, whereas others take until
> much later in life. Which is not to say that I think the "early
> adopters" are any more "pure", just that the fact that it happens means
> there is very likely something not especially social - more biological -
> about the phenomenon.
>
> As for sincerely understanding the issues, I also suspect a lot of the
> pain transsexuals feel is due to the fact that they don't really
> understand how and why all this stuff happens, either, which leads to the
> "why me?" anguish.
It seems that i understood what happened to me. I experienced very little
"why me". Although, I lament ever so much that i can not have a child, and
have known incredible pain, it seems that I have an all the more heightened
delight and appeciation of my womanhood than anyone I know. I worked to get
here. Another aspect of the pain, was being surrounded by women
who took for granted the kind of being that now feels so wonderful, which was
so stringently denied. Speak of being "the other."
I really wish I had a period. When I live with other women I do experience
water retention, PMS and braking out synchronized with their cycle. Please
don't respond with " I want to get rid of mine."
I am not sure if it's relevant but my emotional and physical connection is with
other women. Happily, I am fully functional sexually and joyful lovemaking is
possible for days!
>
> Oh, and by the way, although I said earlier that I wasn't sure a
> transsexual could ever call themselves a female, I think it's perfectly
> reasonable for them to refer to themselves as women.
For me, both are very appropriate. Long, long ago my birth certificate has been corrected
reflecting the error the occurred in the forties. My feeling, is that it was indeed an error.
If i see any transexuals, I'll ask them. Actually, I feel, the currently self labeling
as transexual is pretty damaging.
I hope this helped, even a little.
Carole
--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to femi...@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism...@ncar.ucar.edu. This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days. Rejections notified by email.
Roger Schwenke
Anonymous wrote:
> Julie Simpson wrote:
> > In article <4ofcFNa00...@andrew.cmu.edu>, Vineeta Pal
> > <vp...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
> > > i want to sincerely understand your experience. please don't take the
> > > following questions as criticism. i am asking this out of genuine
> > > curiosity. why was it that you were not able to "do a job" as a male
> > > rather than as a female? what was "the pain" due to? what was
> > > "dysfunctional"? (i want to go deeper into what it means to "feel like a
> > > woman inside a man's body" and vice versa.) suppose we were living in a
> > > (hypothetical) society where gender roles were not as mutually exclusive
> > > as they are in this one. would the pain be less?
I'm also very interested in what vineeta is asking about here. I
think that trans/intersexuality issues cut to the core of the nature
versus nurture argument. Are men masculine and women feminine because
of an expression of biological difference or because of enormous social
pressure? Or some mixture of both?
I think mainstream feminism assumes the cause is nurture and any
amount of "nature" influence is negligible However, it's hard to fit
transexuality into that theory. In part, the aim of feminism is to get
rid of gender socialization so that anyone, male of female, can feel
free to express any mixture of masculine or feminine traits. If the
nurture theory is correct you would expect any individual to express a
wide range of traits between masculine and feminine.
Transsexuals usually say things along the lines of "I form better
friendships with women", "I want to be able to express emotions like a
woman" or as you say:
>I experienced women as the same and men as the other but the world
> did not see me in that fashion. I was not allowed to express the sensitive set of >feelings
> occurring inside of me. I was denied that pretty pink cotton dress I always wanted.
>
Under the nurture theory,it seems that if we lived in a non gender
socialized world then then those that wanted to change sex could
comfortably express feminine qualities and not necesarily need to change
sex. I think this is what Vineeta is asking when she says:
>suppose we were living in a
> > > (hypothetical) society where gender roles were not as mutually exclusive
> > > as they are in this one. would the pain be less?
However, the more I learn about trans and inter sexuality the better
the case for biological difference seems to be. (not that I now think
that all gender differnces are biological, just that I'm honing in on
what the balance is between nature and nurture influences).
I'm a little at a loss for terminology - so let me tell you what I've
picked up and you can tell me where I'm wrong:
transsexual - someone who has had sex reassignment surgery
intersexed - someone whose brain and genitalial genderization don't
match
From what I understand from your science paragraph - embryos start off
with female characteristics and male genitalia and brain structures are
formed in different stages of developement. Intersexuality is when
brain genderization does not match genitalial genderization.
My big question is (with the above definitions):
In a non-gender socialized society, would an intersexed person still
likely want sex reassignment surgery?
Please excuse me if I have this terminology mixed up - there really
isn't all that much freely available information about it, and I have to
expose my ignorance if I'm going to learn anything about it.
I'm very interested in the sex differences in brain developement that
you mentioned - is there a good layman's book on this subject?
Thank you for sharing this very personal information
Roger
Julie Simpson
(Carole - Anonymous) wrote:
> In considering "dysfunction", I wonder if this is not pathologizing. It
wasn't
> until the 70's that homosexuality
> was removed from the list of pathologies. Certainly the condition is
possibly one of
> the most painful in the human condition.
I would like to think you are right about this, Carole, except that - for
so many people - the condition leads to other pathologies such as
depression. As you say, it's a very painful condition.
Also, there is still something that bothers me, all these years later,
about my state of mind at the time I was anguishing over all this. I
knew I wanted to live as a woman, but in truth I had only the scantiest
idea of what that meant. So how did I know what was right for me? Was I
not perhaps mildly delusional? I mean, the fact that I got it right
doesn't change the ignorance I had at the time.
> Perhaps the most healthy way to see the condtion is that of missassignment
at birth
> where the assignement is based solely on genitalia. not on who the person
is.
Yes, but then that overlooks the idea that there is _some_ socialization.
I don't know about you, but I knew what people wanted of me, and for
many years tried to live up to that. I wans't very good at it, but I
know that my life before seventeen was somewhat different than most of my
female friends. That has to have some kind of influence, however much I
might like to wish it didn't.
> I grew up in the fifties and went through gender reassignment earlier in
life.
> Although I was put with the rest of the girls at school, my family never
knew
> the deep despair I experienced. When momma told me women had babies
> I had the most sinking feeling and knew something was very wrong when she
said
> I wouldn't.
>
> It's hard to conceive of but, at the time there wasn't ever a word for the
pain I was
> experiencing. Phenominologically, "if there isn't a word for it, it doesn't
exist." As I
> grew up I had to completely hide the central and most important aspect of
my being.
> Shame, loneliness and isolation is frequently part of the experience of
gender dysphoria.
> I'm submitting this anonymously because very few of my friends and even
past lovers
> know of my early misassignment.
Like you, I am not "out", for the same reasons. My husband knows, but my
stepson does not. None of my friends knows except two old ex-boyfriends I
am still close to. It mostly seems kind of irrelevant.
Except - there is the internet, which allows for some anonymity (no,
Julie is not my real name, it's just one I use online), and there are a
lot of questions I still have about all this - I guess I'll have them
forever. It's not a big part of my day to day life, but every now and
then I deal with it in this medium. Funnily enough I've lurked on this
newsgroup for a long time and never posted, because there's probably a
little bit of self-loathing still there that questions my right to post
as an apparent woman in a newsgroup on feminism. Now, having outed
myself here, I suppose I won't feel so bad about that but now I probably
won't post anyway because I imagine the condition probably devalues my
opinions as a woman. Oh well. Strike one up for poor self-esteem.
> Life hurt and I found that life's pain abated when I saved up my money and
brought
> dresses and went out as the woman I am. I was also lucky, my body did not
masculinize
> to any extent. I experienced women as the same and men as the other but the
world
> did not see me in that fashion. I was not allowed to express the sensitive
set of feelings
> occurring inside of me. I was denied that pretty pink cotton dress I always
wanted.
Clothes were _mostly_ not a big deal for me past the age of about four.
> We can't directly touch each other's experience, so you I agree to that
extent.
> I will say that from what I could see that my feelings and sensitivities
matched
> those of other women.
Well, yes, exactly.
> Actually, how can
> one carry on western dating rituals knowing you are the same inside?
With an enormous amount of guilt :(
> It seems that i understood what happened to me. I experienced very little
> "why me". Although, I lament ever so much that i can not have a child, and
> have known incredible pain, it seems that I have an all the more heightened
> delight and appeciation of my womanhood than anyone I know. I worked to get
> here. Another aspect of the pain, was being surrounded by women
> who took for granted the kind of being that now feels so wonderful, which
was
> so stringently denied. Speak of being "the other."
I guess it's only natural that we have this in common. I do, from time
to time, marvel that a life I despaired of so much when I was younger has
turned out so well. I sometimes think, listening to my grandfather talk,
that it's not that dissimilar to surviving a war. Things do seem kind of
precious afterward.
> I really wish I had a period. When I live with other women I do experience
> water retention, PMS and braking out synchronized with their cycle. Please
> don't respond with " I want to get rid of mine."
Hmmm. I just wish I wasn't any different to other women. Yes, the
children thing is problematic. Sometimes I like to think of this in the
way other people think of unrealistic goals. Like someone with Polio who
wants to run the marathon. It's just not the way things are going to
work out, so get used to it and enjoy the things you can do. Which you
seem to be doing rather well.
> For me, both are very appropriate. Long, long ago my birth certificate has
been corrected
> reflecting the error the occurred in the forties. My feeling, is that it
was indeed
> an error.
Alas, I was born in a part of the world where it is not possible to
change my birth certificate. But I've obtained enough other
documentation that it doesn't matter.
> Actually, I feel, the currently self labeling
> as transexual is pretty damaging.
If you dwell on it. Thankfully it tends mostly not to pop into my head
too often.
I'm pleased things worked out well for you, and hope life continues to be
kind.
Best wishes,
Julie
gho...@ozemail.com.au
www.ozemail.com.au/~ghostv/JuliesHomePage.htm
--
Julie Simpson
In article <tittleEM...@netcom.com>, tit...@netcom.com. (Cindy
Tittle Moore) wrote:
> The biggest problem I have with all this is that I don't accept
> wanting to wear pink dresses to be an inherently feminine trait. As a
> biological female, who has always and will always be female, is happy
> being female, etc., I have never in my life desired to be dressed up
> in pink. In fact, I went to rather great lengths to stay out of
> dresses of any color, from very early childhood.
>
> It seems to me that if, say, painting purple spots on your face was
> considered very feminine, and the sort of thing all girls and women
> just naturally want to do, that M2F transexual folks would also want
> to paint purple spots on their faces, because that would just be the
> way they understood femininity was *expressed*.
>
> In other words, nature creates the transexual...nurture creates the
> specific traits that one may use to create external signals.
>
> If that makes sense...I know I can really pretzle myself working through
> some of this stuff.
>
> --Cindy
Well, it does make sense Cindy - the catch is that not all transsexuals
have a thing for clothes either. It's about identity, not fetishism (not
that I'm suggesting Carole is a fetishist).
Many many transsexuals have a difficult time with some of the
'gatekeepers' of the medical establishment who pronounce judgement on
whether or not they are 'feminine' enough to be recommended for surgery.
My doctor was reticent about recommending me because I never wore skirts
when I saw him. It seemed hard for him to grasp that in the late
seventies student culture I inhabited jeans and a t-shirt were pretty
much the standard mode of dress for men and women. Guess I just didn't
_like_ purple spots that much. ;)
I agree with you about the nature/nurture difference in many ways, though.
Cheers
Julie
gho...@ozemail.com.au
www.ozemail.com.au/~ghostv/JuliesHomePage.htm
anatta18
It seems that both the "feminist nuture all the way" and
the "biology is destiny" folks might have to rethink the
dichotomies they put their views into.
It seems as if biology ( via what transexuals say about
innately identifying with a gender ) does give one
some innate preferences and dispositions.
I agree with Cindy though that there probally isn't a gene
for liking "pink frilly things", but it is quite possible
that there are genes that would make one want to identify
with one's gender group, which is where nuture sitting
on top of nature would come in. A girl identifying with
other females might want to start dressing/behaving to
the cultural norms other females adhere to.
It seems that the rationale for the "feminist nuture position"
is to "make it safe" for people to express whatever gender
characteristics they have by selling people the bill of
goods that it is all about nuture. In other words, if people
believe that a propensity to enjoy athletics is a "guy thing"
then they will not automatically exclude a young girl from
or make her feel self conscious about playing sports.
If the biological implications of transexuality
are proven this position has to be reworked, maybe into
something like " people are born with a set of gender
driven dispositions, but there are no hard dividing lines
between the two, some people have traits of the 'other
gender', so give everyone a chance, don't assume they
are not cut out for something based on their genitals."
Steve
Roger Schwenke
Cindy Tittle Moore wrote:
>
> Carole wrote
> >> I experienced women as the same and men as the other but the world
> >> did not see me in that fashion. I was not allowed to express the
> >> sensitive set of feelings occurring inside of me. I was denied that
> >> pretty pink cotton dress I always wanted.
> The biggest problem I have with all this is that I don't accept
> wanting to wear pink dresses to be an inherently feminine trait. As a
> biological female, who has always and will always be female, is happy
> being female, etc., I have never in my life desired to be dressed up
> in pink. In fact, I went to rather great lengths to stay out of
> dresses of any color, from very early childhood.
>
I have a very similiar reaction - I have always resisted the pressure
to be masculine, to not form close friendships, etc. Yet I haven't had
any desire to be a woman. So it seems that in order to be a transexual
there's got to be something more than just a rejection of the gender
roles placed on you.
> It seems to me that if, say, painting purple spots on your face was
> considered very feminine, and the sort of thing all girls and women
> just *NATURALLY* [emphasis added] want to do, that M2F transexual folks would also want
> to paint purple spots on their faces, because that would just be the
> way they understood femininity was *expressed*.
But what if (as most feminist believe) wearing pink dresses or purple
spots is socially constructed, and we eventually created a society which
did not have any such external gender expressions?
>
> In other words, nature creates the transexual...nurture creates the
> specific traits that one may use to create external signals.
It would seem then that there is some biological need to distinguish
ones gender. But can we really make the case that society creates the
specific traits used as external signals? The gender traits seem to be
pretty uniform cross-culturally, or at least there is a core of traits
that is common cross-culturally. Not to say that we're trapped by our
biology, there are plenty of natural tendencies that we socialize
against (e.g. violence)
Roger
Roger Schwenke
anatta18 wrote:
>" people are born with a set of gender
> driven dispositions, but there are no hard dividing lines
> between the two, some people have traits of the 'other
> gender', so give everyone a chance, don't assume they
> are not cut out for something based on their genitals."
>
searching for the words to say what you said, and you found them first.
Roger
Cindy Tittle Moore
Roger Schwenke <rws...@sabine.acs.psu.edu> writes:
> But what if (as most feminist believe) wearing pink dresses or purple
>spots is socially constructed, and we eventually created a society which
>did not have any such external gender expressions?
It's a good question. In such a society, what would indicate someone
was a woman? Physical attributes? Then perhaps a higher percentage
(I don't know what the current numbers are) of TS would opt for surgery
earlier?
>But can we really make the case that society creates the specific
>traits used as external signals? The gender traits seem to be pretty
>uniform cross-culturally, or at least there is a core of traits that
>is common cross-culturally.
Uh, such as? Seems to me I've seen enough variation to rule that out,
and even for some things you MIGHT argue were consistent tendencies
(say, lack of promiscuity) always have their exceptions on both sides
(plenty of promiscuous women and men who don't have much sex) that what
do you DO with a gender trait? You still can't ethically straight jacket
everyone into it.
--Cindy
--
*********** tit...@netcom.com ** http://www.zmall.com/tittle.html ***********
By US Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B), a computer/modem/printer meets the
definition of a telephone fax machine. By Sec.227(b)(1)(C), it is unlawful to
send any unsolicited advertisement to such equipment, punishable by action to
recover actual monetary loss, or $500, whichever is greater, for each violation.
See http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/227.html
Diane Bailey
anatta18 <anat...@geocities.com> wrote:
> If the biological implications of transexuality
> are proven this position has to be reworked, maybe into
> driven dispositions, but there are no hard dividing lines
> between the two, some people have traits of the 'other
> gender', so give everyone a chance, don't assume they
> are not cut out for something based on their genitals."
Two weeks ago I posted details here, earlier in this same thread of
where on the WWW one can read the full text of the learned jounal report
of the medical research which has been accepted by the European Court as
evidence that transsexuality is probably biologically determined.
>The full test of the original paper, 'A sex difference in the
>human brain and its relation to transsexuality' by J.N. Zhou,
>M.A. Hofman, L.J. Gooren and D.F. Swaab, in the learned journal
>NATURE, 378: 68-70 (1995), reproduced with permission, including
>plates, is on the WWW at:
>
>http://www.symposion.com/ijt/ijtc0106.htm
>
>It seems to demonstrate conclusively, albeit not using a very
>large sample (but then these are post-mortem investigations),
>that a pair of very small structures within the cranial caverty
>are of a clearly different size and shape in females, and
>confirmed male to female transsexuals, compared to males (both
>heterosexual and homosexual). They eliminate the possiblity of
>the difference being down to the use of hormones. There is
>nothing in the article which would counter feminist objections to
>gender role stereotyping, but it does indicate that objections to
>the acceptance of transsexualism may have been unjust.
In other words, such a huge distinction as sexuality was quite
independent from gender identity. This fits anatta18's interpretation
(above) perfectly.
Unfortunately another poster, who arrogantly "cannot be bothered" to
justify her posting, countered, falsely, that there had be much research
which countered the findings to which I pointed. I believe she may
be a psychologist, a profession with a terrible track record on
gender and sexuality.
My take on this is as a lesbian journalist. In the late 1970s I talked
with a considerable number of transsexuals in trying to form a balanced
understanding of what was then a very heated issue, with the very right
to life of some transsexuals being threatened by certain "feminists" of
the time, and little comprehension by gay men. I have maintained my
concern.
It is quite easy to envisage the brain being initially "hard-wired" for
the shape, mechanisms and reactions of one's organs of reproduction, but
not to how one uses them, nor of other aspects of behaviour (which may
or may not be affected by other genetic or chemical factors). If this,
in any individual is at contrast to the actual genitals this would
explain the basic transsexual symptom of extreme alienation from the
"wrong" genitals, sometimes reporting experiencing a different body
image in a manner reminiscent of that still experienced of a limb by
those who have suffered an amputation. Trying to explain this, or to
find some rational manner of living one's life, some way to envisage
one's future life when experiencing this at an early age (sometimes
before the age of 3), and of course being denied any meaningful
treatment until at least one's late teens, explains, surely much of the
confusions and misunderstandings which have dogged the issue. Made
worse by people with either a professional vested interest, or those who
would prefer their political philosophy to be uncomplicated by the
realities of a small and vulnerable minority.
Diane
--
Di...@dbailey.cix.co.uk
Renee
Diane Bailey wrote:
> Unfortunately another poster, who arrogantly "cannot be bothered" to
> justify her posting, countered, falsely, that there had be much research
> which countered the findings to which I pointed. I believe she may
> be a psychologist, a profession with a terrible track record on
> gender and sexuality.
I do not know who the poster was, and no, she did not cite her
references.
On the other hand, I am a psychologist. Although I have not been
watching our "track record" on gender and sexuality, I wonder if you are
maligning the profession with a rather broad brush. Are you going back
to Freud on this or are you referring to the latter twentieth century?
Renee
Ennead
Diane Bailey wrote:
[cuts]
>The full test of the original paper, 'A sex difference in the
>human brain and its relation to transsexuality' by J.N. Zhou,
>M.A. Hofman, L.J. Gooren and D.F. Swaab, in the learned journal
>NATURE, 378: 68-70 (1995), reproduced with permission, including
>plates, is on the WWW at:
>
>http://www.symposion.com/ijt/ijtc0106.htm
Are you sure it was NATURE? The article on that web site seems to be from
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TRANSEXUALITY.
>It seems to demonstrate conclusively, albeit not using a very
>large sample (but then these are post-mortem investigations),
>that a pair of very small structures within the cranial caverty
>are of a clearly different size and shape in females, and
>confirmed male to female transsexuals, compared to males (both
>heterosexual and homosexual).
Actually, there is not a "clearly different" size between females and
males; the structure tends to be smaller in women, but when you look at
the data in the paper there's clearly overlap between the two (i.e., it's
larger in some women than some men).
> They eliminate the possiblity of
>the difference being down to the use of hormones. There is
>nothing in the article which would counter feminist objections to
>gender role stereotyping, but it does indicate that objections to
>the acceptance of transsexualism may have been unjust.
Objections to the acceptance of transsexuality are unjust regardless, in
my opinion; the merit or lack of merit of this one scientific study
doesn't change that.
That said, I don't think this study is "conclusive" proof. For one thing,
as you point out, it's an _extremely_ small sample; the statistical
significance of this study is not high, and is even lower if you eliminate
the AIDS-related deaths (which some people would argue should be done,
although understandably not these authors). For another, it's a study
conducted by scientists who were clearly looking very hard for a
biological difference in transsexuals, and it has not yet been replicated,
which always adds an element of doubt (plenty of apparently good studies
made by sincere, honest scientists have turned out to be unreplicatable).
Most importantly, we don't yet have a very good understanding of how the
brain works and grows. We do know, however, that the size and shape of
brain structures are affected by _both_ genetics and experience; just like
our muscles, the size and shape of parts of our brains is partly
determined by the life experiences we have. It's interesting and valuable
knowlege that this structure, which _tends_ to be larger in men than in
women (and larger still in gay men), _tends_ to be smallest of all in ftm
transexuals; but I think it's too little data to decide that this is proof
positive of a biological basis for transexuality.
It's my opinion that both genetics and enviorment affect gender roles, but
the exact way it works is something we're probably decades away from
understanding.
Yours,
--Ampersand
Diane Bailey
Cindy Tittle Moore <tit...@netcom.com> wrote:
> Then perhaps a higher percentage
> (I don't know what the current numbers are) of TS would opt
> for surgery earlier?
_Nobody_ knows what current numbers are. Overall, internationally,
there is little research and even the tally of the numbers of
surgical "reassignments" is generally only known by each
individual surgeon or medical centre. Some countries, such as
the UK and The Netherlands might have figures nationally for
those treated by the public health services, but they do not seem
available to the public.
In any case, the figures reflect only those permitted by the
system to have medical treatment. In many countries medical
treatment just does not exist. In others it is limited by high
charges. In yet others by poverty, censorious attitudes,
incomprehension, or lack of information.
It is highly inappropriate to use the phrase "opt for surgery
earlier" since many transsexuals recount that they were extremely
anxious to "opt for surgery" whilst their age was only in single
figures but I am not aware of anyone having been permitted
surgery until the end of their teens, and most have been denied
even hormonal treatment until the mid-teens, at the earliest.
It was extremely interesting to observe, in a recent major UK
television documentary series on female-to-male transsexuals, how
the youngest was treated. He was only about 10 when first seen in
the programme, and about 14 at the end. A wonderful child with
concerned and very supportive parents who travelled with him and
the whole group of those being featured to talk with the leading
specialists in Amsterdam, who were in no doubt that all of the
subjects were (are) transsexual and were prepared to prescribe an
hormone course for even the youngest. But the British
specialists back home, although not apparently disagreeing with
the diagnosis, simply strung the child and his parents along,
refusing any actual treatment other than "consultations". Thus,
although the lad was allowed to attend his (all-girl) school
dressed as a boy (after some confrontations with the teaching
staff), and certainly came over as a boy, he had, despite his and
his parents' wishes, to go through the mental anguish of first
menstruation and other physical development as a female. The
fact that the specialists seemed to keep the patient (highly
appropriate word) and his parents in constant anticipation, that
hormones would be made available shortly, prevented them taking
up the offer of treatment from the Netherlands and surely
increased anxiety immensely.
I understand that this attitude to the treatment of the young is
actually part of some internationally propagated guidelines,
although I cannot see how this can be for the benefit of the
patients, but instead solely for the "protection" of the
specialists.
It means, of course, that all transsexuals are forced to go
through all of that terribly important period of childhood and
adolescence as the wrong physical gender. This means that there
can be many physical characteristics which develop which later
make life extremely difficult, or cost formidable sums, and much
pain and effort to eradicate. The confusion, and mental agony is
also likely to leave many scars. In effect, of course, they also
are being deprived of their rightful childhoods and teenage
years, and much of what usually comes from those, such as successful
education, friendships, memories, perhaps roots and stability. In
the US, for example, another effect would be that the costs of
medical treatment cannot be borne by the parents' medical cover
but has to wait until the patient themself has sufficient funding,
if ever.
"Feminist" advocacy that the whole phenomena was mistaken, and
that it was all down to conditioning, or a society which should
be changed instead, has not helped in this at all. Such
luminaries as Germaine Greer, who still maintains her position of
the 1960s, provide useful ammunition for those seeking ways to cut
medical budgets, or increase the need that medical specialists
feel to "protect themselves", whether it be from their patients,
fellow professionals or those who control budgets or policies,
until they can say that treatment was essential in order to halt
a decline in the patient's mental health or prevent
self-mutilation. What might be an intoxicating flight of offbeat
philosophy thus has tragic consequences for innocent individuals.
And the "psycho-" professions have to take their share of blame.
Some remain happy to "counsel" or investigate transsexuals for
years to no meaningful effect. Whilst others have contributed
"studies" which can only be described as perverse. One, done on
the UK in the late 1970s, which a large number of transsexuals
were persuaded to assist, turned out to be nothing more than an
attempt to prove that transsexuals were just extreme examples of
those men who are aroused by the thought or sight of sex between
women! The existence of female-to-male transsexuals was of
course ignored, as they are ignored by Germaine Greer and others
of her ilk.
Of course, things are better than they once were: in the early
1970s the guidelines ruled that no surgery should be performed
before the 26th year, just to ensure that all "natural"
development of the original gender had taken place.
Diane
(Who is putting off writing an important piece of work)
--
Di...@dbailey.cix.co.uk
Robert Terry
anatta18 wrote:
>
> It seems that both the "feminist nuture all the way" and
> the "biology is destiny" folks might have to rethink the
> dichotomies they put their views into.
>
> It seems as if biology ( via what transexuals say about
> innately identifying with a gender ) does give one
> some innate preferences and dispositions.
>
> I agree with Cindy though that there probally isn't a gene
> for liking "pink frilly things", but it is quite possible
> that there are genes that would make one want to identify
> with one's gender group, which is where nuture sitting
> on top of nature would come in. A girl identifying with
> other females might want to start dressing/behaving to
> the cultural norms other females adhere to.
>
I don't know about dresses, but there are some reasons to think that
the reason that more girls than boys prefer the color pink may have
something to do with genes and biology .. specifically the workings of
color vision.
It is well known that somewhere between 10 and 12 percent of white
males (in the US) have a red-green color deficiency ... and it has been
proposed that many more have milder forms that reduce the discriminatory
capacity in the red-green arena. Of course, the genes for color vision
are located on the X (sex) chromosome ... so problems are more likely
for males since they only have one copy of this gene and cannot depend
upon a backup copy for help.
If indeed males simply don't "see" pink (a variation on red) in the
same way that females do, then it is quite possible that as far as color
preferences go, males on average seem to prefer pink (and red) less
often than females on average. No point in belaboring the obvious;
color preference, since it is must surely be a function of color
sensitivity, certainly has some biological underpinnings.
Now this doesn't mean that there are no social influences. It may
well be that for those males who "see" pink in the same manner as
females do, pink is rarely expressed as a preference because of the
socialization influences of the other males who do not. If some
substantial proportion of boys don't wear pink because it really appears
somewhat "light brown" to them, then it may just be that the idea of a
norm for color gets expressed very early in the observation of others.
So, it is not as easy to dismiss the preference for "pink" as purely
a social construction as one would think ... color sensitivity (a
function of the pigmentation in the retinal cells and purely under
genetic control) must surely play a role. As one who "sees" pink, I
enjoy the color tremendously. But there are many males for whom the
color has no real distinction (or reds in general). Hence, the reason
that many fire trucks and emergency vehicles are now painted yellow.
Of course, even color deficient males can distinguish traffic lights
because these signals tend to vary in hue and brightness, as well as
saturation (color).
By the way, the prevalence of color deficiency varies by culture and
race. Estimates suggest that only 3% of black men have the same color
deficiency. What this may mean for the socialization theorists is that
simply observing cultural differences in preferences is not sufficient
to demonstrate that the preference is simply cultural in nature ...
since there are some racial differences in biology.
Cheers,
Robert
Roger Schwenke
> >But can we really make the case that society creates the specific
> >traits used as external signals? The gender traits seem to be pretty
> >uniform cross-culturally, or at least there is a core of traits that
> >is common cross-culturally.
>
> Uh, such as? Seems to me I've seen enough variation to rule that out,
> and even for some things you MIGHT argue were consistent tendencies
> (say, lack of promiscuity) always have their exceptions on both sides
> (plenty of promiscuous women and men who don't have much sex) that what
> do you DO with a gender trait? You still can't ethically straight jacket
> everyone into it.
well, no, definitely not straightjacket anyone into it (see my
response to anatta18's post). Actually the example I had in mind was
child-rearing/nurturing. Of course there are excpetions - that's what
we mean when we say we shouldn't straight jacket anyone into it. But
what happens when you're dealing with large numbers of people at a time
- for instance coporate or government policy? At that level, you would
expect, even in a society where no pressure is put on people to conform
to gender roles, that a larger percentage of women would want to be
homemakers/chlid care workers. Not that there wouldn't be any men doing
that job, jsut that women would be disproportionally represented. That's
only *if* child rearing turns out to a natural femal inclination. It
could be that our society has gone to great lengths to socialize people
in exactly the opposite way of our natural inclination.
Still, the point is, if there are such things as "natural
inclinations" then social change based on quotas is doomed to failure.
Let me clearly say that this is not a conclusion that I particularly
desire to admit (or in fact, not desire). I'm just trying to work out
what conclusions would follow from assuming that human beings do in fact
have natural tendencies. I'm not %100 convinced of that assumption yet
(I'd like to have a close look at all that stuff about brain differences
in fetal developement).
Roger
Cheryl L Perkins
: > But what if (as most feminist believe) wearing pink dresses or purple
: >spots is socially constructed, and we eventually created a society which
: >did not have any such external gender expressions?
: It's a good question. In such a society, what would indicate someone
: was a woman? Physical attributes? Then perhaps a higher percentage
: (I don't know what the current numbers are) of TS would opt for surgery
: earlier?
I've been following this debate, and started wondering what being a female
means to me. Well, I am obviously female both genetically and by
socialization. But there is something deeper. I can't quite put my finger
on it - I just KNOW I am a female. I have been unconventional from time to
time (never liked those pretty pink dresses <G>) but it never occurred to
me to doubt that I was female. Then, I tried to imagine what it would be
like if, because of my physical appearance, I was treated like a man when
I knew I was a woman, and I began to get what I think must have been a
pale imitation shadow of what we are discussing. And I am very glad my
body matches that deep inside feeling.
: >But can we really make the case that society creates the specific
: >traits used as external signals? The gender traits seem to be pretty
: >uniform cross-culturally, or at least there is a core of traits that
: >is common cross-culturally.
: Uh, such as? Seems to me I've seen enough variation to rule that out,
: and even for some things you MIGHT argue were consistent tendencies
: (say, lack of promiscuity) always have their exceptions on both sides
: (plenty of promiscuous women and men who don't have much sex) that what
: do you DO with a gender trait? You still can't ethically straight jacket
: everyone into it.
: --Cindy
I think societies don't create male/female traits; but they do create
'signposts' - handy shorthand signals that this person is male and that
person is female. These would naturally vary from society to society, and
perhaps from time to time in the same society. Someone who feels able
to flout such signals, such conventions may be firmly rooted in her sense
of which gender she is, while someone who has had to fight to establish
herself in her gender may see being able to send out such signals as a
great victory.
So, among the 'pink dresses' group you could have born-and-raised females
who just happen to like expressing their femaleness that way, and females
who had to struggle to be permitted to wear pink dresses.
I am just speculating, and would like feedback..
Cheryl
--
Cheryl Perkins
cper...@calvin.stemnet.nf.ca
Vineeta Pal
Excerpts from netnews.soc.feminism: 10-Jan-98 Re: Gender therapy - An
Ano.. by anat...@geocities.com
> If the biological implications of transexuality
> are proven this position has to be reworked, maybe into
> something like " people are born with a set of gender
> driven dispositions, but there are no hard dividing lines
> between the two, some people have traits of the 'other
> gender', so give everyone a chance, don't assume they
> are not cut out for something based on their genitals."
>
i agree with you largely on this, though i'd like to add a few
qualifications, especially to the phrases "some people" and "traits of
the other gender".
we need to note how many those "some" are for which traits. and at what
point do those "some" become too many that that trait can no longer be
legitimately called a "trait of the other gender". for some traits the
differences are significant enough that they can be said to "belong" to
one gender or the other. then people of the opposite gender who have
this trait can be said to have "the trait of the other gender". for
other traits, the differences, if any, are so minor, and vary so much
over time and space, or may be in a state of strong flux, that the
"some" become too many and it is no longer valid to call it a "trait of
the other gender".
most people who argue biological determinism are not very careful with
this fact. one should not pick on straws to keep one's ideological
agenda afloat. a good scientist would look for patterns that are
*significant* in her/his data before making any general statements about
those patterns. in fact, i have read of cases where scientists
researching this area have cautioned against wrong, incomplete or
twisted interpretations of their work, but people have gone ahead anyway
jumping to conclusions based on half-understood ideas. therefore, i
think that this is one area where it is good to be extremely skeptical.
and considering how fluid some differences are, how much our own beliefs
about these differences affect these differences, how nurture can
influence nature (and not only the other way round), i think we should
go beyond giving everyone a chance. we should make everyone believe
equally well (and according to their individual abilities rather than
the group they fall into) that they are worthy of taking the chance.
how many americans would want to do math if it was perceived to be an
asian trait? i thank my parents and my educational background for my
interest and talent in math and science. it wasn't until coming to
america a few years ago that i "discovered" that being good in math and
science are "masculine traits".
vineeta.
Vineeta Pal
thanks to julie and carole for sharing their experiences so kindly and
at such length. though i am far from understanding their experiences, i
think they have helped me take a small step in that direction.
what i understand is (please correct me if i am wrong) that, quite apart
from being born with male or female genitals, one might be born with a
male or female sense of self (or identity). this goes deeper and is more
abstract and difficult to describe than the culturally sanctioned
external manifestations of femininity or masculinity. however, in order
to be perceived by others as the gender one perceives oneself to be, it
is helpful to express one's gender in ways that are culturally
acceptable for that gender, and which are also the ways that one is
comfortable with.
vineeta.
Cindy Tittle Moore
Vineeta Pal <vp...@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>what i understand is (please correct me if i am wrong) that, quite apart
>from being born with male or female genitals, one might be born with a
>male or female sense of self (or identity). this goes deeper and is more
>abstract and difficult to describe than the culturally sanctioned
>external manifestations of femininity or masculinity. however, in order
>to be perceived by others as the gender one perceives oneself to be, it
>is helpful to express one's gender in ways that are culturally
>acceptable for that gender, and which are also the ways that one is
>comfortable with.
Which can then clash with groups trying to redefine "cultural
acceptability" of assorted traits...
--Cindy, who wants to stress that she is NOT anti-TS!!!
--
*********** tit...@netcom.com ** http://www.k9web.com/tittle.html ***********
By US Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B), a computer/modem/printer meets the
definition of a telephone fax machine. By Sec.227(b)(1)(C), it is unlawful to
send any unsolicited advertisement to such equipment, punishable by action to
recover actual monetary loss, or $500, whichever is greater, for each violation.
See http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/227.html
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to femi...@ncar.ucar.edu.
Julie Simpson
In article <cohct=i00iWW...@andrew.cmu.edu>, Vineeta Pal
<vp...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
> what i understand is (please correct me if i am wrong) that, quite apart
> from being born with male or female genitals, one might be born with a
> male or female sense of self (or identity). this goes deeper and is more
> abstract and difficult to describe than the culturally sanctioned
> external manifestations of femininity or masculinity. however, in order
> to be perceived by others as the gender one perceives oneself to be, it
> is helpful to express one's gender in ways that are culturally
> acceptable for that gender, and which are also the ways that one is
> comfortable with.
Exactly. It's about who you feel yourself to be - the fact that it that
doesn't always seem to make sense doesn't make things any easier (I spent
a long time with the "who am I" question), and I suppose that some
transsexuals then grasp hold of anything that seems the "proper" thing to
do for either gender. Many transsexuals attempt overly macho things
before attempting transition, and many subsequently embrace overly
feminine stereotypes afterward. One doesn't _have_ to do this, of course,
but the temptation to fit into something properly and correctly, as it
were, is a strong one.
All part of a sense of belonging, I guess.
Cheers
Julie
--
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ghostv/JuliesHomePage.htm
Julie Simpson
> Roger Schwenke <rws...@sabine.acs.psu.edu> writes:
> >desire to admit (or in fact, not desire). I'm just trying to work out
> >what conclusions would follow from assuming that human beings do in fact
> >have natural tendencies. I'm not %100 convinced of that assumption yet
> >(I'd like to have a close look at all that stuff about brain differences
> >in fetal developement).
>
> Seems to me that this really can't be touched until we are certain all
> counter pressures and socializations AND glass ceilings have been once
> and for all removed. Just because you might not in such a reality get
> 50-50 world leaders (say) is no reason to stop pushing for better
> representation, removal of strictures (for both men and women) etc.
>
> --Cindy
Cindy,
Just because people's abilities might be different doesn't mean they ought
not have equal rights, does it? I think your point and Roger's argument
are somewhat separate things.
Cheers
Julie
--
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ghostv/JuliesHomePage.htm
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to femi...@ncar.ucar.edu.
Roger Schwenke
Julie Simpson wrote:
> In article <tittleEM...@netcom.com>, tit...@netcom.com. (Cindy Tittle
> Moore) wrote:
> > Roger Schwenke <rws...@sabine.acs.psu.edu> writes:
> > >desire to admit (or in fact, not desire). I'm just trying to work out
> > >what conclusions would follow from assuming that human beings do in fact
> > >have natural tendencies. I'm not %100 convinced of that assumption yet
> > >(I'd like to have a close look at all that stuff about brain differences
> > >in fetal developement).
> >
> > Seems to me that this really can't be touched until we are certain all
> > counter pressures and socializations AND glass ceilings have been once
> > and for all removed. Just because you might not in such a reality get
> > 50-50 world leaders (say) is no reason to stop pushing for better
> > representation, removal of strictures (for both men and women) etc.
>
> not have equal rights, does it? I think your point and Roger's argument
> are somewhat separate things.
Exactly. Quotas are only *one* way of combatting gender socialization,
there are many many other ways of combatting sexism, most of which I
support. Quotas just happen not to be one of them.
I was afraid someone was going to eventually assume that just because
I was against one form of combatting sexism that I was against *all*
forms of combatting sexism. I'm actually somewhat imprsesed it took
this long.
Roger
Diane Bailey
Ennead <enn...@teleport.com> wrote:
> Diane Bailey wrote:
> [cuts]
> >The full test of the original paper, 'A sex difference in the
> >human brain and its relation to transsexuality' by J.N. Zhou,
> >M.A. Hofman, L.J. Gooren and D.F. Swaab, in the learned journal
> >NATURE, 378: 68-70 (1995), reproduced with permission, including
> >plates, is on the WWW at:
> >
> >http://www.symposion.com/ijt/ijtc0106.htm
>
> Are you sure it was NATURE? The article on that web site seems to be from
> THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TRANSEXUALITY.
Might I gently suggest that you check again. It quite clearly states
that the article is reproduced from NATURE by permission.
Diane
--
Di...@dbailey.cix.co.uk
dani richard
Roger Schwenke wrote:
>
<snip>
>
> I'm a little at a loss for terminology - so let me tell you what I've
> picked up and you can tell me where I'm wrong:
>
> transsexual - someone who has had sex reassignment surgery
>
> intersexed - someone whose brain and genitalial genderization don't
> match
There definitions are not anywere close to the mark.
Transsexual:
The DSM-IV list four citeria for identifiy "Gender Identity Disorder".
They point out in the appendix that transsexualisum is subsumed into the
Gendier Identiy Disorder classification.
(I am working from memory) the requirements are (for adults):
In summary however, the key features of GID are:
A strong and persistent cross-gender identification. Typical instances
that a adult male would say "I am a woman."
B Persistent discomfort with their assigned natal sex and its associated
gender role. This would include cross dressing, "passing" as the
opposite sex or living as the opposite sex. There is a desired to modify
the body by the use of hormones and/or sugery.
C Absence of any physical intersex condition.
D Clinically significant distress or impairment of social or
occupational functioning.
All four critiers must be meet for a GID dignosis.
Once someone has transisitioned and had surgery they would not long be
consider "transsexual." They If there was not "dysfunction" with the
cross gender behavior, there would be no diagnosis either. Case in point
is that cross dresser are not consider pathological.
Intersex:
Have ambigious gentials. Hemaphirodite. Example: Having both breats and
a penius.
The following is a quote from Dallay Denny on the "gender ruler" used to
classify childer as male, female or intersexed.
"Anne Fausto-Sterling presented the ruler in a paper which will be in
the
forthcoming issue of Chrysalis (the all-intersex) issue if we can get
funds
to go to press. I'm not sure of the exact measurements, but it's
something
like if it's shorter than 2.5 mm it's a girl, and if it's longer than
4.0 mm
it's a boy, with 2.6-3.9 mm being the undetermined area."
>
><snip>
>
> Roger
>
Dani Richard
Ennead
Robert Terry wrote:
: I don't know about dresses, but there are some reasons to think that
: the reason that more girls than boys prefer the color pink may have
: something to do with genes and biology .. specifically the workings of
: color vision.
Considering that for decades pink was the color for small boys and blue
the color for small girls, the explanation that it's just a matter of
social conditioning seems far more likely.
(That's not a typo: before World War I, boys wore pink and girls
blue. Pink was seen as "a stronger, more decided color," hence male,
while the cooler blue was "delicate" and "dainty," and thus
appropriate to girls. I don't know why the colors switched, but they
did by the time WW2 was over.)
Yours,
--Ampersand
likes purple
Robert Terry
Ennead wrote:
>
> Robert Terry wrote:
> : I don't know about dresses, but there are some reasons to think that
> : the reason that more girls than boys prefer the color pink may have
> : something to do with genes and biology .. specifically the workings of
> : color vision.
>
> Considering that for decades pink was the color for small boys and blue
> the color for small girls, the explanation that it's just a matter of
> social conditioning seems far more likely.
>
> (That's not a typo: before World War I, boys wore pink and girls
> blue. Pink was seen as "a stronger, more decided color," hence male,
> while the cooler blue was "delicate" and "dainty," and thus
> appropriate to girls. I don't know why the colors switched, but they
> did by the time WW2 was over.)
>
the current and past distributions of color vision defiency in the gene
pool. As I pointed out, there are many cultures (and subcultures within
the US), who have a very low rate of color vision deficiency. This is
not so for white males in the current population ... for all I know,
the rate of the gene within the gene pool has increased since prior to
WW I. If it even increased a small amount, it is possible (as I
suggested) that enough of a critical mass of individuals existed which,
working through social means, reduced the preference for pink.
It is possible that war itself contributed to such a frequency of
allele shift in the population. WW I was the first war in which
systematic selection and placement went on to a great degree (e.g. the
Army alpha and Beta tests). Did they test for color vision and possibly
exclude them from combat (remember red/green color vision is the issue,
and aren't uniforms green?). If they did and continued to do so, this
could lead to selection favoring those with color vision defiencies, and
by definition increase the frequency of th4e allele in the population
gene pool.
I don't think the past has much to do with this issue as it currently
stands, because of the possibility of changes in the population gene
pool. The factors that affect this are too numerious to mention here,
and could only be guessed at because we wouldn't have the evidence
necessary to establish gene frequencies in the historical
populations. Even if socialization was COMPLETELY responsible for
such a preference in the past, it really has no bearing on the sources
of influence NOW. As we know, darn near every trait can be entirely
influenced by either the genes or the environment, and their relative
influences clearly change over time.
Cheers,
Robert
Kira D. Triea
: Roger Schwenke wrote:
+---
|intersexed - someone whose brain and genitalial genderization don't
|match
|
|From what I understand from your science paragraph - embryos start off
|with female characteristics and male genitalia and brain structures are
|formed in different stages of developement. Intersexuality is when
|brain genderization does not match genitalial genderization.
+---
Yikes. I better step into this thread here for the sake of clarification.
Intersexuality represents an anomoly, defined by the *medical profession*
(reflecting social constructs) of biological sex differentiation. Included
would be congenital adrenal hyperplasia, mixed gonadal dysgenisis,
complete and partial androgen insensitivity syndrome, etc.
Most people have the idea that intersexuals are some kind of rare,
biologically "inter-gendered", group of people, due to the cultural
mythology surrounding intersex. In general, all we share is a history
of medicalization in western society which completely removes our right
to control our bodies - most of us have had unconsented surgery.
I myself do not subscribe to Money's synthesis of "gender" as some
seperate human attribute and instead find Bernice Hausman's view
more palateable... very basically that Money and the Hampsons and the
likes of Anke Earhardt derived the term from their need to find
justification for unconsented intersexual surgery. It is a social
mechanism which facilitates the proscription of sex dichotymous,
though non-biological, behaviors and strongly reflects the attitudes
of a highly sex-dichotomized society.
I would add that as a young teenager I was an intersexed client at JHH
from 1974 to 1977.
+---
|My big question is (with the above definitions):
|
|In a non-gender socialized society, would an intersexed person still
|likely want sex reassignment surgery?
+---
*Most* intersexed people, though not all, have had surgery either as
neonates or children. THe prevailing attitude toward surgery amongst
intersexuals is that it is something they very much would have forgone,
with the few exceptions of some who very much wish that they had had
some ability to exercise self-determination. An "intersexual" may be
an XX female whose clitoris was deemed "too large"... this is a
frequent profile. The implications for feminists are clear here and
feminism is the framework which I utilize to synthesize some under-
standing of this personal aspect of my own life as well as the other
intersexed people in my life.
+---
| Please excuse me if I have this terminology mixed up - there really
|isn't all that much freely available information about it, and I have to
|expose my ignorance if I'm going to learn anything about it.
+---
Try:
http://www.isna.org - ISNA site
http://www.qis.net/~triea - Intersex Voices site
http://www.sonic.net/~boedeker/gmssn - Genital Mutilation Support Site
There you will find academic, political and personal information about
real intersexed people... not cultural myths.
dani richard wrote:
+---
| Intersex:
|
| Have ambigious gentials. Hemaphirodite. Example: Having both breats and
| a penius.
+---
<shudder> I know you are interested in this stuff but please try to get it
right. There is a great deal of friction these days between some T* factions
and intersexuals and this is in large part due to the fact that so many
T* people seem to view intersex issues through the lens of their own needs
for surgery and synthesis of "gender", in essence "bitmasking" (to use a
computer term), their own construction of reality against the lives of
intersexed people as they imagine them to be. I have been told, for instance,
that I was lucky to have had "free surgery" at age 14.
+---
| The following is a quote from Dallay Denny on the "gender ruler" used to
| classify childer as male, female or intersexed.
|
| "Anne Fausto-Sterling presented the ruler in a paper which will be in
| the
| forthcoming issue of Chrysalis (the all-intersex) issue if we can get
| funds
| to go to press. I'm not sure of the exact measurements, but it's
| something
| like if it's shorter than 2.5 mm it's a girl, and if it's longer than
| 4.0 mm
| it's a boy, with 2.6-3.9 mm being the undetermined area."
+---
This is the Phall-O-Meter which I made (hundreds of) based on an idea
by Suzanne Kessler. It is a ruler which shows how, according to the
current treatment modality, a child with a phallus (trans. "generic
genital protuberance), less than .9 cm. is assigned as a girl
(regardless of underlying biology); larger than 2.5 requires
assignation as a boy (again... no matter what the underlying
biology). Between those limits the common treatment methodology
dictates that a child be subjected to feminizing surgery... as young
as possible so they will "forget". The effects of these notions may be
read in the words of adult intersexuals at the Intersex Voices site.
Our friend Dr. Milton Diamond has worked with us, in association with
intersexed people, to formulate same alternatives to this barbaric
methodology and I will make them web available as soon as they are
published.
Kiira Triea
Coalition for intersex support, activism and education
dani richard
Vineeta Pal wrote:
>
> thanks to julie and carole for sharing their experiences so kindly and
> at such length. though i am far from understanding their experiences, i
> think they have helped me take a small step in that direction.
>
> from being born with male or female genitals, one might be born with a
> male or female sense of self (or identity). this goes deeper and is more
> abstract and difficult to describe than the culturally sanctioned
> external manifestations of femininity or masculinity. however, in order
> to be perceived by others as the gender one perceives oneself to be, it
> is helpful to express one's gender in ways that are culturally
> acceptable for that gender, and which are also the ways that one is
> comfortable with.
>
>
> --
I belive you have it in a nutshell.
It is a question of idenity and recognition.
I identify as female. I need to recongize myself as female. I need
others to recognize my as female.
I will what ever technology and culture signals towards that end.
Dani Richard
Larisa Migachyov
Cheryl L Perkins (cper...@stemnet.nf.ca) wrote:
:
: I've been following this debate, and started wondering what being a female
: means to me. Well, I am obviously female both genetically and by
: socialization. But there is something deeper. I can't quite put my finger
: on it - I just KNOW I am a female. I have been unconventional from time to
: time (never liked those pretty pink dresses <G>) but it never occurred to
: me to doubt that I was female. Then, I tried to imagine what it would be
: like if, because of my physical appearance, I was treated like a man when
: I knew I was a woman, and I began to get what I think must have been a
: pale imitation shadow of what we are discussing. And I am very glad my
: body matches that deep inside feeling.
I was wondering if the other women on this newsgroup feel the same way.
To me, being female is not any more important than having blue eyes - I
know that I am a woman, but it has never been that important to me. If I
were born a man, I think I would have been very much the same as I am now
- I would still love books and music, would still ski and bicycle and
dream of learning to hang-glide, and essentially would be the same person
as I am now. I cannot understand this "feeling" of being a female.
--
Larisa Migachyov http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~lvm
Biomechanical Engineering l...@leland.stanford.edu
Stanford University lar...@roses.stanford.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human. At best he is
a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear shoes, bathe and not make
messes in the house. -R.A.Heinlein
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Simpson
In article <69s79a$fe5$2...@nntp.Stanford.EDU>, l...@leland.Stanford.EDU
(Larisa Migachyov) wrote:
> I was wondering if the other women on this newsgroup feel the same way.
> To me, being female is not any more important than having blue eyes - I
> know that I am a woman, but it has never been that important to me. If I
> were born a man, I think I would have been very much the same as I am now
> - I would still love books and music, would still ski and bicycle and
> dream of learning to hang-glide, and essentially would be the same person
> as I am now. I cannot understand this "feeling" of being a female.
I suspect that physically you would feel very different, and that this
would (eventually) influence a lot of the world for you. Not to mention
what testosterone does for one's sense of confidence.
I have sometimes remarked that the moment of discovery of the difference
between the sexes is a little like the discovery of the effects of gravity
- it seems like a fact of life, so you don't remember when you
"discovered" it. Unless of course it feels all wrong, in which case the
discovery shakes you to the core.
I suspect that many people, if not most, feel the way you do, Larisa. On
a day to day basis I don't think about any such feelings either. But I
also suspect that people who have felt differently at one time perhaps
have a more acute perception of what the differences might be.
Not that they necessarily have any greater insight into what the hell it
all _means_.
Cheers
Julie
--
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ghostv/JuliesHomePage.htm
Larisa Migachyov
pam_ghostv-21...@slsyd63p27.ozemail.com.au>:
Distribution: world
Julie Simpson (nospam...@ozemail.com.au) wrote:
: In article <69s79a$fe5$2...@nntp.Stanford.EDU>, l...@leland.Stanford.EDU
: (Larisa Migachyov) wrote:
:
: > I was wondering if the other women on this newsgroup feel the same way.
: > To me, being female is not any more important than having blue eyes - I
: > know that I am a woman, but it has never been that important to me. If I
: > were born a man, I think I would have been very much the same as I am now
: > - I would still love books and music, would still ski and bicycle and
: > dream of learning to hang-glide, and essentially would be the same person
: > as I am now. I cannot understand this "feeling" of being a female.
:
: I suspect that physically you would feel very different, and that this
: would (eventually) influence a lot of the world for you. Not to mention
: what testosterone does for one's sense of confidence.
Oh, I'm plenty confident. :) It's hard to be more grandiose about one's
plans for the future than I am. :) Physically - well, I ski and bike and
rollerblade about as well as most of the guys around me. And if I were a
man, i'd still be a bookwormish type, so I doubt that I'd be hanging
around in the gym all that much. :)
: I have sometimes remarked that the moment of discovery of the difference
: between the sexes is a little like the discovery of the effects of gravity
: - it seems like a fact of life, so you don't remember when you
: "discovered" it. Unless of course it feels all wrong, in which case the
: discovery shakes you to the core.
:
: I suspect that many people, if not most, feel the way you do, Larisa. On
: a day to day basis I don't think about any such feelings either. But I
: also suspect that people who have felt differently at one time perhaps
: have a more acute perception of what the differences might be.
:
: Not that they necessarily have any greater insight into what the hell it
: all _means_.
True. It is those in whom such things go wrong that are most aware of
what they feel like when they are going right; they have to think about
such things, whereas I do not.
I think that there is a wide range of awareness of such things; some
people are very aware of their gender, and some people are not. I have
many friends who are very aware of their femininity; one of my friends is
even less aware of it than I. I think that those who, like me, are
relatively unaware of such things, would not be too traumatized at being
the "wrong" sex - they would simply accept it. It is only those with a
normal or heightened awareness of their gender that would want to change
their sex, as they would be more aware of the "wrongness".
Just wild theorizing here; I could be wrong.
--
Larisa Migachyov http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~lvm
Biomechanical Engineering l...@leland.stanford.edu
Stanford University lar...@roses.stanford.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human. At best he is
a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear shoes, bathe and not make
messes in the house. -R.A.Heinlein
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Simpson
> what i understand is (please correct me if i am wrong) that, quite apart
> from being born with male or female genitals, one might be born with a
> male or female sense of self (or identity). this goes deeper and is more
> abstract and difficult to describe than the culturally sanctioned
> external manifestations of femininity or masculinity. however, in order
> to be perceived by others as the gender one perceives oneself to be, it
> is helpful to express one's gender in ways that are culturally
> acceptable for that gender, and which are also the ways that one is
> comfortable with
Yup, that's about it.
Cheers
Julie
--
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ghostv/JuliesHomePage.htm
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to femi...@ncar.ucar.edu.