Interesting Book
:Sparky:
"Changing Sex : Transexualism, Technology, and the Idea of Gender",
Bernice L. Hausman, Duke University Press, 1995
I've just started reading this very thoughtfully written book. It discusses
how paradigms of treatment and understanding of intersexuallity and
transexualism have changed up to present time. It also questions a lot of
widely stated or implied but unproven ideas about the causes of
transsexuality. One interesting question it brings up is "Do
non-transsexuals experience gender identity in the same way that
transsexuals do, only in the "right" body ?" (My own belief is that they
don't.)
A great non-fiction sex book with lots of big words, my favorite kind of
reading!
Friendly Regards,
Sparky
"It's said that the worst thing one can do to a man is to kill his
self-respect. But that's not true. Self-respect is something that can't be
killed. The worst thing is to kill a man's pretense at it." - Ayn Rand
--****ATTENTION****--****ATTENTION****--****ATTENTION****--***ATTENTION***
Your e-mail reply to this message WILL be *automatically* ANONYMIZED.
Please, report inappropriate use to ab...@anon.penet.fi
For information (incl. non-anon reply) write to he...@anon.penet.fi
If you have any problems, address them to ad...@anon.penet.fi
MarlaB 01
>non-transsexuals experience gender identity in the same way that
>transsexuals do, only in the "right" body ?" (My own belief is that
they
>don't.)
I'm not sure what you mean by 'right body', but I think there is something
to this. Generalizing, I would say many transseuxals (but not all) define
gender and gender identity by their body. In contrast, many
non-transseuxals seem to define gender and gender identity more by their
person.
Now this contrast is not absolute in any form, but I would say there is
that tendancy of difference. Personally, I find the difference
interesting, but not really that important when compared to other issues.
Certainly, it does not make one group 'right' and the other group 'wrong'.
Instead, I would suggest they are both right, in the same way that two
blind men describing an elephant differently based on feel of different
parts of the elephant are both right.
Hugs, Marla
(the blind one <g>)
Babecave
I'm on page 7.
It is interesting and really readable for a book with big words.
B. Cavendish
J Smolinske
>
> In soc.support.transgendered, marl...@aol.com (MarlaB 01) wrote:
> ->>One interesting question it brings up is "Do
> ->>non-transsexuals experience gender identity in the same way that
> ->>transsexuals do, only in the "right" body ?" (My own belief is that
> ->they
> ->>don't.)
> ->
> ->I'm not sure what you mean by 'right body', but I think there is something
> ->to this. Generalizing, I would say many transseuxals (but not all) define
> ->gender and gender identity by their body. In contrast, many
> ->non-transseuxals seem to define gender and gender identity more by their
> ->person.
>
> I take it that sex is of the body and gender is of the person.
>
> However to answer the original inquiry, I do believe that cisgendered
> people have a very different experience of identity than transgendered
> people. I believe that womanhood in a male is not especially any different
> than womanhood in a female. I will however suggest that a difference in
> experience does exist, primarily is a function of social acceptance.
> Cisgendered individuals are seldom made to feel uncomfortable about their
> gender identities. If they have never feel the discomfort society heaps
> upon us, they will almost certainly have a very different sense of their
> own identity than we do.
I agree that social acceptance is a huge part of the difference in experience.
But another difference that is also large, at least for me, is sexual
intimacy.
-Jennifer
:Sparky:
In article <4l3547$7...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
marl...@aol.com (MarlaB 01) writes:
> >One interesting question it brings up is "Do
> >non-transsexuals experience gender identity in the same way that
> >transsexuals do, only in the "right" body ?" (My own belief is that
> they don't.)
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by 'right body', but I think there is something
> to this. Generalizing, I would say many transseuxals (but not all) define
> gender and gender identity by their body. In contrast, many
> non-transseuxals seem to define gender and gender identity more by their
> person.
>
Hi Marla
(Note: By "non-transsexual", do you mean transgenderists ? I meant
normal, cisgendered folks.)
I was refering to the idea expressed by that overused phrase "trapped
in the wrong body". I think this concept may be indeciperable to many
cissexuals because they think of their sex (and gender) as a property
of their body. (A lot of people don't even get the concept of sex and
gender being different things.) If so, then transsexuals would be
different in that they *can* concieve of their own sex and/or gender
not being defined by their body.
Remember that sex is not an inherent property of body parts, hormones
or even behavior. It is only meaningful in the context of whole
organisms of a sexually dimorphic species. The book brings up this idea
too, in discussing how, early in the history of Endocrinology,
Estrogens became called "female" hormones, and androgens, "male"
hormones. This even though both sexes produce and utilize both. The
substances themselves don't have "sex". (That made me think of how they
are packaged commercially ; testosterone with a muted gray and
off-white label, Estinyl in a hot pink pill, the same color you see on
the cover of romance novels and on Valentine's Day candy boxes. Kind of
silly.)
Gender Identity in transexuals has been described as an "unshakable
conviction" (another overused phrase). It is hard to test wether
cissexuals have the same unshakable conviction, since usually nothing
hapens to them to shake it anyway. I think that there has been an
unproven assumption on the part of many writers that they do. But maybe
Transsexual gender identity is not a good model for "normal" gender
identity after all.
And as long as we're talking about making the wrong assumption...
B. Cavendish (Babecave) wrote:
>I'm on page 7.
>It is interesting and really readable for a book with big words.
Babecave:
I checked page 7, and found nothing biographical there. Did you really
mean some other page, or did you mean that you are reading the book
yourself, and had reached page 7 ?
Friendly regards to all
Sparky
***
Babecave
I meant I too had started reading "Changing Sex" and had reached page 7.
There's nothing special about page 7, except that's where I'll pick it up
again as soon as I have time to read.
B. Cavendish
MarlaB 01
And transvestites and other non-transseuxal transgendereds.
But in the case of cisgendereds, I would say there is a diverse 'opinion'
as to whether gender is defined by body or person.
The fact that many cisgendereds accept me as a woman despite the fact that
my body is male and they know it says some cisgendereds accept the concept
that 'person' defines gender. The fact that other cisgendereds and
transgendereds(!) will only define my gender by my body shows that others
reject the idea that gender is defined by person.
But my point on 'right body' is a concept that can only exist if we assume
gender is defined by body. If we assume gender is defined by person,
'right body' is a null concept and that was what I was getting at. If
gender is defined by person, and if my person is woman, then ipso facto my
male body is a womans body and is therefore 'right'
>But maybe Transsexual gender identity is not a good model for "normal"
gender
>identity after all.
I am suspicious this is true, although I know no practical way to prove
it. The test obviously would be, if we take 100 cisgendered females and
magically made their body male, how many would react along the transseuxal
model. I'm inclined to think that many would and could readily integrate
into society as men, i.e. they could adapt to the man gender role, others
would not or could not adapt, but still could find mixed solutions maybe
similar to the transgenderist solution, and only a few would feel that
they would have no choce but to change their bodies back to female at no
matter what the cost.
But that's a subjective guess. The reality no one knows.
Hugs, Marla
M.K.Parussel
John F. Haugh, II (j...@austin.ibm.com) wrote:
: In article <4lmc95$n...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
: MarlaB 01 <marl...@aol.com> wrote:
: >I am suspicious this is true, although I know no practical way to prove
: >it. The test obviously would be, if we take 100 cisgendered females and
: >magically made their body male, how many would react along the transseuxal
: >model. I'm inclined to think that many would and could readily integrate
: >into society as men, i.e. they could adapt to the man gender role, others
: >would not or could not adapt, but still could find mixed solutions maybe
: >similar to the transgenderist solution, and only a few would feel that
: >they would have no choce but to change their bodies back to female at no
: >matter what the cost.
: It is highly unlikely that a "woman coded" brain is going to adapt as a
: man without some significant discomfort. This is the crux, or so it would
: seem, of transsexualism. The wiring of the brain does not match the rest
: of the body.
But you are both forgetting one thing. A woman who was magically changed into
a man has already had experience living life as a woman and takes it for
granted. A Transsexual has never been had the chance to be their real self.
The same difference could be seen with a 20 year old woman magically turned
into a man and an 80 year old woman. Who would care more?
Karla
MarlaB 01
In article <4loog5$1e...@ausnews.austin.ibm.com>, j...@austin.ibm.com (John
F. Haugh, II) writes:
>It is highly unlikely that a "woman coded" brain is going to adapt as a
>man without some significant discomfort.
Why is it 'unlikely'? Human beings are fantastically adaptable creatures.
Certainly, there is no evidence that this is true for a large percentage
of individuals. We do have the 'transseuxal' as evidence that some cannot
adapt, but we don't know that 'trasseuxals' have woman coded brains (since
there is no test for this) and we don't know what percentage of all males
with woman coded brains transseuxals represent.
And we have some interesting counter data. For example, for every
non-adaptive transseuxal there are at least 10 times as many who have
adapted partially, i.e. the rest of the T* community, and an unknown
number of individuals who have adapted to their assigned gender role
completly (or at least to the extent they do not have to come out of the
closet). This implies that most humans can adapt!
Another indicator, if this is hard wired and humans have no adaptablity,
'man' and 'woman' would be the same throughout history and all human
cultures. However, they are not! 'Man' and 'woman' varies a great deal
from culture to culture, sometimes actually reversing the characteristics
we see in our culture.
Another indicator, if it is biologically hard wired, why is there no
difinitive test for gender as would be implied? We can test for the most
minor biological differences. It seems to me it should be easy to test
for something as important as gender if it was biologically hard wired and
absolute.
Note, that these examples do not prove my case. But certainly, we
cannot arbitrarily assume that there is no value in these observations.
My current conclusion is that 'gender' and 'gender need' is defined both
by biology and environment. In addition, I believe that many, *but not
all*, individuals can adapt to cultural gender dictates. As a result, I
conclude that some transgendereds/transseuxals follow their life path
because they cannot adapt to the cultural gender dictates, while other
transgendereds/transseuxals who could adapt *choose* instead not to do so.
But this is just my working observation and conclusion. I understand
others view it differently, and I keep changing and modifying it as I
learn more.
That's why I would love to see the test I mentioned in my previous post.
I'm curious as hell what actually would happen. I don't *know* what will
happen and certainly you don't either. But I would probably be willing to
take some side bets <BG>.
>go get a copy of "Brain Sex"
John, read the damn thing. 'Brain Sex' descirbes a general sexual
difference of brains, it does not describe the 'gender difference' of
brains. Nor does it make any conclusion on the
adaptablity/non-adaptability of an individual with a 'female' brain to
assume the masculine gender role or an individual with a 'male' brain to
assume the feminine gender role.
Or to put it another way, if this is so absolute, why are not indiviudals
seeking SRS paying $9.95 to take the Brain Sex test instead of paying
$10000-$20000 and at least a year of thier life to take the very failable
Benjamin Standards Real Life test?
Hugs, Marla
MarlaB 01
>A woman who was magically changed into
>a man has already had experience living life as a woman and takes it for
>granted.
Interesting point, but I'm not sure how to interpret it though <g>.
Hugs, Marla
MarlaB 01
In article <4lr5qa$j...@ausnews.austin.ibm.com>, j...@austin.ibm.com (John
F. Haugh, II) writes:
> I seriously
>doubt that the result will be any different than what you'd see out of
your
>basic high intensity transsexual (Benjamin SOS Type 6, that is).
This is what makes horse races isn't it <g>. My bet is that only a small
percentage (<10%) would be 'high intensity transseuxals'.
Hugs, Marla
:Sparky:
MarlaB 01 wrote:
>>But maybe Transsexual gender identity is not a good model for "normal"
>>gender identity after all.
>I am suspicious this is true, although I know no practical way to prove
>it. The test obviously would be, if we take 100 cisgendered females and
>magically made their body male, how many would react along the transseuxal
>>model. I'm inclined to think that many would and could readily integrate
>into society as men, i.e. they could adapt to the man gender role, others
>would not or could not adapt, but still could find mixed solutions maybe
>similar to the transgenderist solution, and only a few would feel that
>they would have no choce but to change their bodies back to female at no
>matter what the cost.
Hi Marla:
Of course,the test you describe can't be done. Even given the technology to
do this, it would be unethical to impose it on unwilling subjects. But
similar things have happened in real life to some intersexed individuals.
Example: A person who is a genetic male nevertheless is female in external
anatomy, and has lived as a girl all her life. She has a feminizing
puberty, because her body lacks receptors for testosterone. (This is called
androgen insensitivity syndrome.) So far, no big deal.
But this person has a relative, also with AIS who was (mistakenly) assigned
as a boy. As an adult, this person decides to change to living as a woman.
This is *my* situaltion. I'm the one this happend to.
Before someone says "Of course, you must have a female-wired brain", let me
add that that I have another relative with AIS, who also grew up as a boy.
He chose to continue as a man, even though medicine can do very little to
masculinize someone who doesn't respond to testosterone. In personality and
interests, he is somewhat feminine, but his gender identity i.e., how he
experiences himself, is masculine.
I think the main lesson here is that some people have more tolerance than
others for discordance between thier body and thier gender identity, and
also that gender identity is *not* strictly determined at birth, *or* by
upbringing.
Similar examples imvolving masculinized genetic females are described in
the book "Man and Woman Boy and Girl", J. Money and A.Ehrhardt, pp.154-160
John F. Haugh, II wrote:
>It is highly unlikely that a "woman coded" brain is going to adapt as a
>man without some significant discomfort. This is the crux, or so it would
>seem, of transsexualism. The wiring of the brain does not match the rest
>of the body.
>>But that's a subjective guess. The reality no one knows.
>No, we already know this. Gender identity is hard wired in the brain.
>Again, go get a copy of "Brain Sex" and take the test. I've already
>given it to a few people and it pretty much gives the expected result.
>I intend to give it to several dozen more people and compile the results.
>Should be rather amusing ...
Hi John:
I read "Brain Sex" myself. That test has a *BIG* flaw. It has one scoring
key for men and another for women, so that the same answers could yield a
"male" score using the mens key, and a "female" score using the womens key.
In fact, that's exactly what happened when I took the test myself and
scored it using both keys.
I'm not denying that there are probably *tendencies* to have certain traits
and skills that are "wired in" at birth. The book "Man and Woman Boy and
Girl" examines evidence for this. The question I originally brought up is
whether *gender identity* is "wired in" at birth, and further, whether it
is "wired" the same way for transsexual and for cissexuals. The examples I
mentioned above tend to refute this.
Friendly Regards,
Sparky
Tina Marie Holmboe
{ an49...@anon.penet.fi (:Sparky:) }
> I'm not denying that there are probably *tendencies* to have certain traits
> and skills that are "wired in" at birth. The book "Man and Woman Boy and
Ooops; we have a misunderstanding here: traits and skills are not
hard-wired into any persons brain; but GENDER is. Put less subtly than
might be desired: as all other animals, we humans have a hard-coding of
what we are - ie. male or female - to get the offspring-thingy right.
> Girl" examines evidence for this. The question I originally brought up is
> whether *gender identity* is "wired in" at birth, and further, whether it
> is "wired" the same way for transsexual and for cissexuals. The examples I
> mentioned above tend to refute this.
Let me put it this way: gender 'identity' might not be hard-wired, but
gender is; so we shall know how to behave in the appropriate manner in
certain specified situations. Our *feeling* of what we are, male or female,
is set at birth - or before. Our 'role' in life, ie. learning to life in
the 'accepted social role' is not set at birth.
IM(NS)HO, of course...
--
< http://www.ifi.uio.no/~tina | ti...@ifi.uio.no | ti...@spirou.uab.ericsson.se >
< >
< " Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down? >
< That's not my department," says Wernher von Braun. " - Lehrer >
MarlaB 01
>I think the main lesson here is that some people have more tolerance than
>others for discordance between thier body and thier gender identity, and
>also that gender identity is *not* strictly determined at birth, *or* by
>upbringing.
I agree. One of the big questions is, what is the distribution between
'tolerant' and 'non-tolerant'? Espeically since we tend to see only the
'non-tolerant' cases.
A point on this, within context of some of the other discussions going on.
I find this observation important NOT to make a judgement on those that
are 'non-tolerant'. There is absolutly nothing wrong with being
non-tolerant with body discordance. BUT I do think this observation is
important to dispute and reject the belief that if one's body is in
'discordance', one MUST be non-tolerant, i.e. to reject the belief that
evidense of tolerance proves one is not 'real'.
Hugs, Marla
:Stacey Maxwell:
ti...@spirou.uab.ericsson.se (Tina Marie Holmboe) wrote:
Message-ID: <4m54av$7...@euas20.eua.ericsson.se>
Date: 30 Apr 1996 13:24:47 GMT
> Let me put it this way: gender 'identity' might not be hard-wired, but
>gender is; so we shall know how to behave in the appropriate manner in
>certain specified situations. Our *feeling* of what we are, male or female,
>is set at birth - or before. Our 'role' in life, ie. learning to life in
>the 'accepted social role' is not set at birth.
Lets assume, for the moment that the only difference between
gender and identity is that gender is a subset of the identity
characteristic, and is not just a "hard wiring" or biological
difference. Both gender and identity are developed from
biological potential from birth and the environment.
If gender was completely hardwired then there would
be a test or a measure for such trait. However, gender
expression male or female is defined by the times, and
culture which changes with the environment itself.
Human anatomy has not changed significantly
throughout recorded history, gender roles have, thus
suggesting gender is a social and subjective concept
and not an absolute scientific state of biology.
Let's suggests then we describe the bodily
and social transformation as transidentity, meaning
changing the identity from that which is falsely
attributed to one's true self, and not use the other trans
terms which do not even describe the issue exactly.
In fact, transexual itself is a oxmoron since sex is absolutly
defined by the reproduction potential it does not trans or have
any necessary connection to the production of the zygote.
Gender on the other hand is not absoluty defined.
For example, does the desire to wear a skirt mean a
person is feminine? In a time long ago, men wore
skirts and still today in some countries. Many aspects
of my personality some people would label feminine yet
these are not absolutely womanly traits it's just my identity.
I like flowers, soft fabrics, colorful atmosphere, sweet
scents, a soft voice, sensitivity, child care, cooking as
part of my identity regardless of what condition my
body biology (flesh) is in at the time.
Stacey Maxwell (who people are confusing her Scottish
heritage identity with gender?)
Jenny Sand
marl...@aol.com (MarlaB 01) wrote:
>There is absolutly nothing wrong with being
>non-tolerant with body discordance. BUT I do think this observation is
>important to dispute and reject the belief that if one's body is in
>'discordance', one MUST be non-tolerant, i.e. to reject the belief that
>evidense of tolerance proves one is not 'real'.
Important point.
I would like to add I believe tolerance and content with your
self, your body and your life, is to a large extent set by the
current surrounding society, in all its aspects: educational
level, culture, economic situation, political system etc.
A hypothetic example:
Ask 100 women, say 200 years ago, if they feel content with not
having voting rights/political power. Then ask 100 women today if
they would accept having the voting rights/political power taken
away from them. Ask both groups if they would be willing to put
their personal situation on the line, and fight for those rights.
The immorality itself, the one of denying half the population
political influence is of course exactly the same, but I think
the answers would differ a lot between the two groups.
Without invalidating any transsexual people's choices today, I
think it must be much harder to feel content living with body
discordance now - when the alternatives are both visible and
possible - than, say 200 years ago. Sure people felt miserable
then too, and sure people fell between cracks, and ended up
feeling outcast and isolated. But my point is I don't believe the
transgender spectrum has a fixed size through the history of
mankind, neither a fixed ratio between people identifying as TV,
TS, TG etc. This in turn tell me (us) something about the inherit
fallacy of grouping transgendered people into strict groups, as
in the discussions about the 'true' transsexuals of last months
fame.
Another mind experiment:
Say SRS was a one hour procedure under local anesthesia, with no
medical risks, and giving a perfect result in all aspects. That
hair growth could be accelerated or stopped by simple creams
applied to the skin, with no toxic side effects. And most
important, legal hassles were reduced to a simple procedure, like
exchanging your old driving license for a new one, and societal
acceptance of the whole procedure was also in place.
One simple requirement though, you had to see a doc of some kind,
and state that you *really* needed this procedure. Now, how many
of us in this group would suddenly step forward and say that we
absolutely could not go on living with our bodies, in order to
qualify? I.e., how many would now identify as TS and request SRS?
Futile utopian exercise? I don't think so. But it's possible to
make the experiment *much* less sci-fi:
Imagine society being much more accepting to diversity, and
allowing people a greater personal freedom to express their
gender any way they chose (like Greenwich Village or Castro St.
all over, or rather better and not ghettofied at all?). With a
basic legal framework in place guaranteeing equal treatment (like
the SF ordinance, + +, and made universal by UN?) With marriage
between any two adults legally possible (like in Scandinavia and
Holland, only 100% legally equal to traditional marriage instead
of 95?). With job security regardless of gender transgression
(like in many European countries now after the recent European
Court of Justice ruling protecting transsexuals, only more
extensive and including all kinds of gender expression?).
Now, in this great society - hastily sketched and being x number
of years in the future - how many would choose to live their life
essentially different from what they do today? Expressing their
gender differently, and maybe seek a less traditional
partnership? How many would now claim to be TV, TS, TG et.al.? Or
seek bodily corrections? And how many of the people walking the
streets today, would suddenly find themselves to be part of the
transgender spectrum? Almost everyone? None? Could anyone now
claim to be a gender outlaw?
Impossible questions to answer you say, and you are of course
right. Call in on me in 10, 20 or 30 years from now (if I get
that old), and let us compare notes.
Jenny Sand,
Who hasn't had enough sleep all week,
and might not make much sense . . . .
------------------------------------
The Scandinavian Transgender Page:
http://www.sn.no/~jane/
jen...@transgender.org