Split Thread: Different attitudes homosexual and transgender individuals

[Robin]

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

The only problem with that is that the supposed cause and effect aren't even in the same person. I have trouble believing that YOU were wired so that OTHER people don't invite you to an all guys night out. Or that YOU being wired any other way would have made any difference.

Yes, that would have made the difference. In terms of physique, hair and so on, I doubt that I am any less "masculine" in appearance than they were on average (these were office situations, not something like a building site).

So why did they, without even realising they were doing it, peg me as not one of the boys.?

Obviously because I didn't have the right social cues, can't discuss the guy things in quite the right tone and so on.

So I am in awkward social interactions with the guys, but in an easy interactions with a bunch of women. That is all brain stuff.

There are many guys like that and we are not trans. I just wonder if gender dysphoria isn't just an extreme version of this.

I don't think that most people realise the hard wiring that goes into social interactions unless they are born without some of that wiring and have to learn it or are wired a little differently.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by p0lka

Gender roles are a scourge on modern society, If people were left to just be themselves without pressure, the world would be a better place.

What would trans be in that context though? that's an interesting thing.

I very much doubt there would be such a thing as trans in such a case.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by p0lka

Gender roles are a scourge on modern society, If people were left to just be themselves without pressure, the world would be a better place.

If people were just left to themselves, the first thing they'd do is invent gender roles. How do you think we got gender roles in the first place?

You think space aliens descended on ancient Egypt and said, here's some pyramids, and also y'all are men and women now? You think maybe gender was one of those curse words God bestowed on humanity in retaliation for the tower of babel?

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Robin

I very much doubt there would be such a thing as trans in such a case.

Transsexuals will always be a thing.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by theprestige

If people were just left to themselves, the first thing they'd do is invent gender roles.

If that was the case then the human brain must be gendered.

Quote:

How do you think we got gender roles in the first place?

My hypothesis is that it is a matter of the neural hardwiring for social interactions.

Why do you think we got gender roles in the first place?

[Robin]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Transsexuals will always be a thing.

According to my hypothesis transexuals and trans gender people will always be a thing because gender roles are a matter of hardwiring and part and parcel of the general hardwiring for social interactions.

If that is wrong and gender roles have nothing to do with hardwired brain structure then there would be no reason at all to suppose that transexuals will always be a thing.

[bruto]

Originally Posted by Warp12

I'm a man. But I couldn't quantify exactly what that feeling is. Like, I never say to myself, "I am going to do manly stuff, today". I might even have some tendencies that many people consider "feminine", I suppose. As I say, these are societal constructs.

What I can say is that whatever I want to do, I pretty much do it. Wearing flannel shirts and growing facial hair would not make me feel more manly. And wearing a pink shirt while cooking or decorating does not make me feel less manly.

I just don't get this "feeling" like you were born the opposite gender thing. I don't believe you are born with a natural desire to play with either Barbies or GI Joe's. And the surgery stuff makes even less sense.

I don't get the feeling either, which is why, by contrast it seems, I take it so seriously. I can imagine only intellectually, but not really imagine, the kind of feeling of dysphoria, displacement, wrongness, alienation, whatever you might call it, that estranges people from their presumed innate sex. There's a reason, I think, why people in this situation so frequently try to kill themselves. The one thing my own feeling tells me in a pretty certain way is that this is not frivolous. To presume that it is is to presume they are liars.

Like you, it seems, I'm quite thoroughly "cisgendered," and the very fact that I am so at home with my native gender and its role in life strikes me as the very reason why I, above all, am utterly unqualified to analyze the feelings of those who are not.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Robin

If that was the case then the human brain must be gendered.

My hypothesis is that it is a matter of the neural hardwiring for social interactions.

Why do you think we got gender roles in the first place?

Never mind the gender of the human brain, my friend.

The human body is quite clearly sexed.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Never mind the gender of the human brain, my friend.

The human body is quite clearly sexed.

Are you suggesting that all these bizarre and arbitrary rules about what we should and shouldn't do as men and women are a rational response to the differences in men and women's bodies?

[bruto]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Never mind the gender of the human brain, my friend.

The human body is quite clearly sexed.

Except when it isn't, of course...

Sir, or Madam choose you whether,
Nature twists you both together,
And makes they Soul two Garbs confess,
Both Petticoat and Breeches dress.... etc
(John Cleveland, ca 1640)

[HansMustermann]

Originally Posted by Robin

If that was the case then the human brain must be gendered.

Why? People invented roles like the 3 estates, and I hope you're not gonna tell me that there's a brain wiring difference between the brain of a serf, that of a knight, and that of a priest. Yet they justified it as the natural order of things.

As long as you can split people into distinct sets by whatever arbitrary criterion, you can invent prescriptive rules as to which set is supposed to behave in what way. It doesn't even have to be a visible or even hereditary difference. Like, I'm a knight, so I'm supposed to never tolerate any insult, you're a burgher so you're supposed to know your place and be submissive when talking to my kind. Even though you could be the grandson of a knight yourself, just through the younger son who didn't inherit anything and thus wasn't eligible to be a knight in the HRE.

The split into the men and women sets just happens to be an obvious one.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

Why? People invented roles like the 3 estates, and I hope you're not gonna tell me that there's a brain wiring difference between the brain of a serf, that of a knight, and that of a priest. Yet they justified it as the natural order of things.

I was responding to the claim that people will inevitably create gender roles.

I said that if this was the case then it must be a case of hardwiring

If you had suggested that people will inevitably create serf, priest and knight roles then I would have said that if that was the case then it would have to be something to do with brain hardwiring.

Since neither of us is saying that people will inevitably create serf, knight and priest roles I am not saying they are anything to do with brain hardwiring.

[Robin]

If the brain is not sexed then there is nothing inevitable about gender roles.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Robin

Yes, that would have made the difference. In terms of physique, hair and so on, I doubt that I am any less "masculine" in appearance than they were on average (these were office situations, not something like a building site).

So why did they, without even realising they were doing it, peg me as not one of the boys.?

Obviously because I didn't have the right social cues, can't discuss the guy things in quite the right tone and so on.

So I am in awkward social interactions with the guys, but in an easy interactions with a bunch of women. That is all brain stuff.

There are many guys like that and we are not trans. I just wonder if gender dysphoria isn't just an extreme version of this.

I don't think that most people realise the hard wiring that goes into social interactions unless they are born without some of that wiring and have to learn it or are wired a little differently.

I don't think the 'obviously' conclusion follows from your question.

The answer to your question seems to be that you are perhaps standoffish? The way you describe it ...waiting to be invited...sounds like you are not engaging them as having an interest.

Have you ever walked up to a coworker and asked them to go to a bar or whatever after work? Have you ever heard the other gents making plans and said 'hey, that sounds like fun'? That's how you become 'one of the guys'. If you show no interest or hang back, they might be picking up on the cue that you are not interested. Reading non-verbal cues is a two-way street, ya know.

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Is there an age below which you think a person should NOT be allowed to self-determination, when that self-determination involves long-term side effects and material health risks?

Yes. We don't let kids join the Army. We don't let them drink alcohol. Those are things that any adult has the right to do (not that the Army is obliged to accept them), but that doesn't mean we have to let kids do it.

Quote:

Should, for example, a 12 year old have the right of self-determination to have a surgeon cut their left arm off?

No. See above.

Quote:

Is there a limit to what people should be allowed to do in public? If a person likes being peed on, should they then have the right to be peed on in public?

Consent and legal age extends to anyone involved. And even if you're just seeing it, you're involved. You have the right to not see anyone ******* on the sidewalk, even if they're a monogamous, married heterosexual couple. And there are already laws about public urination, even if it's only because someone drank four cups of coffee, and not because it's their kink.

Quote:

Should the fact that some people like being peed on be taught to 2nd graders as normal sexual behavior, or is there perhaps a limit to what you consider age and venue appropriate?

Why the **** would anyone teach that to 2nd graders? Would you object to 2nd graders being taught that some of their monogamous, heterosexual parents enjoy doggy-style most, while others prefer missionary position? If there's no reason to teach 2nd graders about the sexual practices of even the most conservative couples, why would you expect anyone to teach them about the kinkier stuff?

The idea of a black person and a white person getting married was once considered scandalous. The way a 2nd grade curriculum might introduce the subject is with an illustrated short story about a child whose parents just happen to be depicted as "mixed race". The protest that a teacher might stand before a class and say "This is a story about a white man named Brian and a black woman named Claire. And here's a list of their favorite sexual positions and turn-ons..." is just ridiculously histrionic.

[p0lka]

Originally Posted by theprestige

If people were just left to themselves, the first thing they'd do is invent gender roles. How do you think we got gender roles in the first place?

You think space aliens descended on ancient Egypt and said, here's some pyramids, and also y'all are men and women now? You think maybe gender was one of those curse words God bestowed on humanity in retaliation for the tower of babel?

I actually said

Originally Posted by p0lka

Gender roles are a scourge on modern society, If people were left to just be themselves without pressure, the world would be a better place....snipped the Iain m banks.

By pressure I mean society/culture/product placement/business opportunities/fashion/(hairdressers/barbers)/power/control/etc

Modern day issues. It's constantly reinforced as it is useful, when I think we should have grown out of it already.

[gnome]

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

The idea of a black person and a white person getting married was once considered scandalous. The way a 2nd grade curriculum might introduce the subject is with an illustrated short story about a child whose parents just happen to be depicted as "mixed race". The protest that a teacher might stand before a class and say "This is a story about a white man named Brian and a black woman named Claire. And here's a list of their favorite sexual positions and turn-ons..." is just ridiculously histrionic.

For those that vehemently raise concerns about that sort of thing, I think most of them are in two groups:

1 - People who know better but find it to be useful propaganda.

2 - People who don't honestly grasp queer identities. I think they often lump it together into sexual deviance, consider it something people do to get freaky or get attention or satisfy weird kinks, which many will say fine for adults, whatever, it's a free country, but become scandalized that kids might learn about it in school. Not much understanding of the idea that it has real significance for romantic relationships and non-sexual behavior, because they don't see how opposite-sex attractions and comfort with one's assigned-at-birth gender is one of a variety of possibilities. It's part of the background reality to them, and they think acting otherwise is a denial of reality, a game being played.

I don't mean to exclude anyone if they have a different point of view, so clearly these are not exhaustive. They just seem to fit most of the loudest voices.

[p0lka]

Originally Posted by Robin

I very much doubt there would be such a thing as trans in such a case.

I agree.

edit:
I disagree with your hypothesis though, I think that the gender roles we see nowadays and basically from the moment modern society and culture became a thing, has nothing to do with any hardwired evolutionary instinct.

double edit: added modern.

[JoeMorgue]

Not to broaden this too much but Progressivism is bad about just assuming that the last group that got rights is just going to be on the side of the next group and they like almost always wrong about it.

Women racist and black homophobes aren't exactly hard to find, hell I think last time there was a solid poll on it statistically blacks are more homophobic than whites.

The fact that there are going to be gay people who don't like trans people and that there will within a metaphysical certainty be trans people who don't like whoever the next group is should be shocking to exactly zero people.

"Oppressed" is not a transitive quality, no pun intended. It would be, one could argue, a better world if being oppressed more reliably lead to one sympathizing with the next oppressed group, but history has shown us it is not the norm.

[HansMustermann]

Originally Posted by Robin

I was responding to the claim that people will inevitably create gender roles.

I said that if this was the case then it must be a case of hardwiring

If you had suggested that people will inevitably create serf, priest and knight roles then I would have said that if that was the case then it would have to be something to do with brain hardwiring.

Well, they kinda did, or close enough equivalents. E.g., 2nd millennium CE Japan had the serfs and knights equivalent pretty well. Other societies came up with spartiates and slaves, or persians (which can be conscripted) and other nations (which pay more tax instead), etc, but dividing people into disjunct sets of those who are obliged to fight and those who get exploited by them is more universal than some people would assume.

But that illustrates that it might not have to do with anyone being wired to be a knight vs to be a serf. It's more like the wiring to find out some justification why my in-group should have some privileges, and the others should support our privileges.

And looking back at the prescribed gender roles... oh, hey, look, we have the division into those who fight and those who should be subservient to them all over again

Makes one wonder

Originally Posted by Robin

If the brain is not sexed then there is nothing inevitable about gender roles.

And yet we don't need brains to be divided into those wired to fight and those wired to be docile servants to them -- as evidenced by the fact that quite often the latter were previously the former; or that in the middle ages you got railroaded into one or the other by primogeniture, not by showing an inclination to be a serf -- and yet we have that distinction appearing all over human history.

[HansMustermann]

@Robin
Say, are you perchance autistic? Not fitting with the 'right' groups, occasionally fitting with the 'wrong' groups, and having no clue why... well, let's just say, that's usually a lot better explained by Asperger's than by gender wiring.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

@Robin
Say, are you perchance autistic? Not fitting with the 'right' groups, occasionally fitting with the 'wrong' groups, and having no clue why... well, let's just say, that's usually a lot better explained by Asperger's than by gender wiring.

Autistic might be strong. I asked a few posts up if Robin might be a little standoffish with guys, the way some guys are standoffish with gals. And surprisingly wouldn''t get invited to a girl's night out.

[HansMustermann]

*shrug* Asperger's isn't anything special either way, it just means being useless at reading reactions and other social cues.

[ZirconBlue]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Most of the time it's autogynaephilia. If you don't have that, you're not going to know how these people feel, or how they interpret it.

As usual, transphobes ignore the existence of trans men.

Edited by sarge:

removed incivility

[Rolfe]

The reply was to someone who was male, wondering how it might feel to be transgender. Therefore I didn't reference transmen, because the person I was replying to was not asking about how transmen feel.

Transmen are also not relevant in that aspect of the discussion as women cannot experience autogynaephilia. I will talk to you all night about rapid-onset gender dysphoria in girls though, if you really want me to. And I can imagine very easily how that might feel, as it could well have happened to me if I'd been born several decades later than I was.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

*shrug* Asperger's isn't anything special either way, it just means being useless at reading reactions and other social cues.

That's why I just don't bother wasting my time and assume everyone on the internet has it.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by ZirconBlue

If there's anyone on this board who knows "how these people feel"

It's not like males actually know what it feels like to be female.

But that doesn't stop them from claiming that's what they're feeling, and that's what they are, and that's how we all should regard them.

[Rolfe]

That's exactly the point. A man has no more idea of how it feels to be a woman than I have of how it feels to be a hamster. Or a man, come to that.

[HansMustermann]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

That's why I just don't bother wasting my time and assume everyone on the internet has it.

Well, in a normal case, I can see the point. But then I wouldn't write it. I don't use Asperger's as an insult or anything. This time it's actually relevant for what's being discussed.

Plus, it's relevant not just for Robin's case, but also that last I heard a number a whole third of the teenage trans-men in the UK are autistic. Even though autism is 4 TIMES less prevalent (or at least diagnosed) in girls as in boys.

Now that's not to say that some can't be wired as the opposite gender nevertheless. Hell, there could even be co-morbidity. Just... makes you wonder. The more Occam-conform explanation is to assume just one reason for an effect, rather than two. Including for not fitting into the 'right' groups and not knowing why. And sometimes Occam is actually right.

[Rolfe]

One of the features of autism spectrum I believe is a very literal mind-set. Also, autistic girls tend not to be at the more feminine end of the spectrum of female behaviour patterns. I've certainly read people hypothesising that in the context of school children being told that preferences and feelings determine your sex rather than biology, autistic youngesters are particularly likely to take this on board and decide that they must be trans.

[JoeMorgue]

The point of discussion on those is whether "feeling" like something is distinct from what you are (buried under a bajillion layers of pure semantics and arguing about categorization at this point.)

If I write, pitch, shoot, catch, and scratch my ass with my right hand I can say "I feel like" I'm left handed all I wanted, it's a meaningless concept.

Not an evil concept, not worthy of hate or derision, but still meaningless.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

@Robin
Say, are you perchance autistic? Not fitting with the 'right' groups, occasionally fitting with the 'wrong' groups, and having no clue why... well, let's just say, that's usually a lot better explained by Asperger's than by gender wiring.

Yes I am autistic, but I don't have Asperger's Syndrome.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

*shrug* Asperger's isn't anything special either way, it just means being useless at reading reactions and other social cues.

Actually many people on the Spectrum are excellent at reading social cues. Just because something is learned rather than innate doesn't necessarily mean someone will be bad at it.

[HansMustermann]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

The point of discussion on those is whether "feeling" like something is distinct from what you are (buried under a bajillion layers of pure semantics and arguing about categorization at this point.)

If I write, pitch, shoot, catch, and scratch my ass with my right hand I can say "I feel like" I'm left handed all I wanted, it's a meaningless concept.

Not an evil concept, not worthy of hate or derision, but still meaningless.

Well, there's a slightly different topic in there. Namely, how do you know if you actually feel something that is a completely undescribable personal experience. (Yeah, I know how much you love discussing qualia)

Trivial example: the notion of "stabbing pain" which is based on what people think being stabbed would feel like. The clue is in the name. Actually it turns out that anyone who's actually been stabbed can tell you it feels NOTHING like that.

So, you know, so much for knowing what something feels like, when you've got exactly zero data to base that 'knowledge' on.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

Well, there's a slightly different topic in there. Namely, how do you know if you actually feel something that is a completely undescribable personal experience. (Yeah, I know how much you love discussing qualia)

Trivial example: the notion of "stabbing pain" which is based on what people think being stabbed would feel like. The clue is in the name. Actually it turns out that anyone who's actually been stabbed can tell you it feels NOTHING like that.

So, you know, so much for knowing what something feels like, when you've got exactly zero data to base that 'knowledge' on.

Yeah but the elephant in the room is you could be anything in that and it would mean exactly the same, but we only do it with sex/gender not literally every other personal variable.

I get that it's the only joke/argument that the anti-trans side has ("Hardy Har I identity as a skinny person hardy har") and I hate that and am over it as much as anyone, but there's a valid point in there.

Why, in actual factual terms, is "I identity as male" and "I identify as taller" not the same thing?

[Rolfe]

Because "I identify as a woman" allows dominant men to undermine all the advances made by these pesky women who won't know their place over the past hundred or so years. "I identify as a man" is a rather unfortunate side-effect they haven't quite managed to eliminate, but since they're perfectly capable of keeping any women who try to assert themselves as males in male company in their place, it doesn't matter too much.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Because "I identify as a woman" allows dominant men to undermine all the advances made by these pesky women who won't know their place over the past hundred or so years. "I identify as a man" is a rather unfortunate side-effect they haven't quite managed to eliminate, but since they're perfectly capable of keeping any women who try to assert themselves as males in male company in their place, it doesn't matter too much.

That argument would only work if female to male transition and identification wasn't a thing that happened.

Plenty of biological women are asking to compete in male sports and you can't argue advantage/domination as the motive there.

[Rolfe]

You didn't read the entire post, did you?

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

You didn't read the entire post, did you?

Yes and you dismissing an entire point as "a side effect" with no real logic or evidence did not impress me.

You're just ignoring everything that makes your argument inconvenient.

[Rolfe]

Sorry, if you didn't understand my point I'm not sure how to make it any clearer.

If men want to gain access to all women-only spaces and categories by claiming the identity of "woman" it's very difficult to see how they can prevent the opposite also happening. However, it doesn't matter so much because they have other ways of dealing with that.

Perhaps the fact that the UK legislation on identifying as the opposite sex has written into it the proviso that a first-born daughter who identifies as a man is nevertheless prohibited from inheriting any title or other legally entailed inheritance that is to pass to the eldest son might clarify things a bit.