What Is A Man?

I don't suppose subjects were randomly assigned to be in the control group or the experimental group. :D

So what we don't know is if being female causes one to think like a female or if identifying like a female causes one to think like a female. If it is the latter then TG's could easily think like a female by first identifying as a female.

You are mixing cause and effect, having a female-wired brain makes you identify as female. You cannot beat the MRI by just assuming a different gender identity and "thinking" you are a female.

I fail to understand why people assume that changing one's gender is a trivial act, something done on a whim without real introspection. No one who is gender congruent would go through the agony and travail necesary to change gender presentation--it's difficult, dangerous, painful, expensive, and opens one up to the incessant assaults of peopel who don't have any education but have lots of opinions on the subject. Gay men do not change their gender presentation, they sometimes dress up as females because there are men who find cross-dressed men attractive, but losing one's penis is NOT something that a gay man will do. Gay men are interested in sex with men, if one them transitions and becomes female they are not going to be able to have the male/male sex that attracts them. Gay men are not trans.

More than a third of all transsexuals never have sex again after they transition because it's dangerous in this homophobic culture and many of them suffer nerve damage that destroys their ability to have an orgasm. Changing gender presentation is not about SEX, it's about getting to live as the gender you are inside your head. Ignorant people call me a liar on a regular basis because they have no concept of what they are talking about.
 
Werbung:
I would agree that there are differences between male and female brains. Some started in utero and some as a result of experiences. I am curious though, do you have any links to differences between TG brains and others? The last time you suggested a source none of it was published on the net.

I don't even think we need to disagree on this because whether or not the differences are determined at conception or from experience or some combination probably won't make a political difference here. I just want to know.

I end up reading a lot of books and participating in research projects, much of which is not readily available on the net. The presentation by Dr. Cynthia Chappell deals with the biological basis for homosexuality and it's available as a one hour vdieo presentation http://www.pflaghouston.org/news/headline.htm

One of the better books on the market is Dr. Louanne Brizendine's THE FEMALE BRAIN in which she follows brain development from conception to menopause and juxtaposes the male and female brains as they develop.

The American Psychological Association has quite a bit of info on trans issues, the International Journal of Transgenderism has quite a lot of information, but I haven't always been happy with the quality of the things they have accepted for publication. They seen to have higher standards now than they used to have.

You can start here: http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/917990-overview on the emedicine site.

On gender.org you can start here: http://www.gender.org/aegis/index.html

http://www.genderpsychology.org/

http://www.gires.org.uk/Web_Page_Assets/Etiology_definition_signed.htm This site gives a run down on brain differences and has many sources for further study and research.

http://www.gires.org.uk/Text_Assets/maletofemale.pdf This is a synopsis of the research on the bed nucleus of the stria terminalus, with 41 references.

How much do you want? If you start reading and following references you can read thousands of papers from medical journals. Unfortunately most of this passes over the heads of the general population who are reluctant to expend energy learning something that they already have firm opinions about.
 
Yes Lagboltz, do get that link for us. If I spouted something to the opposite, I'd be required by much whining and ad hominems (that continue) to provide a source or be called a liar. We are operating under supposed conditions of equality...so...yeah, get that link.
Meanwhile:
Mare Tranquility's statement (post #4) that, "gender is between your ears" is validated by MRI studies.
No, not necessarily. You see, people can think differently within the same gender. There is no "set way" people's brains operate. Furthermore, you cannot automatically write off environmental influences as that brain was in its formative stage, learning to be wired a certain way by reacting to its environment (remember: young primate brains are the most pliable of all mammals).

..The circuits that survived were already partly tuned to the world beyond. At birth, she was already predisposed to the sound of her mother's voice over that of strangers; to the cadence of nursery rhymes she might have overheard in the womb; and perhaps to the tastes of her mother's Mexican cuisine, which she had sampled generously in the amniotic fluid. The last of her senses to develop fully was her vision. Even so, she clearly recognized her mother's face at just two days old.

For the next 18 months, Corina was a learning machine. While older brains need some sort of context for learning—a reason, such as a reward, to pay attention to one stimulus over another—baby brains soak up everything coming through their senses.

"They may look like they're just sitting there staring at things," says Mark Johnson of the Centre for Brain and Cognitive Development at Birkbeck, University of London. "But right from the start, babies are born to seek information." As Corina experienced her new world, neural circuits that received repeated stimulation developed stronger synaptic connections, while those that lay dormant atrophied. At birth, for instance, she was able to hear every sound of every language on Earth. As the syllables of Spanish (and later English) filled her ears, the language areas of her brain became more sensitive to just those sounds, while losing their responsiveness to the sounds of, say, Arabic or Swahili.

If there is one part of the brain where the "self" part of Corina's mind began, it would be in the prefrontal cortex—a region just behind her forehead that extends to about her ears. By the age of two or so, circuits here have started to develop. Before the prefrontal cortex comes on line, a child with a smudge on her cheek will try to wipe the spot off her reflection in a mirror, rather than understand that the image in the mirror is herself, and wipe her own cheek.

But as scientists are learning about all higher cognitive functions, they're discovering that a sense of self is not a discrete part of the mind that resides in a particular location, like the carburetor in a car, or that matures all at once, like a flower blooming. It may involve various regions and circuits in the brain, depending on what specific sense one is talking about, and the circuits may develop at different times.

So while Corina may have recognized herself in a mirror before she was three years old, it might have been another year before she understood that the self she saw in the mirror persists intact through time. In studies conducted by Daniel Povinelli and his colleagues at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette, young children were videotaped playing a game, during which an experimenter secretly put a large sticker in their hair. When shown the videotape a few minutes later, most children over the age of three reached up to their own hair to remove the sticker, demonstrating that they understood the self in the video was the same as the one in the present moment. Younger children did not make the connection.

If Corina had a sticker caught in her hair when she was three, she doesn't remember it. Her first memory is of the thrill of going to the store with her mother to pick out a special dress, pink and lacy. She was four years old. She does not recall anything earlier because her hippocampus, part of the limbic system deep in the brain that stores long-term memories, had not yet matured.

That doesn't mean earlier memories don't exist in Corina's mind. Because her father left when she was just two, she can't consciously remember how he got drunk sometimes and abused her mother. But the emotions associated with the memory might be stored in her amygdala, another structure in the brain's limbic system that may be functional as early as birth. While highly emotional memories etched in the amygdala may not be accessible to the conscious mind, they might still influence the way we act and feel beyond our awareness.Source: http://science.nationalgeographic.com/science/health-and-human-body/human-body/mind-brain.html


Sooo... we're right back to where we started with the environment vs genetic argument. If babies sit and absorb everything they see, learning socially and wiring their brains according to their envirnoments (which is what primates are paramount at doing), then if they're witnessing homosexual "normalcy" within the larger society from birth on, we can, most definitely, as with the cultural phenomenon in San Francisco, expect a significant rise in the population of homosexuality once it becomes mainstream via marriage.

Much lies in evidence towards environmental homosexuality. Very little if any lies in genetic. If you insist, I will cite studies on occurances of adult homosexuality in children molested by same-gender adults...but please, don't make me do this again. It's such a depressing statistic..just like the one that supports heterosexual promiscuity (as with many prostitutes and sex addicts) who were molested by opposite gender adults when they were kids..
:(
 
No, not necessarily. You see, people can think differently within the same gender. There is no "set way" people's brains operate. Furthermore, you cannot automatically write off environmental influences as that brain was in its formative stage, learning to be wired a certain way by reacting to its environment (remember: young primate brains are the most pliable of all mammals).

Sooo... we're right back to where we started with the environment vs genetic argument.

Much lies in evidence towards environmental homosexuality. Very little if any lies in genetic. If you insist, I will cite studies on occurances of adult homosexuality in children molested by same-gender adults...but please, don't make me do this again. It's such a depressing statistic..just like the one that supports heterosexual promiscuity (as with many prostitutes and sex addicts) who were molested by opposite gender adults when they were kids..
Sources, Siho, sources for the statements I have bolded in your post. Not op-ed pieces, not popular magazines or veterinarian publications please. Oh yeah, and from the current century too.

I read your source, interesting, but one can hardly extrapolate from one person with a brain tumor to the development of sexuality in all people. Please read the sources I provided to Dr. Who for some background in current gender/brain research.
 
You think my source National Geographic has their facts mixed up about postnatal human brain development? You know, they didn't just make that up? Are you suggesting they didn't reference studies? The article itself was about a groundbreaking study..using MRI and accepted child-development psychology...cited in the article...

You see, it really is easy to make you look like a lunatic..You H-A-V-E to be right about cutting your penis off. You H-A-V-E to be right about deviant sexuality being an inborn trait. Reality must be turned on it's head. If you admit deviances such as these are environmentally-impressed, then you've lost the argument about making GLBT marriage mainstream....which is what you want...dammit..!

Even if National Geographic, a longstanding and anally-attentive-to-facts scientific organization HAS to be made wrong..

Darling, you are making my argument quite nicely for me about why people who think like you do must not ever become mainstream as an example for new babies to wire their brains to think like from observation....
 
You think my source National Geographic has their facts mixed up about postnatal human brain development?

You see, it really is easy to make you look like a lunatic..You H-A-V-E to be right about cutting your penis off.

No matter what. Evidently...

I didn't say that, I thought it was an interesting article, but one article does not prove your contention.

Nor does it help your case to continue taking potshots at me. Every time you post that same silly accusation I chuckle because it's a perfect example of how little you know about the subject. Take a break, Siho, you can't say anything to me that others haven't already said--and worse. Shoot, my own brothers have said worse things to me. Colloquially, one would say that you are talking through your hat. LOUD too.
 
Here we go again, because I have made a point about you, I am "attacking" you. Believe me, if I could get away with never again bringing up what you misguidedly did to yourself, I'd like nothing better.

But it is relevant to the issue of why people who are sexually deluded must not be allowed to be mainstream via marriage.

I know it's really hard for you to believe that someone can differ with you without it being a personal attack, but it is possible. I understand you had problems with being attacked quite a bit when you were younger...also relevant...
 
Here we go again, because I have made a point about you, I am "attacking" you. Believe me, if I could get away with never again bringing up what you misguidedly did to yourself, I'd like nothing better.

But it is relevant to the issue of why people who are sexually deluded must not be allowed to be mainstream via marriage.

I know it's really hard for you to believe that someone can differ with you without it being a personal attack, but it is possible. I understand you had problems with being attacked quite a bit when you were younger...also relevant...

How many times have you posted the lie that I had my penis cut off, Siho? Post after post you lie about about me, why? You try to imply that I think everyone should do the things that I do, why? I never said that nor even intimated that. When I commented about my reasons for doing what I did you immediately posted a reply saying that I was suggesting that ALL women need surgery--another lie.

You have refused to learn anything and post after post you lie about me, why? I have read every source you have provided, have you ever read a source I posted? Why? Post after post you cast aspersions on my character, my intellect, my intentions, my veracity, my sexual identity, my mental health, and my integrity, why? You've never met me, you exhibit no knowledge of biology, transsexualism, or psychology, yet you continue to excoriate me and lie about me, why?

I think it's good for people to see how you behave towards me, it shines a light on areas that I suspect you'd rather prefer to remain hidden. The vitriol you heap on me is neither deserved nor justified. Why do you do it? Do you even know why? Or is it such a deeply rooted revulsion that all you can do is vomit it out on me?
 
What what exactly are we trying to prove here? That the California Supreme Court finds that the definition of man and woman is sufficiently vague that the the term marriage cannot be accurately defined?

I think there is sufficient justification presented in this tread to prove that point. Regardless of whether we define sexual aberrations as environmental or genetic, the differences definitely exist in all societies.

As more and more genetic research is conducted the human genome, one overriding fact stands out - that no two humans are 100% genetically the same and in some cases we are very different. The lesson that learns to be re-learned is that all humans are created equal in the eyes of the law. Creating a rule or regulation is based on differences in human anatomy should be avoided at all costs because we will always have trouble with the definition.

Just be glad that "Homo sapiens" are the only surviving species in our genus - or we would really have trouble with definitions.
 
So then, people, ...

... In regard to how we accurately decide what is a man or what is a woman in situations where the decision is obviously required ...

... What is the method we should employ, and why?
 
Australian law defines a man as having the XY chromosome pattern and a woman as having the XX pattern. Right now there is an Australian man challenging this because he has the XX pattern despite the fact that he is a normal appearing and functioning male. Since there are now known to be 9 different chromosome patterns found in people we can no longer use the XX/XY as an absolute determining factor.

Legislators have not proven themselves to hold a particularly large amount of common sense. You said it yourself; he is a man. It is that simple. Yes he has xx chromosomes but that is an error in his genetic code. He is a man with an error in his genetic code.

So there are 9 distinct and discrete different chromosomal patterns. Fine. But there are two sexes and only two. Anything else is extremely rare and just an example of an anomaly not of a new sex. There are also generally two genders. People can claim to be an additional gender but it is just their claim that supports it.
Science has proven that gender is on a spectrum with completely male on one end and completely female on the other, and spread out in between there are people who are varying mixes of male and female. While it's true that most people are adequately sex/gender congruent to live comfortably with their assigned role in society, making an absolute scientific division between male and female in every case is not possible. This is discomfitting to those who are poorly educated or deeply philosophically embedded in the sexual binary.

If there are only 9 different genetic patterns that lends more support to the idea that there is not a continuum but either 9 different sexes or two different sexes with a few abnormalities. If there were an equal distribution of the nine patterns and there were nine different genders to go along with them I would be inclined to say that there were 9 sexes. But they are not equally distributed. The evidence indicates that they are abnormalities and not examples of the normal human condition. Furthermore, I am not aware of any correlation between the claims people make about their perceptions of their own gender and the 9 genetic patterns. In fact your example above of the man who appeared to be a man and functioned as a man but had xx is a counter example.
 
So then, people, ...

... In regard to how we accurately decide what is a man or what is a woman in situations where the decision is obviously required ...

... What is the method we should employ, and why?

As long as 49.99% of people have male genitals and 49.99% of people have female genitals then it seems pretty simple to say that there are men and there are women and there are a very few who have a genetic anomaly.

If 33.33% of the people were male and 33.33% of he people were female and 33.33% of the people had the sexual organs of both then we could create a new word to describe their sex. If they also had a distinct gender that corresponded to their sex then we could create a word to describe that gender. We could call their sex "dimale" and we could call their gender dimale too since there is a correspondence. (But as it stands now we call those with both types of organs hermaphrodites and it describes an abnormality.) We could call those with characteristics of both genders didrogenous. We could also go on to describe the sexual expression we see among people. We could call males who like to have sex with males homosexual, we could call females who like to have sex with females homosexual or lesbian, we could call males or females who like to have sex with females or males heterosexual, we could call people of either male or female who like to have sex with either male or female bisexual. Then we could go on to describe the other pairings; dimales who like to have sex with males and dimales who like to have sex with females and dimales who like to have sex with dimales, etc.

But alas there is no third sex that is anything other than an anomaly and there seems to be no correlation between the genders and the sexual expressions of such people. And there is no third gender that is anything other than the statements of the people who think they have a third gender which I would grant you is more logical than those who claim they are werewolves. And there is no correlation between sexual expression and sex and gender with the exception that we could say generally most males have characteristics like males and have sex with females and most females have characteristics like females and have sex with males. The evidence supports the view of two sexes, two genders, and two main forms of sexual expression. Furthermore there is a very very high correlation between the different sexes, genders and expressions.
 
So then, people, ...

... In regard to how we accurately decide what is a man or what is a woman in situations where the decision is obviously required ...

... What is the method we should employ, and why?

No single standard can be used in all cases. Obviously, if a person looks like a man or woman they are going to be admitted into a restroom regardless of what the person looks like without clothes.

In the case of sports, I think you are looking at technology that will be changing from year to year. Science journals, sports governing councils and in some cases the courts must make the determination of a "probability of gender".

Let's remember that we humans create situations where a determination of "man vs. woman" is necessary. One hundred years ago we didn't have women only sports. And if you define co-habitation in terms of a civil contract you eliminate the need to make a gender determination.

As long as society paints itself into a corner where a determination must be made, then someone in society is always going to be unhappy with the answer.

As with many things in life, you must accept that chaos within boundaries is the only answer.
 
Legislators have not proven themselves to hold a particularly large amount of common sense. You said it yourself; he is a man. It is that simple. Yes he has xx chromosomes but that is an error in his genetic code. He is a man with an error in his genetic code.

So there are 9 distinct and discrete different chromosomal patterns. Fine. But there are two sexes and only two. Anything else is extremely rare and just an example of an anomaly not of a new sex. There are also generally two genders. People can claim to be an additional gender but it is just their claim that supports it.
Yes, it is just their claim to support who they are, but since we have no scientific way to prove that they are not telling the truth, we have no reason to think that they would lie about it, they are causing no harm, maybe we should give them the benefit of the doubt. Are you old enough to remember the grief that left-handed people were given in school? There was and still is no way to scentifically measure whether a person is right or left handed, so we let people be who they say they are. Seems like a good policy to me. Why not?


If there are only 9 different genetic patterns that lends more support to the idea that there is not a continuum but either 9 different sexes or two different sexes with a few abnormalities. If there were an equal distribution of the nine patterns and there were nine different genders to go along with them I would be inclined to say that there were 9 sexes. But they are not equally distributed. The evidence indicates that they are abnormalities and not examples of the normal human condition. Furthermore, I am not aware of any correlation between the claims people make about their perceptions of their own gender and the 9 genetic patterns. In fact your example above of the man who appeared to be a man and functioned as a man but had xx is a counter example.

Would that it was so easy, Doc. We have found 9 patterns, we never suspected to find that many and we don't know how many others there are. The thing to bear in mind is that the chromosome patterns are not indicative of gender any more than blood type. The fact that the two are the most common may be incidental. Science has found so many crossovers between men and women that it is becoming more and more clear that gender is a spectrum and not black and white. The fact that we have trouble quantifying this is due more to our poor imaging equipment than a lack of suggestive evidence. Currently only a brain autopsy will allow us to see the differences in the bed nucleus--and since this requires the death of the person we have very few volunteers. Why would it matter how many of these people there are? Albinos and hemophiliacs are rare but real, and scarcity should not be used to discriminate against people, should it?

As the hatred and persecution of intersexed, transsexual, and differently gendered people is reduced we are finding more of them as they come out of hiding. Bi-gendered or two-spirit people (according to the Native Americans), people who feel that they have no gender, all genders, or some combination are being discovered and we have no scientific way to detect a person's internal sense of their own gender except to ask them. Why is this a problem? Why can't we just let these people be who they are?

Do you remember when job applications had just two boxes for race? They had a BLACK or a WHITE classification, now we have 8-10 boxes and an OTHER box. I think that's the direction that science is taking us with gender just as they did with race. We had to confront the prejudice of a racial binary concept and now we are going to have to confront the prejudice of a sexual binary concept.
 
Werbung:
As long as 49.99% of people have male genitals and 49.99% of people have female genitals then it seems pretty simple to say that there are men and there are women and there are a very few who have a genetic anomaly.

If 33.33% of the people were male and 33.33% of he people were female and 33.33% of the people had the sexual organs of both then we could create a new word to describe their sex. If they also had a distinct gender that corresponded to their sex then we could create a word to describe that gender. We could call their sex "dimale" and we could call their gender dimale too since there is a correspondence. (But as it stands now we call those with both types of organs hermaphrodites and it describes an abnormality.) We could call those with characteristics of both genders didrogenous. We could also go on to describe the sexual expression we see among people. We could call males who like to have sex with males homosexual, we could call females who like to have sex with females homosexual or lesbian, we could call males or females who like to have sex with females or males heterosexual, we could call people of either male or female who like to have sex with either male or female bisexual. Then we could go on to describe the other pairings; dimales who like to have sex with males and dimales who like to have sex with females and dimales who like to have sex with dimales, etc.

But alas there is no third sex that is anything other than an anomaly and there seems to be no correlation between the genders and the sexual expressions of such people. And there is no third gender that is anything other than the statements of the people who think they have a third gender which I would grant you is more logical than those who claim they are werewolves. And there is no correlation between sexual expression and sex and gender with the exception that we could say generally most males have characteristics like males and have sex with females and most females have characteristics like females and have sex with males. The evidence supports the view of two sexes, two genders, and two main forms of sexual expression. Furthermore there is a very very high correlation between the different sexes, genders and expressions.

Some of the confusion may be caused by the definition of the words. Gender identity resides in the brain of a person, it's who YOU think you are inside your own head, and we have no way to detect that scientifically yet. This may be a software issue in the brain, we don't know. We have yet to find a hardware cause in the brain, but the important thing is to realize that who YOU are inside your own head is the most important parameter because that is what makes YOU the YOU that you are. All the physical stuff is just hardware and we can retool that as necessary, whereas the brain cannot be changed by any technology we have.

In a repressive sexual binary culture the incidence of "non-normal" is no measure of real numbers of "non-normal" people. When science admits that they cannot predict nor define "normal" anymore, then we need to stop persecuting or discriminating against what we see as "non-normal" people who are doing no harm.

People need to stretch their definitions a little and realize that we don't know enough about sex/gender to deny rights to anyone who is not harming others.

If you really want to read something that will expand your view of sex/gender I would suggest BIOLOGICAL EXUBERANCE: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity by Bruce Bagemihl, Ph.D. A huge, scientific work (over 700 pages) detailing the sexual activities of just 450 of the more than 1500 species of animals that exhibit homosexual sex and pair-bonding. Bagemihl has thousands of sources, notes, and papers by researchers as the base for this work. Gay, straight, bi, group, oral, anal, transgender, tribadism, mutual masturbation, and recreational sex are all common in the animal kingdom. This is a book about scientific research that questions our paradigm about "just reproductive" sex. Is it possible that stricly reproductive sex is on the periphery of sexual activity and that social or recreational sexual contact is not only far more common than we thought, but in fact makes up the bulk of all sexual activity? Maybe.
 
Back
Top