Intersex man on gender critical feminists and surgery
Now, as a practical matter, it turns out that intersex advocates and gender critical feminists have very different end positions on medical interventions into the sexed body. Intersex advocates believe that no intervention should be forced--but also that once an intersex person is old enough to give full informed consent, that hormonal, surgical, or others interventions should be performed if that's what the individual truly wants. Any many, many intersex people do choose interventions of their own free will. Sure, an intersex person who has vaginal agenesis may have no desire whatsoever to have her pelvis dissected and a neovagina constructed from a section of cheek or intestines or labia. There are so many ways to enjoy sexual relations other than vaginal penetration. But many do want a vagina, to support female identities if they so identify, or because of the great social value placed on penetrative vaginal sex, or in the case of those with a substantial uterus and with ovaries, because they could become pregnant through sexual intercourse. Intersex people often seek hormone replacement therapy to masculinize or feminize their bodies, or surgeries to move their urethras to allow neater or standing urination, or any of a wide number of other interventions. And intersex advocates support all of these choices. We just wish them to be free choices, not forced by doctors or parents or social shaming.
Gender-critical feminists, on the other hand, turn out to hold a very different position: that all interventions into the sexed body are mutilations, not just those imposed without consent. Just as it is a mutilation to surgically alter the innocent bodies of intersex babies, they say, it is a pointless self-mutilation for an adult to choose to have their sexed body medically altered, because sex cannot be changed. Chromosomes can't be altered. A vaginoplasty cannot produce a real vagina, nor a phalloplasty a real penis, they say, and all interventions into the sexed body are motivated by patriarchy and thus counter to the interests of women. The only healthy and feminist response to unhappiness with one's body presented is to learn to accept it as it is. For intersex people, this just replaces the rigid regime of forcing medical interventions with a rigid regime of withholding them. Switching one constraint on intersex people for another isn't the motivation for this gender critical position--I don't know if they are even aware that intersex people desire some medical interventions. The main purpose of their argument that one must accept the natural body is to tell trans people that they must give up on the "delusion" that one can be born with a penis but really be a woman, or born with a vagina but really be a man, or born a human being and really be a member of some alternative sex.
http://trans-fusion.blogspot.com/2014/0 ... ersex.html
Of course, one may argue from this that persons identified as having disorders of sex development, which the DSM-5 (full version) says "denotes conditions of inborn somatic [not relating to the psyche] deviations of the reproductive tract from the norm and/or discrepancies among the biological indicators of male and female," should not have such interventions withheld, but that trans persons without disorders of sex development should (or at least such interventions should not be covered by insurance or any public health program).
_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin
_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin
Why such views of gender critical feminists are harmful to intersex people:
Another thing that may initially draw intersex people to TERFs is that they actively deny that they are transphobic, presenting themselves as reasonable women who are victims of slander. They often say they have compassion for "men under the delusion that they are women," which they present as equivalent to believing one is really a horse or a space alien. They only wish, they say, to help trans people improve their mental health and come to accept their bodies. Accepting one's body means accepting that one cannot call oneself a woman while having a penis. But participating in discussions with gender crits, it quickly becomes apparent that they are indeed transphobic--and apparently obsessed with penises. They talk about them constantly, and presume that all trans women have them (because they say even a trans women who has genital reconstructive surgery now simply possesses an "inverted penis"). And penises are always presented as dangerous--"natal girls" might see them in locker rooms and be traumatized, trans-protective laws would mean no woman could ever be sure the person in the next stall didn't have a penis, and thus pose a threat to her. This obsession with other people's genitals and validation of the idea that people should be upset by those with the "wrong ones" runs completely counter to the interests of intersex people. It's the very same binary sex essentialism and acceptance of gender policing that the medical profession uses to justify intersex genital reconstructive surgery. It is the logic used by doctors when they amputate or "reduce" the intermediate phalloclitorises of children they've assigned female: unless they do so, the child's body will inspire shock and repulsion. In painting trans women's bodies as deceptive, dangerous and disgusting, transphobic feminists paint those born sex variant with the same brush.
TERFs are not just binary sex essentialists, however, dividing the world into oppressors and oppressed through reference to binary genitals. They also have a theory of gender socialization. Their vision of gender socialization is bleak: boys are socialized to dominate, control, and rape women; girls are socialized to submit to this and embrace their oppressors and call this "femininity." Clearly this is bad, and feminism is a movement of "natal" women that teaches women to recognize and resist this programming. Men, however, are presented as inevitably and eternally shaped by their socialization into patriarchy, as it advantages them. Trans women are asserted to be men, and while they may claim they do not enjoy being treated as men, this is said just to illustrate their blindness to their own privilege. Trans women are inevitably socialized to try to control "natal" women, as evidenced by their belief they should be able to force "natal" women into "supporting their gender delusion" and treating them as sisters. Again, this rejection of gender identity conflicts with the interests of intersex people. It also paints a simplistic and binary picture of gender socialization, a process which is in fact quite variable and complex, shaped by one's gender identity and one's many social locations. Moreover, it is important to acknowledge the intersectional nature of marginalization and privilege, and speak not just of patriarchy but of kyriarchy, taking into account race, age, sexual orientation, (dis)ability, and other dimensions along which power is distributed. And one of these dimensions for nonintersex people is the axis of cis privilege and trans marginalization. Trans women--particularly those who are poor, of color, and/or have a disability--suffer huge levels of social stigma, violence, employment discrimination, etc.
_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin
And those intersex children assigned male at birth who mature to identify as female face huge levels of scrutiny. Sadly, this is one of the things that my attract intersex people to "gender critical" rhetoric. That's because transphobic feminists claim that trans women are using the intersex community to try to force others to treat them with pity. They claim that it's not intersex people, but trans women who are always going on about intersex issues in public discourse on sex and gender. And they claim that most people presenting themselves as intersex are really trans women pretenting to intersex status. Unfortunately, when they hear this, a lot of intersex people nod their heads angrily.
I really have to say, as an intersex person, that TERFs did not make up the issue of trans gender intersex wannabes being a problem. I have spent many years in support groups and networks for intersex people, and they are often inundated by people either speculating that they are intersex, or flat-out asserting it, wanting to know how to access gender transition services. Now, there are a number of perfectly understandable reasons why people may believe they may be intersex, although this is not the case. There's so little information given to people about intersexuality in the course of education about biology and sex. And the idea that physical sex traits determine gender identity is widely held. So, if a person does not identify with the sex they were assigned at birth, they are likely to be prompted to wonder if their reproductive organs or genes have caused them to trans-idenify. And there's so little understanding even of what sex-typical genitals are "supposed" to look like or do that people can misinterpret quite typical characteristics as strange. A person with a typical phallus may see a line on the underside and think it must be proof of childhood surgery, when all people have a perineal raphe, which extends up the underside of the typical penis. You'd be surprised how many people have asked me if the fact that their clitoris gets erect when they are aroused is proof that they are intersex. Similarly, a lot of people seem to be unaware that it's totally typical for women to find some darker hairs on their upper lips, or some whiskers spouting on their chins.
I see no problem with people who are questioning or exploring their gender identities to have questions about how typical or atypical they are in their bodily sex characteristics--though it can be frustrating to try to run an online intersex support board and have people posing questions like these overrunning them. But what is really damaging to the intersex community is when nonintersex people wishing to gender transition decide they are intersex, while knowing nothing about actual intersex bodies--and then run around telling eveyone they meet strange stories about what being intersex means. I've encountered dozens of such people, and some of the stories they tell are frankly bizarre. Often these stories involve being born with two sets of genitals and reproductive organs, one male-typical and one female-typical, and one of these sets somehow being removed. (One person said his mother forced him to take birth control pills as a child, which caused him to absorb his penis into his abdomen, leaving just a set of female genitals behind. Another told me his uncle had hated his atypical genitals, so had ripped off his testicles and cut a hole for him to menstruate through, and now he just looked like a normal girl. A third told me she had a penis and scrotum in front, but a clitoris and uterus attached to her rectum, and regularly menstruated rectally. And several have told me that they were born with a uterus that doctors removed when they impregnated themselves.) These are not plausible stories because intersex people are born, not with two sets of sex organs, but with one intermediate or mixed set. And a person cannot impregnate themself, even in the extraordinarily rare situation where a person has both an ovary and a testis and a small vagina and uterus and a small phallus, because a sex hormone balance that allows producing viable sperm will not support a menstrual cycle, and one that will support a menstrual cycle will not support spermatogenesis.
_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin
I think trans people are intersexed.
Who care what some quack thinks.
I think trans people are intersexed.
Then you're not quite using those terms as they are commonly understood.
A trans person (usually*) has a determinable sex, but one which does not align with their gender.
An intersex person has physical sexual characteristics which do not neatly align with either binary sex.
*except in the case of a person who is both trans and intersex
I guess you would argue that gender is determined by physical characteristics e.g. brain structures, and so trans people have physical sex characteristic which do not neatly align with either binary sex (e.g. a penis and testicles and a "woman's brain"). However, I believe there is still some overlap between cis male brains and cis female brains, even in areas of function in which the average male and female brains are different.
Correct
Does you thinking extend to the neuron differences in the 'bed nucleus of the stria terminalis'?
There is a youtube video of professor Robert Sapolsky at Stanford University that I have cited before.
See here, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3C4ZJ7HyuE
At 1:16 he says that the brain shows sex difference in the 'bed nucleus of the stria terminalis' that reliability shows gender based on "one type of neuron that produces a certain type of neurotransmitter", and "based on the size and number of these neurons" one can "very , very reliably" determine gender.
He seems pretty confident that sex differentiation is possible based on "brain structure".
LNH,
In all fairness to Sapolsky, I think he overstates the findings in those studies.
There is a lot that area seems to be connected to, if you do even a Google search of the term "bed nucleus of the stria terminalis." There's also this:
http://www.jneurosci.org/content/22/3/1027.full.pdf
Here are the original articles:
http://www.jneurosci.org/content/22/3/1027.full.pdf
If you look at the results, there is some heavy overlap between even the nontranssexual males and nontranssexual females.
Here shows heavy overlap among the conrol presumed heterosexual males and the control presumed heterosexual females, looking at the same measure:
http://sindromebenjamin.tripod.com/site ... ainsex.pdf
This study, looking at another area, specifically the interstitial nucleus of the anterior hypothalamus 3, shows even heavier such overlap:
http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/content ... /3132.long
A major problem with all of these studies are the tiny sample sizes. At most, this shows a correlation, but it isn't very reliable because of the heavy overlap. There is no evidence of causation in any of these areas, which are so poorly understood anyway.
I am of the opinion that the whole concept of brain sex is overrated among trans activists and shouldn't even be necessary for successful activism. The heavy overlap might conceivably engender arguments of, "Well, we don't know if it's you with the female size or number, so we might as well withhold treatment"; it's not like you can measure any of these areas while the person is still alive: Such measurement would be way too invasive to even be justifiable, much less possible without causing major brain damage. In addition, it has the potential to be highly alienating to certain potential allies, like the intersex man I quoted.
I think activists need to continue to cite the studies and reviews, which as a whole support sex reassignment therapy in certain individuals, and emphasize the lack of evidence showing efficacy for other techniques, such as talk therapy, when meant to be applied to ALL cases of gender dysphoria/gender identity disorder. Mikhail Ramendik and I did some heavy updating of the Wikipedia article "Sex reassignment therapy," which we are proud to say reflects the whole of the up-to-date English language literature on the effectiveness of sex reassignment therapy in some cases of gender dysphoria/gender identity disorder in the "Effectiveness" section.
_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin
Thanks.
Sorry to beat this topic up.
However, it seems to me that human brains are anatomically mapped as female or male with regards to what body parts should or should not be there? This "mapping" would seem to indicate a structural difference even if we don't understand it yet.
Sapolsky refers to this at 5:00, with a "0% rate" of "'phantom penis'" in MTF trans people.
LNH,
Can you quote some research on the subject?
Here is an objection to the focus on "brain sex" from an intersex trans man:
Finally, I would argue that this entire issue is a distraction. Remember that it was not the discovery of a brain area “causing” homosexuality that led to the relative successes of the LGB community in gaining civil rights. It was activism that led to those gains. The belief that if differences could be shown to be inborn, liberation would result, seems hopelessly naïve to me. Bear in mind that for many decades, scientists argued that women should not be permitted to vote or attend college because their brains were too small. More starkly, consider the Holocaust, which was founded on a belief in inborn racial inferiority. Some intersex conditions can be detected prenatally, but this has not led to more widespread acceptance of intersexuality. When these conditions are detected, doctors typically offer to terminate the pregnancy.
http://trans-fusion.blogspot.com/2012/0 ... ersex.html
I thought this statement was very important: "And the issues intersex people face center on forced sex assignment in childhood--something which advocates of the intersex brain thesis tacitly support when they argue that since trans status arises from an intersex brain, it 'must' be treated medically."
The need for medical intervention comes from dysphoria, not the presence of an "intersex brain." Saying that it comes from the latter can end up screwing a whole bunch of people over. It would also screw those people over who "overlap" in those studies I referenced further up.
_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin
Can you quote some research on the subject?
What you cited doesn't say anything about the "anatomical mapping" of gender in the brain.
Anatomical mapping appears to be binary: either your brain is mapped to expect a penis or a vagina.
I have never heard of a person saying "my brain is mapped to expect both a penis and a vagina", or "my brain is mapped to have neither". There is no overlap , or underlap apparently.
Thus, back to my original point, it seems inherent that there is a brain structure difference between these two different mappings.
Sapolsky cites the Danish research of 0% of MTF trans people reporting "phantom penis" as evidence that MTF trans people have a female mapped brain structure.
Can you quote some research on the subject?
What you cited doesn't say anything about the "anatomical mapping" of gender in the brain.
It was not meant to. It was to provide further warning on the obsession with brain sex by trans activists.
I have never heard of a person saying "my brain is mapped to expect both a penis and a vagina", or "my brain is mapped to have neither". There is no overlap , or underlap apparently.
Thus, back to my original point, it seems inherent that there is a brain structure difference between these two different mappings.
Sapolsky cites the Danish research of 0% of MTF trans people reporting "phantom penis" as evidence that MTF trans people have a female mapped brain structure.
I have not been able to find that study, despite searching. What I've read online suggests phantom penis does occur, except perhaps it occurs less often than nontranssexual nonintersex men whoses penises have been amputated.
I did find paper, which says it occurs in 60% of men who have had a penis amputation for cancer:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17420102
This paper only presents a hypothesis regarding phantom penis in transsexual people. It does not test it. It also seems to not give the value that you have given, 0%. It only suggests that it would be less common.
I know little about phantom limb, but I doubt the body image is truly "hard-wired" in that respect, because there is evidence that it changes. This study supports that assertion, which came out a couple years after the one above:
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/44/18798.abstract
_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin
I know little about phantom limb, but I doubt the body image is truly "hard-wired" in that respect, because there is evidence that it changes. This study supports that assertion, which came out a couple years after the one above:
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/44/18798.abstract
Thanks or expanding my knowledge on this subject!
I see what you are saying.
I looked for the "Danish research of 0%" that Sapolsky mentioned, however, I couldn't find it.
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
Critical Drug Shortage in the U.S. |
20 Nov 2024, 7:30 pm |
Why did Cher, ruin her nose with plastic surgery. |
03 Nov 2024, 1:58 pm |
SCOTUS to Hear Case About Law Affirming Gender-Affirming Car |
04 Dec 2024, 9:09 pm |