I have tried to post to this thread several times and each time my leechblock goes off or the power in Redmond goes out or... anyway, keeping it brief and not taking time to gather quotes, so apologies (and of course now I'm trying to write this before I head off to meeting for worship).
1. TS's question about epiphany versus gradual realization:
Kind of both. The world gave me no concept for bisexuality when I was younger. So when I started feeling "infatuated" with girls, I would try to tell myself this was a different feeling from when I would get crushes on boys. There was a gradual process of seeing that I would develop attractions to people of both genders, but I compartmentalized and rationalized a lot of it. Long story short, eventually after I was forced to face feelings I had for one girl in particular, I really did have a lightbulb moment, and did have that thought of, "Oh, I guess I'm bisexual." (Having heard the term finally, although there was--and is--a lot of misconception and stigma about it. When I tried to seek out my college's so-called BLTGS alliance for some support and guidance, I got a seriously cold shoulder but otherwise lived in a socially progressive community, so I had a weird period of time where I felt safe to be out amongst straight people, but pretended I was straight amongst gays. Which is NOT an effective way to flirt with a girl you like, by the way.)
2. Crystal and KSF, thanks for the resources!
3. Lissa, regarding the epistle of Paul you mention -- I have gone to a workshop taught by a biblical scholar who notes that in classical Greek there is a word for "homosexual" (a few, IIRC), but that the word Paul uses is NOT any actual commonly used classical Greek word for homosexual--and moreover, if he was trying to call out homosexuals, he would have used one of the more common words, and thus, that is a mistranslation. IIRC the word he uses best translates to "effeminate men", which if taken literally might still condemn ancient trans or genderqueer folks, but in context may have referred to a form of spiritual weakness, given how obscure the term used is. It is still a troubling term, but that it calls out homosexuality in particular is actually a bad translation.
The only place the Bible specifically and without translation confusion calls out any sort of thing to do with sexuality is where Leviticus condemns men who "lie with men as they would with women," and needs to be taken with the same grain of salt as the other advice and laws in that same book, such as the one about women needing to sacrifice doves while menstruating or any number of other laws now not followed, to my knowledge, even by the most conservative of Judeo-Christian sects.
4. I am reading a book called "Excluded: Making the Queer and Feminist Movements More Inclusive" by Julia Serano. I recommend it highly to everyone reading this thread.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I swear it was only like 5 years ago we were on the cusp of digit length and clockwise hair whorl research.
But seriously, I am asking about the evidence for a "staged feminization/masculinization" of queer brains that has driven the scientific community into broad consensus. Like, where these stages break down along development (are they different trimesters?). This whole thing just seems like a rather large mass of scientific work would be hard to miss. I'm just not finding it.
It's not hard to find.
But it’s also like asking for an explanation of the evidence regarding drug metabolism and clearance, why some people have reactions to some drugs while others don’t, polymorphisms in p450 enzymes, hepatic transporters, etc and doing that all in a message board post. For the topic at hand I can point out some highlights, but you’ll need to risk those PubMed papercuts if you want to follow the field.
I'd start with the '95 paper by Swaab et al...
Okay, it's seems to be what I already knew: the claim of scientific consensus was overstated. I have no doubt that some people believe that gay men and trans woman have feminized brains, and lesbians and trans men have masculinized brains. Swaab makes no mention of this feminization/masculinization creates sexuality and gender identity.
I think it is also worth noting how within nueroscience (and other speculative fields), the foundations for causal arguments are generally weak. It is the premise of the research that there masculine brains and feminine brains. Only after this "fact" is asserted, do scientists begin parsing differences between these brains and making arguments that these differences produce gender. Gender is "made up" as a biological characteristic of the brain before the brain is investigated for evidence of gender.
But there is another dimension to this problem that I failed to recognize earlier when probing this bit of speculation: some people feel empowered and reassured when biomedical authority lays claim to their identities and bodies. Biomedicince is a powerful mover, and is the gateway to social (and legal) legitimization of a broad range of experience. The debate over the DSM classification of GID centers on problem. To remove it would rob many trans people of access to affordable medical interventions, but to keep it in the DSM patholizes gender deviance and endangers queer lives.
Todd, maybe you might find these kinds of scientific authority reassuring, but there is a distinct difference from saying that these explanations match your experiences, and making authoritative statements about the lives of all gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people. The things you've said about gay men and lesbians are no explanations for my experiences as a queer person (or for that matter, as a cis person). Bridging the gap between speculative neuroscience and the lived experiences of queer people isn't something to do blithely, because it just stinks to hear someone explain my identity as the result of "hormone flux in-utero."
So, where does that leave the queer community: some want to subject themselves to biomedical surveillance as a means to legitimize gender and sexuality, while other don't want to further subject queer life to marginalization at the hands of authoritative, normalizing discourses (which, with all this "feminization/masculinization" talk, this is clearly a normalizing discourse that excludes genderqueer folks). Because, keep in mind that if we relegate gender to the auspices of BSTc volume (or whatever else is the fashionable cause of gender), what happens to the trans women who are informed that their brains don't match the typical neurological profiles for women and thus aren't eligible for medical treatment? Do they suddenly stop being trans because everyone else tells them their brains are "normal" for a man? At what point in time are we going to realize that handing our identities over to the authority of doctors, psychiatrists, and scientists doesn't ensure our protection and welfare?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, it's seems to be what I already knew: the claim of scientific consensus was overstated. I have no doubt that some people believe that gay men and trans woman have feminized brains, and lesbians and trans men have masculinized brains. Swaab makes no mention of this feminization/masculinization creates sexuality and gender identity.
It starts with the '95 paper, and builds subsequently from there. I'd suggest the 2009 paper 'Sexual Differentiation of the Human Brain in Relation to Gender Identity' in Functional Neurology. There are subsequent papers on the same topic and expanded in 2010 and 2011 as well.
From the abstract:
"During the intrauterine period the fetal brain develops in the male direction through a direct action of testosterone on the developing nerve cells, or in the female direction through the absence of this hormone surge. In this way, our gender identity (the conviction of belonging to the male or female gender) and sexual orientation are programmed into our brain structures when we are still in the womb. However, since sexual differentiation of the genitals takes place in the first two months of pregnancy and sexual differentiation of the brain starts in the second half of pregnancy, these two processes can be influenced independently, which may result in transsexuality. This also means that in the event of ambiguous sex at birth, the degree of masculinization of the genitals may not reflect the degree of masculinization of the brain. There is no proof that social environment after birth has an effect on gender identity or sexual orientation."
I think it is also worth noting how within nueroscience (and other speculative fields),
When you start referring to a branch of science as a "speculative field" I think we're at something approaching a complete impasse here.
Sadly, we seem to get obnoxious religious nuts in the UK, just like in the US, though fortunately we seem to get far fewer than you do. He's even quoted as using the same sort of dog-whistle phrases as "a Christian nation". Blegh.
(I say that as a non-practising, non-Anglican, Christian.)
In his defence, Britain never had a single flood in it's history (post Deluge, of course!) before the evil Cameron passed that law....
...hey! Wait a minute! Yes we did!
I'm beginning to suspect that there may, in fact, be no direct causal relationship between passing a law allowing gay marriage and...er...floods!
(I'm sorry guys, I can't find the keys to press to convey enough derision.)
Pretty sure the keys 'I' 'K' 'P' and 'U' will be required.
So when are we going to see studies on what pattern of prenatal hormones or whatever causes cisgenderism and heterosexuality?
I think it is also worth noting how within nueroscience (and other speculative fields),When you start referring to a branch of science as a "speculative field" I think we're at something approaching a complete impasse here.
There is a lot of discussion both within science and without as to the validity of neuroscience. I understand the reluctance to discuss it, so I regret positing its speculative nature. But the important part of my post followed that and doesn't depend on the questionable nature of neuroscience:
But there is another dimension to this problem that I failed to recognize earlier: some people feel empowered and reassured when biomedical authority lays claim to their identities and bodies. Biomedicince is a powerful mover, and is a gateway to social (and legal) legitimization of a broad range of experience. The debate over the DSM classification of GID centers on problem. To remove it would rob many trans people of access to affordable medical interventions, but to keep it in the DSM patholizes gender deviance and endangers queer lives.
Todd, maybe you might find these kinds of scientific authority reassuring, but there is a distinct difference from saying that these explanations match your experiences, and making authoritative statements about the lives of all gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people. The things you've said about gay men and lesbians are no explanations for my experiences as a queer person (or for that matter, as a cis person). Bridging the gap between speculative(?) neuroscience and the lived experiences of queer people isn't something to do blithely, because it just stinks to hear someone explain my identity as the result of "hormone flux in-utero."
So, where does that leave the queer community: some want to subject themselves to biomedical surveillance as a means to legitimize gender and sexuality, while other don't want to further subject queer life to marginalization at the hands of authoritative, normalizing discourses (which, with all this "feminization/masculinization" talk, this is clearly a normalizing discourse that excludes genderqueer folks). Because, keep in mind that if we relegate gender to the auspices of BSTc volume (or whatever else is the fashionable cause of gender), what happens to the trans women who are informed that their brains don't match the typical neurological profiles for women and thus aren't eligible for medical treatment? Do they suddenly stop being trans because everyone else tells them their brains are "normal" for a man? At what point in time are we going to realize that handing our identities over to the authority of doctors, psychiatrists, and scientists doesn't ensure our protection and welfare?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So when are we going to see studies on what pattern of prenatal hormones or whatever causes cisgenderism and heterosexuality?
Any study that looks at the interaction of testosterone on the fetal brain, and the interaction thereof with genes typically activated or inactivated in XX and XY individuals. Cisgenderism and heterosexuality are just as rooted in biology as every other flavor of human sexuality and gender identity. Neither is more or less valid.
As we understand human development to a deeper degree we understand all of the ways biology does (or doesn't) influence or determine higher behavior. It's more complex than we expected certainly.
Oh. Well the studies you linked to (at least the ones I looked at---I didn't look at all of them) were about what causes homosexuality or transgenderism. The abstract of your 1995 paper, for example, says nothing about cissexual people. If the alleged biological causes of gender identity and sexuality effect straight or cis people, that's not captured by how these papers talk about it.
@DeathQuaker
Serano is amazing, her poetry gives me goosebumps! :3
4. I am reading a book called "Excluded: Making the Queer and Feminist Movements More Inclusive" by Julia Serano. I recommend it highly to everyone reading this thread.
I've been meaning to read that. Her earlier book, "Whipping Girl," is very good.
It's official.
I HAVE A THIRD JOB EDITING QUILTBAG EROTICA FOR A PUBLISHER BASED OUT OF ARKANSAS!!!!!!
My first thought at reading that: Why arkansaw?
Second thought: Kind of odd that I thought arkansaw was the weird part of that sentence.....
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh. Well the studies you linked to (at least the ones I looked at---I didn't look at all of them) were about what causes homosexuality or transgenderism. The abstract of your 1995 paper, for example, says nothing about cissexual people. If the alleged biological causes of gender identity and sexuality effect straight or cis people, that's not captured by how these papers talk about it.
For an actual peer reviewed study you'd probably have to go back to the 30's? or something when they were trying to figure it out. Any paper is going to assume the reader knows how gender typically develops.
4. I am reading a book called "Excluded: Making the Queer and Feminist Movements More Inclusive" by Julia Serano. I recommend it highly to everyone reading this thread.I've been meaning to read that. Her earlier book, "Whipping Girl," is very good.
okay I will look for that work.
Speaking as a non-expert in biology, pointing at individual papers purporting to give a biological cause of sexuality or gender identity is just unconvincing. A major obstacle to overcome is that prima facie, it appears to be an explanation on the wrong level. Gender and sexuality are very much social things, caught up in how others view us and how we view ourselves in relation to others. Hence, we'd expect explanations for gender and sexuality to occur on the same level. I think there is work to be done in arguing why we should even expect gender identity and sexuality to be caused by biology. At least from what I've seen, that work hasn't been done.
Further, the history of scientific knowledge on this is unfortunate at best and damning at worst. Annabel has already mentioned the 19th century concept of sexual inversion. Up until 1974, the DSM listed homosexuality as a mental disorder. It still lists transgenderism ("gender dysphoria") as a mental disorder. Scientific knowledge on gender and sexuality has been used to justify the application of power at those who deviate from the norm. It was used to justify the infamous Paragraph 175. We see psychologists taking an important roll in "explaining" homosexuality during the lavender scare; see e.g. Gerassi's account in The Boys of Boise of the psychologist John L. Butler's roll in the 1955 Boise homosexuality scandal. We see this in the practice of "corrective" surgery to put intersex infants or infants with ambiguous sex into one category or the other; cf. Kessler's "The medical construction of gender". To try to decouple science from this history is difficult. What differentiates our current scientific knowledge from past scientific knowledge? What is the difference that explains why current understanding is justified while prior understanding is not?
Even supposing we have explained why biology should be the answer and we have explained why current research avoids the pratfalls of past research, individual papers are still not convincing. Scientific progress doesn't occur at the level of the individual paper. There's good reason to not trust individual papers; cf. Ioannidis's "Why most published research findings are false". Without a broad scientific consensus (note that this would have to be broader than just biologists), there's little reason for the layperson to believe that this is a settled matter. The APA states
There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.
I don't think there is sufficient evidence to blithely state that there are known, biological causes for sexuality and gender identity.
If being trans really is a matter of specific BSTc volume then it doesn't make sense to talk about trans women who don't match.
This is precisely the sort of danger Annabel mentions. Quite obviously, being trans is not just a matter of specific BSTc volume. But if the two are collapsed, then what happens to the trans person who gets told that their BSTc isn't at the right level to be allowed treatment? Are they supposed to think "oh, I guess I was wrong all along about my gender. Thanks science, for showing me the error of my ways!"?
This is precisely the sort of danger Annabel mentions. Quite obviously, being trans is not just a matter of specific BSTc volume. But if the two are collapsed, then what happens to the trans person who gets told that their BSTc isn't at the right level to be allowed treatment? Are they supposed to think "oh, I guess I was wrong all along about my gender. Thanks science, for showing me the error of my ways!"?
Natural human variance makes this impossible.
One thing to keep in mind is that the amounts they give for any recommendation are based on an average; for the average person, this amount of iron in their diet is correct. For the average person, this many aspirin pills is correct. For the average child, this amount of exercise is correct.
The problem: It's easily possible that up to 90% of the people are not the average. Which is why all of those recommendations also suggest you consult an expert... because you just might vary from the average enough that the recommendation based upon the average is not correct for you.
Sometimes, just a tiny variance from the average can make a massive difference. Thyroid problems are a minor variance... yet the massive impact they can have upon a person's ability to lose weight is well known, and it's known that some people who have them can go their entire lives without ever getting to what is, for the average person, a healthy weight... despite, by all medical exams, being in perfect health except for their weight.
As such, they will never be able to say that you must have X amount of a chemical to be a trans person. There's just too much variance in human biology for that. Instead, the chemical test would at most reliable only establish a probability related to the average... and even then, it would be the same tests they have now that would establish what the actual result is. Most likely, the chemical test won't produce reliable results at all.
My point was, Annabel, and possibly you as well, seem to be dismissing the chance that science will get it right, to the point of dismissing the possibility of biological causes* and apparently implying that the whole topic is something that science can't usefully investigate or at least shouldn't investigate.
I do think it's possible for these sorts of biological theories of gender identity and sexuality to be empirically adequate. My understanding of the current scientific knowledge on the issue is that we are not yet there. That said, I don't think we should privilege this kind of biological knowledge as the definitive knowledge about our bodies. We should never say, for example, that it doesn't make sense to talk about trans people who don't match certain levels of BSTc, as if certain levels of BSTc are what it is to be trans. Further, I'm skeptical as to what the outcome of this knowledge-gathering will be. Like I said, I think the explanation is on the wrong level. Learning that a certain configuration of prenatal hormones correlates with being bisexual doesn't explain anything about what it means to be bisexual. We don't experience life as a slurry of chemicals. How are hormones or whatever to explain our subjective experiences? This knowledge may be useful for biomedical practice, but I think we have good reason to be skeptical about the results of that. I listed several examples of how this knowledge has been used to the detriment of the people it purports to explain.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Speaking as a non-expert in biology, pointing at individual papers purporting to give a biological cause of sexuality or gender identity is just unconvincing. A major obstacle to overcome is that prima facie, it appears to be an explanation on the wrong level. Gender and sexuality are very much social things, caught up in how others view us and how we view ourselves in relation to others.
In what way is it social?
In every culture, males primarily mate with females.
In every culture the assignment is usually based on the physical gender.
If this was social, wouldn't there be some society somewhere that does it differently? Either there's a heavy biological influence or there was a worldwide conspiracy going back to before when there was worldwide communication.
How could culture simultaneously punish homosexuality and yet continue to produce it? It doesn't seem like we have vastly different rates of homosexuality in say, Iran or the US despite the different cultures.
Furthermore just look on this thread. People are describing getting feelings that they didn't understand. People didn't even have a WORD for those feelings. How could society produce those feelings without ever cluing the individuals in as to what was going on?
Up until 1974, the DSM listed homosexuality as a mental disorder. It still lists transgenderism ("gender dysphoria") as a mental disorder.
Thats psychology. Not biology. BIIIG difference. I'll respect psychology a lot more when they tear down freud and put up a statue to Darwin.
The only way we could definitively prove this involves the sort of mad science that usually has to take place on a volcanic island shaped like a skull. I'm sure we COULD easily block certain chemicals at the periods when the physical characteristics, gender identity, and sexual orientation are being developed and then wait 20 years to see what would happen. I can hope you see that while doing the best we can, we're going to have to live with uncertainty.
edit: also just because we discover that one pathway produces an effect doesn't mean its the only way to get that same result. There are more than a few ways to get a tall individual or a short one for example.
I think there is work to be done in arguing why we should even expect gender identity and sexuality to be caused by biology. At least from what I've seen, that work hasn't been done.
Across species males primarily mate with females. The genetic benefits of this are obvious: more time mating with the opposite sex results in more kids which results in your genes getting passed on. Biology has a vested interest in producing an individual who wants to put tab A into slot B.
Trying to take science out of the matter entirely is epistemic nihilism. It leaves you with no way of every figuring out whats going on and without any grounding in reality. I don't see any reason or advantage in doing so.
If the feelings a homosexual has for the same gender are just as biologically based as a strait cis person's feelings for the opposite gender then that means they're just as valid. Its not "in your head" , its not a disease to be cured, its not something you can medicate away and above all its not a moral failing to be reproached. Its part of who and what you are.
Vivianne, I don't think what you're saying is even remotely possible.
Aside from the fact we actually do experience life as a slurry of chemicals (the brain is a bioelectric processor that generates and stores electrical potential as chemicals), there's also the fact that humans each respond, individually, a bit differently to the same chemicals. Most medical science is based on averages, approximations, and trial and error. Top it all off, human brain structure varies quite a bit naturally. Even keeping the womb exactly the same for two people, even with the same genetics, can result in different brain setups. So if gender is entirely based on brain structure, they will never be able to control it.
Plus, take a look into how drugs like LSD work. They can seriously, seriously alter how you are experiencing things, even for a short term, just due to how they interact with neurochemistry.
To say we will be able to utilize this knowledge is based on us having massively more medical knowledge than we actually do. So far, all examinations of controlling things like this suggest that the technology is so far beyond us it's not even worth considering. Even science fiction doesn't really consider it... precisely because of how far beyond us it is.
It's actually more likely we will destroy the universe by messing around with the Higgs-Boson than it is that we will discover how to control sexuality and gender in the womb.
Of course, that just means you only have to knock down the entire knowledge base of neurochemistry and neuroscience to prove that sexuality and gender are not linked to brain structure.
MagusJanus, thejeff said
it's quite possible that our experiences are a slurry of chemicals and electrical impulses along our particular configuration of nerves.
I bolded and italicized the important word. You are misunderstanding the basis for my disagreement. As I've said a couple times now, I think these scientific theories can be empirically adequate.
The current science on how the brain transfers information has this to say:
4.4 Transmission of nerve impulses: chemical transmission.
What happens when an impulse reaches the end of one neuron and must move to another neuron? The junction between two neurons or between a neuron and a muscle is called a synapse (Figure 5). The two cells involved in a synapse do not physically touch each other. Instead, they are separated by a very small space. The cell that carries the impulse to the synapse is the presynaptic cell, and the cell that receives the impulse is the postsynaptic cell. Information flows from the axon of the presynaptic cell, across the synapse, to the dendrites of the postsynaptic cell. But how does the information cross the synapse?When an impulse that is traveling along the presynaptic cell reaches the end of the axon, it causes that cell to release molecules known as neurotransmitters. These molecules are released into the synapse and diffuse approximately 20 millionths of a millimeter to where they bind with receptors on the dendrites of the postsynaptic cell (Figure 6). When neurotransmitters bind to the receptors, the charge across the postsynaptic membrane changes, and if the change is great enough, it triggers a nerve impulse. The new nerve impulse then travels along the postsynaptic cell.
Scientists have discovered a large number of neurotransmitters. Some are excitatory—they cause the postsynaptic neuron to become more likely to initiate a nerve impulse. Others are inhibitory—they cause the postsynaptic neuron to become less likely to generate a nerve impulse. How important are neurotransmitters to our nervous system? Ultimately, excitatory and inhibitory neurotransmitters are the very molecules responsible for producing a specific motor response to a sensory input.
And that's the basic version of what is known about chemical interactions within the brain and how they relate to information transference.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
'K, this is really ridiculous. Please stop quoting facts about the structure of the brain at me. It has nothing to do with anything I've said.
So your disagreement about our experiences, which are processed by the structures of the brain, and our gender and sexuality, which current science suggests is potentially related to the structure of the brain, is completely unrelated to the structure of the brain? And that Thejeff's comment about our experiences being a slurry of chemicals, which would be a comment about how the brain operates, is not disagreed with by you because of any reason related to the structure of the brain?
Well, then, what is related to your comments? Because it doesn't seem your comments are actually related to anything thejeff actually said at this point. I mean, how are you going to argue that the materialism aspect is wrong if the materialism itself has nothing to do with what you are arguing?
Vivianne, what are you actually discussing?
I give up. You don't seem to understand the difference between A being related to B and A being B.
Vivianne- I understand when someone is trying to move goalposts.
Thejeff's comment about our experiences potentially being a slurry of chemicals is a comment that is based on how the brain operates. I provided you the relevant section of the brain operation that backs that.
The bit about chemicals affecting brain structures? I linked you to two different sources that discuss that and show that our experiences and personalities are definitely related to brain structure. It also showed that differences in brain structures affect how the brain develops in other areas, meaning the changing one part of the brain potentially changes all of it. Needless to say, controlling this is well beyond anything resembling technology we'll have any time even remotely resembling soon. So the whole idea they can control this once they pin down what is causing gender and sexuality is assuming a lot about how easy it is... the science is saying that it's about as easy as trying to find a needle in a hay stack that sits on a bullet which was fired over someone's shoulder at another bullet while the person who fired it was riding a blindfolded horse while being blindfolded. And you're doing this at night, without any light. And even that may be giving our medical technology undue credit.
What I am not seeing is how your challenge to thejeff's comment about chemicals, and in turn your challenge of the entire science as being pure materialism, is not related to brain structure... especially considering brain structure and how it relates to gender and sexuality is what thejeff was discussing.
And the entire time, you are suggesting that the science will miss the point of what it is like to be bisexual by focusing on discovering the chemical causes. Which is a massive case of you missing the point: The science investigating this isn't trying to figure that out, or even figure out what it is like to be human. It's trying to figure out how the physical structures work and what is actually contained within a physical structure. The studies of what it's actually like are a completely different field of science. And that other field of science is the one primarily focused on actually making life better; the field studying brain structure is just trying to prove that saying being bisexual isn't natural is just a load of crap by proving, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that it is natural.
There are those investigating this. They're finding that they need more information on how the brain operates at a basic level before figuring out the more complicated stuff, such as how emotions relate to chemicals. So, mostly, if what I have read is correct they are just waiting on more information.
Also, to further address the issue of emotions...
So, it all comes down to the grey matter. Note the link is a bit old, so that is info that is out of date, but which is still relevant.
A handy guide to what a gay person is - written by Ms Hadley Freeman for the benefit of Misters Putin and Silvester.
Thats psychology. Not biology. BIIIG difference. I'll respect psychology a lot more when they tear down freud and put up a statue to Darwin.
*sigh*
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I had planned to post on this thread sooner, but sadly, had a long, lovely post typed out, then hit "send" -- right in the middle of the recent power outage to Paizo, and alas!! All Was Lost.
Resentment at my "loss" of course, and the thought of having to retype all that 'brilliance' prevented me from immediately returning to this thread. (Not that I'm sensitive, or lazy, or ego-driven...)
Anywhoo...
I've found this thread to be interesting, not that I've yet been able to read (yet) over 3500 posts to catch up. Even if it has drifted slightly from it's original intent - to share our experiences as LGBT and RPG'ers. (Boy, how's that for alphabet soup?)
Some of the more recent posts, delving into the science and biology of gender and sexuality are interesting to me, too -- but perhaps not for the reasons one might think. It's the underlying motive for the questions we ask I find intriguing. We seem as a species, sometimes to obsess on the question, "Why?" Maybe it's just human nature to have a need to compartmentalize everything and everyone - "pigeonhole" folks into their "proper" places, so we can establish pecking order, etc.
I'm often concerned that questions as to why a sexual orientation, gender, or gender identity has come about in an individual -- even from well-meaning open minded folk -- can imply that it's a "condition", and one that could be manipulated, changed, or avoided. Certainly, as an angst-filled teenager, if my orientation were up for revision, I'd have gone with Greg 2.0 - living within more acceptable parameters, whether it was who I was meant to be, or not. But happily, that turned out to be not an option for me - not that I, my parents, and my church didn't otherwise try.
Of late, I think the question, "why not?" has more validity to me. As a gay Christian and role-player, and recovering alcoholic and drug addict (and let me tell you, that makes for some real awkward social circles...), the Live and Let Live philosophy, though perhaps trite, has a deeper meaning more and more upon reflection. After all, with over 7 billion people on the planet, starvation and shortages of natural resources common stories, perhaps someone upstairs had the right idea (biology, environment, and other factors aside), when He (or She, if you prefer) designed some of us outside the "norm" - I worked in social services and child protection long enough to know that the ability to procreate is not always synonymous with the desirability of procreation - nor necessarily the only criteria for a good relationship.
Plus, we'd have a pretty boring Bestiary if our awesome game designers were limited in their creativity when they were designing all those lovely, lovely chunks of XP that inhabit our fantasy world(s) in all their fascinating variety. And I despise GM's who try to overly control the actions and direction of the players in the game, simply because they are too lazy, or creativity-challenged, to deviate from the path when the players want to wander into that section of the map entitled, "Here There Be Dragons..." The best games are the ones where, once the Game Designer has set the stage, the players write most of the story.
I think life is kinda that way, too.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks! Just wish I might have avoided a few dark and painful years and drawn these conclusions a little earlier in life...
But maybe that's a part of the story, too.
Monkster, your post is perfect ^^
And, it highlights what I hope science discovers... they can confirm it's natural, but can't control it. That eliminates the possibility of just pigeonholing with people I deal with.
(Asking this here because there doesn't seem to be a pm button on your user page.) Why was post #3573 removed? I serendipitously had a pre-deletion copy of this thread open on my tablet so I could reread it. I don't see anything in that post which is a personal insult.
Monkster, your post is perfect ^^
And, it highlights what I hope science discovers... they can confirm it's natural, but can't control it. That eliminates the possibility of just pigeonholing with people I deal with.
That box has already been potentially opened. I'm not going to mention the researcher by name because it's an unintended side effect of their work on a wholly different topic, and they received death threats and some terrible attempts at slander and fear-mongering in some corners of the media as a result of work attempting to treat side effects of a class of genetic metabolic disorders.
Extensions of their work have severe ethical issues if taken in different directions, but they, their work, and what they were attempting to treat in the first place weren't going there. The potential extension of the work was raised by someone outside of the scientific community.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's a radio interview with Laura Jane Grace of punk band Against Me!, about their new album, "Transgender Dysphoria Blues," their first album since she came out as trans and began transition.
I've listened to most of the album and it's pretty good, IMHO. A lot of the lyrics are really on target, at least in terms of my own experience with gender identity issues, and the various anxieties and difficulties that can go with being transgeder (particularly the track, "True Trans Soul Rebel").
And here's a live performance of the title track. Contains very strong language. And I'd guess the style of music (or even the particularly form of punk) is not to everyone's tastes.
Edit to add: A relevant quote from the interview:
I hope it opens their minds. That's kind of the point of doing interviews and being visibly trans... to make that something that's commonplace and make it a voice that's represented.
So I have been reading about how TV and movies need more LGBT characters and then they go on to list some that they like. From the lists, I think that they want more stereotypes instead of stronger written characters. One of my favorite lesbian characters is on White Collar. You only hear about her being a lesbian once in a while because it's not the defining characteristic. To me, that's how we should have more representation on TV and in movies. It should be obvious but not what defines a character. I think the stereotypes cause more problems than they solve. What do you all think?