The Cis / Privilege definition and intent discussion thread.


Off-Topic Discussions

1 to 50 of 892 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Putting this here so people can stop hijacking other threads.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'll just sit here and wait for the other two, you, know, 'cause


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It seems to me that a misunderstanding in the other (locked!) thread is what heterosexism and cissexism mean. Let's try to get on the same page here. I'll start with talking about heterosexism. I'll then move on to cissexism. Finally, I'll say a few things about what these concepts are not.

The word perhaps closest in meaning to heterosexism is homophobia; if you were to mentally replace "heterosexism" with "homophobia" in everything you read, you'd get most of the meaning. However, they are not quite synonymous. Homophobia is usually defined to mean prejudice or antipathy against gay people. Hate crimes are one manifestation of homophobia. Another is employment discrimination. But there are problems with the concept of homophobia. For one, it's about attitudes towards gay people. However, that doesn't exhaust every form of marginalization. What about attitudes that are about straight people? Often, it's not a negative attitude towards gay people, it's a view that heterosexuality is normal, preferred, etc.

Wikipedia defines heterosexism as

wikipedia wrote:
Heterosexism is a system of attitudes, bias, and discrimination in favor of opposite-sex sexuality and relationships. It can include the presumption that other people are heterosexual or that opposite-sex attractions and relationships are the only norm and therefore superior. Although heterosexism is defined in the online editions of the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language and the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary as anti-gay discrimination and/or prejudice "by heterosexual people" and "by heterosexuals",[4] respectively, people of any sexual orientation can hold such attitudes and bias. Nonetheless, heterosexism as discrimination ranks gays, lesbians, bisexuals and other sexual minorities as second-class citizens with regard to various legal and civil rights, economic opportunities, and social equality in many of the world’s jurisdictions and societies.

Some manifestations of heterosexism are equating sex with PIV sex (or in general sex between a woman and a man); assuming people are straight by default (this often happens in medical care); and underrepresentation of gay and bisexual people in fiction. For an explicit example from my own life, when I went through sex ed in school as a child, no mention was made of the possibility that two men or two women could engage in sex together.

A related term is heteronormativity. It's a bit narrower in scope in refers to the idea that heterosexuality is the natural way, that men and women have certain complementary roles.

There are reasons to prefer the word heterosexism over homophobia. Sometimes, it's just more accurate. But I don't think that's the only reason. As I mentioned above, homophobia is usually defined to mean prejudice or antipathy against gay people. That's completely inaccurate. Bisexual people are also targets of homophobia. In this way, the word homophobia often contributes to bisexual erasure (a manifestation of monosexism, which I'll briefly touch on later). Another reason I prefer the word is that I think it puts the focus where it ought to be. The word homophobia might suggest that privileging heterosexuality is okay, so long as we aren't actively prejudicial towards gay and bisexual people. Heterosexism avoids this.

At this point, cissexism should be easy to understand: cissexism is to transphobia as heterosexism is to homophobia. Cissexism is the idea that being cisgender is more natural or should be privileged over being transgender. Some manifestations of cissexism are trying to locate gender in the body or chromosomes; privileging cis people's desires over the safety of trans people (see the "trans panic" defense); and referring to trans women with masculine pronouns and trans men with feminine pronouns.

Another term you might see used is monosexism. Again defining by analogy: monosexism is to biphobia as heterosexism is to homophobia. A common manifestation of monosexism is assuming that everyone is monosexual---attracted to only one gender---or assuming that one can determine someone's sexual orientation just by looking at the gender of their current sexual partner.

Finally, let's talk about what these terms are not. Heterosexism is not the same as heterosexuality or straight people. Cissexism is not the same as cis people. Monosexism is not the same as monosexual people. Indeed, being cisgender (or straight, or monosexual) is not a requirement for engaging in cissexism (or heterosexism, or monosexism). We are all influenced by society; gay people don't have some magical immunity that protects them from picking up and reproducing heterosexism. Being against a system that privileges some forms of sexuality or gender over others doesn't mean that one is against people whose sexuality or gender is of the dominant form. If someone says that cissexism is a bad thing, they are not saying that cisgender people are bad.

Here's some resources that may be useful:

  • Definitions: homophobia, heterosexism, and sexual prejudice
  • What is transphobia? And what is cissexism?
  • Tackling transphobia

  • The Exchange

    4 people marked this as a favorite.

    Play with the language and word enough and you can forever scream that no one understands and they are wrong. i am convinced that this is all a game to always be able to whine and attack others for terms used, and then feel it is ok to label others whatever you want and berate them if they do not like it.


    8 people marked this as a favorite.
    Vivian Laflamme wrote:
    assuming people are straight by default (this often happens in medical care)

    I'm having a hard time seeing prejudice in an assumption that is 95% or so correct.

    Contributor

    11 people marked this as a favorite.
    Vivianne Laflamme wrote:
    Some manifestations of cissexism are trying to locate gender in the body or chromosomes

    Back up here, because that statement really seems to suggest that you're saying that any scientific attempt to determine the origins of internal gender identity which includes being able to measure and quantify it is somehow cissexist?

    Given that it appears to be an emergent property within the brain with a measurable biological origin, whose causes are increasingly subject to scientific inquiry, you might be facing a headlong collision between ideology and biology.

    Unless you meant something less horribly broad (such as condemning as cissexist attempts to solely define gender by XX and XY, which clearly isn't the case as science has shown rather definitively).

    Because it's absolutely in the body, just not absolutely defined by the chromosomes (though the genes therein, methylation of said genes therein, and the effect of the uterine environment in the presence of that web of complexity do in face play a role).

    This thread feels like something off of Tumblr. That's not a good thing.

    The Exchange

    4 people marked this as a favorite.

    We really do not need a word for the 90% without gender issues, just like we do not need a word for not an amputee or not a tattooed person. Like it or not NOT having gender issues is the norm and the vast bulk of humanity. Any need you have to label it i think comes from either wanting to be insulting or an attempt to make the other side seem more equivalent.


    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    Andrew R wrote:
    Play with the language and word enough and you can forever scream that no one understands and they are wrong. i am convinced that this is all a game to always be able to whine and attack others for terms used, and then feel it is ok to label others whatever you want and berate them if they do not like it.

    It took me a moment to realize you weren't talking about yourself.


    My last "Irontruth is back! Yay!" post disappeared down this past weekend's memory hole, so

    Irontruth is back! Yay!


    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    (I know it breaks the Don Juan de Doodlebug character but...)

    I used to game with this hawt Parsi chick that briefly dated my hetero life partner. That game broke up (and she and my hlp broke up) and I would run into her occasionally over the years. One time, we were catching up and the topic turned to our respective love lives.

    "Oh," she said, "I just stay home and play World of Warcraft. I think I've turned asexual. How about you?"

    "Me too," I replied, "Except I'm not asexual. Autosexual, maybe, but definitely not asexual..."


    My comrade has a Facebook page for our NH commie club and a while back he posted an article about the Stonewall Riots.

    Some folks gave him shiznit because it didn't talk about the oppression of transsexuals.

    We were talking about it at Worcester Pride and I was like, "Wtf? Stonewall was a drag queen bar. That's about as trans as you could get in 1969!"

    Then me and another comrade (his wife) argued about whether drag queens were trans or not. I'm pretty sure they are.

    Whattaya say, thread?

    Digital Products Assistant

    Removed a couple posts/replies. Let's leave the sniping out of the conversation, and please revisit the messageboard rules.


    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    Todd Stewart wrote:
    Vivianne Laflamme wrote:
    Some manifestations of cissexism are trying to locate gender in the body or chromosomes

    Back up here, because that statement really seems to suggest that you're saying that any scientific attempt to determine the origins of internal gender identity which includes being able to measure and quantify it is somehow cissexist?

    Given that it appears to be an emergent property within the brain with a measurable biological origin, whose causes are increasingly subject to scientific inquiry, you might be facing a headlong collision between ideology and biology.

    Unless you meant something less horribly broad (such as condemning as cissexist attempts to solely define gender by XX and XY, which clearly isn't the case as science has shown rather definitively).

    Because it's absolutely in the body, just not absolutely defined by the chromosomes (though the genes therein, methylation of said genes therein, and the effect of the uterine environment in the presence of that web of complexity do in face play a role).

    This thread feels like something off of Tumblr. That's not a good thing.

    I agree with Todd...If there isn't a biological explanation or underpinning to gender/sexuality orientation, than you are left with it either being a supernatural explanation, such as a property of the soul (which really isn't what science is about), or a cultural/upbringing phenomena, which I feel is not accurate for most people, who state they were "born" that way.


    Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:

    My comrade has a Facebook page for our NH commie club and a while back he posted an article about the Stonewall Riots.

    Some folks gave him shiznit because it didn't talk about the oppression of transsexuals.

    We were talking about it at Worcester Pride and I was like, "Wtf? Stonewall was a drag queen bar. That's about as trans as you could get in 1969!"

    Then me and another comrade (his wife) argued about whether drag queens were trans or not. I'm pretty sure they are.

    Whattaya say, thread?

    Drag Queens and Trans-sexual are definitely different. Though there's probably some overlap, especially back when actually transitioning wasn't really possible.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Stick Doing the Beating wrote:
    I'll just sit here and wait for the other two, you, know, 'cause

    UGH!


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Andrew R wrote:
    We really do not need a word for the 90% without gender issues, just like we do not need a word for not an amputee or not a tattooed person. Like it or not NOT having gender issues is the norm and the vast bulk of humanity. Any need you have to label it i think comes from either wanting to be insulting or an attempt to make the other side seem more equivalent.

    Except if you are talking about that "10%", in which case it's good to have terms and definitions that facilitate discussion.


    Stick Doing the Beating wrote:
    I'll just sit here and wait for the other two, you, know, 'cause

    Yeah Yeah


    Hmmm. I usually let it go when my posts disappear, but just wanted to say that I was unaware that that was an objectionable term. (Not sure I believe it, but, whatevs.)

    I'd repost the question with the word "transvestism" instead, but I read on the wikipedia page for the objectionable term that it "is not much favored by the [objectionable term] themselves."

    EDITED


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    I also note that the objectionable term is listed as one of the transgender identities on the wikipedia page for Transgender.

    Not that I expect wikipedia is definitive.

    EDIT: For Comrade Jeff, whose post I saw before it disappeared down the memory hole.

    EDIT: Yes, IT.


    Thanks for the welcome back.

    I really want to know what the objectionable term is now.

    Edit: Never mind, I think I got it. Dustin Hoffman played one once?


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Todd Stewart wrote:

    Back up here, because that statement really seems to suggest that you're saying that any scientific attempt to determine the origins of internal gender identity which includes being able to measure and quantify it is somehow cissexist?

    Given that it appears to be an emergent property within the brain with a measurable biological origin, whose causes are increasingly subject to scientific inquiry, you might be facing a headlong collision between ideology and biology.

    Unless you meant something less horribly broad (such as condemning as cissexist attempts to solely define gender by XX and XY, which clearly isn't the case as science has shown rather definitively).

    Because it's absolutely in the body, just not absolutely defined by the chromosomes (though the genes therein, methylation of said genes therein, and the effect of the uterine environment in the presence of that web of complexity do in face play a role).

    Even look at the neuroscience and how it has moved forward in its project on gender.

    First, neuroscientists imaged the brains of cis men and women. They take these brains, and by interrogating only the differences between the two genders, they established the "true gender*" in the brain. Next, they imaged a sample of trans men and women's brains. Gathering them together, they surveyed these brains for their similarities to the "true gender*" that was established in the bodies of cis men and women.

    So, part of the disagreement here is epistimological: nueroscience began its project by constructing "true gender*" as a quality of cis brains. How did they know which brain differences they tabulated were the "cause" of gender? They made reference to the already social identification of gender as a quality of sex. There are constellations of gender which each brain's body comfortably fit in: they have "typically" sexed bodies and they dress, act, speak, and move in ways that are sufficient to admit them into a "matching" gender. Statistical inference is used to identify brain differences which line up along categories that were already socially constituted. Science didn't "discover" gender in the brain: science discovered brain differences that correlated with the constellations of gender.

    These facts actually brings into light the inherent cissexism of neuroscientific approaches to constructing gender as inherent to the body: they begin from the assumption that cisgender people physically constitute "true gender*." Thus, neuroscience casts trans men and women as derivations of cisgender people, only matching their gender identity so long as sufficient neurological evidence can be martialed to justify their claim to the status unquestionably afforded to cisgender people.

    As mentioned above, science discovers differences that correlated with the constellations of gender. An interesting thing to take away from here is that the science of gender is both socially constituted (dependent on these constellations), and at the same time the science of gender is socially constituting gender. By bringing brains into question, certain brain configurations become taken up into gender, as an element in their constellations. The science of gender is a social practice that helps produce gender, and authoritative scientific discourse helps produce a narrow categories of ligitimized gender. This is what made the questions I posed at the close of this post apropos. Brains are certainly part of what constitutes gender (neuroscientists have seen to that), but authorizing neuroscience (or any biomedical science) as the authority over what constitutes gender (gender essentialization) is very dangerous.

    And this brings us to where the disagreement is ontological: when you say "gender is rooted in the body" you seem to have stripped gender of everything except that which can be rendered through biomedical technology. Gender has been reduced to a quality of our nucleotide sequences, gene expression profiles, cellular physiology, or brain morphology. Of course, this kind of reductionism makes images like this unintelligible. What are the genders of the two characters in this image, and in what ways to we come to know their genders? This can even be scientifically investigated, by showing this image to children and adults alike. There will be a significant number of people who will identify the character on the left as a man or male and the character on the right as a woman or female. I am not being glib: there is a significant loss that occurs when rendering gender down to biological facts about the body that make "true gender*" incommensurable with gender.


    3 people marked this as a favorite.

    So where does gender come from in human beings, and what causes a male to identify with a female gender, and vice versa.

    I am not sure if cartoons not being able to be analysed under gender conceptions based on physiology and neuroscience is any more reasonable criticism than saying evolution as a hypothesis fails because I can't plug mickey mouse into a cladistic analysis.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    I've always thought that homophobia was an ill-chosen term for the irrational hatred of homosexuals. Phobics stand paralyzed or run screaming from the object of their fear. Rarely do they beat the crap out of it while shouting slurs.


    Shadowborn wrote:
    I've always thought that homophobia was an ill-chosen term for the irrational hatred of homosexuals. Phobics stand paralyzed or run screaming from the object of their fear. Rarely do they beat the crap out of it while shouting slurs.

    Actually attack isn't an uncommon reaction to fear. Even if it's just "Make it go away. It's icky."

    It's probably a poor choice, just because it provokes such analysis though


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Shadowborn wrote:
    I've always thought that homophobia was an ill-chosen term for the irrational hatred of homosexuals. Phobics stand paralyzed or run screaming from the object of their fear. Rarely do they beat the crap out of it while shouting slurs.

    "I hate the word homophobia. It's not a phobia. You are not scared; you are an a$$hole."

    Quote attributed to Morgan Freeman, but actually from a parody account not associated with the actor - see the Snopes page: http://www.snopes.com/politics/sexuality/freeman.asp

    Still well worth quoting, and I can definitely hear it in Morgan Freeman's voice.


    9 people marked this as a favorite.
    Annabel wrote:


    First, neuroscientists imaged the brains of cis men and women. They take these brains, and by interrogating only the differences between the two genders, they established the "true gender*" in the brain.

    I very seriously doubt the term "true" was used or considered, especially in the way you are thinking. That would be very bad science.

    Yes, being cisgendered and having neural architecture and brain chemistry that matches your external gender architecture is the default state of the human organism. Changes from the default state in any organism in any area can be highly advantageous and eufunctional, leading to increased natural selection. They can also be disadvantaging or neutral, or all of the above depending on specific environmental pressures and niches. Change is the state of the organism, generally speaking. It's how life works.

    Quote:
    So, part of the disagreement here is epistimological: nueroscience began its project by constructing "true gender*" as a quality of cis brains.

    You do have to run a baseline in order to observe what changes. That isn't a value judgment on either the baseline or the changes.

    Quote:
    How did they know which brain differences they tabulated were the "cause" of gender? They made reference to the already social identification of gender as a quality of sex.

    With respect, I get the feeling that biology in general and neuroscience in particular is not your preferred field. You aren't going to get any good results trying to read a neuroscience paper while substituting the contextual meanings, referents and definitions from sociology. That really isn't what they mean by that.

    As a trans person, I certainly do very much want science to better understand transgendered neural architecture. For starters, it's likely to be crucial to substantially improving our future medical care and our ability to more fully transition with parts that feel and work right in the brain as well as the body, especially for us FTM folks. Science isn't there yet, but it isn't ever going to get there if people attack the scientists with pitchforks and burn down the labs instead of respecting what they're doing for our future.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    thejeff wrote:
    Shadowborn wrote:
    I've always thought that homophobia was an ill-chosen term for the irrational hatred of homosexuals. Phobics stand paralyzed or run screaming from the object of their fear. Rarely do they beat the crap out of it while shouting slurs.

    Actually attack isn't an uncommon reaction to fear. Even if it's just "Make it go away. It's icky."

    It's probably a poor choice, just because it provokes such analysis though

    I think you're out of luck if you're going to try to shame people for having an "ick" reaction.

    If one wants other people to respect and validate their feelings for another person of the same gender and the right to express those feelings physically then I think it would behoove them to respect that other people may feel a little awkward with it.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Am still having a hard time figuring out why that post was deleted. Find it hard to believe the term is objectionable since a search of the messageboards reveals that the term has been used 400+ times and I doubt most of them were used in reference to the Stonewall Riots.

    But maybe it was the cursing.

    Anyway, Annabel and Vivianne, since you two seem to be the resident experts on multisyllabic gradschoolese transgender issues: where does the lifestyle famously connected with the Stonewall Riots (although, a google search reveals that this connection may have been dubious; although I can't say I entirely trust a website who's subheading is "Forging a Gay Mainstream") fall in the wide, wild world of trans?

    Another search of the messageboards reveals that I appear to be the only poster thus far who has brought up the case of CeCe McDonald.

    Not bad for a straight white (actually, green) cis boy from New Hampshire.


    So, what are we talking about? I saw the word trans affiliated terms a bunch of times, so I should probably weigh in, but I can't find whatever thread this sprung from and I'm too drunk, tired, and ADHD to pick through the walls of text right now.


    BigNorseWolf wrote:
    thejeff wrote:
    Shadowborn wrote:
    I've always thought that homophobia was an ill-chosen term for the irrational hatred of homosexuals. Phobics stand paralyzed or run screaming from the object of their fear. Rarely do they beat the crap out of it while shouting slurs.

    Actually attack isn't an uncommon reaction to fear. Even if it's just "Make it go away. It's icky."

    It's probably a poor choice, just because it provokes such analysis though

    I think you're out of luck if you're going to try to shame people for having an "ick" reaction.

    If one wants other people to respect and validate their feelings for another person of the same gender and the right to express those feelings physically then I think it would behoove them to respect that other people may feel a little awkward with it.

    Shaming people wasn't my intent. At least not for the "ick" reaction.

    Maybe for the "Make it go away" part.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    I swear I wasn't going to post in this thread... {sigh}

    Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:
    Anyway, Annabel and Vivianne, since you two seem to be the resident experts on multisyllabic gradschoolese transgender issues: where does the lifestyle famously connected with the Stonewall Riots (although, a google search reveals that this connection may have been dubious; although I can't say I entirely trust a website who's subheading is "Forging a Gay Mainstream") fall in the wide, wild world of trans?

    I'm not an expert on Stonewall by any means, but I dug some links up at the Sylvia Rivera Law Project that might provide a good start to your search:

    A Woman for Her Time by Riki Wilchins
    Leslie Feinberg Interviews Sylvia Rivera
    Wikipedia entry for Sylvia Rivera

    There have/has been a push by some G and L folk with "The Community" to attempt to whitewash the contributions of self-identified Trans* people at Stonewall and beyond, as well as attempts to whitewash their self-identifications.

    Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:

    Another search of the messageboards reveals that I appear to be the only poster thus far who has brought up the case of CeCe McDonald.

    Not bad for a straight white (actually, green) cis boy from New Hampshire.

    I've been following CeCe McDonald's recent release, as well as the stupidity/inappropriateness of the Katy Couric questions to Laverne Cox and Carmen Carrera, and the Grantland article about Dr. V, and Fallon Fox's struggles within the MMA on another messageboard/community... but I wasn't about to introduce any new Trans* (or LGB either) discussion here because I didn't want to see it get gnawed over, belittled, dismissed, and disrespected by the usual (thankfully small) gang of individuals.


    thejeff wrote:

    Shaming people wasn't my intent. At least not for the "ick" reaction.

    Maybe for the "Make it go away" part.

    fair enough


    Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
    So, what are we talking about? I saw the word trans affiliated terms a bunch of times, so I should probably weigh in, but I can't find whatever thread this sprung from and I'm too drunk, tired, and ADHD to pick through the walls of text right now.

    Gamer Talk--How Often Do People Have Nontraditional Parties, or something like that. Not that you really need to have been in that thread to jump into this one.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Ambrosia Slaad wrote:

    I swear I wasn't going to post in this thread... {sigh}

    I'm not an expert on Stonewall by any means, but I dug some links up at the Sylvia Rivera Law Project that might provide a good start to your search:

    A Woman for Her Time by Riki Wilchins
    Leslie Feinberg Interviews Sylvia Rivera
    Wikipedia entry for Sylvia Rivera

    There have/has been a push by some G and L folk with "The Community" to attempt to whitewash the contributions of self-identified Trans* people at Stonewall and beyond, as well as attempts to whitewash their self-identifications.

    Yeah, I googled [objectionable term] and Stonewall and that was the first article I got. I scanned the beginning, posted it and read the rest later. When I got to

    "And speaking of the merits, drafting legislation is an immensely complicated task that involves putting together a coalition of supporters. Gay civil rights legislation would be stalled or effectively killed in many places if transgenders were included. The choice is often between a more inclusive bill that goes nowhere and a less inclusive bill that actually becomes law. It is not "transphobic" to make this point; it is pragmatic,"

    I decided my gut instinct about not trusting those trying to forge a gay mainstream was right on the money.

    Thank you for the additional links on Rivera, Comrade Slaad, especially the commie one.

    If I may toot my own straight cis white boy horn again, I first visited NYC as a wee goblin of 16 to march in the International Socialist Organization's contingent at Stonewall 25.

    Vive le Galt!

    Also, Musical Interlude


    TanithT wrote:
    Annabel wrote:


    First, neuroscientists imaged the brains of cis men and women. They take these brains, and by interrogating only the differences between the two genders, they established the "true gender*" in the brain.
    I very seriously doubt the term "true" was used or considered, especially in the way you are thinking. That would be very bad science.

    Whether they use the term "true" or not doesn't determine the scientificity of neuroscience. But it is indisputable that neuroscience of gender proceeds on the premise that there is the essence of gender in the brain (gender essentialism).

    TanithT wrote:
    Annabel wrote:
    So, part of the disagreement here is epistimological: nueroscience began its project by constructing "true gender*" as a quality of cis brains.
    You do have to run a baseline in order to observe what changes. That isn't a value judgment on either the baseline or the changes.

    I wasn't disputing that this is what they do: I was troubling and making visible the assumption that gender comes from cisgender brains. And, of course they're making the value judgment: the judgment was made before they even began image cis brains for evidence of gender. Calling it "the baseline" doesn't change the fact that legitimate gender was first established in cis brains.

    TanithT wrote:
    Annabel wrote:
    How did they know which brain differences they tabulated were the "cause" of gender? They made reference to the already social identification of gender as a quality of sex.
    With respect, I get the feeling that biology in general and neuroscience in particular is not your preferred field. You aren't going to get any good results trying to read a neuroscience paper while substituting the contextual meanings, referents and definitions from sociology. That really isn't what they mean by that.

    You're mistaken, biology is my preferred field. I both study biology and study scientific thought. Don't take my irreverent speech about science and scientific practice as evidence of some sort of ignorance.

    Though I do have significant problems with how science is conducted within neuro"science." When Todd made claim to a broad scientific consensus brought about by neuroscience, I kind of giggled. In the biology circles I move through, neuroscience is taken with a grain of salt.

    TanithT wrote:
    As a trans person, I certainly do very much want science to better understand transgendered neural architecture. For starters, it's likely to be crucial to substantially improving our future medical care and our ability to more fully transition with parts that feel and work right in the brain as well as the body, especially for us FTM folks.

    I have no doubt that neuroscience can find a way to contribute to the welbeing of trans men and women, and I honestly hope neuroscience achieves this. But if we're asking the question "what kind of science do we need to make bodily transitions that better fit how we experience ourselves," that question doesn't rest on ensuring that the "truth" of gender as an essentialized characteristic of the brain.

    TanithT wrote:
    Science isn't there yet, but it isn't ever going to get there if people attack the scientists with pitchforks and burn down the labs instead of respecting what they're doing for our future.

    Biomedical science isn't an apolitical project, and I see no pitchforks in my speech. I was being critical of the speech of Todd and neuroscientists that reduce gender to a characteristic of the brain. What I saw was the construction of two new classes of trans people: the legitimized gender-neurotypified trans people and the deligitimized non-gender-neurotypified trans people. The former are those who have the "correct" brain configuration to legitimize their claim to trans status, and the latter do not. I want to avoid a future where genderqueer (and many unnamed "others") are marginalized because we found it politically expedient today to anchor gender in the brains of cis people and a handful of trans people with "correct" brain configurations.

    Contributor

    7 people marked this as a favorite.
    Annabel wrote:


    Whether they use the term "true" or not doesn't determine the scientificity of neuroscience. But it is indisputable that neuroscience of gender proceeds on the premise that there is the essence of gender in the brain (gender essentialism).

    No it doesn't. Any terminology used has emerged out of prior research, which has overturned some of the grotesque notions about gender that were part of the 20th century (see the horror that was inflicted upon David Reimer due to the notion of gender as socially constructed).

    I find it truly bizarre that you see bias in the use of classifications which emerge out of observed physical differences between groups with a spread of self-identified genders both in congruence and different from their biological sex. Most studies don't start by classifying people into groups according to what the researcher wants to define them as. They take a population that self-identifies as cis or trans, or homo/bi/heterosexual and then compare the data from each group to the others.

    If I'm studying red-green colorblindness, is it biased to use the term dichromats? Is it biased to refer to the majority of the human population as trichromats as a classification? Or to refer to those very few people who see additional colors as tetrachromats? Or are the biological underpinnings of gender a special snowflake that science isn't allowed to examine according to ______? I'm confused as to where you're approaching this from, though there's a lot of social deterministic undertones.

    Annabel wrote:

    I wasn't disputing that this is what they do: I was troubling and making visible the assumption that gender comes from cisgender brains. And, of course they're making the value judgment: the judgment was made before they even began imagine cis brains for evidence of gender. Calling it "the baseline" doesn't change the fact that legitimate gender was first established in cis brains.

    I really think that you're projecting that onto the available research. They aren't making value judgements, they aren't referring to anything as "legetimate" or not. They're observing the differences between multiple self-identified groups, attempting to find out what processes lead to those differences, which of those differences play a roll in internal gender identity, and which in sexual orientation.

    Quote:
    You're mistaken, biology is my preferred field.

    If you say so.


    Todd Stewart wrote:


    If I'm studying red-green colorblindness, is it biased to use the term dichromats? Is it biased to refer to the majority of the human population as trichromats as a classification? Or to refer to those very few people who see additional colors as tetrachromats?

    I do not know. But if trichromat is slowly becoming slang for jerk, and tetrachromat is slowly becoming slang for crazy, then that's a problem. Not necessarily of your making, but it's something to consider.

    Grand Lodge

    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
    Shadowborn wrote:
    I've always thought that homophobia was an ill-chosen term for the irrational hatred of homosexuals. Phobics stand paralyzed or run screaming from the object of their fear. Rarely do they beat the crap out of it while shouting slurs.

    Not by themselves. But get several of them together and you have instead of one frighthened individual, you have a gang or a mob. The Fear dynamics take on new meanings toward when mob/gang psychology is thrown in. The individual villager runs away from Frankenstein and his Monster. The pack of individual frightened villagers however, gather together and burn down his castle. Similarly, most Matthew Sheppard type events are committed by a group of people as opposed to solo individuals.

    You have to understand that homophobes feel directly threatened by the mere existence of that they fear. This becomes exacerbated in a society where gender roles aren't as rigidly defined as they used to be.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Annabel said wrote:
    Biomedical science isn't an apolitical project, and I see no pitchforks in my speech. I was being critical of the speech of Todd and neuroscientists that reduce gender to a characteristic of the brain. What I saw was the construction of two new classes of trans people: the legitimized gender-neurotypified trans people and the deligitimized non-gender-neurotypified trans people. The former are those who have the "correct" brain configuration to legitimize their claim to trans status, and the latter do not. I want to avoid a future where genderqueer (and many unnamed "others") are marginalized because we found it politically expedient today to anchor gender in the brains of cis people and a handful of trans people with "correct" brain configurations.

    Again we are left with the situation that if gender isn't a characteristic of architecture of the brain, where does it stem from?

    I don't see identifying neural patterns evident in someone of typical female or male sex as necessarily discriminatory, anymore than I find figuring out the mechanisms that control melanin production to be discriminatory towards people of different racial backgrounds.

    I also don't really see a future where people are going to use brain scan data to discriminate against people who identity as male but are female (or vice versa). This feels like it's less an argument against the validity of the science as it is in future use.


    Todd Stewart wrote:
    Annabel wrote:
    You're mistaken, biology is my preferred field.
    If you say so.

    If you're going to accuse me of lying, then I am not really interested in continuing this conversation.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:


    "And speaking of the merits, drafting legislation is an immensely complicated task that involves putting together a coalition of supporters. Gay civil rights legislation would be stalled or effectively killed in many places if transgenders were included. The choice is often between a more inclusive bill that goes nowhere and a less inclusive bill that actually becomes law. It is not "transphobic" to make this point; it is pragmatic,"

    I decided my gut instinct about not trusting those trying to forge a gay mainstream was right on the money.

    Also, Musical Interlude

    Well, that's just your anti-incrementalist tendencies showing. Not saying you're wrong, you just never trust an incrementalist.

    Another musical interlude.

    Liberty's Edge

    Annabel wrote:
    Todd Stewart wrote:
    Annabel wrote:
    You're mistaken, biology is my preferred field.
    If you say so.
    If you're going to accuse me of lying, then I am not really interested in continuing this conversation.

    Actually Todd's more accusing you of being an anti-structuralist. Which is fully supported by your anti-science comments.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Instead of making accusations, why not instead ask questions and seek clarifying remarks?

    Just because someone has a problem with how scientists talk about a subject, doesn't mean they're anti-science. There have been plenty of scientists who have done deplorable things in a misguided effort to "help" people.

    Liberty's Edge

    Krensky wrote:
    Annabel wrote:
    Todd Stewart wrote:
    Annabel wrote:
    You're mistaken, biology is my preferred field.
    If you say so.
    If you're going to accuse me of lying, then I am not really interested in continuing this conversation.
    Actually Todd's more accusing you of being an anti-structuralist. Which is fully supported by your anti-science comments.

    I think he's accusing her of being an anti-cisstructuralist, and I'd assert that you feel that her comments are anti-cisscience. I think that that clarifies things a bit.

    1 to 50 of 892 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / The Cis / Privilege definition and intent discussion thread. All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.