The LGBT Gamer Community Thread.

[Sissyl]

Oppressive biology? If I said that, I would refer to the fact that we're all victims of our own biology. It can be pretty durned oppressive. Huntington's disease comes to mind.

Racist biology is political s~&~ layered on biological research. However, just as an example, we know that there is a far higher genetic variability among people with more recent roots in Africa (such as the American black population) than other populations, thereby giving them a greater risk of idiopathic side effects of various types of medication. Is this racist science?

My point is that it is the "ought" and the politics that make a field racist, not the concept of race as is.

[Kryzbyn]

Or in instances when you know damn well you are female, but your shell makes you shave it's face and wear roomy underwear.

I could see that being very oppressive.

[thejeff]

mechaPoet wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

MechaPoet wrote:

Oppressive biology is still biology

Can you give an example? Biology deals with is. Ought is (unfortunately) for the politicians and philosophers.

Google "racist biology" and have fun

So what's the point? Where are you going with all this?

Should we abandon any attempt to understand our own biology due to racist biology in the past? Do we drop the terms male and female entirely? Ignore all the research that suggests that, statistically speaking, there are strong biological trends in behavior linked to these things we're no longer calling "male" and "female"?

Obviously all of this can be and has been taken too far, but that doesn't mean there's nothing there. Chemicals affect how we think and how we act and there are a lot of chemical differences that are strongly sex linked.

[mechaPoet]

Here's a pretty good example:

It is transphobic to describe a trans person as being "biologically" the gender they were assigned at birth (which is determined by the very scientific and extensive test of penis=male and vagina=female and intersex=well let's mutilate this child's genitals to make it conform to the gender binary). I am a nonbinary person (and therefore not cisgender), and as you have pointed out I am a biological entity. But some people will say I'm "biologically" not nonbinary.

So there are two ways to take this: 1) this statement is not "really" biologically sound, and therefore biology gets a free pass--again, the No True Scotsman method of divorcing a field you value from its violent history, or 2) we double down on the idea that humans have two biological sexes, as defined by the history of biological study. Cool. Maybe this is accurate biology. But that definition is an act of violence, and these definitions are maintained by people who are products of culture (among other things), and who live in and contribute to social reality. Ultimately biology doesn't exist except as a human invention (what we describe with biology exists without humans, but not biology itself), because it is a changing scientific field of study. And the conclusions given as "objective fact" by this field of study are a form of culture with real social influence.

[mechaPoet]

I am not against science, and for political buzzwords.

I am against science that declares itself objectively infallible while telling me that my existence is incorrect, and for the words that had to be invented to describe myself that science has failed to give me.

[MRomanova]

mechaPoet wrote:

I am not against science, and for political buzzwords.

I am against science that declares itself objectively infallible while telling me that my existence is incorrect, and for the words that had to be invented to describe myself that science has failed to give me.

Science operates under the assumption that until something is disproven, it can't possibly be wrong. Try telling someone way back when that the earth was flat... or was the center of the universe. That is just what they thought was right, and it wasn't. Just like assuming gender runs on a binary, black and white, either/or. It doesn't. Not everything fits in a neat little box, and unfortunately, that viewpoint isn't very popular.

[Drejk]

So the issue you have with the biology is that you have very limited knowledge of biology and, like many other people fail to recognize when others are incorrectly using arguments that are pretending to be scientifically sound while they are not?

[Sissyl]

"my existence is incorrect"??? I am sorry, I don't follow. You are a biological creature (or were, until you became a battlemech), and as such you are merely an expression of biochemistry like all other humans. This biochemistry has all sorts of bad consequences for the individual, such as child diabetes, Huntington's disease, colour blindness, being short, having poor vision, and whatever else. These things happen because THERE IS NO REWARD FOR BEING 'PERFECT', whatever that would mean. The only reward is for getting children and those children in turn getting you grandchildren. Everything else is, as far as our biology is concerned, pretty much irrelevant. Nevertheless, it affects us deeply. Even for the systems that affect our fertility, biology never gets to 100%. Some people are born without genitals, and no part of the human body is immune to severe dysfunction by genetics.

So... you are who you are. No matter your genetics, you know who you are and who you want to be. There is NO WAY to be "incorrect". I repeat: You can NEVER draw an 'ought' from biology and call it science. What kinds of revolting things people have done previously and called it biology is not even close to relevant.

[Drejk]

And completely changing the topic...

It seems that our fugitive will be back here!

Certain Crystal Frazier, which some of you might remember, is going to work for Paizo. Again. Or at least so she wrote on her Facebook yesterday.

[Sissyl]

Cool!

[thejeff]

MRomanova wrote:

mechaPoet wrote:

I am not against science, and for political buzzwords.

I am against science that declares itself objectively infallible while telling me that my existence is incorrect, and for the words that had to be invented to describe myself that science has failed to give me.

Science operates under the assumption that until something is disproven, it can't possibly be wrong. Try telling someone way back when that the earth was flat... or was the center of the universe. That is just what they thought was right, and it wasn't. Just like assuming gender runs on a binary, black and white, either/or. It doesn't. Not everything fits in a neat little box, and unfortunately, that viewpoint isn't very popular.

That's not at all how sciences operates. It's occasionally how scientists operate and often how humans operate, but it's not at all how the scientific method works. The theory is actually that scientific theories can't actually be proven, only disproven. Until and unless disproven, scientists will generally stick with the working theories, but not think they "can't possibly be wrong". Some have an awful lot of failed attempts at disproof and are considered very solid, but even they get a lot of tweaking around the edges. Beyond that, science doesn't really worry about Truth. Theories and models are useful or not useful. They make correct predictions or they don't. It's understood they will eventually be superseded by more accurate models, more useful theories.

Science certainly doesn't assume gender is a strict binary thing. That's why scientists are doing things like researching the causes of transgenderism.

Nonetheless, despite sex and gender being a lot blurrier than traditional understanding has them, the terms male and female remain useful. The vast majority of humans fall into one or the other category, with their genitalia and gender identity matching. The categories are useful, even if not everybody fits in them.

[Jessica Price]

mechaPoet wrote:

Here's a pretty good example:

It is transphobic to describe a trans person as being "biologically" the gender they were assigned at birth

Yep, because gender isn't biological.

Moreover, even "biological" sex is a lot more complicated than what your genital configuration is. What's someone born with XY chromosomes and "female" genitals? Clearly, if we're basing it on a person's phenotype, that's problematic, because there are a lot of physical configurations that don't align neatly with "male" or "female." Should we determine it by chromosome makeup, then? In that case, what's someone with Turner Syndrome? Klinefelter Syndrome?

[Drejk]

Good news: Transitioning process (or at least surgery part, I am note sure) will be covered by public health insurance in Poland.

Bad news: Of course crappy (or politically flavored) journalists started (partly inaccurate - that's why crappy part) complaints that "more important" health issues are not covered.

[Samnell]

The thing I've never liked about the argument around the science of human sexuality is that it presumes human sexuality requires some kind of special justification.

"It's what I'm into and I'm not hurting anybody doing it" more than suffices for heterosexuals.

But I know I'm dreaming. Things like enjoyment of life and consent don't inform the other side's position on much of anything. I'm sure one of them will be along with a form for me to fill out approving of his or her sex life directly.

[thejeff]

Samnell wrote:

The thing I've never liked about the argument around the science of human sexuality is that it presumes human sexuality requires some kind of special justification.

"It's what I'm into and I'm not hurting anybody doing it" more than suffices for heterosexuals.

But I know I'm dreaming. Things like enjoyment of life and consent don't inform the other side's position on much of anything. I'm sure one of them will be along with a form for me to fill out approving of his or her sex life directly.

I don't think it presumes any such thing. Any more than any other research into human psychology or behavior.

Of course "It's what I'm into and I'm not hurting anybody doing it" suffices. (Or should and those for whom it doesn't aren't usually swayed by science anyway).

That doesn't mean it's not an interesting area to research. Science doesn't and shouldn't do "That's the way it is. No need to question it."

How and why sexuality develops - a-, bi-, hetero-, homo- or anything else.
Same with gender identity.

[Usual Suspect]

Samnell wrote:

The thing I've never liked about the argument around the science of human sexuality is that it presumes human sexuality requires some kind of special justification.

"It's what I'm into and I'm not hurting anybody doing it" more than suffices for heterosexuals.

But I know I'm dreaming. Things like enjoyment of life and consent don't inform the other side's position on much of anything. I'm sure one of them will be along with a form for me to fill out approving of his or her sex life directly.

Exactly this!

[Samnell]

thejeff wrote:

Samnell wrote:

The thing I've never liked about the argument around the science of human sexuality is that it presumes human sexuality requires some kind of special justification.

"It's what I'm into and I'm not hurting anybody doing it" more than suffices for heterosexuals.

But I know I'm dreaming. Things like enjoyment of life and consent don't inform the other side's position on much of anything. I'm sure one of them will be along with a form for me to fill out approving of his or her sex life directly.

I don't think it presumes any such thing. Any more than any other research into human psychology or behavior.

Of course "It's what I'm into and I'm not hurting anybody doing it" suffices. (Or should and those for whom it doesn't aren't usually swayed by science anyway).

That doesn't mean it's not an interesting area to research. Science doesn't and shouldn't do "That's the way it is. No need to question it."

How and why sexuality develops - a-, bi-, hetero-, homo- or anything else.
Same with gender identity.

It's not the research that I object to. It's the particular argument.

[Sissyl]

I think the focus on the political issue has obscured a very important thing, namely that sensible biological research is a Good Thing. Yes, even for those who want to support LGBT rights. See, understanding a phenomenon can only help. Knowledge is not a bad thing. If the social constructivists worry that charting the genetic background for human sexuality would lead to eugenics programs, well, that is a fantasy about the mother of all slippery slopes they have there. Consider what would need to happen to allow for changing genes in human embryos, THEN scream about it. In the meantime, support the work of people who share your view that sexuality is not something you choose. Beat the conservatives over the head with real science and hammer in the idea that different genetics is not cause for discrimination. Equal rights is not supposed to be predicated on what group you belong to, but on simply being human.

[BigNorseWolf]

mechaPoet wrote:

But some people will say I'm "biologically" not nonbinary.

*headscratch*

This would make no sense if someone holds to the view that gender identity has its roots in biology. In that view you are non binary. Therefore you are biologically nonbinary.

[Artemis Moonstar]

Lately I've been feeling a little 'weird' or 'off' in my gender fluidity. I'm not quite sure what it is. I'm not experiencing any Dysphoria, but something's not quite right... I'll have to meditate on it for a bit and figure it out.... Could simply be stress from lack of sleep and massive writer's block on a paid project bleeding into other aspects of my psyche.

Meh, don't mind me. Having an emo moment. Random drops in apparently supportive forums helps as a venting mechanism.

Continue on.

[Todd Stewart]

Samnell wrote:

The thing I've never liked about the argument around the science of human sexuality is that it presumes human sexuality requires some kind of special justification.

Speaking as a scientist myself, I don't feel that I or anyone else needs any sort of special justification for our gender/sexuality.

The science of the biological underpinnings of human behavior, gender, and sexuality are just absolutely fascinating, complex, and just really really really cool. *insert happy stars in my eyes*

[Todd Stewart]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

mechaPoet wrote:

But some people will say I'm "biologically" not nonbinary.

*headscratch*

This would make no sense if someone holds to the view that gender identity has its roots in biology. In that view you are non binary. Therefore you are biologically nonbinary.

This.

While the male/female dichotomy is a useful generalization that works for the general population somewhere in the high 90s percentages, those of us that fall outside of that strict binary do so absolutely with biological reasons.

Whatever your brain's internal sense of gender identity influences you to self-identify as (be it male, female, or otherwise) it's important that your decision there is respected.

Most people don't understand biology past the simple XX versus XY dichotomy they learn in highschool, when it's massively more subtle than that (be it by chimeric mosaicism, non-binary masculnization or feminization of the brain, androgen insensitivity, a myriad of other factors). Education here is key, because a lot of people simply aren't aware of the amazing complexity at play.

[thejeff]

Todd Stewart wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

mechaPoet wrote:

But some people will say I'm "biologically" not nonbinary.

*headscratch*

This would make no sense if someone holds to the view that gender identity has its roots in biology. In that view you are non binary. Therefore you are biologically nonbinary.

This.

While the male/female dichotomy is a useful generalization that works for the general population somewhere in the high 90s percentages, those of us that fall outside of that strict binary do so absolutely with biological reasons.

Whatever your brain's internal sense of gender identity influences you to self-identify as (be it male, female, or otherwise) it's important that your decision there is respected.

Most people don't understand biology past the simple XX versus XY dichotomy they learn in highschool, when it's massively more subtle than that (be it by chimeric mosaicism, non-binary masculnization or feminization of the brain, androgen insensitivity, a myriad of other factors). Education here is key, because a lot of people simply aren't aware of the amazing complexity at play.

That's certainly true, if somewhat over my head. Humans are complicated. Which is great.

That doesn't mean however that it's not sometimes scientifically useful to ignore most of the complexity and focus on the simpler categories. You can learn things doing that, even if you're missing details. Especially when you're studying things where the kind of detailed data you'd need to factor in all the variations on gender simply isn't available. The spherical cow approach. The categories "Male" and "female" are useful, even if the real picture is more complicated. If you're studying a disease and suspect a gender link, it's insane to ignore the male/female distinction unless your test population also includes a statistically relevant number of patients of all the various non-binary gender identities.

Which doesn't translate into denying the existence of the complexity or of people who fall outside them, of course.

[Usual Suspect]

-^- They are often not aware because they do not wish to have their simple black and white view of the world disturbed. More is the shame; the world is so much more wondrous with a rainbow of colors.

[thejeff]

Usual Suspect wrote:

-^- They are often not aware because they do not wish to have their simple black and white view of the world disturbed. More is the shame; the world is so much more wondrous with a rainbow of colors.

Most often, they're not aware because they're not aware.

That's changing as trans issues become more publicly common, but it really doesn't touch most people's lives at all. The question simply doesn't come up. The question is how do they react when it does come up.

[Usual Suspect]

Twenty years ago I would have agreed with you, thejeff. But we are getting down to the cranky holdouts, and they don't want to believe in more than the binary gender view of their childhood. They actively fight against the idea of gender fluidity and cling to the idea that the world must be a simple black and white 1950s TV show. Usually Father Knows Best or Leave it to Beaver.

Everybody else seems to be coming around to a realization that the world isn't going to end if people are allowed to live their own lives the way they want.

[thejeff]

Usual Suspect wrote:

Twenty years ago I would have agreed with you, thejeff. But we are getting down to the cranky holdouts, and they don't want to believe in more than the binary gender view of their childhood. They actively fight against the idea of gender fluidity and cling to the idea that the world must be a simple black and white 1950s TV show. Usually Father Knows Best or Leave it to Beaver.

Everybody else seems to be coming around to a realization that the world isn't going to end if people are allowed to live their own lives the way they want.

20 years ago?

A decade ago this wasn't on my radar. I mean, I'd heard of "sex change operations", but had never had any cause to actually think about the consequences and repercussions.
I think there's a lot of population that's still in that state. We're nowhere near down to the cranky holdouts yet. We're getting there for gay and lesbian issues, largely driven by people actually knowing out homosexuals. It's still only a tiny fraction of the population that has any direct personal contact with trans-people.

I don't. Other than online forums like this. (And the a#$&%$* ex-boyfriend of one of my best friends, but that's only second-hand.)

[The Minis Maniac]

I see a bit of apprehension and awkwardness here and there about the transgender community. So I hope that my personal guidelines can help some folks and aren't taken offensively by anyone. I have befriended, worked, served, and been in community events with Transgender folks the past 10 years. Being part of the LGBT community has helped me a few guidelines.
1) Doesn't matter what a person looks like, dresses like, or is. They are a person, and deserve to be treated respectfully. Your personal internal comfort is irrelevant.
2) You don't need to know, guess, or ask about someones born biological gender. It isn't relevant, it isn't your business.
3) The gender that is presented is the gender they are, unless otherwise told.
4) Their struggle is not the same as your struggle. You may both face some similar discrimination occasionally. But their internal struggle and external struggle are very unique. The best thing you can do is be supportive and be there.

[BigNorseWolf]

Drejk wrote:

The catch is... What is "acting male"?

I was going to define maleness as ones proximity to Brock Sampson, but then I realized that since we are all infinitely less manly than Brock Sampson we are all the same distance away no matter how manly we are.

[Drejk]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Drejk wrote:

The catch is... What is "acting male"?

I was going to define maleness as ones proximity to Brock Sampson, but then I realized that since we are all infinitely less manly than Brock Sampson we are all the same distance away no matter how manly we are.

Who?

[Liz Courts]

Removed a few posts that wandered off topic. Be civil thank you!

[Haladir]

Drejk wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Drejk wrote:

The catch is... What is "acting male"?

I was going to define maleness as ones proximity to Brock Sampson, but then I realized that since we are all infinitely less manly than Brock Sampson we are all the same distance away no matter how manly we are.

Who?

Brock Samson is a character on the animated TV show The Venture Bros. The character is a parody of hyper-masculinity.

[Bob_Loblaw]

Well done Planet Fitness.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/relationships/planet-fitness-cancels-wom ans-membership-after-she-reports-transgender-woman-in-locker-room/ar-AA9uYW 9

[Paladin of Baha-who?]

Bob_Loblaw wrote:

Well done Planet Fitness.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/relationships/planet-fitness-cancels-wom ans-membership-after-she-reports-transgender-woman-in-locker-room/ar-AA9uYW 9

Linkified

Good on 'em.

[KSF]

The Minis Maniac wrote:

4) Their struggle is not the same as your struggle. You may both face some similar discrimination occasionally. But their internal struggle and external struggle are very unique. The best thing you can do is be supportive and be there.

I don't know, I appreciate the thought and intent behind what you're saying, but I guess I'd like to leave open a little room for dialogue in this regard.

I think some things we struggle with as trans people aren't the same as the things non-trans people face, sure, but other things are. And I think acknowledging and discussing that overlap can be quite helpful. It can also help clarify for them those things that are specifically trans and possibly help contribute to their understandings of what we go through.

Some of the things I've had to deal with since transitioning are indeed specifically trans things. (What it feels like to watch this current wave of bathroom bill legislation take hold, for example. And thinking about what I'll need to do if or when I'm in an area where one of those laws is in place.) Other things come from living in the world as outwardly female, and kind of getting my feet under me as I deal with that. Developing my sea legs, so to speak.

I've learned a lot from my discussions with other trans people (including trans people who post here). Those discussions have been vital. But I've also learned a lot from my discussions with cisgender women about their experiences and how those connect with my own, sometimes quite directly. Issues about body image, for example, issues about street harassment and safety, issues about how women are treated in the field I work and teach in, how to create an effective and welcoming educational space for our female students, how women are represented in the media and treated online, how we are impacted by patriarchy, how we practice feminism and support our fellow women, how we age, etc.

And, speaking as someone a couple-three years into her transition (depending on how one wants to measure it) it is a pain in the butt to be simultaneously be going through a second adolescence and entering into middle age. It helps to have other women to talk to about their life experiences, whether they're trans or not. Particularly whenever I experience something for the first time, like street harassment, that I knew about heading into transition, but didn't understand in my bones until after I'd had people drive by shouting "Whore!" at me, or until after I'd had a pickup trail along beside me for a couple blocks, with the driver continually trying to convince me to get into the truck.

I mean, I'm a trans woman, with an emphasis on "trans," sure, but I'm also a trans woman with an emphasis on "woman" at the same time. Or as the saying goes, trans women are women.

I know that's not quite what you meant, and conversely, yes, there are experiences and struggles that I have that my cisgender friends do not have, and there is sometimes a gap in understanding that is difficult for cisgender people to bridge, even for the most supportive people.

But, I don't know. I'm trans and I'm a woman, and at the end of the day, I'd probably say that my sense of self and sense of identity has a bit more to do with being a woman than it does with being trans, and that balance seems to shift a bit more toward the "woman" as time goes on.

Hope that makes sense. And as usual, I'm speaking only from my own experiences and sense of identity, which is also an identity that fits very much within the binary when it comes to gender.

Also, totally unconnected to that post, since it's been longtime, no post for me: Hey everybody! Hope Spring's arriving where you are, like it's finally arriving in Wisconsin. :)

[Kajehase]

I've been gushing about Elizabeth Bear's new novel Karen Memory in several other places, but relevant to this thread I'll settle for mentioning it has an L lead character (with love interest), the best-written T character I've read (for what's that worth from a straight, Scandinavian, cis guy with very little interaction with trans people in his past), and is generally awesome.

For Paizo-adjacent people it might be worth pointing out that it's set in a place called Rapid City that's part Seattle, part San Francisco, and located where our reality's Seattle is.

Also, it has a Singer sewing machine turned Pacific Rim-style jaeger play a crucial part.

[KSF]

Kajehase wrote:

I've been gushing about Elizabeth Bear's new novel Karen Memory in several other places, but relevant to this thread I'll settle for mentioning it has an L lead character (with love interest), the best-written T character I've read (for what's that worth from a straight, Scandinavian, cis guy with very little interaction with trans people in his past), and is generally awesome.

I haven't read the book, but I read a review of it not long ago that talked about some issues with the trans character. Review is here.

[Kajehase]

Spoiler:

I can see where she's coming from on most of those points, but there are two points I disagree with - the first is that the character never reads as male to me (or the lead character, for that matter, and Bear makes it very clear that it's when she's wearing men's clothing that she's playing a role. The other is that I never got the 'hulking big man in a dress vibe from her, either. Yes, she's described as bigger than the other women, but not remarkably so - just bigger and a bit stronger, which isn't that surprising when you remember that the other women (and Miss Francina) are working as parlour Girls, one of few working class women's professions where it might help to not have too many visible muscles.

That said, she's obviously more informed than me on the topic, so I'm not going to argue my side any more strenuous than this.

tl/dr version; I don't agree 100% with her conclusions, but can see how she'd reach them , accepts that she's more qualified to talk about these issues than me, and isn't it nice when you can disagree about things without it turning vitriolic.

[Paladin of Baha-who?]

Kajehase wrote:

isn't it nice when you can disagree about things without it turning vitriolic.

NO!!

[Freehold DM]

Kajehase wrote:

Also, it has a Singer sewing machine turned Pacific Rim-style jaeger play a crucial part.

Sold.

[Freehold DM]

Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:

Kajehase wrote:

isn't it nice when you can disagree about things without it turning vitriolic.

NO!!

flips table

[TanithT]

Sissyl wrote:

Racist biology is political s%&+ layered on biological research. However, just as an example, we know that there is a far higher genetic variability among people with more recent roots in Africa (such as the American black population) than other populations, thereby giving them a greater risk of idiopathic side effects of various types of medication. Is this racist science?

One of my pet peeves is that this direction of research has been discouraged or suppressed because it can be labelled "racist" or otherwise bigoted. The end results are actually a heck of a lot more racist and result in poorer medical care for minority populations.

This is equally true with regards to research into LGBT issues. Good science is good science, and pursuing it ultimately means that we get a higher standard of medical care. Yes, it really would be a good thing to better understand the biology of homosexuality, transgender and non binary gender conditions. Likewise the biology behind medically relevant heritable traits in human groups that evolved in different geographical regions and environments. because that information is highly relevant to giving those populations the best possible medical care.

If your ancestors evolved in an environment rich in plant alkaloids, you will metabolize alkaloid drugs much more quickly than someone whose ancestors did not come from such a region. If doctors are prevented from knowing or using information like this because some idiot politician thinks that racial profiling in medicine is somehow wrong or bigoted, that does real and serious harm to the population that is supposedly being protected.

Can information be misused? Sure. But saying it shouldn't exist because it can be used to hurt people is sort of like telling people that they should ban electricity and sit in the dark so that no one might get hurt by it.

[Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert]

I read a few weeks ago about how the FDA does not require seperate drug trial regimens for women until right before a drug is released, and trials often don't use women near as much as men. Problem is, men and women don't necessarily react to all drugs the same way do to things like hormonal differences, causing something of a problem.

I agree with Tanith for the most part, with the caveat that we have to be careful, because their are certain people who use this sort of science to try and back racial supremacist ideologies. By all means, carry out and use racially based medical research, but be wary of the racial determinant types.

[Drejk]

I remember article about how lack of proper sex-differences including tests led FDA to allow a drug (whose name elude me, though, IIRC it was one of sleep drugs) onto market... But the females were much more susceptible to it, leading to a numerous cases of overdosing.