General transgender discussion thread - Take the tranny related debates here.

[AssignedEva]

The more I read on it, the more this feels like the correct answer. I'm trying to come at this with as fair and openminded position as possible, but it doesn't seem to be possible to reconcile the idea of principle of medicine of doing as little harm as possible, and treating based on the needs of the body, and the current state of trans medicine. It's hard to find long term outcome studies in terms of physical limitations instead of reported self-satisfaction, but again, everything I've seen shows long term post-op trans people report many more physical limitations that cis gender counterparts at the same age. It's only on the one metric self-reported satisfaction that the outcomes seem good, but that's also the case for BIID sufferers in those rare cases where amputation does occur, and I just can't accept that that should be considered a good outcome either.

The conceptualisation that was presented to me over a decade ago (very different from now, where it's just "how dare you criticise trans people knowing what treatment is best for them") was that the success rate in transitioning was considerably greater than in attempting to make people comfortable in their bodies with pharmacological and theraputic interventions.

In other words, if you've got someone who wants to transition and you try to talk them out of it, and their dysphoria isn't caused by an unrelated condition, you're unlikely to eliminate the dysphoria even with anti-depressants or talking therapy, and the longer term outcomes of this approach lead to a lower quality of life. It is cheaper and a more effective use of NHS resources to offer transition, and the outcome is better for the patient, even in the face of potential physical health complications.

I've never seen these statistics, I just had that presented to me as fact and didn't question it because I was wrapped up in my "ally" stage. I'm not saying I still believe it. Even if statistics at the time backed this up, the volume of detransitioners now will likely have changed that. But I can at least appreciate the logic of that argument. It would be like teaching an OCD person scared of burning their house down by leaving hair straighteners plugged in to take their hair straighteners with them when they leave the house. You haven't cured the underlying condition, but they don't have to go back to their house 12 times to check and so they're generally more able to have a happier life, and it's more efficient and cost-effective, and frees up medical professional's time to treat more people.

"I'm trans because I say I am, don't even try to check, now give me loads of FFS" does not have this same logic specifically because it shifts the position away from any argument about harm reduction or maximising healthcare resources and instead becomes all about pandering to one group who just want a load of plastic surgery right now and trust me I know I won't regret it.

 

[Harbinger of Kali Yuga]

Yes, you're right. I should have said how we identify sex (sex characteristics) follows a strong bimodal distribution, due to the fact that some DSDs can actually obscure the sex of an individual until they are specifically checked for. A male with complete androgen insensitivity is female externally. But they do have sterile male gonads internally, and won't have a uterus, so even if it's undetected for a long time you would still classify them as males because of the chromosomes. Really, they are maybe the one case where trans descriptions make a sort of sense, in that they are male, but are women for socialization and most biological functions.

Sorry, can't edit my last post, that was taken away from me in the past.
I think you missed something important here. In the case of individuals with CAIS (complete androgen insensitivity syndrome) they are chromosomally male, absolutely, but we should state they are phenotypically female to a majority degree. Many humans throughout history were born with CAIS and lived, loved, and died never had any idea any part of them was male.

 

[Mellow Malevolent]

As far as I know?

There are cases of true hermaphroditism in mammals. Domestic rabbits in particular have it occur at an abnormally high rate, and it took me forever to find, but there was a medical study on a rabbit that autofertilized.

A case of combined hermaphroditism and autofertilisation in a domestic rabbit

I'm very certain that has never happened in humans though, and I think I remember reading somewhere that in the case of true hermaphroditism in humans (where there are ovotestes producing both gametes) the sperm are usually immature and non-viable.

 

[Marvin]

Yes, you're right. I should have said sex characteristics follow a strong bimodal distribution. A male with complete androgen insensitivity is female externally. But they do have sterile male gonads internally, and won't have a uterus, so even if it's undetected for a long time you would still classify them as males because of the chromosomes. Really, they are maybe the one case where trans descriptions make a sort of sense, in that they are male, but are women for socialization and most biological functions.

Chromosomes aren't technically the determining factor, but the presence or absence of the SRY gene that is normally on the Y chromosome and whether it can go ahead and do its job. (there's research suggesting there are more minor genes that can fill in for SRY, but SRY is the big one)

So I would say that individuals with Swyer syndrome are unambiguously female (albeit with some medical issues) because, while they still have XY chromosomes, they're missing a functioning SRY gene and without it, the body develops as female.

Or the mirror image of Swyer, where SRY gets transplanted to an X chromosome. I'd say they're male.

But yeah, CAIS is a funny one. They do have SRY and they do develop male gonads. But they're incapable of responding to testosterone, and their body just converts it to estrogen. In some (unscientific) ways, you could even say they're archfeminine in that even normal females can respond to testosterone, but CAIS individuals cannot, so they've got like no body hair and other things like that.

I refer to them as biologically female, but it's fair to say that at least a chunk of that comes from a place of socialization, not strictly biology. CAIS is one of the more thought provoking DSDs.

Edit: And I think CAIS individuals have a weird interaction with AMH? Anyway, we're getting into the weeds here, considering people with DSDs don't troon out any more often than normal people do, and few troons have DSDs.

 

[Mellow Malevolent]

Edit: And I think CAIS individuals have a weird interaction with AMH? Anyway, we're getting into the weeds here, considering people with DSDs don't troon out any more often than normal people do, and few troons have DSDs.

Yeah I think the issue more here is that, going back to my original point, while sex as a pure binary gets a little blurry at the edges due to DSDs, "brain structure" is absolutely not in the same place in terms of scientific knowledge that you can claim ambiguity in "brain sex".

Troons use the fact that there are psychological differences observed between sexes (again strongly bimodal distribution here) to jump to the idea that a brain can be one sex while the body is another (despite the brain tissue having the same genetics as the body). That's not just wrong, it's also really at odds with our understanding of the brain and consciousness (limited as it is). The "brain in a jar" metaphor is really bad because the endocrine system, which has an enormous effect on emotion and cognition, is not limited to the brain. There's no logic to the idea that the brain structure could be sexed independent of all the neurochemicals that control and influence our thinking.

 

[Harbinger of Kali Yuga]

I will say, if you know how much more difficult a topic sexual development/differentiation is compared to the casual understanding of the layman of XY = male and XX = female, (e.g., considering the mediating effects of hormones) it does actually become plausible that true trangenderism exists. Certainly with how human sex differentiation in utero occurs there is a very likely hormonal explanation why so many transgender or supposedly transgender males desire to transition to female instead of the other way around.

Yeah I think the issue more here is that, going back to my original point, while sex as a pure binary gets a little blurry at the edges due to DSDs, "brain structure" is absolutely not in the same place in terms of scientific knowledge that you can claim ambiguity in "brain sex".

Troons use the fact that there are psychological differences observed between sexes (again strongly bimodal distribution here) to jump to the idea that a brain can be one sex while the body is another (despite the brain tissue having the same genetics as the body). That's not just wrong, it's also really at odds with our understanding of the brain and consciousness (limited as it is). The "brain in a jar" metaphor is really bad because the endocrine system, which has an enormous effect on emotion and cognition, is not limited to the brain. There's no logic to the idea that the brain structure could be sexed independent of all the neurochemicals that control and influence our thinking.

Well, the naïve view of this is that people are looking for 1:1 differences in structures between female brains, but the more nuanced understanding of "male" and "female" brain differences seeks to look at correlated differences between brain structures in women. It's true that while women tend to have a larger hippocampus, not all do, however, you accrue enough of these tendencies to develop a Wittgensteinian "family resemblance." (And that's an important concept to understand in nature, as "species" too as a category is not a neat classification, and this "family resemblance" concept is especially important when considering "ring species," but I am digressing a bit.)

 

[Mellow Malevolent]

Well, the naïve view of this is that people are looking for 1:1 differences in structures between female brains, but the more nuanced understanding of "male" and "female" brain differences seeks to look at correlated differences between brain structures in women. It's true that while women tend to have a larger hippocampus, not all do, however, you accrue enough of these tendencies to develop a Wittgensteinian "family resemblance." (And that's an important concept to understand in nature, as "species" too as a category is not a neat classification, and this "family resemblance" concept is especially important when considering "ring species," but I am digressing a bit.)

A lot of these difference have to do with brain size as well, I remember a study that showed that once you controlled for head size, male and female brains looked far more similar. But yes I don't disagree with anything you saying here. You can speak about tendencies in male and female brain development, but you cannot look at a particular brain and say 100% this is the brain of a man or a woman, at least not without may be looking at the genetic code. But this sort of pushes against the idea of those trans studies that show "female brains" in transgender individuals, like the one that showed a "female number of neurons" in some parts of the brain I don't remember, in a handful of trans individuals. So the question would then be, how is it that a transgender person experiences psychological distress from a male body, but a female number of neurons, or female hippocampus? What possible causal mechanism could there be for that? For gender dysphoria to be anything other than another type of body dysmorphia, the trans brain would subconsciously have to be comparing their body plan ( as interpreted by nerves?) and hormone levels against some platonic ideal that they have access to, and to be correct in that assessment. This is where the idea of transgender breaks down. Even with the ambiguity of sex due to DSDs, there just isn't a convincing causal mechanism described that could explain how a trans person could know their body is "wrong".


Note that I'm not talking about gender variance in terms of presentation or interests. Homosexuals of both sexes often show gender variant interests and desire to present in gender atypical or even cross gender ways, and this starts in childhood. Putting aside autogynephiles, you could probably define true transgender as gay men and women who develop a psychological disorder due to societal rejection of their gender presentation.

 

[Harbinger of Kali Yuga]

A lot of these difference have to do with brain size as well, I remember a study that showed that once you controlled for head size, male and female brains looked far more similar. But yes I don't disagree with anything you saying here. You can speak about tendencies in male and female brain development, but you cannot look at a particular brain and say 100% this is the brain of a man or a woman, at least not without may be looking at the genetic code. But this sort of pushes against the idea of those trans studies that show "female brains" in transgender individuals, like the one that showed a "female number of neurons" in some parts of the brain I don't remember, in a handful of trans individuals. So the question would then be, how is it that a transgender person experiences psychological distress from a male body, but a female number of neurons, or female hippocampus? What possible causal mechanism could there be for that? For gender dysphoria to be anything other than another type of body dysmorphia, the trans brain would subconsciously have to be comparing their body plan ( as interpreted by nerves?) and hormone levels against some platonic ideal that they have access to, and to be correct in that assessment. This is where the idea of transgender breaks down. Even with the ambiguity of sex due to DSDs, there just isn't a convincing causal mechanism described that could explain how a trans person could know their body is "wrong".


Note that I'm not talking about gender variance in terms of presentation or interests. Homosexuals of both sexes often show gender variant interests and desire to present in gender atypical or even cross gender ways, and this starts in childhood. Putting aside autogynephiles, you could probably define true transgender as gay men and women who develop a psychological disorder due to societal rejection of their gender presentation.

What gets me is half the time they say there are no sex differences in the human brain, and the other half of the time they say they are to justify, say, transitioning.

 

[Mellow Malevolent]

I will say, if you know how much more difficult a topic sexual development/differentiation is compared to the casual understanding of the layman of XY = male and XX = female, (e.g., considering the mediating effects of hormones) it does actually become plausible that true trangenderism exists. Certainly with how human sex differentiation in utero occurs there is a very likely hormonal explanation why so many transgender or supposedly transgender males desire to transition to female instead of the other way around.

If you'll allow me to get philosophical a bit, I've been musing on the idea of identity as a relates to LGBT individuals. Much like species and sex, sexual orientation is a categorization system imposed by humans onto a varied and messy set of biological and behavioral variables. It presents itself on a spectrum from strong gender variant behavior (the stereotypical flamboyant gay man/butch lesbian) all the way over to gender conformity except for sexual attraction. And even that is a simplification, and doesn't get into things like being "prison gay" or other socially induced/encouraged homosexual behaviors. Being gay is defined as the variation off of the "normal"/expected behavior for the sex.

Historically, it is this variance that is punished, not specifically the gay "identity" itself. The modern LGBT identity is a constructed one, it exists to group people together under a label that could be used to generate political solidarity. Not to get too far into the history of gay politics, but the coalescing around AIDS in the 80s was the culmination of over a century of buildup in Europe and America. With it came a unique culture that developed and started to self replicate as it brought new people in, but the linking factor was not an "identity", it was tendencies in behavior that defined the identity. So you get modern gay culture and the gay-rights movement, and political advocacy to support their well-being by not being criminalized, or discriminated against. As much as people will identify as gay or lesbian today, that is an imposed concept on top of their reality. That's why it's wrong to say that there are "gay" animals, because the animals being observed are not self-conceiving of themselves as gay. They are displaying behavior, either intermittently or (rarely) regularly, that human observations would categorize as belonging to the opposite sex.

Unlike with same-sex attraction or gender variant behavior, the modern trans identity really does seem to be a desire to fit into a abstract category. It is specifically not a desire to have nonstandard gender expression (which historically was part of the nebulous homosexual other, and is still linked to that identity in people's minds), but a desire to be categorized by others as a member of the opposite sex. So my question is, if we were to remove the definition and language from the equation, if we were to try and think of what a "trans" mammal would look like, what would we come up with? Something that is either identical, or closely resembling, the definition of a "gay" mammal. The only true examples of trans animals I can think of, that actually do switch sex, do it as part of their normal life cycle, and aren't mammals (clownfish being the obvious example here). So, the issue I have is that it seems at least to me that being trans is an issue of language and the human brain's desire to categorize and structure information. It exists in the abstract space that human reasoning exists, not in the more material, biological reality that sex and sexual orientation do.

Going back to your DID example, everybody has a "personality", as a broad label for a bunch of different variables displayed in a person's behavior. I don't think it's too controversial to say though that a person having "multiple" personalities within their brain is something that is at this point disproven, and that whatever a person manifesting DID is experiencing, it is not a case of multiple independent identities coexisting within a single person. DID is then almost like an ontological error, because it's trying to explain radical shifts in behavior at an abstract categorical level, when the more correct way to conceive of it would be that someone's "personality" would be said to include radical shift in behavior. But as soon as the concept was put out there (perhaps foreshadowed by ideas like demonic possession), it becomes something that people start manifesting and being diagnosed with. Saying that someone has multiple personalities implies a bunch of other unstated assumptions, perhaps most importantly a kind of dualism again, where these entities can exist discreetly within the same neurological/biological structure, through no known possible mechanism. So it's like an induced mental health problem, where the presentation of this disease is influenced by the social environment, and produces an outcome that wouldn't be observed outside of a context with that idea present.

So trans identities and dissociative identity disorder seem to have something in common, which is that they both rely on the abstract concept of an "identity" as having a discrete existence outside of the biological/neurological reality of our beings. This is where the vagueness of definition helps the trans movement, because it requires essentially a spiritual belief to justify. You can't in a material sense justify the idea that someone was born at odds with their own biology.

 

[ArtificialSneeze]

there is a very likely hormonal explanation why so many transgender or supposedly transgender males desire to transition to female instead of the other way around.

It used to be the case that gender transition was largely the domain of middle aged men, but the demographics have shifted considerably since 2010. Presently, the predominant demographic seeking treatment for gender dysphoria is girls: teen girls, and it's up over 5000% from 2010.

 

[Sarcastic sockpuppet]

A male with complete androgen insensitivity is female externally. But they do have sterile male gonads internally, and won't have a uterus, so even if it's undetected for a long time you would still classify them as males because of the chromosomes. Really, they are maybe the one case where trans descriptions make a sort of sense, in that they are male, but are women for socialization and most biological functions.

No quite how this works
It's the case with Caster and she seems to gain a surplus of T in her system, added masculinization and athletic abilities compared to women. (+ There's strong suspicion that she lived as a boy prior so so much for socialization and it being undetectable for the most part...)
Many other runners in her category seem have the same mutation (Androgen sensitivity on a male: if i was a coach i would poach those on purpose,)

You also have an opposite variation "Male Syndrome" or "Chapelle syndrome", a one in 20 000 cases mutation on little boys when they have XX chromosomes and apparently grow up with a male (if a little soy) appearance in spite of that. They have testes but are often sterile per wikipedia. I guess a lot of MtF online would like to pretend that's the case for them, alas, it's super super rare and they still typically are considered male.

XX male syndrome - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Mellow Malevolent]

No quite how this works
It's the case with Caster and she seems to gain a surplus of T in her system, added masculinization and athletic abilities compared to women. (+ There's strong suspicion that she lived as a boy prior so so much for socialization and it being undetectable for the most part...)
Many other runners in her category seem have the same mutation (Androgen sensitivity on a male: if i was a coach i would poach those on purpose,)

You also have an opposite variation "Male Syndrome" or "Chapelle syndrome", a one in 20 000 cases mutation on little boys when they have XX chromosomes and apparently grow up with a male (if a little soy) appearance in spite of that. They have testes but are often sterile per wikipedia. I guess a lot of MtF online would like to pretend that's the case for them, alas, it's super super rare and they still typically are considered male.

XX male syndrome - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

View attachment 2864223
View attachment 2864224

Caster Semenya doesn't have CAIS though. There are other types of androgen insensitivity, and Semenya has at least some reaction to it, while people wit CAIS are literally unable to respond to androgen stimulus. Regardless, it's still the point that intersex people exist in a grey zone for definitional purposes. In the case of Semenya, it actually makes sense to my mind to classify her as at the very least, so atypical in biology that having her compete against other women would be wrong. The only reason to seperate the genders when it comes to sports is because testoterone gives such an advantage, which she benifits from despite being socially a woman.

 

[ArtificialSneeze]

As for the "euphoria" or "high" of HRT; it's bullshit, pure psychological placebo. I've been on HRT for about 6 years and not once has there anything close to a euphoric feeling. At most, you accidentally jab a nerve and your thigh is sore for a couple days, that's it. Beyond that, any trans person claiming that they can actually feel their body accepting the "right" hormones or that they get high from their HRT is regurgitating Kevin Gibes level of copium and AGP.

You're outing yourself as MtF here.

One of the more insidious aspects of FtM transition is that testosterone is powerful. Like if you're a 50 year old low-T guy and you get a testosterone prescription, you feel like a new man: there is an initial euphoric effect before your brain downregulates, your mood elevates, you have more energy, you become stronger, your sex life vastly improves (makes you horny). Of course it also causes heart disease, stroke, balding, acne, and testicular atrophy, but if you want to make an omelet...

Anyway it's the same for TIF's: they go on T, and very soon after they are experiencing a drug fueled high that they mistake for "gender euphoria." And then the general mood elevation actually treats the underlying mental disorders that was causing their dysphoria in the first place. Great! Except you're now a permanent medical patient, you've become a freak, you probably destroyed your family, and you're gonna die early. Also getting off T is hard, just like getting off anti-depressants: you crash before your brain upregulates.

 

[Harbinger of Kali Yuga]

No quite how this works
It's the case with Caster and she seems to gain a surplus of T in her system, added masculinization and athletic abilities compared to women. (+ There's strong suspicion that she lived as a boy prior so so much for socialization and it being undetectable for the most part...)
Many other runners in her category seem have the same mutation (Androgen sensitivity on a male: if i was a coach i would poach those on purpose,)

You also have an opposite variation "Male Syndrome" or "Chapelle syndrome", a one in 20 000 cases mutation on little boys when they have XX chromosomes and apparently grow up with a male (if a little soy) appearance in spite of that. They have testes but are often sterile per wikipedia. I guess a lot of MtF online would like to pretend that's the case for them, alas, it's super super rare and they still typically are considered male.

XX male syndrome - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

View attachment 2864223
View attachment 2864224

Like previously mentioned, CAIS is a separate medical issue that really does produce XY women that, while they have male gonads inside them... are phenotypically hyperfeminine. Seeing some people say that XY is male and XX is female and that's that, case closed, like you do so often from various people leaning to the right totally misunderstands the messy biology behind embryonic sex differentiation. CAIS individuals despite their internal gonads have few obvious indications they are chromosomally male and treating a CAIS individual as male is just something someone would argue for if they couldn't admit how utterly wrong they were on the subject (not necessarily you, but others on KF).

This also has consequences for the right wing postulating that transgenderism is a metal illness that should be treated as such. The problem is, if transgenderism is a result of development after wonky hormonal shit goes down or whatever, their brain structures, possibly, may have permanently developed this way. So if (true) transgenderism is indeed a true biological phenomenon then there's nothing that can be done but accept them as they are.

 

[AnOminous]

Anyway it's the same for TIF's: they go on T, and very soon after they are experiencing a drug fueled high that they mistake for "gender euphoria."

This is why, like other cults, the instant someone gets the cock inversion, they do a "study" demanding a testimonial that they're totally satisfied with it. Amazingly, when you ask for a satisfaction survey of a bunch of dudes who just had their balls removed and their cocks turned into stink ditches, they're pretty invested in that and will insist it was a great idea.

That's a lot different than a longitudinal study looking for ultimate results like whether someone joined the 41% ten years later.

There is very little evidence this cock chop bullshit actually has good long-term results.

 

[Harbinger of Kali Yuga]

And remember, I'm not married to the view. I think it's possible but as our Smiling Gengar friend states, the evidence for very strong differences in brain structures between the sexes really is not quite there. It's there, but it's not crazy differences, and as correctly pointed out we also must control for things such as body/brain ratio size and such.

While I believe transgenderism is greatly exaggerated in today's society, throughout history we still see these men that act and present as female. Even if stories about the Roman Empreror "Elagabalus" are not true, it still shows that the ancient Romans themselves had knowledge of these men that dress and try to present as women. You see it consistently as man-to-woman and rarely woman-to-man, though the ancient sources unfortunately took only very special women seriously, so we have to be careful when we look at this sort of history... Still, it occurred in the past, far before our current political climate, so I think there probably is something going on that's more than just human socialization. Today, of course, with teen girls and all that, and the belief in the nobility of the oppressed in facing oppressors, has encouraged many people to identify as such to avoid being a devil of a "cis white male" (and while SJWs claim they don't hate white men, when do they bring them up in anything other than hate and derision?)

The fact that Elagabalus seemed to act so much like a stereotype of a modern MtF SJW makes me wonder if there's a cerebral or hormonal phenomenon going on that includes transgenderism and narcissism as symptoms but I couldn't even begin to explain how that would happen.

 

[ArtificialSneeze]

Just because a common phenomenon has arisen in other historical societies, doesn't mean there's a biological basis for it. Take religion for example.

 

[Harbinger of Kali Yuga]

Just because a common phenomenon has arisen in other historical societies, doesn't mean there's a biological basis for it. Take religion for example.

It doesn't, but it's a strong indication. For example, when we look at every society and see most of them are patrilinear, have similar norms about sexuality, and the like, we have to ask why. As for religion, it could not occur unless there was some sort of biological basis for it in how humans "reason" and "feel," especially that strange feeling of what we presently call holiness and sacredness that humans are capable of.

 

[AnOminous]

The fact that Elagabalus seemed to act so much like a stereotype of a modern MtF SJW makes me wonder if there's a cerebral or hormonal phenomenon going on that includes transgenderism and narcissism as symptoms but I couldn't even begin to explain how that would happen.

If Heliogabalus was an actual troon, it just shows that these freaks always act in absolutely hideous ways whenever it is possible. Ancient Rome was just unfortunate enough to get one of these scumbag perverts as an emperor. They had to assassinate him to get him from destroying the empire.

I hope we don't have to go so far with the current batch of troons, but if so, okay.

 

[Mellow Malevolent]

This also has consequences for the right wing postulating that transgenderism is a metal illness that should be treated as such. The problem is, if transgenderism is a result of development after wonky hormonal shit goes down or whatever, their brain structures, possibly, may have permanently developed this way. So if (true) transgenderism is indeed a true biological phenomenon then there's nothing that can be done but accept them as they are.

Yeah, and I must say that my issues with the trans movement were much less prominent about a decade ago, when the argument was more about allowing people to present how they wanted to, maybe some hormonal support for passing, and there were major debates as to whether or not SRS was actually a help or a harm. I actually remember participating in debates at the time where trans women said that they felt pressured into bottom surgery, and they would not have chosen it. That idea is basically taboo now. So yes, my main concerns are 2:

1) Advocating for permanent surgical alterations as the preferred solution to people experiencing gender dysphoria (if even that, as true GD diagnosis is apparently gatekeeping now). Current sex reassignment surgery is incredibly destructive to the body, and irreversible. People are being lied to when they are told that a neovagina is equivalent to a real vagina, and the results that people are getting (even if they are "satisfied"), result in a permanent medicalization that I don't think can be justified except for in extreme harm reduction circumstances. I also don't think that offering children the option to medically transition is a good idea, I don't think they have experience or knowledge to make such a decision so young. Even puberty blockers are problematic, because as people like Jazz Jennings show, permanent sterility and an inability to experience sexual pleasure are the expected outcome of preventing puberty.

2) an unwillingness to face the potential multiple origins of gender dysphoria and the trans identity. As someone who is part of the gay community, and has seen the way boys who express gender variant behaviors, in particular, can be punished by society and their families and thrown out onto the street, I find it honestly reprehensible that middle-aged men who experience Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria, i.e. AGP fetishists, will cloak themselves in the statistics of violence of vulnerable young gay people as a justification for why we can't question their identity or behavior. Most of the troon lolcows on this site are people who transitioned suddenly later in life, and many of them, like Jonathan Yaniv display an obvious fetishistic obsession in their behaviors. Yet these people are defended just as vehemently or sometimes more so than the black trans 16-year-old on the street. Organizations like the Sylvia Rivera Law Project should not be defending convicted pedophiles, or arguing that they should be allowed into women's prisons when they have a demonstrable history of preying on others.


For me, coming at it from reading as much of the sciences I can, there is an obvious biological origin to gay and trans people who are attracted to their birth sex. Androgen exposure in the womb seems to produce this type of behavior, or at least a tendency towards it. Some of these people stay flamboyant gay men, some of them become trans women. Some stay butch lesbians, and some become trans men. I think it would be possible to set out a space for gender variance in our society, without claiming an equivalence to cis men and women. Other societies have done this in the past, and even societies that people traditionally don't think of as having space for gay men or lesbians, like medieval Christian or Muslim societies, actually were far more lenient than people realize, with oppression being intermittent and mostly allowing people to live under the radar. It's actually the birth of modern rationalist science, along with things like eugenics, that got people in interested in classifying mental disorders and pathologized a whole ton of things that people just accepted previously. So it's not impossible to acknowledge a little bit of messiness in our definitions, without rejecting them entirely.

Just because a common phenomenon has arisen in other historical societies, doesn't mean there's a biological basis for it. Take religion for example.

Specific religions do not have a biological basis, but the belief in a religion probably does. Just like individual languages are not biologically based, but the tendency to learn language and develop language is definitely biologically based, right down to there being specific parts of the brain dedicated to it. If a phenomena is continuously rising independent of political and cultural context, then it is likely there's at least some biological basis for.

Why is it that essentially every religion values light as a source of goodness, and fears darkness? There's obviously a biological basis that's rooted in how humans experience reality