Who determines the number of genders- and how?

[Horhang]

This may be a bit of an aside to where things are going in this thread, but as it is an issue coming up where I work, it is something I and others I work with have been thinking about.
How wise is it to start making policy decisions based on less than 1% of the population? Wouldn't it be better to acknowledge the difference and make reasonable accommodation as the need arises?
Policy decisions made on such a minority population seem destined to cause problems. I have coworkers who have in the past been assaulted in women's restrooms, who are being disciplined for objecting to the fact that anyone who identifies as a woman can use a woman's restroom. This is a reasonable concern based on prior experience, but expressing it has put them in violation of equity policies; their personal history being ignored as a factor.
Basing gender on nothing more than a personal statement of identity is a bad policy. Basing any policy on less than 1% of the population would seem to me to be a bad basis for any policy.

 

[mumblethrax]

But we also have to accept that changing genders in order to fit some "better" mental state is a very powerful thing that can cause great damage.

That isn't a gender change to fit some better mental state.

It was a dilettante sex change, undertaken on the gravely mistaken assumption that gender identity is primarily determined by post-natal environment.

I think the lesson I'd take away is that this idea was completely wrong, and that we shouldn't force a gender identity on children.

 

[shuttlt]

Think about that for a moment. If you have a factory that churned out doors made of white plastic and some of those doors then got painted red, would it be more factually correct to say that the red doors are modified white doors or that the white doors have been deprived of red paint? Afterall, they are fully functioning doors without the red paint.

So without dihydrotestosterone in the womb I would have ovaries, or a womb? Surely I would be intersex in some way? Not female. Same as if a female foetus got dihydrotestosterone. The body plan before differentiation isn't female, its undifferentiated.

Is all this just based on the external appearance of the genitalia of intersex children often visually looking female? What about the other ways male and female foetuses who aren't intersex differ? It's nonsense to regard one as the default natural state of the body and the other a modified state, when neither has made evolutionary sense without the other for a billion years.

All this is at the moment is a statement that if processes that typically happen in men that cause differentiation from women don't occur, they end up less differentiated from women. Similarly, if processes that cause happen in women that cause them that differentiation them from men don't occur, they end up less differentiated from men. The undifferentiated middle of all this isn't a female body, its an intersex body.

 

[Belz...]

No, no it isn't.

How is calling someone lazy not an--- listen, why are you being so damned contrarian? You made a claim, I challenged it, and you named a book and provided a quote that didn't support your claim, as I mentioned. Why did that get so much under your skin?

You could've said "well, it's in this book but I can't be arsed to find the relevant quote so I'll retract that for now" or "I don't remember" or you could've just made the case yourself and see what you could come up with. You instead chose the worst possible course of action and then started blaming me when it didn't work.

You're just using politically correct rhetoric to passive aggressively avoid doing your homework.

That's gibberish. Nothing of what I said was either PC or passive aggressive. You're talking nonsense. I think you're so frustrated by me not taking your word on your claim or doing your own work for you that you're just not thinking clearly, and these nonsensical accusations are the result.

But why? Why are you so emotionally distraught by this? Just either support your claim or admit you can't; no one's going to laugh at you for either of those.

Your entire argument

It's YOUR CLAIM, Qayak. I'm simply telling you that 1) it's nonsense, please provide some evidence and 2) the single point of pseudo-evidence you've provided doesn't hold for reasons previously mentioned.

 

[Belz...]

So without dihydrotestosterone in the womb I would have ovaries, or a womb? Surely I would be intersex in some way? Not female. Same as if a female foetus got dihydrotestosterone. The body plan before differentiation isn't female, its undifferentiated.

Precisely my point.

I still think Qayak misinterpreted the book he mentioned, but I'm open to the possibility that the book's wrong, or that I'm wrong. I'm just not going to do the demonstration of someone else's claim.

 

[kellyb]

https://www.nature.com/news/sex-redefined-1.16943

For many years, scientists believed that female development was the default programme, and that male development was actively switched on by the presence of a particular gene on the Y chromosome. In 1990, researchers made headlines when they uncovered the identity of this gene3, 4, which they called SRY. Just by itself, this gene can switch the gonad from ovarian to testicular development. For example, XX individuals who carry a fragment of the Y chromosome that contains SRY develop as males.

By the turn of the millennium, however, the idea of femaleness being a passive default option had been toppled by the discovery of genes that actively promote ovarian development and suppress the testicular programme — such as one called WNT4. XY individuals with extra copies of this gene can develop atypical genitals and gonads, and a rudimentary uterus and Fallopian tubes5. In 2011, researchers showed6 that if another key ovarian gene, RSPO1, is not working normally, it causes XX people to develop an ovotestis — a gonad with areas of both ovarian and testicular development.

These discoveries have pointed to a complex process of sex determination, in which the identity of the gonad emerges from a contest between two opposing networks of gene activity.

 

[cullennz]

Never knew my gonads had such a complex history

 

[ponderingturtle]

Well, not many. Hardly any, really. And most "peeping Tom" incidents have nothing to do with transgenderism.


But I think that Rolfe's contribution to the thread, regarding AGP, is more relevant. I had never heard the term before, but it's a real thing.

Is it though? It seemed to be classifying all trans people as sexual perverts. That trans women are men who want to invade women's spaces for their sexual gratification.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I agree, but the accusation of bigotry is just icing on the cake. Meanwhile, if the school board says that the "penis men" have a right to be there, there is not a lot that the high school girls can do about it. Boycotts. Walkouts. Skip gym class. That's about it.

And if you are not comfortable with gays in there you have the same options. The problems come from demanding others conform to your standards of comfort. It is hard to draw out that distinction but it is real and should be made. Being uncomfortable is just a feeling and does not mark someone as behaving problematically, it is how they deal with that feeling and what they demand of others that gets problematic.

 

[Belz...]

https://www.nature.com/news/sex-redefined-1.16943

See, that's how you provide evidence for a claim. Nicely done.

 

[cullennz]

And if you are not comfortable with gays in there you have the same options. The problems come from demanding others conform to your standards of comfort. It is hard to draw out that distinction but it is real and should be made. Being uncomfortable is just a feeling and does not mark someone as behaving problematically, it is how they deal with that feeling and what they demand of others that gets problematic.

This works both ways

Demanding some people to be comfortable to suit a miniscule amount of others to have comfort is no different from demanding the miniscule amount of people to feel comfortable using a bog they don't find comfortable.

The only difference is numbers

 

[ponderingturtle]

This works both ways

Demanding some people to be comfortable to suit a miniscule amount of others to have comfort is no different from demanding the miniscule amount of people to feel comfortable using a bog they don't find comfortable.

The only difference is numbers

This just seems to be an argument against minority rights in general. It works well for all of them. Why change marriage and discomfort the majority of people for the minority of people who think interracial marriage is OK? Why bother with those annoying ramps when so few people need them? Please give me some mathematical answers for when minority rights are acceptable and when discomforting the majority wins out?

 

[kellyb]

In locker rooms, why not just put in some changing stalls and then everybody wins?

 

[ponderingturtle]

In locker rooms, why not just put in some changing stalls and then everybody wins?

But that would be like forcing people to build ramps for the trivial number of people who need them.

 

[Belz...]

But that would be like forcing people to build ramps for the trivial number of people who need them.

There may be benefits to a much larger number of people to such a modification, not just trans people, but other as well.

 

[ponderingturtle]

There may be benefits to a much larger number of people to such a modification, not just trans people, but other as well.

But you lose the ability to claim trans people are just doing it all for the sexual thrill like Rolfe is saying.

 

[Belz...]

But you lose the ability to claim trans people are just doing it all for the sexual thrill like Rolfe is saying.

Well I disagree with what Rolfe is saying, though somehow I don't remember her claim being what you're posting here.

It's a bit sad, though not unexpected, that you didn't actually respond to what I said, however.

 

[Meadmaker]

This may be a bit of an aside to where things are going in this thread, but as it is an issue coming up where I work, it is something I and others I work with have been thinking about.
How wise is it to start making policy decisions based on less than 1% of the population? Wouldn't it be better to acknowledge the difference and make reasonable accommodation as the need arises?
Policy decisions made on such a minority population seem destined to cause problems. I have coworkers who have in the past been assaulted in women's restrooms, who are being disciplined for objecting to the fact that anyone who identifies as a woman can use a woman's restroom. This is a reasonable concern based on prior experience, but expressing it has put them in violation of equity policies; their personal history being ignored as a factor.
Basing gender on nothing more than a personal statement of identity is a bad policy. Basing any policy on less than 1% of the population would seem to me to be a bad basis for any policy.

Just curious. Why were they assaulted in women's restrooms? i.e. were they (cis) females, assaulted by men who had snuck in? Or some other situation? For example, we've heard of cases of transwomen being assaulted for attempting to use the women's room, by people who called them men. Also, "being disciplined"? I know that some people look down on views that are not "politically correct", but I haven't heard of job actions being taken against people just for opposing a restroom policy. I suppose if they were sufficiently vociferous that it would constitute harassment, that might do it. i.e. the difference between, "I don't think trans people should use the ladies' room" versus, "Get out of the ladies' room, creep!"

Can you elaborate a bit?

As for the 1% rule, I think the way you stated it is a bit too broad. It sounds logical, for cases where you can't accommodate both the 99% and the 1%, but is that the case here? There are plenty of rules that only directly affect a small number of people. For example, handicapped access rules might only apply to a small number of people, directly. It depends on the impact that it might have on the 99%.

I think what trans activists would say is that the 99% ought to be doing the "right" thing anyway, so the only reason that there is a down side for anyone is that some among the 99% are behaving badly, and they should stop. Applying that in this case, they would say that a woman who doesn't want to take off her clothes in front of a transgender has a weird hangup and they need to get over their erroneous ideas about gender identity and stop discriminating against the minority of women who happen to have penises. Not sure I really buy into that, but that's what I think they would say.

 

[Meadmaker]

Well I disagree with what Rolfe is saying, though somehow I don't remember her claim being what you're posting here.

It's a bit sad, though not unexpected, that you didn't actually respond to what I said, however.

Well, of course that wasn't what Rolfe was saying. Would you expect PonderingTurtle to actually describe what anyone else was saying correctly? It just doesn't happen.

 

[Belz...]

Yeah I know but hope springs eternal.