Cont: Trans Women are not Women 4

[Louden Wilde]

That entirely depends on where the trans condition originates from. If it is biological/genetic in origin, then the number of trans people would be the same. If it's environmentally produced, then it's a more complicated question.

Actually, this leads to another question: suppose a trans-gene were located and could be tested for. And suppose that once detected in early childhood (or even before birth) a "gene therapy" or something could be given to a child that would align their mental development with their physical development. If doing so would eliminate a great deal of stress for the child, would parents be correct to do so?

Great questions!
Trans-ID is likely a combination of genetics and environment. The gold standard of course is looking at monozygotic (MZ) twins raised apart (which of course is not trivial) - meaning unless there is near 100% concordance in MZ twins, than there must be a significant environmental component. A quick google and pubmed search supports this idea.
The most recent study I see (Diamond, 2013- Transsexuality Among Twins: Identity Concordance, Transition, Rearing, and Orientation) says: Combining data from the present survey with those from past-published reports, 20% of all male and female monozygotic twin pairs were found concordant for transsexual identity. This was more frequently the case for males (33%) than for females (23%).


But yes, eventually we will probably ID alleles that increase the chances of being trans - they may very well be included in comprehensive genetic testing that include what are called polygenic risk scores - that will tell your risk of common diseases (diabetes, heart, etc) that are caused by many genes with risk alleles that each have small effects. We'll probably also have a sense of what your long term stress levels and how long you are likely to live based on a combination of your genetics and epigenetic patterns (I was watching a virtual symposium yesterday, where scientist noted she could now tell whether a person had smoked based on epigenetic patterns). There is likely an epigenetic signature for being trans as well, but probably confined to specific areas of the CNS (making it difficult to test).

How we use that information and potentially alter people is going to be... interesting

 

[Tippit]

You are disagreeing with a very well qualified biologist posting facts? Really?

Let’s be fair, much of that post was opinion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Louden Wilde]

To pass on your genes specifically, as opposed to the genes of the overall population, males offspring are more advantageous for mammals*. You have to be remember because individual reproductive strategies are not necessarily the most effective for the population as a whole. So while you are making male babies and hoping your neighbors all have girls, your neighbor is doing the same thing.

That said, I think there are sociological issues in play in Asia. Whether those have origins in biology is an whole other question.

Yes! Unless population is quite inbred, it is likely that individual reproductive strategies will differ from what from what is most effective long term for the pop/species. On the second part, I would argue that sociology being an organismal behavior is an aspect of biology, but I get your point: what is driving that behavior- a deeper tendency in human biology or some very transient response to an environmental condition ? But regardless - I brought up that issue to emphasize that women are treated differently largely because of their sex rather than gender identity (to get back on track for the thread).

 

[caveman1917]

Agreed it's great when people don't behave this way, but they often have (and do), unfortunately. There are many forces that could influence that behavior - genotype, environment (food and water abundance, maybe?, completion for resources - intra & inter-specifically).

What you're saying about China ( also evidence in India, as I recall) agrees with what I was saying- that those forces (sex-selective abortion, infanticide, neglect of female children) caused the skew. I'm not allowed to link, but ratio is getting closer to 1:1 recently.

My bigger point being that I think it's naïve to think that evolutionary pressures have played little/no role in how humans treat each other and particularly how this has impacted females. My thought is that is easier to minimize the effects of something you acknowledge.

Of course female infanticide caused the skew, but your explanation for female infanticide was based on maximizing reproductive success in an environment where females are plenty. And that's simply contradicted by the fact that the environment is, to the contrary, one where females are rare. If your explanation were correct we'd see male infanticide in China & India (where females are rare) and female infanticide in places like post-WW2 Europe where females were plenty after tons of males died in the war. We don't see either.

While it's certainly true that evolutionary pressures played some role - personally I think it's quite a minimal role, but it's there nevertheless - in how humans treat each other, that's just a general observation which doesn't, in itself, support any specific evolutionary explanation given for any specific social phenomenon. Too often evolutionary biology, or rather evolutionary psychology/sociology I suppose, devolves into just-so stories and unsupported extrapolations from other species to explain social phenomena that end up just being contradicted by observation.

If you have direct evidence that a sex ratio is skewed towards females and you have a model that predicts that there then should be a preference for male offspring, then sure, you have an explanation for female infanticide. But skipping the first step, and going straight to giving some evolutionary-inspired explanation for female infanticide which relies on there being a female-slanted skew in sex ratio, isn't helping anyone when the actual skew in the sex ratio is literally the opposite of what the explanation requires. The same goes for oppression of females or the disabled, it's all nice and well to come up with some evolutionary-inspired explanation for these phenomena but that isn't helping anyone when it turns out that early hunter-gatherers generally had sex equality and took care of their disabled, in contradiction of what the explanation requires.

 

[Ziggurat]

Actually, this leads to another question: suppose a trans-gene were located and could be tested for. And suppose that once detected in early childhood (or even before birth) a "gene therapy" or something could be given to a child that would align their mental development with their physical development. If doing so would eliminate a great deal of stress for the child, would parents be correct to do so?

Let's take that question a step further. Suppose you could genetically test the fetus for this hypothetical gene. Given that life is harder for trans people, would it be ethical for parents to abort a fetus because it had that gene?

 

[caveman1917]

But regardless - I brought up that issue to emphasize that women are treated differently largely because of their sex rather than gender identity (to get back on track for the thread).

Sure, but that doesn't mean the differential treatment itself is biologically determined. The concurrent advent of patriarchy together with agriculture and private property can be explained by the rise of a need to "assign" individual children to individual fathers because of inheritance - with private property comes inheritance. "This is my child because it came out of my wife therefor it inherits my property." So yes they are treated differently because of their sex - specifically their ability to rear children - but their differential treatment ultimately isn't determined by biology per se but by the happenstance that property passed from father to son, leading to wives being included in the whole property concept - the earliest legal codes simply included wives as their husband's property just like any other property.

At least I consider this a much more likely explanation than the evolutionary one, as that one is contradicted by the fact that if you go back far enough to prehistoric hunter-gatherer times you generally get sex equality again.

 

[Louden Wilde]

If your explanation were correct we'd see male infanticide in China & India (where females are rare) and female infanticide in places like post-WW2 Europe where females were plenty after tons of males died in the war. We don't see either.

Too often evolutionary biology, or rather evolutionary psychology/sociology I suppose, devolves into just-so stories and unsupported extrapolations from other species

While it's certainly true that evolutionary pressures played some role - personally I think it's quite a minimal role

Modern humans have been around a few hundred thousand years - we don't know what happened in most of the populations across most of that time. FWIW, I don't think lack of male infanticide in post-WW2 Europe is evidence against what happened/is happening in China (& India) - As noted males are potentially greater reward.

That being said, I agree that it's easy to get caught up in just-so stories. Note I put it forward as a hypothesis. As with most human cases ( & selection in general), it's not not an easy one to test - especially in that people (presumably unlike other mammals) may actually be conscious of their strategy. Even with the theorists it's tricky - while there is inherent potential for conflict between the sexes (males wanting to extract maximal resources from females for their offspring) there can be cooperation under conditions (monogamy, ample resources, etc.).

More broadly, I brought the Asia ratio up as an example that girls/women are treated differently due to their sex (rather than gender identity). I think it likely that a good chunk of this (differential treatment) has its basis in the huge disparity the two sexes are required to invest in reproduction.

 

[TomB]

Sure, but that doesn't mean the differential treatment itself is biologically determined. The concurrent advent of patriarchy together with agriculture and private property can be explained by the rise of a need to "assign" individual children to individual fathers because of inheritance - with private property comes inheritance. "This is my child because it came out of my wife therefor it inherits my property." So yes they are treated differently because of their sex - specifically their ability to rear children - but their differential treatment ultimately isn't determined by biology per se but by the happenstance that property passed from father to son, leading to wives being included in the whole property concept - the earliest legal codes simply included wives as their husband's property just like any other property.

At least I consider this a much more likely explanation than the evolutionary one, as that one is contradicted by the fact that if you go back far enough to prehistoric hunter-gatherer times you generally get sex equality again.

I think it's a little of both. By that I mean that I think that some of the gender roles have their root in biology: Males are stronger and therefore hunt and protect. Females are vulnerable during pregnancy and also provide milk for children, therefore they care for the children and do the tasks close to home. That forms a basis from which societies have evolved. Unfortunately, in many ways rather than a complimentary partnership, in many cases that evolution evolved into the property/dependence system like you describe.

But societies have evolved to the point where those biological factors are no longer nearly as significant. Humans have developed tools. Weapon tools make physical strength a less significant factor in protection. So a woman doesn't need a man to protect her if she has a gun. Additionally, society has evolved to where violence to control women is no longer acceptable. Similarly, we now have artificial baby formulas that allow men to be the caregivers of even young children. There is no longer a biological reason for that to be an exclusively female role.

Many of the traditional roles are anachronistic because tool development has reduced or eliminated the need or rationale behind them. We just hold onto them because that's the way it's always been and there is resistance to change.

 

[TomB]

Modern humans have been around a few hundred thousand years - we don't know what happened in most of the populations across most of that time. FWIW, I don't think lack of male infanticide in post-WW2 Europe is evidence against what happened/is happening in China (& India) - As noted males are potentially greater reward.

That being said, I agree that it's easy to get caught up in just-so stories. Note I put it forward as a hypothesis. As with most human cases ( & selection in general), it's not not an easy one to test - especially in that people (presumably unlike other mammals) may actually be conscious of their strategy. Even with the theorists it's tricky - while there is inherent potential for conflict between the sexes (males wanting to extract maximal resources from females for their offspring) there can be cooperation under conditions (monogamy, ample resources, etc.).

More broadly, I brought the Asia ratio up as an example that girls/women are treated differently due to their sex (rather than gender identity). I think it likely that a good chunk of this (differential treatment) has its basis in the huge disparity the two sexes are required to invest in reproduction.

On the infanticide thing....

I think your biological hypothesis applies more to why many societies value male children more than female children. But I don't think it directly results in the female infanticide in China. The emphasis on the value of the male children is what does that. And it might partly have to do with reproductive strategies. But it's more complicated than that.

When I took a third world geography class as an undergrad, we talked about the value of children to families in underdeveloped nations. Boys were valued for two reasons: First, they were labor for the farm (Not that girls aren't, but boys make better plow-horses). Second, they were the parent's social security system. Multiple sons were valued as not all survived to adulthood or to the parents old age. In addition to being free labor, the eldest surviving son can take over the farm and provide and care for the parents when they get too old to support themselves. In a sense, they aren't thinking of their grandchildren, they are thinking of themselves. This is also part of the reason that introducing birth control does not dramatically reduce birth rates immediately.

 

[sphenisc]

There is overwhelming evidence that the process of human development into two sexes is homologous with the process that occurs in all other mammals.

Except the for the duck-billed platypus and it's ten sex chromosome system. [/pedant]

 

[Louden Wilde]

Except the for the duck-billed platypus and it's ten sex chromosome system. [/pedant]

I probably should have said therian mammals if you include the chromosomes as part of the process, but unaware of any evidence that suggests more than two sexes in monotremes. There are also notably a few rodent species that lack a Y chromosome, but sexual development still looks like that in other mammals. Those pathways seem largely conserved across amniotes at least - so I also could have been more broad.

 

[Louden Wilde]

Similarly, we now have artificial baby formulas that allow men to be the caregivers of even young children. There is no longer a biological reason for that to be an exclusively female role.

Many of the traditional roles are anachronistic because tool development has reduced or eliminated the need or rationale behind them. We just hold onto them because that's the way it's always been and there is resistance to change.

Agree, except that prenatal development is inherently a female role in mammals ( & I suspect across the world most post-natal care is still assumed by females).

 

[Minoosh]

"Oppressed for thousands of years" seems hyperbolic. Do you have evidence of this oppression?

In a free market system (which I concede that we do not have, but ideally) employers decide who and how much to pay employees. Do you presume that the state should decide who gets hired and how much they get paid, in order to achieve some notion of "fairness" in your mind? That would be consistent with communism, which is clearly the goal of the "patriarchs" using the feminists to achieve their goal of dominating everyone.

Gender "stereotypes" are often reflective of reality. For instance, women are typically physically weaker than men, suffer athletically in comparison, and typically possess less spatial intelligence than men. On the other hand, women possess higher verbal intelligence and social IQ, are better at raising children, and are generally more intuitive.

Is society really better off when women (and apparently everyone else) decide collectively that raising children is less important than making individual careers? Are women really better off now that they're all but forced economically to get jobs and earn money working, whereas before they mostly worked at home, everything else subsidized by males? It certainly isn't clear to me. I don't think anyone is better off as a result of feminism.

Do you mean this literally? Not a single, solitary individual is better off as a result of feminism? And what is your definition of "feminism"?

For someone who espouses libertarian-like views regarding ideal "free markets," you seem to put a lot of stock in everyone collectively accepting traditional gender roles. You seem to be saying that all women, even the most brilliant, should turn their entire being toward domestic arts such as raising children, doing housework and trying to look as attractive as possible. And that men, some of whom love raising children, cooking, sewing etc. should instead be relegated to the outside-the-home breadwinner role, even if their mate(s) are better suited.

I don't know how to square rigid gender roles with the importance or desirability of individual rights/self-realization. Is there more or less freedom for individuals now than there was, say, in the era of feudalism?

I think you are setting up a false dilemma by implying that we should rank the "importance" of raising children vs. pursuing individual careers. You believe humanity might be better off if half of its members agree to be subsidized by the other half. And never mind if many women want to earn their own damn money! I don't think there's any strong biological determinant for nearly as much segregation as you imply. As I see it, just about anyone can raise children and do housework. It doesn't take much of an education.

As far as strength differences: Men on average have more upper body strength than women, but then, apes have stronger upper bodies than men. Humanity long ago bridged the strength/fitness divide with technology. We did it with fire, flint-knapping, textiles, projectiles, gunpowder and so on. Woolly mammoths were much larger than men, but with numbers and spears, relatively tiny humans could prevail. (And who needs to kill a mammoth, anyway?) I have trouble loosening very tight lug nuts with my arms, but stomping on the wrench works fine.

I wasn't going to respond to this as it drifts off topic, but I notice the thread has drifted away from the ostensible topic anyway. theprestige asked a question about collective/individual rights and I didn't respond to that, for the same reason, but I see these subjects as related. My short answer to his question was the same as my reply to you: I think you both are making an error in logic.

theprestige: I may answer you as well ... not sure how this thread needs any more tangents, though frankly at this point the evolution of gender roles may be a more interesting/productive discussion because apparently we're not going to resolve the female locker room/women's sports issues.

 

[Minoosh]

Agree, except that prenatal development is inherently a female role in mammals ( & I suspect across the world most post-natal care is still assumed by females).

But why do men have nipples?

(Because they can lactate apparently!)

 

[Tippit]

Modern humans have been around a few hundred thousand years - we don't know what happened in most of the populations across most of that time. FWIW, I don't think lack of male infanticide in post-WW2 Europe is evidence against what happened/is happening in China (& India) - As noted males are potentially greater reward.

China was, and still is with the exception of the first tier cities, a mostly agrarian society. The female infanticide and discrimination against female babies stems from a purely economic, not reproductive motive. Males are not only more proficient in farm work and physical labor, but they also carry the family surname, something which is very important in Asia.

Given the one-child policy which was implemented in the late 70s presumably for population control and "economic stimulus", the notion of a family's one child being female became problematic, and it was a disaster waiting to happen. These are the consequences of autocratic, despotic regimes, and they very often override all other forms of human behavior. Chairman Mao was famous for ordering the destruction of sparrows, which were perceived as a nuisance, and when the sparrows were mostly gone, China was invaded by a plague of locusts, which ordinarily would have been prey for the sparrows.

It should be pretty clear that the epigenetic factors of autocratic political regimes can easily override genetic ones when determining human behavior.

 

[theprestige]

But why do men have nipples?

(Because they can lactate apparently!)

Ooh. Tell us more about male nursemaids.

Tell us more about how having nipples means males are equivalent to females.

 

[Tippit]

Do you mean this literally? Not a single, solitary individual is better off as a result of feminism? And what is your definition of "feminism"?

I should have said "I don't think that society is better off as a result of feminism". I believe that feminism is largely an ideology perpetrated by super-rich elites to subjugate men by enlisting women in their "emancipation" from their "oppressors", using the full power of the totalitarian state. Gloria Steinem, the mother of modern feminism, was a CIA agent. Margaret Sanger, perhaps the grandmother of feminism, was a racist eugenicist.

For someone who espouses libertarian-like views regarding ideal "free markets," you seem to put a lot of stock in everyone collectively accepting traditional gender roles. You seem to be saying that all women, even the most brilliant, should turn their entire being toward domestic arts such as raising children, doing housework and trying to look as attractive as possible. And that men, some of whom love raising children, cooking, sewing etc. should instead be relegated to outside-the-home the breadwinner role, even if their mate(s) are better suited.

I'm a liberty-minded conspiracy theorist and a male chauvinist, not a libertarian, and certainly not a Libertarian. While I sympathize with having smaller, more accountable government (so as to minimize the coercive power of the conspirators), the Libertarian party is not viable given the plurality voting system, so I view it as mostly a joke. I do value traditional gender roles, but I also value individual freedom. I think the most brilliant women should be (and already are) free to reach their goals, I simply oppose feminism that seeks to use the coercive power of the state to subjugate men. I similarly view transgender as another method to undermine the traditional nuclear family, and pave the way for state paternalism, which makes me an unlikely ally of some feminists.

I don't know how to square rigid gender roles with the importance or desirability of individual rights/self-realization. Is there more or less freedom for individuals now than there was, say, in the era of feudalism?

There is definitely more freedom for individuals, and for women specifically. I think it is possible that feminism has gone too far. For instance, government subsidies of female higher education has left males behind, for the first time in history. This is a problem.

I think you are setting up a false dilemma by implying that we should rank the "importance" of raising children vs. pursuing individual careers. You believe humanity might be better off if half of its members agree to be subsidized by the other half. And never mind if many women want to earn their own damn money! I don't think there's any strong biological determinant for nearly as much segregation as you imply. As I see it, just about anyone can raise children and do housework. It doesn't take much of an education.

As a conspiracy theorist with an emphasis on finance, I know that there are economic reasons which have largely forced women into the work place, which has necessitated feminist work place reforms. My general philosophy is that people should be free to do mostly what they want unless they're causing harm, and I generally oppose advocacy groups trying to use state power to force others to submit to their agenda. Whether it's feminists, transgenders, or men's right's activists.

 

[Paul2]

I should have said "I don't think that society is better off as a result of feminism". I believe that feminism is largely an ideology perpetrated by super-rich elites to subjugate men by enlisting women in their "emancipation" from their "oppressors", using the full power of the totalitarian state. Gloria Steinem, the mother of modern feminism, was a CIA agent. Margaret Sanger, perhaps the grandmother of feminism, was a racist eugenicist..

That escalated quickly . . . .

 

[Paul2]

Margaret Sanger, perhaps the grandmother of feminism, was a racist eugenicist.

It was the Seneca falls convention of 1848, with Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott, that started feminism in the U.S. They are the founders, not Sanger.

Oh, and Sanger's racism and eugenicist has nothing to do with the value or appropriateness of feminism. Choosing Sanger to be the grandmother of feminism merely allows you to poison the well.

 

[Minoosh]

Ooh. Tell us more about male nursemaids.

Tell us more about how having nipples means males are equivalent to females.

Equivalent means of equal value, which is not the same thing as "identical." Are all human lives of equal value? I think different cultures would have different answers.

Strange but True: Males Can Lactate