Those stupid parents!

[Republic_Of_Public]

Now there's a double-headed coin if ever there was!

 

[Oftencold]

Gender is a social construct.

Wow. That's one of the oddest things I've ever read anyone assert.

Tell me, what sort of adjustment to the Social Consciousness does it take to make someone with an XY autosome set, testes, no ovaries, no uterus and a penis capable of giving birth? I mean if this person's gender is a social construct, it should take nothing more than a proper public mindset, yes?

 

[Oftencold]

Children have no natural rights except the right to life (from the point of physical autonomy) and the right to emancipation.

That aside, parents can do anything they want, as long as it doesn't kill the child or interfere with his/her ability to sue for emancipation, now or at a later time, or to have someone else sue on the child's behalf.

Sorry,children aren't property. Under your reasoning, parents could use their children for sex slaves, sell their surplus organs, dismember them in any non-fatal manner or simply sell them.

I doubt you'll find much in the way of legal or social support fort that notion.

 

[Arcana XV]

Wow. That's one of the oddest things I've ever read anyone assert.

Tell me, what sort of adjustment to the Social Consciousness does it take to make someone with an XY autosome set, testes, no ovaries, no uterus and a penis capable of giving birth? I mean if this person's gender is a social construct, it should take nothing more than a proper public mindset, yes?

How is what she said even remotely odd? The debate between those who believe that gender is a social construct and those who believe that biology alone dictates our gender identity has been going on for eons.Where have you been?

What you're talking about is basic biology. Biology is simple. You have a set of chromosomes which makes you either a male or a female. Would it that the human psyche were that easy to categorize. Gender is more than the set of chromosomes you were born with. Your gender identity is constructed by the expectations that society puts upon you often from the moment you were born. The men and women of the early 21st century are very different from the men and women of the early 20th. The social expectations placed on both genders have shifted, blended even. Many of today's women would probably scare the bejeezus out of our great-grandfathers. Women have become much more masculine in their behavior, because that is what is expected of them today.

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

Here we go with that 'blank sheet of paper' crap again!

It's been well documented that men and women are generally mentally as well as genetically different. It's why men look different to women, sound different, behave different and grow differently.

It's been the cause of argument, study, celebration and bad comedy acts for years. There's a difference betwen conscious behaviour and natural inclination. Men being generally gruff and girls being generally, well, girly has been reflected in all manner of mutually exclusive cultures throughout Man's history.

 

[Arcana XV]

Here we go with that 'blank sheet of paper' crap again!

It's been well documented that men and women are generally mentally as well as genetically different. It's why men look different to women, sound different, behave different and grow differently.

It's been the cause of argument, study, celebration and bad comedy acts for years. There's a difference betwen conscious behaviour and natural inclination. Men being generally gruff and girls being generally, well, girly has been reflected in all manner of mutually exclusive cultures throughout Man's history.

It's also been well documented that the way the genders behave is heavily influenced by their environment, their culture, their upbringing, even their level of education. You do see a difference between the way, say, Saudi Arabian man and women behave compared to the way American men and women behave, right?
Of course the sheet of paper isn't blank! No one made such an inane claim. Biology is what it is. Like it or not, we're born with it and the sheet is most certainly not blank. The thing is, though, when it comes to gender behavior the sheet can be easily written over.

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

Are you trying to say that both culture and genetics maketh the man (and woman of course)?

If so, I agree.

 

[Wessexman]

Gender is a social construct.

No it isn't it is partly a social construct and partly a material one. To say it is a social construct alone would be to completely remove gender roles from any kind of material base which historically seems absurd. All human institutions and norms are an interplay of social and material factors and the idea that so key a norm as gender roles is not created by the co-ordination of both material and social factors is silly. It is to basically cut off humans and human society from any kind of material base.

Plus something being a social construct does not mean it can easily be defied by an individual. In many ways for the individual in the here and now a social construct, particularly in such important roles, almost might as well be genetically determined for all the good it would do one trying to change it quickly.

There is an inconsistency in this implied way of thinking; ie that such things are wholly social constructs, apart from the implied silliness of removing material factors completely from the equation despite such being a key part of our universe, and yet can easily be set aside because of that. It sets up social norms and institutions as extremely important in the lives of individuals and yet then disregards them as basically ephemeral. It is what Hayek would of called the errors of constructivism, the idea that just because man creates a lot of his social environment it means he can easily recreate it.

 

[Wessexman]

Malarkey; reputable scientists say no such thing. Gender is a social construct.
And if it were true, it would make it all the more crucial that those in need of sex reassignments (ie, those who want them) receive them.

Actually I think there are differences in female and males brains. And if I remember correctly only some transsexuals or similar are thought to have a neurologically based issue to do with having, to put it simplistically, the wrong brain for their outward body.

 

[Oftencold]

You keep confusing gender, which is a biological state, with gender identity, which can only be correct or incorrect, barring those rare cases, when such things as genetic abnormalities might create true gender anomolies.

Consider that genetics also gives us species determination, and that anyone who claims to be confused abut their species is considered to be mentally ill. The same should follow for gender identity.

As many great observers have noted, we Moderns are so divorced from the hardships of old that we find a need to invent problems, such as we are discussing here.

By the way, your description of modern women being tougher or "more masculine" than their foremothers shows a grotesque misunderstanding of the burdens borne by women in previous ages, especially in the earlier eras of America.

This shallow perception results from viewing the recent, pampered generations as somehow "normal."

 

[Alex Libman]

Sorry,children aren't property. Under your reasoning, parents could use their children for sex slaves, sell their surplus organs, dismember them in any non-fatal manner or simply sell them.

Children are dependents, because they are incapable of being self-owning individuals, which requires the capacity to reason and take responsibility for one's actions. If they are indeed capable of this, they should sue to be emancipated from their parents (possibly under the condition of being adopted by someone else).

Children exist as a consequence of their parents' decision to have them, and the rights parents have over their children are their reward for doing so. A society that deprives parents of those rights inevitably faces a demographic collapse - no one in their right mind wants to spend so much time, money, and effort raising little snitches for the state!

Sure, it is possible that some parents out there will mistreat their children (and what exactly constitutes mistreatment is also highly subjective), but parents remain the natural and most reliable authority to make up the gap in a child's rights. There can be other means of discouraging child abuse, including contractual obligations made through social pressure from religious groups, secular ethical societies, family, schools, insurance companies, neighborhood associations, and so on. And getting away with child abuse in a modern society is next to impossible: most child abusers will eventually be exposed, backlisted, and ostracized. Would you go to a store if its profile on a consumer watchdog Web-site had an alert that they're employing a known child abuser? Most people won't. Etc. This is a far more effective system of dealing with culturally-subjective issues like child abuse.

Freedom isn't free: its price is having to tolerate (i.e. not initiate aggression against) people you disagree with exercising their natural rights over their own lives and their families. Your blind faith in corruption-prone violent government monopolies is completely irrational, and can only lead to its ever-greater tyranny over us all!

I doubt you'll find much in the way of legal or social support fort that notion.

Two logical fallacies (an appeal to tradition / authority and an appeal to popularity) don't add up to one rational argument.

 

[Oftencold]

Under this reasoning, no one drunk, asleep, in a coma, or indeed heavily fatigued would have most of their rights, since their mental functioning falls to at least the level of a child.

 

[Alex Libman]

Under this reasoning, no one drunk, asleep, in a coma, or indeed heavily fatigued would have most of their rights, since their mental functioning falls to at least the level of a child.

A person in a coma can in fact lose one's self-ownership (see my position on mental illness here), but those other examples are cases of temporary conditions that can be planned for in advance, and in the majority of cases don't lead to violations of other people's rights. Most people can manage to get a full night's sleep or even go on a weekend drinking binge while staying on their own property (or a place where they have permission to be) and without losing their grip on their affairs. People are innocent until proven guilty, even if they engage in risky behavior like drinking or drugs.

Young children and non-human animals are different: they just don't have the neurological capacity to be a "rational economic actor", and never did beforehand.

 

[Oftencold]

A person in a coma can in fact lose one's self-ownership (see my position on mental illness here), but those other examples are cases of temporary conditions that can be planned for in advance, and in the majority of cases don't lead to violations of other people's rights. Most people can manage to get a full night's sleep or even go on a weekend drinking binge while staying on their own property (or a place where they have permission to be) and without losing their grip on their affairs. People are innocent until proven guilty, even if they engage in risky behavior like drinking or drugs.

Young children and non-human animals are different: they just don't have the neurological capacity to be a "rational economic actor", and never did beforehand.

And is not childhood a set of "cases of temporary conditions that can be planned for in advance"?

 

[Alex Libman]

And is not childhood a set of "cases of temporary conditions that can be planned for in advance"?

Only if you believe in reincarnation - for which there's no objective evidence.

Otherwise someone else has to do the "planning" - thus parents' right.

 

[Arcana XV]

Are you trying to say that both culture and genetics maketh the man (and woman of course)?

If so, I agree.

Then, we agree. :2wave:

 

[Arcana XV]

You keep confusing gender, which is a biological state, with gender identity, which can only be correct or incorrect, barring those rare cases, when such things as genetic abnormalities might create true gender anomolies.

I prefer to see it in terms of sex is biologically determined, whereas gender (or gender identity, if this phrase makes you more comfortable) is a social construct. Practically everything that is not written in our genetic make up is a social construct. Humans are social animals and we learn to function within the society we live in. Society dictates our behavior and our acceptance in said society depends on whether or not we follow those expectations.

Consider that genetics also gives us species determination, and that anyone who claims to be confused abut their species is considered to be mentally ill. The same should follow for gender identity.

I don't see why the same should follow for gender identity. Gender keeps things within the same species. Branding what we don't understand with the "mentally ill" label is too simplistic. There could be a very logical genetic explanation for why some people feel trapped in the wrong body. In which case it would be yet another "genetic defect", for lack of a better term. As genetic defects go, this one would be as harmless to society as albinism is.

As many great observers have noted, we Moderns are so divorced from the hardships of old that we find a need to invent problems, such as we are discussing here.

By the way, your description of modern women being tougher or "more masculine" than their foremothers shows a grotesque misunderstanding of the burdens borne by women in previous ages, especially in the earlier eras of America.

You know perfectly well that I wasn't talking about physical characteristics but about behavior and the place a woman is expected to hold in the society, culture and time she lives in.

I don't believe that gender confusion is a "new" problem the modern human has invented because he's bored. But it is true that, at least in the West, we do have the luxury and the means of spending the time needed to analyze and understand it. I don't see that there's anything wrong with that.

This shallow perception results from viewing the recent, pampered generations as somehow "normal."

We are "normal". For our time. "Normal" is a social construct. :mrgreen:

 

[Oftencold]

I prefer to see it in terms of sex is biologically determined, whereas gender (or gender identity, if this phrase makes you more comfortable) is a social construct. Practically everything that is not written in our genetic make up is a social construct. Humans are social animals and we learn to function within the society we live in. Society dictates our behavior and our acceptance in said society depends on whether or not we follow those expectations.

A male is still a male, a female is still a female. One may alter, or attempt to alter the social expression of gender, but asserting that one is "supposed" th have a different genotype as well as phenotype to match some undeniable mental aberration is a pretty good example of mental illness.

I once watched a man try repeatedly to walk though a brick wall. I suppose he might have thought himself a bulldozer tapped in a human's body.

Would it have been proper and compassionate to humor him, and to begin surgical correction?

I don't see why the same should follow for gender identity. Gender keeps things within the same species. Branding what we don't understand with the "mentally ill" label is too simplistic. There could be a very logical genetic explanation for why some people feel trapped in the wrong body. In which case it would be yet another "genetic defect", for lack of a better term. As genetic defects go, this one would be as harmless to society as albinism is.

Gender is as unchangeable as species. There has never been a real "sex-change" operation. Once again I leave aside those unfortunates with true genetic issues and perhaps genetic "chimeras" who are truly ambiguous sexually.

Surgery produces people mutilated to appear as something they are not.

As for your description of someone with another genetics aberration that alters their perceptions of their gender, this is simply a mental disorder by another name.

You know perfectly well that I wasn't talking about physical characteristics but about behavior and the place a woman is expected to hold in the society, culture and time she lives in.

I don't believe that gender confusion is a "new" problem the modern human has invented because he's bored. But it is true that, at least in the West, we do have the luxury and the means of spending the time needed to analyze and understand it. I don't see that there's anything wrong with that.

We are "normal". For our time. "Normal" is a social construct. :mrgreen:

I am not sure at all what you are describing abut the past roles of women in society, and I suspect that neither are you. The role of women in our society have been extremely complex, and varied by region, class, income, period, age and sadly ethnicity.

 

[liblady]

12 year-old boy gets sex-swap: Sex-change boy 'faces crucial time' - , - Latest news & weather forecasts - MSN News UK

The poor kid's obviously messed right up to want to be a girl at age 12, yet the only 'answer' seen applicable is to turn him into one. I reckon the parents are derelict in their duty try all they can to straighten (no pun intended) the boy out. It's a bit early in the kid's puberty to hit the 'nuclear button' to solve his perceived problems don't you think?

Adulthood's the time to make such a choice. Who knows whether the boy will want to go back after a while if he thinks his problems aren't solved. A few do.

And I also get the feeling that his school's headmaster, holding an assembly to presumably tell every cheeky git in the ruddy school not to think of him as a weirdo, is also not quite the best thing to do.

You just get the feeling the world's gone mad some days. What say others?

agreed. he's a little young.

 

[Arcana XV]

A male is still a male, a female is still a female. One may alter, or attempt to alter the social expression of gender, but asserting that one is "supposed" th have a different genotype as well as phenotype to match some undeniable mental aberration is a pretty good example of mental illness.

I once watched a man try repeatedly to walk though a brick wall. I suppose he might have thought himself a bulldozer tapped in a human's body.

Would it have been proper and compassionate to humor him, and to begin surgical correction?

I'm not convinced that all cases of gender identity disorder are the result of mental illness. Some appear in conjunction with schizophrenia and other disorders, but not all. Additionnally, this condition seems to be much more common in the Netherlands. It could be that because of the liberal nature of Dutch society people are more encouraged to seek medical help there, I don't know.

But let's assume, for the sake of following your argument, that it always is a mental illness. What is the harm to society if these people are "humored", as you say? Doing nothing or treating them in more conventional ways through therapy doesn't seem to work too well in the long run. I personally think that surgery should be the last resort and should only be performed on legal adults. I see no valid reason to deny an adult the right to have their own body altered.

Gender is as unchangeable as species. There has never been a real "sex-change" operation. Once again I leave aside those unfortunates with true genetic issues and perhaps genetic "chimeras" who are truly ambiguous sexually.

Surgery produces people mutilated to appear as something they are not.

Again, I have no problem with adults choosing to change their physical apearance any way they think will improve their quality of life. The field of plastic surgery is filled with more success stories than horror stories.

As for your description of someone with another genetics aberration that alters their perceptions of their gender, this is simply a mental disorder by another name.

It would still be a pretty harmless one. These people are neither dangerous nor contagious. If anything, they're only a danger to themselves. I see no reason not to do everything possible to help them find their place in society. Surgery is just one option among many.

I am not sure at all what you are describing abut the past roles of women in society, and I suspect that neither are you. The role of women in our society have been extremely complex, and varied by region, class, income, period, age and sadly ethnicity.

I don't know why you're confused. That's exactly what I've been saying.

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

And there are also prowling perverts to consider: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21428699-2,00.html

Yes, such incidents are fairly rare but this kid is pretty rare too. Dysfunctional and vulnerable, to quote the judge presiding over the exploited weirdo case.

 

[Wessexman]

I prefer to see it in terms of sex is biologically determined, whereas gender (or gender identity, if this phrase makes you more comfortable) is a social construct. Practically everything that is not written in our genetic make up is a social construct. Humans are social animals and we learn to function within the society we live in. Society dictates our behavior and our acceptance in said society depends on whether or not we follow those expectations.

Any social construct is an extremely complex thing. It is an web of links between material and ideational factors. I don't think anything so large as gender, and seemingly with many almost eternal historical similarities(not igorning the massive differences though.), could not be replete with links to the material make up of humans. One can only tentatively comment on such things but looking at history one would tend to see that gender, as opposed to just biological sex, does seem to have many constants and yet many variations depending on time and place.

And let's not forget that the ideational and social factors themselves, ignoring the material inputs, are often very deeply ingrained and intertwined within a society. Declaring something social instead of biological should still far from suggesting it is ephemeral. In fact quite a bit of social and ideational factors are as good as set for the individual and society in question short of massive and largely uncontrollable upheaval.

 

[Ethereal]

You don't know anything for sure, ROP. Things are never as black and white as we'd like them to be. Unless it's your child, then you don't know anything more than what the media has deemed spicy enough to report.

I refuse to let myself be dragged into the sensationalism that surrounds these sorts of cases. Extreme situations such as this one need indepth knowledge of all parties involved and we simply do not have access to it, nor do I think we should, to be quite honest.

I always feel like a sick voyeur when these cases are reported. I'm not a professional child therapist and it's not my place to judge what these parents have decided is best for their child. I just don't have enough to go on.

Since when do you have to be a professional child therapist to realize that surgically altering a person's natural sex organs in order to satisfy some perceived dissatisfaction thereof is negligent, not to mention crazy? I guess if he didn't like his arm they could just amputate that, too?

 

[Ethereal]

If I inexplicably woke up tomorrow in a male body, I'd settle for that.
It would be better than the alternative.
Anyway, you might as well say that any woman who has a hysterectomy is an "emasculated male".
True, this boy won't have a uterus, ovaries, or any of the internal female parts; but he'll take female hormones, and he'll have breasts, and his external genitalia will be indistinguishable from that of natural born females (I know, because I looked up medical pictures of post-op transsexuals one time; I'm curious that way).
It is entirely possible that his future lovers won't be able to tell that he wasn't born female.

I think the real question is, what makes one female?
What makes one male?
If it's hormones, or external features, then true sex reassignment is definitely possible; simple, really.
If it's, I don't know... internal things, like ovaries, fallopian tubes, etc, then you're basically saying that women who have these items removed (which is about one in five women, in the US) are then no longer female, which is kind of silly. You could be talking about your own mother.
This would also imply that any post-menopausal woman (in whom these organs no longer serve any real purpose, and basically atrophy) has become a sort of pseudo-male.
Which is rather insulting.

Maybe it's psychological. In which case, there has been a terrible mistake in the case of the girl in this article, who was born with male sex organs by accident.
Medical science must step in and restore her body to its rightful female state, or she'll surely have no quality of life at all, any more than you would if you woke up tomorrow with a vagina.

It's quite simple what makes a female and a male, and that's an XX and XY chromosomal configuration, respectively.

 

[First Thought]

Since when do you have to be a professional child therapist to realize that surgically altering a person's natural sex organs in order to satisfy some perceived dissatisfaction thereof is negligent, not to mention crazy? I guess if he didn't like his arm they could just amputate that, too?

Some people do that. There is a small group of people who are voluntary amputees and are happier than they have ever been. Just FYI.

Voluntary Amputation | MetaFilter