Understanding transgenderism.

[Angrboda]

Gender exists as an interaction between mind and body. The interaction between mind and body is ill-defined, so the definition of gender is ill-defined. We might want to suggest as Nudger does that it's all "data" that is acquired independent of the biological facts. But this would be going too far. We know that the brains of people with gender dysphoria differ from those of cis-gendered individuals in ways that strongly suggest a biological basis. And at bottom, the brain is biological, so the distinction itself is a construct. If there weren't biological sexes, there would be no gender. So gender is rooted in biology, even if its expression is moderated by mind and culture.

[Jehanne]

Gender exists as an interaction between mind and body. The interaction between mind and body is ill-defined, so the definition of gender is ill-defined. We might want to suggest as Nudger does that it's all "data" that is acquired independent of the biological facts. But this would be going too far. We know that the brains of people with gender dysphoria differ from those of cis-gendered individuals in ways that strongly suggest a biological basis. And at bottom, the brain is biological, so the distinction itself is a construct. If there weren't biological sexes, there would be no gender. So gender is rooted in biology, even if its expression is moderated by mind and culture.

I think that it should be pointed out that one reason that homosexuality was removed from the DSM was due to the fact that the "cure" rate for being gay was very low. Plus, gay men were showing up at the APA national meetings and causing trouble. Finally, many gays are happy and do not want therapy! Ditto for many trans.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Gender exists as an interaction between mind and body. The interaction between mind and body is ill-defined, so the definition of gender is ill-defined. We might want to suggest as Nudger does that it's all "data" that is acquired independent of the biological facts. But this would be going too far. We know that the brains of people with gender dysphoria differ from those of cis-gendered individuals in ways that strongly suggest a biological basis. And at bottom, the brain is biological, so the distinction itself is a construct. If there weren't biological sexes, there would be no gender. So gender is rooted in biology, even if its expression is moderated by mind and culture.

Yes, I agree.

However, I do sightly side with Nudger with regards to essentialism. I don't think we'll find any psychological or neurological sex difference that is exclusive to males or females, and therefore diagnostic of having a male/female brain or mind. In other words, I think the biological infrastructure that leads to transgender individuals, has something to do with the way the brain constructs identities. For example, we know there's overlap between our memory systems and our identities. So, anything as indirect as how we construct memories could indirectly affect how we form such identities.

I don't think, however, that there's any meaningful psychological experience for what it's like to be a female, aside from the embodied experience. So perhaps it's also worth discussing what it would and would not mean for gender to be rooted in biology.

[Silver]

It is interesting, however, that studies show the gay male brain is quite similar to straight female brains.

[Angrboda]

Gender exists as an interaction between mind and body.  The interaction between mind and body is ill-defined, so the definition of gender is ill-defined.  We might want to suggest as Nudger does that it's all "data" that is acquired independent of the biological facts.  But this would be going too far.  We know that the brains of people with gender dysphoria differ from those of cis-gendered individuals in ways that strongly suggest a biological basis.  And at bottom, the brain is biological, so the distinction itself is a construct.  If there weren't biological sexes, there would be no gender.  So gender is rooted in biology, even if its expression is moderated by mind and culture.

Yes, I agree.

However, I do sightly side with Nudger with regards to essentialism. I don't think we'll find any psychological or neurological sex difference that is exclusive to males or females, and therefore diagnostic of having a male/female brain or mind. In other words, I think the biological infrastructure that leads to transgender individuals, has something to do with the way the brain constructs identities. For example, we know there's overlap between our memory systems and our identities. So, anything as indirect as how we construct memories could indirectly affect how we form such identities.

I don't think, however, that there's any meaningful psychological experience for what it's like to be a female, aside from the embodied experience. So perhaps it's also worth discussing what it would and would not mean for gender to be rooted in biology.

“When we look at the transgender brain, we see that the brain resembles the gender that the person identifies as,” Dr. Altinay says. For example, a person who is born with a penis but ends up identifying as a female often actually has some of the structural characteristics of a “female” brain.

(link)

[John 6IX Breezy]

My initial thoughts after reading the link is that many of the sex differences they are probably referring to only exist at the population level and lose their significance at the individual level. They are statistical inferences, and as such, are dealing with patterns of overlapping bell curves that only emerge in aggregate. In other words, I don't think they're finding structures or functions that only a woman's brains can have. There are no "ovaries and testes" of the brain, such that if you have such structures you are by definition a female.

ps. To sort of walk back what I just said. I'm a fan of embodied cognition. The idea that brains don't exist in a vat, and must be understood as situated within a body. Given that such is the case, and that there are maps of the body in the brain, perhaps there are regions of the brain corresponding to innervations of our distinct sex organs. But this idea is undermined in transgenderism. Or perhaps it helps make being transgender an issue of embodiment.

Anyways I'm gonna go read the research cited in that article. I'll get back to you once I'm familiar with it.

[The Grand Nudger]

A body control schema tells you about your hardware. As you note, a sex-specific body map doesn't appear to set a gender identity. When the machine is telling you about it's gender, it's telling you about something else.

If we're looking at embodied cognition, brains don't just not exist in a vat - they also don't just exist in a body. They exist in a society. Cis and transgendered brains are not telling us that they're unclear or mistaken about the status of their sex organs - our body maps aren't inaccurate. Perhaps they're telling us which of the constructed genders they're embodied as in their societies?

Attention control. Apprehending how we feel, and what our society says about feeling that way, so that we can then attend to navigating the relationship between those two things.

[John 6IX Breezy]

My disagreements with you comes from this treatment of culture as an arbitrary ether that exists independently of us. From which we only consume and are affected by. To the contrary, we contribute to culture as much as we consume it. And our contributions to culture come from our psychological traits and tendencies which are often heritable. In other words, I am somebody else's culture.

We form societies because we are biologically social animals. In other words, culture is biological. It is part of our extended phenotype, grounded directly or indirectly on our particular genetic infrastructure. In the absence of our particular genome, culture as we know it, and even society as a whole, ceases to exist. As exemplified by animals that lack culture, or disorders such as autism that affect sociability.

Gender roles emerge in society because gender is something we are hardwired to detect, form, and express. Children look for it; they imitate it. Culture is inseparable from biology.

[Jehanne]

My disagreements with you comes from this treatment of culture as an arbitrary ether that exists independently of us. From which we only consume and are affected by. To the contrary, we contribute to culture as much as we consume it. And our contributions to culture come from our psychological traits and tendencies which are often heritable. In other words, I am somebody else's culture.

We form societies because we are biologically social animals. In other words, culture is biological. It is part of our extended phenotype, grounded directly or indirectly on our particular genetic infrastructure. In the absence of our particular genome, culture as we know it, and even society as a whole, ceases to exist. As exemplified by animals that lack culture, or disorders such as autism that affect sociability.

Gender roles emerge in society because gender is something we are hardwired to detect, form, and express. Children look for it; they imitate it. Culture is inseparable from biology.

Just understand that people a century ago made the exact same argument against interracial marriage, and indeed, the "separate but equal" facilities for blacks and whites.

[John 6IX Breezy]

I'm not sure I follow.