ziggytrix wrote: 
Just wanted to acknowledge your thoughtful response.  It did not go unread.  We are definitely in the middle of a paradigm shift.

 R_P wrote:

 
Makes sense to me and, i can think of lots of examples of the shading of gender in the general population.

EDIT: R_P, your comment was really helpful. I'll be reflecting on it

 meower wrote: 
My takeaway is that pretty much everything is based on genetic diversity. There aren't only "pure" white and "pure" black people, but instead there are many shades driven by genetic diversity. It would stand to reason that some of that goes on with gender as well.

 R_P wrote:

 
exactly. our understanding of the interaction of symptoms is also in it's infancy.

 meower wrote: 
It isn't just the brain that is involved. In other cases than transgender, there are other indicators. Robert Sapolsky repeats the brain statistics, but points out they are but one indicator for one particular case, after he has discussed a bunch of other different cases that rely on chromosomes, or genetic diversity:

(...) This is the transgendered world, and some intriguing science hints at its neurobiological bases. There are a number of places in the human brain that are “sexually dimorphic” (where the size, structure, function, and/or chemical makeup of the area differ by sex). The differences aren’t big enough so that you could identify someone’s sex just by knowing the size of one of those regions. However, there are statistical differences between populations of men and women, differences with likely functional consequences.

So you have someone who by every measure discussed, from sex chromosomes to phenotype, is Sex A, but who insists that they have always felt like they are Sex B. What’s up in the sexually dimorphic brain regions? A number of studies report the brain bears a close resemblance to Sex B. And this shouldn’t seem surprising—we are determined by our brains, we are our brains, regardless of our pattern of facial hair, the thickness of our larynx, or what the landscape is like between our legs.

In other words, it’s not that transgendered individuals think they are a different gender than they actually are. It’s that they’ve had the profoundly crappy luck to be stuck with bodies that are a different gender from who they actually are.

Slowly, a word becomes pertinent—“continuum.” Gender in humans is on a continuum, coming in scads of variants, where genes, organs, hormones, external appearance, and psychosexual identification can vary independently, and where many people have categories of gender identification going on in their heads (and brains) that bear no resemblance to yours. All with a frequency that, while rare, are no rarer than various human traits we label as “normal.” (...)

One such case, as driven by hormones:

Then there’s cases where a disconnect occurs at the level of hormones. One well-studied example concerns the fact that testosterone exerts some of its effects in target cells by being converted to a related hormone, DHT (dihydrotestosterone)—unless you have a mutation that inactivates the enzyme that does that conversion. This occurs in “5-alpha-reductase deficiency”; the individual is XY, has testes and normal levels of testosterone, but the person’s phenotype—their external appearance—can range from male to ambiguous to female. For those with a predominantly female phenotype at birth, there’s typically masculinization at puberty (the long-hidden testes descend, the clitoris enlarges, voice deepens). Clusters of cases of this disorder have been identified in some inbred, isolated populations (for example, in the mountains of the Dominican Republic) where, remarkably, there’s been a fair degree of cultural accommodation—“Honey, this is called puberty. Sometimes you get acne. Sometimes your clitoris becomes a penis. Whatever.”

while it's nice to find a biological basis to any presenting problem, I think that we have to be really careful about drawing too many conclusions at this point other than that "there appears to be a biological basis to this."

Our knowledge/understanding of the brain is in it's infancy.

while it's nice to find a biological basis to any presenting problem, I think that we have to be really careful about drawing too many conclusions at this point other than that "there appears to be a biological basis to this."

Our knowledge/understanding of the brain is in it's infancy.

 miamizsun wrote: 




From what I gathered is that they are on a track to definitely answer this by brain scans. If this technology and ability pans out, could they not just do the brain scan to determine if someone truly has the condition or is just using the condition for their own personal reasons; virtue signaling, manifestations of abuse and so on or worse parents using their children as political pawns? It would seem to me that if one truly has the brain configuration of dysphoria, if the brain does not change then why should their identity?

 R_P wrote: 
a question or two that might come up

what if someone bases gender and or sexual identity simply on personal preference ?

can gender identity change? if so how often? (i used to identify as x, but now i identify as y)

can a human hold more than one identity and who decides this? (i used to identify as x, but now i identify as x and y)

regards

 R_P wrote:

 
this is a really good article.

 kurtster wrote: 
Maybe religious precepts aren't the best basis for governing a large and diverse society.

Also, it's government's job to ensure that all its citizens have access to its services. Declaring a protected class is usually done because one part of society is unjustly treating another part. 

 Lazy8 wrote: 
I did and do read what you write.  

I already said that I accepted it as a reality.

I did state that I did not jump in here until I saw that the government jumped in and declared it a protected class.

That means rules and regulations will be forthcoming.  That is why it concerns me.  And the basis for asking the questions I posed.

Whenever the government intervenes in a new venue, we all should be concerned, imho.

And I still say that this is just as revolutionary as accepting that the sun does not rotate around the earth in terms of overall social implications.  If nothing else it scientifically challenges religious precepts.  As did the 'discovery' about the relationship between the sun and earth some 400 years ago.

 R_P wrote: 
Thank you, this is what I was looking for.  I get it now. We have to look at it as any other brain issue and do the best we can to help them through it.

kurtster wrote:

Maybe a bit terse, but I was trying to get the point across with few enough words to get them read. Go back to my central thesis about the irrelevance of gender.

This seems to matter a great deal to you. It shouldn't. It's irrelevant.

And yes, you should get over it, but I mean that in the most sympathetic way possible—from someone who had to get over it himself.

 Lazy8 wrote: 
I don't mean to use such a cheesy movie as a quick reference to perspective (sorry if that even offends - I know.  I liked 'em too), but referring to your context, the "Starship Troopers" flicks take a straight forward aim at gender-equality.  I'd bet trans-gender equality could flourish as well. If the military operated by this, the problem wouldn't exist.  Of course, it could very well introduce a slew of new problems.  What's the answer?  

*Disclaimer*

I intentionally put no heavy duty thought into this response and if it's anyone's concern, I'm going to find that bag of Doritos I just remembered I have in the pantry.

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
Nor did I.

It was the what's it to you?  part.  The way he finished it came off as pure dismissive contempt at me based upon prior discussions on other topics with Lazy.  Totally unnecessary.  He made his point very nicely, up until that.

And this should also answer the question immediately below regarding where I came up with the thought about get over it came from.  Again, it was the what's it to you?

 kurtster wrote: 
As language evolves meanings change. Why do we have two words: gender AND sex?

My understanding is that "sex" has a scientific connotation. It refers to genotype and phenotype - the reproductive role. Male or female (from Latin roots).

While "gender" is undergoing a semantic shift to a more social connotation. It refers to social function - homemaker or breadwinner (or some other status). Man or woman (from Old English roots) but increasingly other, newer categories.

Not to say this is universally accepted, in fact, far from it. I believe most people still use male and female to describe gender, and therein lies this issue, IMO. We aren't all speaking the same language.

It is quite common in English for two words to have similar but not identical meanings, and even more common for people to disagree on exactly what words mean (often citing whichever dictionary or reference favors their argument).

Some people believe sex and gender are 100% synonymous, some do not. However, language does not respect the opinion of the minority. As times change it really doesn't matter if thousands of years a word meant something, once the paradigm shifts, it means what the consensus (and yes, this need only be a local consensus) understands it to mean. So it goes.

I'm curious about your response to Lazy8's post, tho. I didn't see the words "get over it" in there at all, but in your response you repeat the phase twice as though you were issued it as a command. Why is this? You were asked a reasonable question IMO. If someone who has nothing whatsoever to do with you identifies with a gender that does not match their biology, how are you affected? And how much does that affect weigh on you compared to the affect on them? How, really, does it matter?

 haresfur wrote: 
That sounds like something HITLER would say!

 kurtster wrote: 
Pretty simple: Don't be an asshole to other people. Base how you treat them on their abilities, not on your pre-conceived notions of who they are.

 kurtster wrote: 
This is interesting. I found Lazy's post to be thoughtful and thought-provoking, and it challenged me a bit. I did not find it dishonest or impolite. But you got your back up over it. We are clearly primitive animals, if we're presented with perfectly reasonable arguments that challenge our worldview and our response is hostility. I'm not judging; I have the same reaction sometimes, and those facebook memes that try to scare us away from this behavior or that rely on our response to be irrational.