I'm back. Before I go combing through the pile of reports on my virtual desk, I have a post for WILGA.
WILGA wrote:I think it would be better if you does not quote me but state your opinion and explain it. It would be the first time after all that you describe it en detail.
If you prefer, I shall begin with the beginning and organise the topic. Most of these facts I have previously provided links for; I will try to make sure to source anything new.
I have earlier explained at some length how (social) gender is a performance, and will omit repeating that explanation here for the sake of brevity.
Gender and sex in language
The truth of the matter is that across the scope of all sciences and all use of English, "gender" and "sex" are interchangeable terms. The distinction between a social gender and a biological sex is specific to certain traditions, and is
not a distinction that "average" uninformed humans make. Thus, no
descriptive appeal can be made to claim using either one is the "true way of talking." The language is changing, and we cannot say that the pronoun "she" in English refers to biological sex any more than it refers to social gender. There is the question of which use is more fundamental, and that I will address a little later.
In German, the linguistic truth is more and less flexible. It is true that you must immediately classify a noun and refer to it by gender constantly. However, I think there are three important considerations which dictate that the German language itself does not present an obstacle to accepting a transsexual as being their destination sex.
First, pronouns, articles, et cetera all relate to the
grammatical gender of a noun in use. To refer to a FtM transsexual as male is as simple as referring to her as "der Nils" - the proper noun "Nils" is quite definitely male - and holding to the correct rules of grammar for choosing a pronoun to substitute for "Nils" (er), endings to place on adjectives, articles to use, et cetera. Or "der Transman," perhaps, for a non-proper noun.
Second, existing German nouns make it perfectly clear that the relationship between grammatical gender and sex of
any kind - biological or social - is weak. Girl, wife, cat, dog, animal, person, man - it is no more a hardship even for the most old-fashioned German to have a noun, say, "der Transman" refer to FtM transsexuals while being masculine than to have "das Weib" be neuter or "die Katze" feminine.
Third, Germans are willing to apparently break their own grammatical rules on the "anomalous" German nouns. As I pointed out earlier, we could very well consider this an implicit substitution of another noun, perhaps a proper noun, that has not been spoken; but in that case, we are back to the first, which is simply choosing an appropriate noun.
Biological truths
There is no specific seat of gender identity. We can have XX individuals who seem quite male, and XY individuals who seem quite female. We can have individuals whose genitalia are unclear.
In the brain, the seat of personality, male and female "types" are differentiated, but the variation between male and female is not, from any of the studies thus far discussed, greater than the variation within male and female, and most of these variations are linked to one another. There are a significant number of women whose brains are more "masculine" than the male average, and a significant number of men whose brains are more "feminine" than the female average. Eyeballing the data, I would guess these fractions to be between 10-20%.
Even if slightly lower than that, it is much more common than transsexuality. It is therefore apparent that a feminised brain may more or less successfully act a male social role and vice versa. Finding biological correlates among transsexuals is difficult for two reasons: The first is that there are a small number of transsexuals to study, and the second is that there may not be only one singular type of transsexualism.
In the rest of the body, there is little that cannot be in principle changed. For all the parts of the body that functionally
matter in the everyday life of a modern technological society, it is a similar story. The difference between men and women is relatively small, enough that many women may act reasonably as a man - a short man, perhaps, with little upper body strength, but still as a man, in everyday life. In time, when our biological technology advances, we may be able to grow functional testes and ovaries et cetera and address the questions of reproductive functions. I have no doubt that the imperfections that currently exist in medical sex reassignment will all eventually be fixed in time.
Birth and development
In the beginning, we are each born and, at that point in time, classified as male or female. In general, on the order of 0.1% of us have been "clarified" into one or the other sex surgically upon birth. Including various interesting genetic and anatomical conditions, perhaps as many as 1% of us are at least a little bit ambiguous with respect to our "true" biological sex. Having been assigned a sex, we are then treated as that sex immediately.
We respond by acting in a more masculine or feminine fashion. It is true that the biological variation in physical masculinity and feminity does drive visible differences in more aggressive or more cooperative play from an early age; it is also true, however, that there are quite a few girls who will choose to play with masculine toys and quite a few boys who will choose to play with feminine toys. This is more a question of brain type than anything else.
It is true that given full information, children are fairly good at determining gender, but even under the more generous studies done on the topic (
link), a majority of young children determine gender primarily by clothes, activities, and accessories rather than genitals. (Less generous studies are also available. I have chosen to link to one of the major studies that attacked the slow acquisition of gender constancy).
While they immediately master the ability to identify the social gender of an individual, they must be
taught gender constancy. Thus, while I contend that most adults do not separate a biological sex and social gender, the psychological development literature is clear that children learn social gender first, and only several years later come to an understanding of biological sex and bind the two together. Between the two concepts - biological and social sexes - the social is more fundamental than the biological.
This is perhaps worth repetition. We acquire a sense of social masculinity and femininity, on average, when 2-3 years old. We learn biological male and female, on average, when 5-6 years old. If we prioritize the latter over the former, it is only because we are taught to. If we come to believe that sex is both intrinsic and permanent, it is also because we are taught this. It is very easy to imagine children being taught other lessons.
The larger social context (Sexual apartheid)
Gender roles are to a very large degree tied to
sexuality. It has been - and, in fact, largely remains - masculine to be attracted to women, and feminine to be attracted to men. Gender roles have also been tied to many other things as well - occupations, economic opportunities, and rights. It is only possible for a pre-operative transsexual to be
transgressive by behaving in the opposite manner from that expected by his or her biologically apparent sex because we still choose to make such a difference between the social roles of men and women. Indeed,
any individual who transgresses against gendered behaviour is likely to be punished. The boy who plays with dolls is teased for it. The woman who occupies space in the manner of a man is whispered about; she is uncouth and unseemly.
If there was little difference between male and female fashion, there would be no "dressing as a man" or "dressing as a woman." If there were little difference between male and female social roles, men and women would earn the same respect, the same money, and there would not be "walking like a woman" or "sitting like a man." The performance of gender is only important in a society where the dichotomy between men and women is important.
Rightly or wrongly, we live in a world where men and women are treated very differently. Women are sexy. Men are authoritative. And we separate them at every opportunity. There are for all practical intents and purposes separate male and female societies which happen to share common spaces, divided in a sort of sexual apartheid. We have reformed many of the grosser iniquities, but the separation that remains not only causes difficulties for those whose biologies or psychologies or social inclinations straddle or cross lines, but continually reinforces inequality.
Perhaps, in time, we will come to a world where we are sure men are getting the short end of the stick. Perhaps we will not. But the division is not essential in a technological age, and by forcing everyone to remain in the encampments they were sorted into (rightly or wrongly) by those signing their birth certificates, we are enabling that division.
Allowing anyone to choose which gender role they wish to participate, for
whatever reason, is several positive things: A diplomatic exchange between the sexes that seem somfetimes to war against each other; a safety valve; a sanity valve. The utility of crossing over gender roles is not limited to
those who feel they were born on the wrong side of the fence, which is to say transsexuals; at times, I have suspected that if every man spent a week acting the feminine role in everyday life, and every woman a week in the masculine role, that our societies would be greatly improved by the greater understanding of what expectations and treatment
both halves face.
I say we have an obligation to allow people to transform their bodies into the bodies they wish they were, and to allow people to at least attempt any social role they choose. It is impossible to have such a society without adequately supporting transsexuals' shift in gender identity. By supporting the ability to change gender roles, we affirm the principle that a child may grow up to be anything they wish to be, and help enable a future society in which the only inequalities between men and women lie simply in their bodies rather in the respect they are given.
The medical context
Why is transsexualism classed as a disorder? Why does it remain classed as a disorder? There is one simple reason why we have a listing of "gender identity disorder" in psychiatric manuals. It is because within the social context described above, where you
must conform to one or the other genders of behaviour, those who insist upon acting the wrong way are broken. It is, in other words, something which arises strictly from the social context of enforcing a sexual apartheid. Within a truly genderblind social context, we could not possibly consider transsexuality a disorder.
And yet while the classification of transsexuality as a variety of mental illness can be considered to demean transsexuals by saying there is something
wrong about them which needs to be either "treated" (by enabling them to cross the lines of physical characteristics as well as social action) or "cured" (by convincing them that they belong in the gender they were assigned to at birth), it also enables transsexuals by granting them access to hormone therapy and sex reassignment surgery. Advocacy groups are thus not unified on the topic; to remove GID from psychiatric manuals means that SRS becomes elective cosmetic surgery.
Thus, both critics and advocates of transsexuals have reasons for wanting GID to stay on the books as a disorder. Its persistence there as a disorder tells us little.
