If it’s not as simple as X-Y, then the validity of the noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) performed during pregnancy at the 10-week mark would have been called into question a long time ago. The NIPT shows the gender of the fetus via a blood test.
40
The rest have what used to be called birth defects before the subject was politicised and everyone became hyper-sensitive to the remotest possibility of hurting someone's feelings. There is nothing wrong with people who don't have complete male and female equipment, but they aren't normal either. That doesn't throw the entire concept up in the air. I would never ratify anything that odious president of yours thinks, but sex/gender/whatever had been highly politicised and even doctors and endocrinologists sit on that political spectrum.
And I have never understood why what kind of genitals a person has or what he/she/it does with them should be a matter of public discussion.
36
The Times seems lazy and confused in its inconsistent use of the basic terms "sex" and "gender," and should probably talk with some basic sociologists rather than small-rolodex experts.
"Sex" is a BIOLOGICAL category which applies across kingdoms, being recognized in plants and animals. Male organisms (or parts) have small and motile gametes, while female gametes are larger and less motile. "Gender" is a SOCIAL category which only applies to humans and human artifacts such as language and social roles. Anthropologists understand how biological sex is widely used to determine social gender, but social custom and conditioning are the major influences on gender, as gender expectations across history and between cultures demonstrate.
Nothing is gained by conflating these two terms and failing to acknowledge the basic biological nature of sex. Embryologists understand sexual dimorphism in utero, pediatricians have standard tools such as the Quigley scale, and there are several atypical chromosomal variations distinct enough to have names more precise than "intersex."
Conflating sex and gender is a significant thinking terror, and Times writers can do better with modest care, allowing us to (a) better preserve traditional sex-based protections and (b) secure the rights of trans people going forward, probably by creating a bright line distinction between sex and gender in law, with gender as a new legal class.
Please try harder not to confuse biological sex with social gender.
132
However complex individual sexual identification and its permutations may be it is still a binary choice; one is either male or female, and that is all Trump is attempting to realize.
18
The scope of the article was to explain that plain physiology is insufficient to make this binary determination; but that is exactly what Trump's initiative intends to do. So while it is indeed a binary choice, it is not one that can be so grossly reduced. This is very consistent with Trump's overall blunt - force approach; he is completely without tact.
18
“The idea that a person’s sex is determined by their anatomy at birth is not true, and we’ve known that it’s not true for decades,” said Dr. Joshua D. Safer.
If you use this criterion to determine the sex of a person you would be right in 98 - 99.5% of the time, this comment by Dr. Safer is a truth taken out of proportion to support a political agenda.
62
The terminology used in this article is very unclear, resulting in an article that does not seem to be in good faith. When the traditionally understood definitions of words like "sex" and "gender" are being challenged, journalistic responsibility requires that those definitions be spelled out. You cannot just throw out flat-earth-esque assertions like "sex is not determined by anatomy" and expect readers to lap it up.
With the recent shift of the Supreme Court and the threat of losing female reproductive justice in this country, it is clear that biological sex is an extremely politically important category! Biological females, regardless of self-identity, are the ones directly impacted by this reality. To pretend that this immutable biological reality is secondary to "gender identity" in how female people experience state-imposed oppression is both inaccurate and offensive.
95
@Dia
You did not read the article.
2
@magicisnotreal your response is typical. It’s either that the other’s opinion is bigoted or is ignorant. Whether it’s one, the other, or neither, you do nothing to diminish the prior poster’s points. Because the points are rational and real. Therefore, you accomplish nothing for the community you wish to support.
20
@magicisnotreal
I did. It completely minimizes the reality of biological sex in favor of “brain sex” as something separate from body.
25
What science does not know is far greater than what it presumes to know. Common sense usually knows better. A woman who feels like a man is still a woman and everyone else knows it. Self-perception is only a personal reality, not reality.
50
Sex describes physical anatomy. Gender describes social / cultural role. This article treats the two as if they were the same. They are not. Gender can be expressed as a social role, or as an identity. The two terms are often confused, as in this article, and they are interrelated. But in discussing these issues it helps to keep social and cultural constructs separate from the physical.
45
@Condelucanor
No it does not help to separate.
Trans men and women are men and women of the gender they are, not of the physical characteristics they possess.
6
"Defining gender as a condition determined strictly by a person’s genitals is based on a notion that doctors and scientists abandoned long ago as oversimplified and often medically meaningless."
What does this matter? The changes propose clarifying the definition of sex, not gender.
17
As my brother said as he lay sobbing in our Mother's arms, Mama I don't want to be this way......why can't I just be "normal". My brother committed suicide 8 years ago.......
7
Its about science not genitals...not a choice or a desire either.
I seem to remember something about 'chromosomes' determining ones gender. The leftists must be anti science.
8
@derek
I urge you to read the policy statements from the Endocrine society and the American Society of Pediatrics that are found at the links in the article. There are clearly written explanations of the difference between anatomy and gender identification.
Actually, those chromosomes are only the blueprint for what will hopefully become the expression of what we see as human male or female secondary sex characteristics. Science is what has shown that there are many steps along the way from the expression of the SRY gene on the Y chromosome to what we call "male". If something goes wrong at one of these steps, for example, problems with steroid hormone synthesis (one example is 5α-Reductase deficiency), the individual may end up as intersex.
Since humans don't go around with their genetic code tattooed on their forehead, the expression of those secondary sex characteristics is part of what we call gender because that is what can be observed. What we can't observe is how the mind of that particular body perceives its gender. For reasons that scientists are just starting to understand, trans people's perception of their gender does not match their anatomy. However, there are some interesting recent studies on the differences between the brains of trans people, cis-heterosexuals, and cis-homosexuals.
To me, this supports the need to allow trans people to affirm their gender identity, including changing their anatomy if that is what they wish.
21
Now is the time to listen to trans people, trans kids, trans teens. I find it interesting that the title of the article is "anatomy does not determine gender" but the final word is that "gender has deep biological roots." No wonder so many people who are already inclined towards hatred of gender-nonconforming people, are confused. In the fifties, gender as a concept emerged as something to be distinguished from sex as a concept. This allowed second wave feminists to argue for the cultural changeability of gender, but as a by-product of this, "sex" was leftover as something supposedly purely biological and dualistic. It's that notion of "sex," a pre-1950s concept, to which the Trump administration wants to return. We need to drop all of it-- the sex/gender distinction as well as the idea either sex or gender comes in two forms only.
4
@E. Parker You cannot escape the fact that for the vast majority of the population, there are but two genders, wherein lays our survival as a species. A very small percentage of babies are intersexed. Many transgender people are simply following a trend, with mixed results at best. In any case, they are deluded, if self-deluded.
30
I think the Evangelical position the GOP champions here should properly be understood as a religious one, and a fundamentally metaphysical assertion most broadly understood as essentialism or philosophical idealism.
Philosophical idealism posits a core "essence" that is best understood as separate and foundational to physical reality, coming into Christian theology through Neoplatonism, and contrasted with materialism. Materialism sees physical reality as foundational.
Scientific materialists generally understand the physical universe as preceding biological and social reality in a way which Evangelicals cannot and do not. Second-wave feminism, being mostly materialistic, sees biological sex as preceding socialized gender, but makes no stronger metaphysical claim. It certainly doesn't assert a sort of gendered "essence" that exists apart from biology, as some transgender philosophy seems to, some core gender identity that is eternal but somehow separate from bio-sex.
Evangelicals assert an essential nature to gender, inextricably tied to sex. Some trans partisans may assert an essential nature to gender, separated from sex. Materialistic feminism requires no essential natures of any sort, seeing a social construction built on biological dimorphism in ways that too often harm women. It is these which create the need for sex-based legal protections, so let's not discard those in anyone's zeal to make metaphysical points. Sex is the "who" of oppression, with gender the "how."
10
The extreme reaction against the reality of transgender is likely rooted in the deep fear and insecurity many people have regarding their own gender identity. For some reason, many find the concept of transgender to be extremely threatening, so they want to legislate it out of existence. Too bad for them. It exists regardless of politics. Endocrinologists and other experts who actually talk to and work with transgender people know this. Ignorance does not make reality go away.
18
@Dalgliesh Your argument is not based on any factual scientific facts whatsoever but rather typical LGBT propaganda. Gender Dysphoria is a proven mental disorder and any attempt to argue otherwise is a waste of time that I'm not going to waste my time on.
28
Every day it is more surprising to me that the Dems are surprised by Trump support. The latest is the pronouncement by "experts" that anatomy does not equal gender, which appeals to the left. Let's carry this to its logical extreme: Every identification in this country--birth certificates, driver's licenses, social security cards--should say nothing but check here if you are a person. The census should say this, too. Let's eliminate race while we are at it and just have a checkbox if you are human. The same with income: Check here if you have more than $50 in your checking account. At that point, the Dems will have absolutely no information about where to get their constituents because one person could not be told from another. Actually, maybe this isn't such a bad idea after all...
14
This is not an issue of sound biology or medicine in the least. Notice that NO medical testing is required to claim this status, by any law which recognizes the "transgender" claim. All that is required is a declaration.
It is purely ANTI-science and is a political movement.
50
@Keith Wilson
Your spurious concept of "science" obviates the majority of psychiatric disorders and many medical disorders for which no medical tests exist. Perhaps you should try to understand the diagnostic importance of talking to a patient, otherwise known as taking a medical history.
13
The possible rules are not about "gender identity," but about gender, period, and are an attempt to come up with something objectively demonstrable that can be easily administered.
All this "expert" babbling about "identity" is totally beside the point.
19
If an alien came to Earth in a spaceship in 30,000 years and dug up your bones and tested them - would the DNA indicate if you were male or female? Yes. That is the science behind gender. Feelings and social norms are different. I support transgender decisions because people should be free to express themselves without scientist in the room.
9
@Latino Colorado
Except if a baker wants to express his beliefs about marriage, right?
7
Everyone should be treated equally under the law. If we uphold the constitution, we do not need to be involved with the sex, gender, religion, or sexual preferences of others.
The end.
16
Just let people be who they want to be and don't discriminate against them for that. Is that so hard?
15
@John Mardinly If it were only that easy - but it's not. It's one thing to want to live in an alternate reality where you pretend you're something you're not - like being a 'furry'. It's an entirely different think to force me and others to accept your version of reality - esp. when it comes to bathroom choices.
What seems to be difficult these days is for people to hear the word 'NO' - as in "No, Johnny, you're not a girl, you are a boy. You might think you 'feel like a girl' but what you really mean is you want to BE a girl. Sorry, you were born a boy, and part of life is ACCEPTING that we don't always get what we want."
26
@John Mardinly: does it mean you are against discrimination of conservatives?
1
Please stop with the propaganda, and just stop with conflating intersex and transgender. Intersex (disorder of sex development), approximately 1 -2 % of the population, is not the same as transgender. The majority of trans identified people have no actual intersex condition.
The human species is sexually dimorphic and all primates reproduce sexually. No primate, human or non-human, can change its sex. This is our evolutionary history. The existence of rare intersex conditions does not negate the reality of sexual reproduction. Without sexual reproduction, there would be no intersex people.
Male, female, and rare intersex conditions can be proven with genetic testing and other medical tests. Gender identity can't be proven one way or another.
"The Trump administration’s proposal, outlined in a memo by the Health and Human Services Department, would establish a legal definition of sex under Title IX, the federal civil rights law that bans gender discrimination in education programs that receive government financial assistance."
Read Title IX. Title IX says "sex" not gender identity. The historical meaning of "sex" under Title IX meant biological sex. I didn't vote for Trump and I'm not Republican, but the Trump administration is right on the meaning of "sex" under Title IX. The Trump administration might be wrong about everything else, but they are right about this.
72
@S.
The proposed rule change does not address people who are intersex.
Also, a genetic profile (the proposed standard) does not always reflect a person's anatomy.
7
Transgender people suffer from depression and are at risk of violence or suicide:
• 29 transgender people died violent deaths in America last year at the hands of relatives, acquaintances or strangers. 20 have been killed so far in 2018, according to Human Rights Campaign, a transgender advocacy group.
• Among veterans, those having "gender identity disorder" are five times more likely to commit suicide than the general population; the rate among the rest of the Veterans Health Administration is 20 times that of the genderal VHA popluation.
Many transgender people are homeless because they were kicked out of their families or were the subject of discrimination in housing.
Being transgender is not a "choice" or a "whim." It's a matter of civil rights and protection.
14
The "experts" are confused. The DNA is not.
40
This is one of the unintended consequences of religions based on thousand-year-old tales. It affects mainly well-intentioned but profoundly ignorant evangelists. In their foggy minds, they associate transsexual behavior with Sodom and Gomorrah.
The issue is being raised now by the Trump administration to arouse their base just before the mid-term elections. This is perhaps the most despicable administration in history, populated by moral thugs and miscellaneous other impostors.
Secretary Azar, like the rest of the “cabinet”, is pandering to a political crowd. Watch this matter disappear from view after the mid-terms.
11
@Hipolito Hernanz: are you saying that dna is a matter of religious belief?
9
@Hyphenated American: The conflation of sex and gender is a matter of religious belief, as is the idea of a "gender binary." It is Genesis 5:2, as translated for King James:
"Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created."
1
"Exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis" (exception proves the rule) has been with us since Roman times.
I wonder how long it took the journalist to find the MD who was willing to conflate "sex" with "gender identity". Identity is in the brain while sex is in the chromosomes.... what is so difficult to understand here?
35
This fixation with transgender is the phrenology of our times.
43
The many comments here demonstrate a great deal of ignorance about gender, identity and biology. There are critical periods in fetal development where gender identity is largely established, which is different than when the anatomical sex is determined. In males, androgens bathe those areas in the brain which have a formative role in gender identity, and if that doesn't happen as coded genetically, an XY male will most likely form a female identity. Trying to change that is as difficult (and destructive and traumatic) as trying to make a gay person heterosexual, or vice-versa.
Biology is more than penises and vaginas, and more than chromosomes. People who want to share their feelings about this should first learn something before declaring that their feelings are facts.
16
@Peter Wolf The idea of gender identity being established by hormones during fetal development is unproven speculation.
22
@Peter Wolf whether or not gender identity is codified in DNA, which is not proven by medical science yet, it’s still not sex. Even if future research proves that gender identity is DNA-based, it will still will not be sex. It will be another genetic trait and category entirely. A female who is a transgender man can still become pregnant. And a transgender woman can only procreate with their body’s sperm, because their body is male. The transgender community can only progress socially if it accepts this biological given first.
33
This is Mike Pence and the evangelical nationalists on the march, torches in hand. While actual rage should be directed to predatory priests and other sexual misconducts of the church these extremists go after gender differences. Moral outrage, look in the damn mirror.
12
If folks understood the role that endocrine and dna disrupting chemicals play in this community a lot of mysteries would vanish. Ever since the 40's with DDT and DES, dioxins, and others that are now removed from the market, and many more today including RoundUp (glyphosate) and atrazine and many other agricultural chemicals, our babies have been exposed to gender altering substances in utero and also post birth. Included also are sunscreens, artificial fragrances, dry cleaning chemicals, flame retardants, additives in most plastics, mercury and chlorine and likely more to be identified. They are disrupting gender and other development on many levels too often. We need to understand the challenges these alterations create and be supportive in helping the persons affected live lives of acceptance, significance, value, and honor among us.
4
@Mrs. Olive Kaiser
Another related issue to help understand gender alteration is chimerism. If opposite gender towns are conceived and one dies early on, the living twin may reabsorb genetic material from its sibling , resulting in a child with two sets of genes in different tissues of their body. This can create an intersex condition.
It is very difficult to study the prevalence of chimerism as most folks who are chimeric may not be affected in an intersex manner and we dont normally check multiple tissues for matching dna. However we have a much higher incidence of twins and multiple births today, possibly partly to to the effects of endocrine mimic chemicals in our environment, and many babies are killed in utero by toxic environmental substances. This creates an environment predisposed to the chimeric phenomena.
Furthermore early on a baby's brain is female, but a testosterone wash envelopes a baby boy's brain at 8 weeks, forever changing it to male. If there is an interference to that testosterone wash in some way, timing, absorption, etc., the child's brain may remain female. It's a good brain, no mental illness, but it is female. The rest of the child's body may continue to develop male characteristics. Estrogenic chemical mimics may provide such interference.
It helps to be aware of just a few places in development where disruptions can occur. There are many many varied possibilities.
5
@Mrs. Olive Kaiser
Interesting info. I am a DES daughter.
A legal standard has to be established. That is the only way to preclude discrimination based on non-legal ideas, which may well be misconceptions, but street-level bureaucrats are not experts in biology.
4
If we are to (a) preserve traditional sex-based protections and (b) secure the rights of trans people, then it seems logical to create a bright line distinction between sex and gender in law, with gender as a new legal class.
Conflation is not a sound strategy, going forward, if the goal is to protect across multiple categories (as we historically have for race, religion, etcetera).
12
99.9% of the time the body is born male/female. That body will have diseases that can be gender specific, like prostate or ovarian cancer. A doctor must be able to treat the body with certainty and without political inclination.
There has to be some methodology to treat the body. Or would the "experts" recommend a hysterectomy for a trans woman convinced she has ovarian cysts?
A person can call themselves whatever gender they prefer, but an unconscious trans person on a gurney with a license that says they are male or female could die waiting for the right treatment while a determination is made.
23
Good article, but I would like to point out that the fact that half of the kids who were surgically transformed to "girls" and raised as girls saw themselves as women later suggests that gender may not be at its core simply biological. Like much of human behavior it seems to be a stew of biological and environmental influences.
6
@Keitr, but doesn't it make sense that half of them would have been hardwired to identify as female and half to identify as male? To me, this says that the 50% the operation didn't work for illustrates a 100% failure!
1
“Researchers say that gender identity comes from the brain not the body”.
Is the brain not part of the body now? This brain/body dualism is nuts.
55
@Dio
Perhaps I should have said "mind" in that sentence, instead of "brain." That was what I meant.
14
“The idea that a person’s sex is determined by their anatomy at birth is not true, and we’ve known that it’s not true for decades,” --Dr. Joshua D. Safer.
Mr. Safer can't seem to keep the trans narrative straight. If sex and gender really are two different things (sex is between legs, gender is in head, etc), as the transgender advocates always claim, then yes, sex absolutely is what the anatomy says it is. Try to keep up, "Dr."
56
The pro-trans side completely blew this fight for trans rights when they decided to aggressively associate their position with the Left and other far leftist and Democrat positions. By insisting that all Democrats adhere to Trans Ideology and all trans people become Democrats, they weakened their position and scared away millions of people who otherwise may have helped their cause.
17
This is insane; a case of using an exception, an aberration, to destroy reality.
Genetically male human beings are men. Genetically female human beings are women.
The fact that there are rare instances where they do not match does not alter these facts.
60
@paddy1998 actually no it's a case of using medical and psychological science that's been around for decades
2
Approximately 1.7 people in the world are intersex in some way, scientists estimate, with characteristics that are not unambiguously male or female, or with a combination. Many may not even be aware of it, even if true for them. That’s a lot of people, not an “aberration.”
8
@Bernardo Ferdman Intersex and transgender are not the same. Conflating them, as the author of this article does, is not helpful.
15
This article is obfuscatory, refusing to define the difference between sex and gender (sex being the biological condition and gender being the behaviour or performance of sex). Feelings of gender may indeed be different from observed sex, but sex itself falls into a neat binary - you're male or female. Using rare intersex or chromosomally abnormal conditions as examples, doesn't change the fact that we're fundamentally a dimorphic sexual species.
If transpeople truly were "neither clearly male or female" then there wouldn't be the need for lifelong hormones and life altering surgeries.
The cause of trans people is not helped by trying to apply postmodernism to science. This answer to Trump is as bad as Trump.
80
I'm a scientist. Science explains climate change. Science also explains phenotype which would be our skin color and sex organs at birth. If there are 1.5 million trans people out of about 325 million US. That's about .003% of the population-pretty small number. I like everyone- do what you want. However, my feelings and emotions about a topic should NOT override critical thinking and science. Take the anti-immunization causes. Genitalia is what phenotypic sex you are. My skin color is what phenotypic race I am. I can't just decide I'm African American because I feel that way. I also feel these trigger topics are political smoke and mirrors to get liberals mad -so middle America will say " I can't relate to them at all" Play the game Dems instead of complaining to the ref-to quote Chris Rock
62
Your math is wrong. Not .003%.
And anyway, 1.5 million. Is not really such a small number of people.
9
@Jonathan Cohen 1.5 million divided by 325 million is .004, or 0.4%. That's a small number.
3
@bonemri, There's also no scientific base for race, so you are mistaken on two counts. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/04/race-genetics-scienc...
4
We continue to confuse "sex" and "gender" as synonymous. They are not the same. "Sex" is a biological phenomenon whereas "Gender" is a socially constructed concept. Trump's announcement that he intends to define and legalize 'gender' as male and/or female based on biology is simply an attempt to control the media while the GOP messes with the election.
16
@Anne
First, the genders are *masculine* and *feminine*. These are *behavioral* categories. And they're not "socially constructed"...largely because that term means virtually nothing.
Second, what the Trump administration actually means is: they're going to revert to recognizing sex as the relevant characteristic for, e.g., inclusion on drivers' licenses--which is the way it's always been until this madness hit a few years ago. The law doesn't care about your gender--it doesn't care whether you are masculine or feminine. It cares about whether you are a man or a woman--i.e., male or female. Contrary to what the left now pretends, *everything* that matters--restrooms, sports, scholarships, locker rooms...all divided on the basis of sex.
"Gender" has never been relevant to anything important.
13
@Anne This is what I want to know — did the Trump admin actually say that, or is “gender” the word NYTimes used when paraphrasing? All I could see in the way of direct quotes was that HHS was defining SEX, not gender.
3
Dr. Joshua D. Safer has a lot of money to make from pushing his theories of gender identity. Woman is not a feeling. It's the material reality of having a female body in the real world.
62
Enough already. When I was in medical school, this was simple. As a practicing OBGYN, it is still simple. We are born boys and girls, XYs and XXs, with penises and vaginas. This is determined in utero by SRY genes and mullerian inhibiting factor ... the rest is purely in the presentation.
Stating that anatomy is disconnected from gender is absurd, and it leads us down a rabbit hole of linguistic obfuscation and ideologic incoherence. As doctors, we work within a biological framework not an ideologic one, and we should not confuse the two.
124
Duh! I cannot understand how that isn't completely obvious to everyone already.
8
Safer is an extreme activist. It's sad, this insanity taking over the Times. There is no more integrity, just lie after lie after lie.thi
Men and women are biologically different. You folks have made saying so a dangerous statement in a crazy world.
68
what will they do with hermaphroditic kids?
3
@cherry elliott Wait until they are old enough to choose for themselves. And if they still don't know, then they are probably non-binary and again, the choice of what to do, including nothing, will be theirs.
8
The Times is either being deceitful or misleading with this headline. It says experts say "gender" is not determined by anatomy, which is highly debatable, but then quotes an alleged "Doctor", Joshua Safer (who sounds more like an activist) that "sex" is not defined by anatomy. We can debate the semantics of gender, but "sex" is clearly a Male/Female binary definition. To say we cannot tell sex by anatomy is asinine, to say the least. That the Times traffics in this anti-scientific hokum is distressing. The paper chides conservatives for being anti-science when it comes to global warming, but then rejects science when its own progressive narratives are undermined. Expedient, of course, but also massively hypocritical.
110
@Achilles I worry that overstating the science here will give people less reason to trust them on areas where there really is near-total scientific consensus (i.e., global warming, vaccines).
7
@Achilles Dr. Safer attended University of Wisconsin medical school, had a fellowship at Harvard medical school, and has risen to Executive Director of the Mount Sinai Center for Transgender Medicine and Surgery (CTMS) and senior faculty at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. He seems to be highly regarded by his peers as an endocrinologist and should not be dismissed as a quack.
12
The "expert" consulted on this article is Joshua D. Safer, and is "president of the United States Professional Association of Transgender Health"
No ax to grind there. Just another NYT's objective "seeker of truth".
103
@John T So by that logic, we shouldn't accept any understanding of women's health from gynecologists.
9
I think the real difference between humans isn't sex or gender-based. It's that one group--apparently the larger; call it Group 1--needs to control others. Sometimes members of Group 1 "need" to control the others' religious beliefs, or their bodies, (as in abortion rights), their political beliefs, (gerrymandering, etc), their fashion choices, their choices of whom to love or marry, etc. They just can't seem to be happy making their own choices and letting the others make theirs.
Then there's group 2: we make our own choices and believe all humans should have the freedom and right to choose. Choose whatever they need and want or love.
World would be nicer with more Group B's.
Or as Ann Landers used to say: Why can't everybody just MYOB?
31
@Penich: so you support freedom of association, freedom to keep what one earned, freedom from government regulations...
@Penich
I agree 100%. There are indeed many paths to happiness. I don't understand people who feel the only way they themselves can be happy is by dictating how other must live their lives. That is pretty much the only path I disavow.
5
@Penich
The problem is that those in Group B insist that those in Group A entertain their fantasies: freedom of choice, but also freedom FROM responsibility; guaranteed income, free education, free medical, free housing, and free food.
I say "go for it!" Group B - build your utopia. Just don't come to Group A and insist that we indulge your irresponsibility, rescue you from yourselves, and then have to listen to you rant on and on about our intolerance.
2
Somebody who is executive director of a center that charges people to perform transgender surgery isn’t an independent expert, he has a vested interest.
95
Please specify your definition of gender.
There are at least three definitions of gender depending on context: 1) gender used to denote biological sex; 2) a set of attitudes and behaviors deemed “masculine” or “feminine” by society that persists because of systematic rearing (gender as social construct); 3) a subjective feeling one is the opposite sex in spite of systematic rearing (innate gender identity).
Which definition of gender are you using? Or, if it's something else, let us know. It's confusing out here and it would be wonderful for you to take the lead and educate. A big problem with the gender debate is semantics. Distinction is sorely needed.
33
@Cassandra amen
1
People’s ignorance is in plain sight on this issue. My little granddaughter was born with visible genitals of both sexes. Her blood tests demonstrate that she has cells some of which contain only one X, and some of which contain a Y. Right now she is being raised as a girl, but no invasive surgeries are being planned, and she will get to choose which gender feels right for her when she understands the issues better.
So what gender is my granddaughter? Those who legislate on such issues need to take a short course on genetics.
52
Your granddaughter has a biological sex. Everyone has a biological sex. You can't be born with some cells having an X and some a Y. If she has a Y chromosome she's male. This is called a DSD. Disorder of sexual development. @cflanmac
14
@cflanmac So, your granddaughter has a very rare dicease. It's an exception, not the rule, right?
18
@Anna, actually believe it or not you can have both XX and XY cells in one body; this is called sexual mosaicism, and although rare can occur.
3
It is misleading when to describe gender as a “choice”. The discomfort and need to identify according to how an individual perceives themself is all consuming. Transgender people exist in history and all cultures. Marginalizing this segment of our community by denying them the rights of other citizens, stigmatizing them, wont make transgender identity go away. It will increase the negative psychological symptoms already associated with being transgender.
12
You can also find some scientists who don't accept global warming or who believe vaccines cause autism. Like it or not, biology does exist.
30
@Donna Gray Do they represent the widespread consensus among climate scientists or medical practitioners? Because the American Medical Association and the American Psychological Association are in agreement with Dr. Safer.
11
Title IX states that:
No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
Sex is defined as:
either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and many other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions.
They simply wish to be acknowledged for who they are.
2
Title IX refers to sex, not some subjective feelings. @Annastaysia
24
@Annastaysia Wrong. They're pretending to be something they are not, and then they're attempting to FORCE society to go along with their delusion. NOT the same thing at all.
I can't simply tell everyone some day that I am a dog, and force everyone to pretend I am a dog.
5
I have three children. All were assigned female at birth. The oldest Transitioned to male at 20 then stopped hormones for health reasons at 23 and now identifies as genderqueer. The middle child is agender. The youngest, growing up at the bleeding edge of the Culture Wars, had to make a conscious decision about her own gender and orientation at an age when few even think about such things.
After nearly 25 years together, the ex abandoned me and my children, turned them against me, began acting like a narcopath, ran away with another woman, and only then Transitioned. The ex continues to abuse. I maintain No Contact with the ex, for my own protection.
Not every Transgender person is sympathetic, but every Transgender person deserves the right to be who they are. Despite the fact that the ex is an abuser, and blamed me for the inability to be honest for the whole our lives together, I would never have denied the right to Transition. I might not have wanted to stay married as I have no attraction to women. While I don't have sympathy for abusers, I do have empathy for Transgender people, especially my family who I love.
You cannot deny there is a genetic component. Gender dysphoria runs in families. So, unfortunately, does lack of empathy and bigotry. The latter, has to be taught.
11
The legal and biological implications of this issue can and should be considered separately.
Transgender people need to be protected from discrimination by law, so the law needs to include them, and perhaps consider that they face a different kind of discrimination than cisgender men or women.
On the other hand, that gender is “a person’s powerful core knowledge of who they are” is not a more compelling or satisfying definition than genitals, chromosomes, or societal gender roles. Personally, I think it makes more sense to think of gender in terms of these characteristics in aggregate and on average. Otherwise, gender is in danger of becoming useless as a descriptor, and we’ll end up kicking the can back up the road to “sex”, and then we’ll be arguing about whether sex is binary.
8
@Amos Gender IS useless as a descriptor. Why not simply abandon it?
Maybe if we abandoned all "descriptors" and just treated everyone a "persons", we'd do better.
11
If we are to (a) preserve traditional sex-based protections and (b) secure the rights of trans people, then it seems logical to create a bright line distinction between sex and gender in law, with gender as a new legal class.
Transgender people clearly see the two as distinct, so let's recognize both, honoring multiple differences as we now do for things such as religion and race.
5
Title IX was written to protect against SEX discrimination, not gender identity discrimination. Entirely reasonable to pursue new legislation to protect against the latter, but not reasonable to interpret Title IX as the same thing.
68
@M what's useful about protecting against sex discrimination and not gender discrimination? when a woman is discriminated against in an academic or professional setting, does it really matter what sort of genitals she has?
13
@Zach
Yes, it really does matter what sort of genitals she has. Women's oppression is rooted in the material reality of their sexed bodies.
At the more extreme end there is sex-selective abortion and infanticide, FGM, and the pandemic of violence against women & girls. In the academic and professional settings you mention, women are discriminated against because of their reproductive role, i.e. the possibility of pregnancy and childbirth. Even women who are infertile or don't choose to have children or indeed don't conform to gender stereotypes face the pay gap, discriminatory hiring and promotion practices, are far more likely to be interrupted while speaking, and the list goes on. Women as a sex class face discrimination.
Gender nonconforming and trans people also face discrimination, and it is totally wrong. It will take new legislation to address, though, because re-interpreting the word "sex" in these laws to mean "gender identity" has the (I hope unintended) consequence of erasing protections for women and girls as a sex class.
15
@M Totally agree that discrimination toward women who are pregnant is a major problem, but as the New York Times has pointed out within the last week, our civil rights laws have little to no protection regarding women who are pregnant in the workplace. The other things you mention -- not conforming to gender stereotypes, discriminatory hiring, the pay gap, promotion practices, being interrupted while speaking -- all of those things are also things that trans women also face, and it's totally and utterly arbitrary to set trans women apart from other women in regard to those things.
Totally agree, we should have non-discrimination statutes regarding pregnancy, childbirth, and that WOMEN -- cis or trans -- should have autonomy over their bodies. Separating cis and trans women as it relates to existing civil rights statute is nonsense.
Of course "gender", and especially "gender identity", are not biologically determined. They are not biological concepts and can can mean anything that those who deploy the terms would like.
Specifically, they are usually defined not to correspond entirely to physical characteristics. So there is no need to "prove" that they don't.
15
I would be happy to accept trans gender demands so long as it was understood as accommodating a disability, But not if we are required to accept gender theory as mandating gender "fluidity". A man who thinks he is a woman is suffering a severe alienation from his body and requires appropriate treatment, not an exercise in re-definition.
75
@Rob, I don't think that trans-gender is considered a disability, it's more that they are discriminated against, and the legal protections are to prohibit such discrimination. I don't think that being a woman or African American is a disability -- though you may disagree -- but both groups have suffered discrimination, and now have some legal protection against such behavior.
34
@Rob, this is very wrong. Psychological distress in the transgender community results from alienation from the outside world and not being accepted for who you are by the people who matter most to you; your perspective is part of that problem.
Meet one person who is transgender, accepted by a loving community, permitted to express themselves openly, and you will meet one person who feels wholly like themselves and is at peace.
20
The Oxford English Dictionary defines 'sex' as:
"Either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and most other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions."
and defines 'gender' as:
"Either of the two sexes (male and female), especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones. The term is also used more broadly to denote a range of identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female."
These are two different, but related, concepts. Why is there a problem?
6
@Geoff So, the OED is now to be considered the standard by which we live our lives? It, as any dictionary. simply "defines" word usage, not truth.
2
@Geoff You should carefully re-read the article. This alleged Doctor named Safer is saying that sex is not determined by anatomy. He did not say Gender. We can debate semantics, but Safer has gone away from the definition you quote to basically says appearance is irrelevant. To me this reeks of activism, not science, and considering Safer works in a highly politicized area of medicine, he has clearly decided to chuck reason out the window and fly his progressive flag.The decay of the left continues.
32
if people would acknowledge the beauty in diversity, if we weren't so wired for conformity, we could more readily enjoy all the ways we are - all our non-bianary ways of being human.
26
“If only everyone would confirm and adopt my beliefs as their own, what a wonderful world this would be.”
We have already attained unprecedented diversity- in thought and practice. But that’s not enough, never enough.
So now let’s change the “facts” to force acceptance, and legitimize naming dissenters as bigots, fascists, ignorant, etc.
Utter nonsense.
30