TS-Si is dedicated to the acceptance, medical treatment, and legal protection of individuals correcting the misalignment of their brains and their anatomical sex, while supporting their transition into society as hormonally reconstituted and surgically corrected citizens.
| Sex, Identity and Gender, Oh My! |
 |
 |
| Opinion - Thompson & Gaughan | |||
| Lisa Thompson & Sharon Gaughan | |||
| Sunday, 10 July 2011 08:00 | |||
 Fairfax, VA, USA.
Gender Identity? We may as well shine some sunshine in that direction. It isn’t that we will be gratefully welcomed into the discussion. Our interests lie in science and living a full life, not dime-a-dozen social studies or gender  theory.But we are women and females, neither of us a male campaigning for acceptance as a woman because he wishes to present as one today. His world is not a woman's world. His world is not ours. Despite whatever empathy we can muster, the ultimate motivations of Transgender acticists remain unfathomable to us. But we can work toward a common, scientific definition of Gender Identity, one that applies equally to men and women (heterosexual, gay, bisexual, or born transsexual), intersex, the persistently transgendered, and cross-dressing males or females presenting as women or men.  Gender identity is the persistent personal perception of oneself as male or female (or rarely, both or neither). [N1] Gender role is the outward manifestations of personality that reflect the persistent gender identity that is self-identified. Gender role, however, exists within society through observable factors such as behavior and appearance. Gender role is often an outward expression of gender identity but not necessarily.In common English, sex and gender are often used as synonyms for each other. In the medical fields and the hard sciences (e.g., not sociology or gender theory), sex and gender are not synonymous and the following definitions apply:
The scientific terms are specific and not interchangeable despite attempts by the academic gender theorists and their faux-science cultural acolytes to blur their meanings. The definitions are distinct and remain so. There is great concern among moderate political types, religious organizations and those of us with a transsexual history that the gender theorists and the transgender activists have moved way beyond the actual science.
There have been numerous misbegotten attempts to incorporate the term transgender into law. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) defined gender identity as the gender-related identity, appearance, or mannerisms or other gender-related characteristics of an individual, with or without regard to the individual's designated sex at birth. This attempt at redefinition appears to describe the entire human species in one form or another without actually defining anything. Courts of Law frown on vague definition and most often find such laws overbroad and therefore unconstitutional. ENDA failed to receive enough votes to become law. But at least the ENDA definition made some sense, even if it was logically non-definitional. A local, liberal state attempted to define Gender Identity as
effectively making Gender Identity a queer human attribute not possessed by the heterosexual population. This is scientific illiteracy at its political worst. Gender Identity is a human state, not one reserved for queer politics. Most people identify with one sex or the other — most often the one assigned at birth. Did you notice that the state definition of Gender Identity does not require a person to have the overriding need to be the opposite sex (by definition, Transsexual) but only that they identify with opposite sex (Transgender perhaps). The word bona fide has null content and most likely added to assure the general public that the law would not cover fakers, pretenders, and run of the mill weekend crossdressers. The state got it right when it said that the identification must be persistent and documented, a requirement that raised a firestorm in the transgender community there (many, if not most of whom, are in the closet). Men and women with a transsexual history lead a well-documented, persistent life. The path to surgery requires nothing less. Men and women who are transgender often slip in and out of their transgendered gender roles. Is it persistent to only display as transgender on weekends? Or must the persistency be twenty-four hours, seven days a week, 365¼ days a year for the rest of your life like those of us with a transsexual history? The honest state attempt at definition falls short and remains overly vague. The courts would have questioned it strenuously if it had passed. Can’t anyone here play this game? [N4] Perhaps if the various attempts at law were more straightforward they would gain enough support to pass. [No pun intended.] We have no objections to a law that allows men and women to crossdress where and when they please — as long as the intent is not to deceive anyone, for any fraudulent purpose, or infringe upon the rights of others. Same rules as for a name change. [We advise anyone to consult a qualified attorney, just to be sure.] Such a law would protect the transgenders and allow them to come and go as they please. Workplace rules could be negotiated. This is what transgendered political activists often have said they want. Such a law, however, would require that transgenders be persistently out and open about who they are: something the transgender political activists claim they want — the right to live their lives openly without discrimination. Like men and women with a transsexual history. We suspect that proposing such a law would raise a great uproar among those transgender persons who are not out to their families, their spouses, their bosses, or their pastors. Liberty and freedom of movement has a price that many transgender people might not be willing to pay. Liberty comes with a price tag. Always. And with personal freedom comes personal responsibility, not the least facing up to the consequences of one’s actions. If the transgender community is willing to step forward into the open, we expect the American public and their elected officials would become more accepting of the transgender lifestyle choice. We all would support an honest effort for liberty combined with acceptance of personal responsibility. Notes[N1] Persistent: persisting, especially in spite of opposition, obstacles, discouragement, etc.; persevering. Lasting or enduring tenaciously. Constant. Indefatigable, pertinacious, tenacious. Antonyms: sporadic, intermittent, occasional.
[N2] Perineum. 1. The portion of the body in the pelvis occupied by urogenital passages and the rectum, bounded in front by the pubic arch, in the back by the coccyx, and laterally by part of the hipbone. Cerebrum. 2. The region between the scrotum and the anus in males, and between the posterior vulva junction and the anus in females. Merriam-Webster’s Medical Dictionary. [N3] The brain. Merriam-Webster’s Medical Dictionary.[N4] Casey Stengel, manager of the New York Mets baseball team.
 Ms. Lisa Jain Thompson is a Co-Founder & Principal of TS-Si. She also serves as a Contributing Editor and columnist for the TS-Si website. She maintains another site, StarPoet.com, for her poetry and literary works.Ms. Thompson's signed articles contain her own opinions and do not necessarily convey an official position of TS-Si, its partners, or affiliates. Lisa welcomes your comments. Use the form below or email via her TS-Si Contact Page. We will not divulge any personal details or place you on a mailing list without your permission.
 Ms. Sharon Gaughan is a Co-Founder, Principal, and Managing Editor of TS-Si. She also is a columnist for the TS-Si website. Sharon's signed articles contain her own opinions and do not necessarily convey an official position of TS-Si, its partners, or affiliates.Sharon welcomes your comments. You can reach her via the public form below, her TS-Si Contact Page, or on Facebook (Sharon Sinead Gaughan).
 The TS-Si News Service is a collaborative effort by TS-Si.org editors, contributors, and corresponding institutions. Sources can include the cited individuals and organizations, as well as TS-Si.org staff contributions. Articles and news reports do not necessarily convey official positions of TS-Si, its partners, or affiliates. We welcome your comments. Use the form below to leave a public comment or send private correspondence via the TS-Si Contact Page. We will not divulge any personal details or place you on a mailing list without your permission.TS-Si is dedicated to the acceptance, medical treatment, and legal protection of individuals correcting the misalignment of their brains and their anatomical sex, while supporting their transition into society as hormonally reconstituted and surgically corrected citizens.
|
|||
| Last Updated on Monday, 11 July 2011 05:44 |
Add comment
TS-Si often publishes material that presents challenges and insights worthy of extended discussion. We encourage lively, open debate and ask that you show respect for others with responsible comments. This can be done with emotional maturity and intelligence. Before commenting, please thoroughly read the article and other comments, then stay on topic. Address the issues without presumptions about the author(s) or other persons.
We will remove any comment that is a personal attack or off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, libelous, mysogonist, obscene, phobic, profane, racist, or otherwise inappropriate. Removal for cause may occur without prior notice and repeat offenders may lose commenting privileges. These abuses and/or any attempt to post a solicitations and/or advertising, flood, spam, or otherwise disrupt TS-Si.org operations are subject to further sanctions.
All comments are subject to our terms of use and overall site policies, available under the About menu tab.
We will remove any comment that is a personal attack or off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, libelous, mysogonist, obscene, phobic, profane, racist, or otherwise inappropriate. Removal for cause may occur without prior notice and repeat offenders may lose commenting privileges. These abuses and/or any attempt to post a solicitations and/or advertising, flood, spam, or otherwise disrupt TS-Si.org operations are subject to further sanctions.
All comments are subject to our terms of use and overall site policies, available under the About menu tab.
The TS-Si News Service
and the TS-Si Research Service are collaborations of TS-Si officials, staff, contributors, and corresponding institutions. The contents do not necessarily convey official positions of TS-Si or its owners, participants, partners, or affiliates.
Comments
Transsexuality has its roots here, very early in fetal development, deep within the most complex structure in the emerging embryo.
Scientific research strongly supports the assertion that transsexuality is a birth condition: a misalignment of and individual's innate neurobiological makeup and external genitalia.
A person who is neurobiological ly female exhibits male genitalia; a person who is neurobiological ly male exhibits female genitalia.
ENDA, which likely will eventually pass, is a federal civil rights enforcement statute. With few exceptions, notably the Americans with Disabilities Act, such statutes do not attempt to classify or describe individuals, but rather prohibit certain malicious actions based on the motivations and understandings of the perpetrator.
Most civil rights statutes make no comment on whether a classification that is in a perpetrator's mind is founded on legitimate science. Thus, to oversimplify just a bit, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits all sorts of discrimination based on vague ethnic and social hostilities as racial discrimination -- and this before we ever get to the question whether current racial taxonomies have any scientific merit.
To illustrate, few people today would regard people of Jewish heritage or tradition as a single and separate race. And such a proposition would be ridiculous as a sociological matter, before we even get to the scientifically dubious notion of racial taxonomy. Yet, when someone takes severe malicious action based upon that misunderstandin g, there are powerful arguments that he has violated statutes prohibiting racial discrimination.
Similarly, ENDA, like most federal civil rights statutes, would protect everyone and classify no one. Thus, the plaintiff in the Price Waterhouse Supreme Court case, a natal female criticized for insufficient femininity, would be protected by ENDA from adverse employment actions on that basis. Similarly, a heterosexual male would be protected from discrimination based on a defendant's view that he was not "macho" enough.
And yes, a woman of transsexual history would be protected from employment discrimination by a defendant who discovers her past and thinks her weird or immoral. But it is the defendant that classifies her. The statute regards her only as a person entitled to fair treatment in the workplace.
To be sure, there will be room for refinement and interpretation in the enforcement agencies and the courts should ENDA be enacted. There may even be constitutional challenges that have to be defended; there usually are. But the taxpayers pay people (albeit very poorly) to handle this.
I make these comments principally because I have seen opposition to ENDA and other measures in the so-called "trans" community based on the fear that it defines citizens in certain ways. In short, it does not. Rather it defines certain nefarious conduct. And it groups all people together as persons entitled to be free from employment discrimination based on that conduct.
The state law the article criticizes appears to violate this general approach by seeking to identify a protected group. While I don't have knowledge of that proposed legislation, at first blush I agree with the authors that it is a poor way to proceed.
Society readily agreed on what was meant by race. Later, by the consent of the governed, we expand the prohibition against racial to include ethnic discrimination.
Society has not yet come to agreement on what we mean not only by gender identity but what would constitute gender identity discrimination.
And yes, the perpetual bathroom questions are part of that. Would it be discrimination to refuse entry into a public women's restroom to an obvious man wearing a dress?
The bathroom issue is just a smokescreen perpetuated by both sides. The law needs to separate sex from someone wearing clothes other than society expects to be worn by that person (clothes other than that expected for the sex they were assigned at birth.
We can protect both without choosing the rights of one (transgenders) while diminishing the rights of another (women) to privacy and a safe haven from the threat of males who, in general,are larger, stronger, and more aggressive than the average woman.
This is not a sporting event. We don't need winners and losers to accomplish our democratic goal.
[N4] Casey Stengel, manager of the New York Mets baseball team.
The Mets??? This is your measure of the man? Had you instead said the New York Yankees, I would not feel such doubt about your gender analysis. We shall see.
1) The authors suggest that the transgender concept is vague compared to race or ethnicity. Nothing could be further from the truth. Race and ethnicity are social constructs with no precise definition. A person who is considered one race in the U.S. might well be attributed differently in the Caribbean and differently again in South Africa. Attempts to define race precisely have verged on insanity -- such has how many of one's granparents or great-grandpare nts were of one race or another. Yet laws against race discrimination are well established, accepted by the courts, and exert a powerful influence on American life.
2. The article seems to suggest that gender identity is a new, untested concept. But in fact, gender identity or similar definitions are in the laws of 15 states, the District of Columbia, and more than 100 municipalities, including most of the large cities in the U.S. The oldest of the state laws (in Minnesota) has been in effect for 18 years, and the oldest municipal ordinance for 35 years. None have been thrown out by the courts, and none appear to have had any serious unintended consequences.
3. The authors suggest that trans people should be required to be "persistently out and open" about their gender identity in order to receive the law's protection. But there is no such requirement concerning sexual orientation, religion or ethnicity. Why should trans people be placed under special scrutiny and requirements?
I hope people of good will calmly discuss what is, after all, an important topic.
To avoid excessive parsing, I have quoted the opening objection in your three points, followed by some discussion. I hope readers will look at your original comment to see the details of your text. It is under I must take issue with some of the statements and implications in the Thompson/Gaugha n article.
Quote:Race, of course, is unscientific but that has not prevented its encapsulation in law (both good and very very bad). You say yourself that "... laws against race discrimination are well established, accepted by the courts, and exert a powerful influence on American life".
We actually referred to "vague sociological and political definitions of transgender". We believe the transgender concept is vague -- in that context -- because the attempts have become so all-inclusive that definition is inexact to the point of thin generality.
Quote:In historical terms, it is "a new, untested concept", without a lengthy track record in social practice and law.
There are some recent exceptions, of course, but even the situation in Minnesota has to be rated as an anaomalous (
We aren't arguing that existing legislative initiatives in the jusrisdictions you mentioned are inherently bad, but simply that they are not extensible and rigorous enough to pass ultimate scrutiny over time.
Quote:You asked "Why should trans people be placed under special scrutiny and requirements?"
Very simply, that is because legislators are subject to their subjective understanding of who/what "trans people" really are. Crisp definitions go a long way toward the creation and passage of enforceable legislation.
So many of them see part-time crossdressers and/or flamboyant examples that then become representative of the whole -- what you would call the "trans people" -- population.
We do believe all people are entitled to their basic civil rights -- and that includes anyone who identifies as the "T" in GLBT.
We do not believe any of us are entitled to special privilege. However, that does not exclude temporary help for the less advantaged among us.
The main thing here is to recognize that much of what the "T" desires is cultural. Legislating culture is a terribly difficult task.
I support same sex marriage, celebrate it's passage in New York and oppose the current GENDA. I oppose GENDA because it opens the door to dangerous men thrusting themselves into woman only space and as a woman I will always oppose that. Crossdressers should never have their civil rights violated for being crossdressers but they are men and do not and never will belong in woman only space. As the article stated, transgender has no actual meaning, it is so damn open that any pervert could claim coverage under it if written into law. Only those born transsexed have legitimate legal coverage needs and that merely limited to full legal recognition of post corrected sex alone.
But there has been something on my mind, and this comment gives me serious pause.
"There is great concern among moderate political types, religious organizations and those of us with a transsexual history that the gender theorists and the transgender activists have moved way beyond the actual science."
Let's be real, shall we? When have religious organizations ever been concerned about protecting actual science?
Sharon and Lisa have indicated a desire in the past on TS-SI to work with religious groups when dealing with transgender and transsexual concerns. i have never been quite sure if it is a desire born from practicality, some sort of personal faith (i am under the impression that Lisa is an atheist), or possibly a mixture of the two.
Whatever the answer may be, it is something that i wearily distance myself from in this debate. i am not willing to lay in bed with the devil, or God for that matter, even if it might further a goal i might have. The irrationality of Judeo-Christian -Muslim religions may come in varying degrees (from off-the-charts Westboro, to barely-noticeab le relatives), but it is irrationality all the same. Unpredictable, shape-shifting, and too easily be turned against you.
i have no issue with communicating the distinctions between transsexual and 'transgender' (that meaningless legal concept that says everything and nothing at the same time).
Deliberately attempting to harness the power of religious believers against a political group, even a political group i might despise, repulses me to the core of who i am as a person. It would be conservative politics tactic 101, and i refuse to harness the fear and hate of the ignorant for my own purposes.
If you're simply making distinctions, i can support that. If it is more than that, i will oppose it. And the line is very, very fine. It is drawn with little comments like that which i have quoted.
As with anything i might say, anyone is free to take it or ignore it however they prefer.
We said: "There is great concern among moderate political types, religious organizations and those of us with a transsexual history that the gender theorists and the transgender activists have moved way beyond the actual science."
Then ATG said:
Quote:Rarely, if ever -- even then, the purpose was to harness science to an ideological end.
But in this context, we were mainly talking about what are often thought of as the liberal (old meaning) religions who do not have a stake in the fight. Where we have departed is when they stand idly by while the Religious Right co-opts the word "Christian" and spreads their bile.
If you are thinking about the articles and research we publish on religion and spirituality, please remember that we speak to a very large group of pre- and post-corrected individuals with very diverse views. We have never required that others believe as we do; we prefer respectful and fair discussion, a step toward mutual understanding.
Then:
Quote:Actually, the emphasis in the past has been on those religious groups that actively deliver services to the dispossessed in society. Religious charities collect a lot of money which is supposed to help with basic living expenses, especially when children are involved.
We have never been afraid of walking into the lion's den and negotiating for fair treatment. Unfortunately, there often is an additional price involved, rather like an ideological tax: "Come to believe as we do and we will help."
Not good enough.
We have had some success with this approach but nowhere near enough. If it turned bigoted, we walked.
Quote:We have never done that; in our case, going back to the old non-profit, the emphasis has always been on service -- not political advocacy.
It's just something i keep a weary eye on. Slippery slope and all that.
To enforce such a requirement is a classic mix of apples and oranges. M2F surgery has reached prime time; F2M surgery has not.
Until F2Ms have access to equivalent results, we can only observe that some F2Ms take transition as far as it can possibly go within practical limits -- as they exist at this time.
This is not only an opinion born of privilege, which I find disgusting, it runs counter to what I have seen articulated on previous occasions by not only the authors of this site, but many of the readers.
The facts are simple: Not everyone who is transsexual can have major surgery for a number of reasons, including inability to afford the surgery, or medical conditions which preclude any major surgery due to the risk of death, etc. This has all been vented here before, and what I've previously read is something along the lines (I am paraphrasing) that the authors “allow” those who feel a persistent need to be their real identity, and strive in every way available to them in their unique circumstance to get there, to be included in their definition of transsexuals versus transgender.
It is arrogant to believe that everyone who desires genital reassignment surgery, indeed would almost die to have the surgery, can just snap their fingers and make their barriers to surgery go away. Any finite definition of transsexualism which relies on the completion of surgery is bigotry born of financial and classist priviledge, which is intolerable.
While I agree I have not always seen eye to eye with the some of the author’s positions, I at least gave them credit for common sense acknowledgement of the inequalities and medical conditions which pose barriers to surgery, and their previous acknowledgement that completion of surgery should not be the determining factor of who is allowed into the “transsexuals only” tent. I am disappointed to see that the authors chose not to correct, and allowed that sort of nonsense to go unchallenged.
We allow a variety of opinions -- some we agree with, some we don't -- and seldom censor a post unless it is a direct personal attack on someone, racist, legally libelous, or advocates violence or the overthrow of the U. S. government.
We even allow people to make scientifically inaccurate statements (after which, of course, we normally submit a comment with the accurate science.
We enforce all these standards with a more or less libertarian approach. We would rather people hang themselves in public on their own petard.
As it says on every page, although we welcome responsible comments, Quote:Interestingly, the more we take a neutral position, the angrier the comments seem to get.
This is especially true given 24/7 life as the woman I am, hormonal reconstition, and corrective surgery.
I am not trans- anything -- never was.
There certainly are people who face serious obstacles during transtion and cannot obtain SRS, at least for now, and are continually pre-op. Unhappily, some of those die before attaining completness.
That is an entirely different group from the transgender males who refer to themselves as non-op.
Your reference to the "women only" tent is a construction that neither Lisa nor I erected. Given who we are talking about here, it is no more useful than the "transgender" umbrella. Nor is it a question of who "deserves" entrance to such a thing.
Females immersed in the society of women are already here, not because we deserve anything but because we are females and women in the first place. If you are a female and woman you will be there. This is something that forever excludes males who pretend to be women.
I can't answer your loaded statement that attributes a particular attitude to Pamlela, who can answer for herself:
Quote:I happen to be one of those who faced daunting -- some would say impossible -- health and financial odds. Others have had it worse. Some of us make it; others do not. It is very unfortunate, but not altogether due to outside agency.
Your comments apart, I can't begin to describe how many people have come here with ideology-based accusations of elitism and privilege over the years: they heard it somewhere so it must be true, even if the facts prove otherwise.
I thought I made clear that I don't want those that prance around "claiming" to be female that are able financially and health-wise to have the surgery, but OPT to retain their Male appendages in the women's dressing rooms or bathrooms. At that point, they are NOT TS but just crossdressers (TG's). Some of this same bunch refer to SRS as being a "genital mutilation" and that no matter what you are still "Male" (or Female).
I would thank you to NOT try to put words in my mouth nor to bend what I stated out of context.
[ The main thing I object to is the desire and demand of a Transgender to get all official ID and a Birth certificate changed to indicate that they are FEMALE when in fact they have had no surgery to completely correct their physical sex to match their brain sex (Or Gender if you prefer). I don't include Breast augmentation and minor facial work in this surgery. It makes the ID into a lie. Personally, I don't care if they dress up as a female (or male), but I don't want them in female spaces when they in fact are NOT female. ]
Your own words above contain no such qualification of "not needing" or "choosing not to" have surgery. Your words clearly state that completion of surgery is required in your privileged world to qualify for your approval in changing their ID and birth certificate. So to accuse me of putting words in your mouth is rather disingenuous and simply an attempt to cover your tracks after being called out for espousing disgusting remarks. If you made a mistake, and feel compassion for those that are not as fortunate as you and are living the only way they can without surgery, then the adult thing to do would be simply to admit it rather than admonish me for reading and replying to your own words.
RSS feed for comments to this post