Philosophy Now Forum

Mebbe he wants to rethink the word.

#

"it's just semantics whether lack of such items as reproductive capacity and a chromosome means they aren't women at all,"

I disagree. The placeholder 'woman' refers to, as I say, a particular set of bio- and psyche-characteristics sourced in the chromosome pair. Joe can surgically, hormonally alter himself as he likes (to effect the appearance 'woman') but till he changes that chromosome pairing he's still a 'he'.

#

"He wants to label other people's life choices and self images as a mental disease, by definition, without reference to any symptom or any psychiatric assessment of the individuals concerned. That's a throwback to some darker times that should not be revived."

A man who believes he's a woman 'is' disordered in his thinkin', yeah? I mean, do I really need to wait for a full psych workup to assess this? When Joe sez 'I'm a girl' when it's obvious he's a guy, c'mon, Flash, it's obvious sumthin' is wrong in that fella's head.

"This isn't so easy Henry."

What I'm arguin' for, yeah, it's pretty simple: there are men and there are women and, aside from those unfortunates with odd gene maladies, the two 'classes' are distinct, not interchangeable, and not transferable.

#

"You've read of Kant's question regarding a thing in itself."

Nope.

#

"What is a woman as a thing in itself which we can call its essence? Is it just the outer body we can see and explore scientifically or is the essence of woman something different?"

As I say, I'm all about the spooky shit, but I don't have to appeal to the arcane. I just point to that particular protein-DNA pairing comprising a chromosome pair that itself is nuthin' but tangible 'information. The whole sticky schmear extends out of that.

#

"If fish can do it why can't a human have the potential to change sex"

Well, we're not fish but sumthin' far less mutable than fish.

I have no doubt down the road we'll be able to infest ourselves with nano-robots that can rejigger chromosome pairs cell by cell. Till then, any changes Joe makes to effect the appearance of bein' a woman are wholly cosmetic.

He ain't a chick and he ain't gonna be a chick through shots and surgery (though, in my book, he's welcome to pretend all he likes).

#

"If possible, why can't some be in-between male and female?"

There are folks born with, as I say, odd maladies, but they represent abnormal variations, not viable 3rd, 4th, or 5th sexes or genders.

#

"We don't know since we don't know the essence of either male or female"

Sure we do. Look to XX and XY for the answers (or mebbe the last stop on the way to the answer).

Henry


N "If possible, why can't some be in-between male and female?"

H There are folks born with, as I say, odd maladies, but they represent abnormal variations, not viable 3rd, 4th, or 5th sexes or genders.

N Perhaps it isn’t abnormal but just less common

#

N. "We don't know since we don't know the essence of either male or female"

H. Sure we do. Look to XX and XY for the answers (or mebbe the last stop on the way to the answer).

N. But if you are describing surface differences how are they essentiallly different if they re two halves of the same whole? According to Genesis Eve came from Adam’s rib so at one time their essence was the same. The point is if you consider the sexes as part of the same whole, how does it effect the initial question?

1. There is something unique and special to being female, something that cannot be generated by males...(What would it be? A kind of cognition? A kind of perception? A kind of intuition? A natural propensity? A domestic possibility? A set of values? A perspective?...etc. It varies among Feminist writers) -- this is a kind of 3rd Wave claim.

2. There is nothing unique to being female: any current differences that appear to exist between men and women are socially constructed, not essential. This is a kind of 2nd Wave, Billie Jean King kind of position.

Yin and yang are essentially different yet part of the same whole at a higher level of reality. So there is something unique and special about these complimentary forces. Yet at a higher level of reality they are united as ONE so exist as the same. This was the initial meaning of traditional marriage where complimentary forces are united but it is now an insult to secularism so can only be appreciated through private ceremonies as secularism continues to debate if people are the same or different and if those in between are abnormal or just part of the normal connection between yin and yang..

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2019 12:09 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 11:07 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 10:10 pm Do Ihave to remind you yet again of your own definition of essence?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 10:13 pm
Essence
"In philosophy, essence is the property or set of properties that make an entity or substance what it fundamentally is, and which it has by necessity, and without which it loses its identity."

Do you see the word, or the concept "function" anywhere near that definition? I don't.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 11:07 pm Again, if you think "woman" can be defined functionally, I'd be interested in seeing you do that.


No, no...that's a misunderstanding. It's not "transformed into" anything. It's function changes, in that case, but its identity remains stable. If it is essentially a "four legged wood structure," it remains a "four legged wood structure" whether you sit on it or eat off it. Nothing is transformed thereby, unless utility is the basis of identity...which is Functionalism.

It was a table, then it was a chair, or the other way round. It became a different thing.[/quote]
No, it didn't. It stayed exactly the same thing. The use to which it was being put changed, but that was it. No "essence" of the item changed at all. If it was four wooden legs and a platform before, it was the same after somebody sat on it.

That's all that matters, that a thing can become a new thing.

But it didn't. Your illustration doesn't work.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 11:07 pm

If a man becomes a woman because some stuff is chopped off and whatever other things are done in these situations, then that must have been inherently possible too.

That begs the question. Is a "man with some stuff chopped off" a woman, or is he just a "man with some stuff chopped off"? We can't say it's become "possible" just because Bruce declares he's now Caitlin. It's more likely that it's NOT possible, but he wants us to declare it's happened when it hasn't.

So the question remains to be settled: IS he Kaitlin, or a body-dysmorphic individual? And, of course, you don't get to rule on that unilaterally. You need to prove that the obvious is not true -- namely, that Bruce isn't just a mentally-impaired, mangled male. So you now need to show that a mangled male IS a woman, and it follows that a natural woman is also then the equivalent of a mangled male.

No, I don't have to expand into that area whatsoever.

Sure you do.

But now, let's let all of the stuff about Essentialism drop. And let's do it for one very good reason: namely, that both you and I totally agree that IF Essentialism is posited, then transgenderism would be irrational. You happen to think that Essentialism can only be posited falsely. Others may think it can be posited truly. I can tell you think Essentialism matters, because you spent all this time trying to shoot it down. If you didn't think it mattered, you would not have. So you agree that Essentialism undermines transgenderism. And so do Essentialists.

Perfect agreement on that.

So let's move on.

Now, what about Non-Essentialism? Does it have the capability of answering the problem I've posed to it: namely, how can a transgender person "need" to "become" something that Non-Essentialism says is not essential and does not exist, namely one gender rather than the other? And what's the problem with them being the thing they were born, since there's essentially no "other thing" they can become anyway, because gender is not essential?

You can't turn the tables on me in such a manner, it is irational to support an argument by demanding some alternative argument.

You forget: I gave TWO arguments, not one. You spent all your time thinking that Essentialism would be the problem, but didn't notice that I already dealt with the same problem in regards to Non-Essentialism.

So why are you only answering half the message?

Unless man is a useful term

"Useful" for what? You have already said it's refers to no essential distinction. So it can't be picking out something "different" from "woman." What "use" could it be being put to, then?

Only the illegitimate use of convincing people that some important gender distinction exists, whereas (as per Non-Essentialism) none actually does. So the best thing we could do is get rid of both the terms "man" and "woman," which actually point to a delusory distinction you have said essentially does not exist.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 11:07 pm

Without the essence nonsense, you have no grounds to declare it less inherently possible for one thing to change into somethinge else than any other.

This is where you're wrong. Actually, without believing in an essence of both, you cannot say that a "man" ever became a "woman." The terms literally have no meaning. They mean, essentially, nothing.

Ah, but in that case words like transformation mean "essentially" nothing.

Now you've got it! Right on.

You can't "transform" either! Whatever "thing" you are, genderwise, you are going to be that until you die, because there's nothing else that you can be, because no "other gender" exists. What would you ever "transform" from, or "transform" into? No essential distinction exists, you think.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 3:36 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 3:17 pm Why does every category of object have to have some unique "essence" that no other category can generate?

Because something is necessary in order for us to be able to distinguish an "object" from others. If there is no such feature, then everything is the same.

You are contradicting yourself. Or you are claiming chair isn't a category of object.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2019 2:54 am "it's just semantics whether lack of such items as reproductive capacity and a chromosome means they aren't women at all,"

I disagree. The placeholder 'woman' refers to, as I say, a particular set of bio- and psyche-characteristics sourced in the chromosome pair. Joe can surgically, hormonally alter himself as he likes (to effect the appearance 'woman') but till he changes that chromosome pairing he's still a 'he'.

And then the transexual might reply that she lives a life in a society and she lives it as a woman, and none of you prescriptions can change that. Or something else, there's probably lots of options.

The point will remain moot, it depends entirely on what you find persuasive and nobody has any argument that can prove some poisition is right or wrong on the matter of "is he a she or not?"

So, yeah, it does come down to how you interpret concepts, and those concepts, as part of a living language that is defined by use, simply don't have methods for resolving this question to satisfaction. Those are the limits of being humans not gods.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2019 2:54 am "He wants to label other people's life choices and self images as a mental disease, by definition, without reference to any symptom or any psychiatric assessment of the individuals concerned. That's a throwback to some darker times that should not be revived."

A man who believes he's a woman 'is' disordered in his thinkin', yeah? I mean, do I really need to wait for a full psych workup to assess this? When Joe sez 'I'm a girl' when it's obvious he's a guy, c'mon, Flash, it's obvious sumthin' is wrong in that fella's head.

Or you are disordered in your thinking, supposing that other people getting by in society minding their own business and doing no harm and suffering no ill effects and just being free should have their status judged by the arbitrary standard of some random guy's prurience.

Irrespective, the medical profession used to classify this sort of thing as actual mental disease and the effects were brutal. Reviving that sort of mentality is not a fun plan.

N Perhaps it isn’t abnormal but just less common

Q Mebbe, but irrelevant. Hermaphroditism is uncommon enough, problematic enough, to be unviable. But what if it were viable, common, so what? We'd have a third sex/gender, sure, but like the other two, it would be distinct, not interchangeable, and not transferable.

#

N. But if you are describing surface differences how are they essentiallly different if they re two halves of the same whole? According to Genesis Eve came from Adam’s rib so at one time their essence was the same. The point is if you consider the sexes as part of the same whole, how does it effect the initial question?

Q It's not (just) cosmetic difference. There are gross and subtle differences between man and woman. Organs, neurology, etc. As for the two halves of a whole thing: I don't really subscribe to that, but even if true all it means is you got two complimentary (sometimes conflicting) parts, each containing unique elements.

"the transexual might reply that she lives a life in a society and she lives it as a woman, and none of you prescriptions can change that."

Whatever floats his boat.

#

"The point will remain moot, it depends entirely on what you find persuasive and nobody has any argument that can prove some poisition is right or wrong on the matter of "is he a she or not?""

I disagree. The XX/XY argument is sound cuz it's fact.

#

"Or you are disordered in your thinking, supposing that other people getting by in society minding their own business and doing no harm and suffering no ill effects and just being free should have their status judged by the arbitrary standard of some random guy's prurience."

We all judge, Flash. Don't matter if the judgment carries any weight or has any consequence. As I say: if Joe wants to live as Josephine, that's his business. If he wants to surgically alter himself to affect the appearance of 'woman' that's his business. But what's my business is recognizing what is and what isn't. I won't interfere with his exercise of his delusion, won't interfere as others participate in his delusion, but I won't be a party to it.

Question: when you were a dating man, what would you have done if, after bedding her, you'd found out 'she' was (or used to be) 'he'?

#

"Reviving that sort of mentality is not a fun plan."

No, it's a lousy one, but pretending gender fluidity is possible, pretending that men can actually turn into women and vice versa, is a sure path to madness.

Henry

N. But if you are describing surface differences how are they essentiallly different if they re two halves of the same whole? According to Genesis Eve came from Adam’s rib so at one time their essence was the same. The point is if you consider the sexes as part of the same whole, how does it effect the initial question?

Q It's not (just) cosmetic difference. There are gross and subtle differences between man and woman. Organs, neurology, etc. As for the two halves of a whole thing: I don't really subscribe to that, but even if true all it means is you got two complimentary (sometimes conflicting) parts, each containing unique elements.

Don't forget I've been considering the question of transgenderism from the perspective of the OP. ICs assertion is that transgenderism cannot exist becaiuse either genders don't exist or they cannot chnge from one to the other. This is a natural conclusion of the law of the EXCLUDED middle.

However from the point of view of the law of the INCLUDED middle, opposites can exist as one within a higher reality. It can never become popular in secular society because doing so would open the question of higher realities which is an intolerable no no.

If you can agree that your heart and your head are distinct parts but exist as united within the human body, then you'll understand the law of the INCLUDED middle. The body is the included middle which contains the heart and the head. Yin and yang exist united within the higher reality of Qi. The body of Man is one thing while the united essence of Man is another and exists at a higher level of reality than the Man animal manifesting as male and female

But the law of the included middle will become part of the education of the future when humanity as a whole begins to feel reality as more than duality

But for anyone with scientific knowledge who is curious how the law of non-contradiction (excluded middle) is compatible with the law of the included middle, I will leave a link a person of science will be able to follow. How Man can exist simultaneously as the Man animal as an expression of the duality of the excluded middle and evolved Man as an expression of inner unity at a higher level of reality will become clear at least theoretically.

http://ciret-transdisciplinarity.org/bulletin/b12c3.php

Nick_A wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2019 8:49 pm
Don't forget I've been considering the question of transgenderism from the perspective of the OP. ICs assertion is that transgenderism cannot exist becaiuse either genders don't exist or they cannot chnge from one to the other. This is a natural conclusion of the law of the EXCLUDED middle.

He set up the whole thread with this fallacy. What do you expect from a black and white thinker.

"Don't forget I've been considering the question of transgenderism from the perspective of the OP."

Yeah, I know. I haven't felt bound by the opening. I don't do too well with 'rules' (formal or informal).

#

"ICs assertion is that transgenderism cannot exist becaiuse either genders don't exist or they cannot chnge from one to the other."

Transgenderism is for crap, trannies are loons, gender (which is real) is essentially immutable. You can be an effeminate man, never a woman; you can be a masculine woman, never a man.

Bruce Jenner is crazy and shame on his family and friends for playin' along.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2019 11:13 pm "Don't forget I've been considering the question of transgenderism from the perspective of the OP."

Yeah, I know. I haven't felt bound by the opening. I don't do too well with 'rules' (formal or informal).

#

"ICs assertion is that transgenderism cannot exist becaiuse either genders don't exist or they cannot chnge from one to the other."

Transgenderism is for crap, trannies are loons, gender (which is real) is essentially immutable. You can be an effeminate man, never a woman; you can be a masculine woman, never a man.

Bruce Jenner is crazy and shame on his family and friends for playin' along.

Could you explain to me why people who are different in their bodies deserve to be condemned regardless of what they are on the inside.

This happened many years ago but I rememeber being in this band and playing in a hotel where women tennis players were staying. I forget her name now but she was a big woman and admitted being lesbian. She was sitting alone in the lounge. Evidently the others weren't comfortable sitting with her. So when we went on break I asked if I could sit with her and chat. She said yes and we had a nice conversation about the entertainment factor in tennis and in music.

Do you really believe I should have avoided her because she is not the norm? Hell I'm not normal. Maybe that is why I admire Simone. She wasn't normal. she was so abnormal that Albert Camus called her the greatest mind of the times.

"Could you explain to me why people who are different in their bodies deserve to be condemned regardless of what they are on the inside."

First off: they aren't different, they're loony. Second, they shouldn't be condemned, but pitied, Third, no favors are bein' dine for these folks by pretendin' they're women when they're men (and vice versa). The folks who deserve condemnation are the ones who damn well know they're catering to lunacy but who do it anyway.

#

"Do you really believe I should have avoided her because she is not the norm?"

Nope. Thing is: your big lesbian friend, if you asked what gender she is, would say 'I'm a woman'. Bein' queer isn't the same as bein' trannie.

Now, let's say your friend, instead of bein' lesbian, had been a trannie (a guy): should you avoid him? Of course not. You also shouldn't pretend he is a she. You do him no favors when you do.

#

"Hell I'm not normal."

Who the hell is?

This transgender nonsense isn't about normal. It's about what is versus what isn't. We're talkin' about sumthin' as fundamental and real as 'fire burns' and we're debatin' on whether folks who say 'fire freezes' ought be taken seriously.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2019 6:25 am





That begs the question. Is a "man with some stuff chopped off" a woman, or is he just a "man with some stuff chopped off"? We can't say it's become "possible" just because Bruce declares he's now Caitlin. It's more likely that it's NOT possible, but he wants us to declare it's happened when it hasn't.



So the question remains to be settled: IS he Kaitlin, or a body-dysmorphic individual? And, of course, you don't get to rule on that unilaterally. You need to prove that the obvious is not true -- namely, that Bruce isn't just a mentally-impaired, mangled male. So you now need to show that a mangled male IS a woman, and it follows that a natural woman is also then the equivalent of a mangled male.

No, I don't have to expand into that area whatsoever. [/quote]
Sure you do.
.


Now, what about Non-Essentialism? Does it have the capability of answering the problem I've posed to it: namely, how can a transgender person "need" to "become" something that Non-Essentialism says is not essential and does not exist, namely one gender rather than the other? And what's the problem with them being the thing they were born, since there's essentially no "other thing" they can become anyway, because gender is not essential?




You can't "transform" either! Whatever "thing" you are, genderwise, you are going to be that until you die, because there's nothing else that you can be, because no "other gender" exists. What would you ever "transform" from, or "transform" into? No essential distinction exists, you think.
[/quote]

.....................................................................................................................................................................................


Dear IC,




I see that you are very interested in the question of transgenderism (?) Whenever I see the term "gender" appear in a debate, I cringe, because it is defined by so many different individuals and different authorities in so many different ways, that it is near impossible to grasp what the term is intended to mean in any given context. So before I respond to your position on transgenderism, let me see if we can agree on a reasonable definition for the term "gender. I have only ever resided in England, Australia and the US, thus I have no experience and very little knowledge of non-Western society and must construct my definition gender according to what it appears to connote in the Anglophone West) - We Westerners typically perceive a gender binary, i.e. there are two basic genders (boy/man and girl/female). So, I define "gender" as...



" a range of characteristics pertaining to, and distinguishing between, MASCULINITY and FEMININITY. Depending upon the context, these characteristics may include: BIOLOGICAL SEX (the state of being MALE or FEMALE, or an INTERSEX variation); SEX-BASED SOCIAL STRUCTURES ("gender roles"), or GENDER IDENTITY ( the personal sense of one's own gender; for example, IC, I am sure that you clearly and implicitly sense you are a male - likewise, you "see" yourself as being a male. You are, "existentially", a male human being through and through).




To continue. When you refer to transgenderism, that is, the phenomenon of females affirming they are masculine in terms of gender but possess a female body ( with mammary glands, vagina, uterus, fallopian tubes, a monthly menstrual cycle and so on) or males who state that they are feminine in terms of gender but that sexually (biologically) they are men (who possess a penis, testicles and scrotum, the capacity to produce semen, etc; I am going to put my medical hat on and say that such individuals represent a relatively small percentage of the population, and that I believe they are afflicted with legitimate a medical ( psychiatric) DISORDER. The alternative would be to say that they are CRAZY/INSANE.( I mean, I imagine you are a common or garden adult Christian male, living in a community somewhere in America. If you suddenly began to start sneaking out on Saturday night's desporting yourself in pink mini-skirts, high heels, black fishnet stockings, bright red lipstick, padded "DD" brassieres, French perfume and diamond ear-rings, touting for business under a street lamp on Highway 59, I would say to myself: "Good grief, poor old IC''s gone crazy ! Whatever will his wife say?!)



The American Psychiatric Association (APA) - that august body ! - would not at all approve of my referring to transgenderism as a pyschiatric "Disorder." They themselves formerly categorised transgenderism as "Gender Identity Disorder (GID) in the 4th edition of their official diagnostic "Bible", the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM). However, in 2013 ,when edition five of the DSM was published, it was decided by APA that the diagnosis "Gender Identity Disorder" should be replaced with "Gender Dysphoria". It was felt by the APA, who have, for decades now, been absolutely terrified of saying anything politically incorrect, that the term "disorder" was stigmatising, as it suggested something was (morally, mentally) wrong or abnormal or undesirable about transgender persons. They also, for example, and for the same reason, deleted the category of psychiatric conditions that were placed under the rubric of "Mental Retardation" in the DSM IV, and re-labelled them: "Intellectual Deficit Disorders" (IDD). This was because the word "retard" had become a term of abuse in American slang, particularly among younger people. You'll still see it used this way on the forum today, or variations of it like: "Libtard", "PC-tard", etc.



As I am arguing the point/s I wish to make from a medical/psychiatric perspective ( note, psychiatry is a branch of medicine, all psychiatrists are qualified medical doctors and should not be confused with clinical psychologists) I thought I should set down my definition of what has been called "transgenderism" thus far on this thread. Transgenderism refers to individuals who have "Gender Dysphoria" and the DSM 5 (which is the official diagnostic reference text for EVERY psychiatrist in America) describes it as follows...




"For a person to be diagnosed with Gender Dysphoria, there must be a MARKED difference between the individual's expressed/experienced gender and the gender others would assign him or her, and it must continue for at least 6 months. In children, the desire to be of the other gender must be present and verbalised. This condition raises CLINICALLY SIGNIFICANT DISTRESS OR IMPAIRMENT in : social; educational; occupational or other important areas of functioning."



I am going to limit the scope of my discussion to a consideration of individuals with diagnosed Gender Dysphoria. Typically, these are people who have been referred to a gender speciality psychiatric clinic who are seeking (for insurance purposes) to have a diagnosis of Gender Dysphoria confirmed by specialist psychiatrist and then have hormone therapy or surgery carried out to remediate the condition by effecting a binary transition (male-to-female or female - to - male) The DSM-V currently estimates the national prevalence of Gender Dysphoria in America as 0.005 - 0.014 % for birth-assigned males and 0.002 - 0.003 % for birth-assigned females. These figures naturally do not reflect the prevalence of ALL individuals with Gender Dysphoria who identify as transgender.




"TRANSGENDERISM" - THE TESTOSTERONE THEORY




Gender is a complex construct. The nature of an individual's gender can reflect the influence of multiple factors. Of all the competing theories of the causes of transgenderism to date, the strongest, however, is "The Testosterone Theory." It certainly does not explain not the whole story of transgenderism, but it does have powerful empirical support. Given this I will conclude this post with a very brief precis of this theory which I hope you will find interesting with respect to the notion of gender essentialism.



The human brain develops in the MALE DIRECTION through the direct action of testosterone (an androgenic steroidal hormone), and in the FEMALE DIRECTION through the ABSENCE of this hormone. During the intrauterine period, GENDER IDENTITY (the inner, subjective conviction of being either a male/man or a female/woman), SEXUAL ORIENTATION, cognition, aggression and other behaviours are programmed in the brain/ (mind) in a sexually differentiated way. Between weeks 6 and 8 of gestation, sexual differentiation of the genitals takes place, whereas sexual differentiation of the brain starts in the 2nd half of pregnancy. This means that in the event of ambiguous sex at birth, the degree of masculinisation of the genitals may not reflect the degree of masculinisation of the brain / (mind).




Scientific studies on reversed sex differences in the brains of trans -sexual people support the idea that trans-sexuality is based on an opposite sexual differentiation of: (1) sexual organs during the first 2 months , and (2) the brain in the second half of pregnancy. There is, as yet, no proof that the external social/cultural environment after birth has any effect on gender or sexual orientation (with the exception of the possible effects on sexual differentiation of the brain by endocrine disruptors in the environment and in medicines given to the pregnant mother).




SOME FINAL EXAMPLES FROM THE LITERATURE HIGHLIGHTING THE ROLE OF TESTOSTERONE IN THE SEXUAL DIFFERENTIATION OF THE HUMAN BRAIN/MIND




There is a medical condition called "Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome" ("androgens" are basically male hormones such as testosterone and androstenedion) that is caused by mutations in the receptor gene for androgens. Despite their (46XY) genetic masculinity, males with the syndrome develop as phenotypical women (i.e. have the physical appearance of women) and experience "heterosexual" sexual orientation, fantasies and experiences without gender problems. On the other hand, when a boy foetus has a deficiency in the enzymes 5 alpha reductase - 2 or 17 beta hydroxy - steroid dehydrogenase preventing peripheral testosterone from being transformed in dihydrotestosterone in the brain, a "girl" with a large clitoris is born. These children are generally raised as girls. However, when testosterone production increases (in the (46XX genetically masculine) child during puberty , this "clitoris" grows to penis size, the testicles descend,, and the child begins to masculinise and become more muscular. Despite the fact that these children are initially raised as girls, the majority (60%) change into heterosexual males, apparently due to the organising effect of testosterone on the brain/ (mind).


Lastly, boys who are born with a cloacal exstrophy ( This is a severe birth defect wherein much of the abdominal organs (the bladder and intestines) are exposed. It often causes splitting of the bladder, genitalia and anus) are usually changed into girls (as the penis/testes have been destroyed) immediately after birth. A survey showed that that in adulthood 65% of these children who were changed into girls continued to live as girls, amd when the individuals with Gender Dysphoria were excluded, the figure dropped to 47%.


These example provide robust support for the theory that the direct action of testosterone on the developing brain in boys and the lack of it in the developing brains of girls are critical factors in the development of male and female gender identity and sexual orientation. Conversely studies on cloacal exstrophy suggest the postnatal testosterone peak is not crucial for gender identity development, given that these children generally undergo operation shortly after birth.


Regards


Dachshund (Der Uberweiner) WOOF !! WOOF !!................................(Beware the dog)

Nick_A wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2019 3:42 am She (my darling Simone !) was so abnormal that Albert Camus called her the greatest mind of the times.

That's absurd, Nick.

Dachshund