Jun 12 2011: If Gender is purely a social construct, how do we explain the existence of Transsexuals?
From Sexual Hormones and the Brain: An Essential Alliance for Sexual Identity and Sexual Orientation Garcia-Falgueras A, Swaab DF Endocr Dev. 2010;17:22-35 [1]
"The fetal brain develops during the intrauterine period in the male direction through a direct action of testosterone on the developing nerve cells, or in the female direction through the absence of this hormone surge. In this way, our gender identity (the conviction of belonging to the male or female gender) and sexual orientation are programmed or organized into our brain structures when we are still in the womb. However, since sexual differentiation of the genitals takes place in the first two months of pregnancy and sexual differentiation of the brain starts in the second half of pregnancy, these two processes can be influenced independently, which may result in extreme cases in trans-sexuality. This also means that in the event of ambiguous sex at birth, the degree of masculinization of the genitals may not reflect the degree of masculinization of the brain. There is no indication that social environment after birth has an effect on gender identity or sexual orientation."
Note that the majority of what we call "Gendered behaviour" is indeed socially constructed. But a minority is not. Moreover, individuals differ, so although behaviour is sexually dimorphic, there's a bimodal distribution with considerable overlap. Someone can be "typically masculine" in some areas, but somewhat feminine in others, and vice-versa, even in the biologically determined areas.
To take an obvious physical example: height. Men are taller than women, few would dispute that. Yet no-one seriously suggests that all people above average height are male, those below, female. Neurologically determined instincts and behaviour are similar, differences are statistical.
Jun 12 2011: Unfortunately, the "normalising" surgery usually removes the limited reproductive capability they have. It often leaves them insensate too. But.. and this is the real aim .. they *look* normal. Better to be sterilised and have insensate genitalia whose appearance is not upsetting, than functional genitalia that looks unusual. Well, that's been the usual opinion.
Of course the patient, often being just a few months old, doesn't get to voice a contrary opinion until adult, when the point is moot.
I wasn't a male with ovaries, by the way: I'm a female who used to have testes. And although it took technical help, syringes etc to extract gametes, I have a son as the result. A few years later, I lost even the limited functionality those glands had, and had them removed.
It's an interesting experience, being talked about by others like this. Having total strangers with little knowledge discuss just exactly how many human rights one should be granted, whether one should be sterilised, mutilated, even exterminated (though at least that proposal hasn't been made here, not yet).
All for the good of Society.
It helps to have a sense of humour about it, but at times it can get a bit strained - especially with legal decisions such as the one in Wilma Woods vs CG Studios, saying that as "natural persons" are defined as "men, women and children", that intersexed people have no standing in court, any more than a dog would. Or the Tennessee legislature passing a law last month removing the existing limited protections we had under state law regarding sex discrimination.
TEDCred score: +1.10 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A comment on Conversation: Is true gender-neutrality/genderlessness possible?
From Sexual Hormones and the Brain: An Essential Alliance for Sexual Identity and Sexual Orientation Garcia-Falgueras A, Swaab DF Endocr Dev. 2010;17:22-35 [1]
"The fetal brain develops during the intrauterine period in the male direction through a direct action of testosterone on the developing nerve cells, or in the female direction through the absence of this hormone surge. In this way, our gender identity (the conviction of belonging to the male or female gender) and sexual orientation are programmed or organized into our brain structures when we are still in the womb. However, since sexual differentiation of the genitals takes place in the first two months of pregnancy and sexual differentiation of the brain starts in the second half of pregnancy, these two processes can be influenced independently, which may result in extreme cases in trans-sexuality. This also means that in the event of ambiguous sex at birth, the degree of masculinization of the genitals may not reflect the degree of masculinization of the brain. There is no indication that social environment after birth has an effect on gender identity or sexual orientation."
Note that the majority of what we call "Gendered behaviour" is indeed socially constructed. But a minority is not. Moreover, individuals differ, so although behaviour is sexually dimorphic, there's a bimodal distribution with considerable overlap. Someone can be "typically masculine" in some areas, but somewhat feminine in others, and vice-versa, even in the biologically determined areas.
To take an obvious physical example: height. Men are taller than women, few would dispute that. Yet no-one seriously suggests that all people above average height are male, those below, female. Neurologically determined instincts and behaviour are similar, differences are statistical.
[1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19955753?dopt=Abstract
A reply on Talk: Alice Dreger: Is anatomy destiny?
Er no. I'll quote from that site:
"Total number of people whose bodies differ from standard male or female one in 100 births"
1 in 100, not 1 in 130,000.
Fausto-Sterling puts it at 1.7%. in a rather more precise meta-study, but the error bars are large enough so it could be half or double that.
1 in 300 males don't have the usual 46XY chromosomes for example. It's three orders of magnitude more common than you state.
A reply on Talk: Alice Dreger: Is anatomy destiny?
Of course the patient, often being just a few months old, doesn't get to voice a contrary opinion until adult, when the point is moot.
I wasn't a male with ovaries, by the way: I'm a female who used to have testes. And although it took technical help, syringes etc to extract gametes, I have a son as the result. A few years later, I lost even the limited functionality those glands had, and had them removed.
It's an interesting experience, being talked about by others like this. Having total strangers with little knowledge discuss just exactly how many human rights one should be granted, whether one should be sterilised, mutilated, even exterminated (though at least that proposal hasn't been made here, not yet).
All for the good of Society.
It helps to have a sense of humour about it, but at times it can get a bit strained - especially with legal decisions such as the one in Wilma Woods vs CG Studios, saying that as "natural persons" are defined as "men, women and children", that intersexed people have no standing in court, any more than a dog would. Or the Tennessee legislature passing a law last month removing the existing limited protections we had under state law regarding sex discrimination.