If you are interested in learning a bit more about sex and gender, including intersex, might I suggest the book Sexing the Body? I read it and it helped me understand how the two ideas are related, come together, yet distinct. It was fascinating. It's all much more complicated than the average transphobe would have you believe.
I really don't like defending my gender identity here (and going by some of your responses, it looks like if I did I'd get frustrated with you rather quickly) so I'm going to link to a book that will answer most of your questions and concerns that I think you should read: Sexing the Body: Gender Politics and the Construction of Sexuality by Anne Fausto-Sterling.
It's a great way to learn about the history of sex and gender science, the differences between the two, how they are related and not related, and where the different concepts come from in the body.
Like I said. If you have a better source for the definition of gender then I'm all ears. I've literally never met a trans person in my entire time in the community who has questioned the WHO's definition on it, and seeing you do so is honestly bizarre.
>Didn't know youd been on HRT three years,
Of course you didn't know, but you were more than happy to assume things about me before you found out. And what I said wasn't offensive. You just don't understand what I meant. What I said is the accepted scientific and medical consensus on how gender works. Gender is and always have been a social construct. Yes it is related to sex in some ways, but that doesn't stop it from being a social construct. I'm sorry if you find scientifically accepted definitions to be offensive, but that is a YOU problem. Not a "lot of trans people"'s problem.
I'm honestly still furious with how you are treating me and I really don't want to talk to you anymore, but I will leave you with a book suggestion to go read. Sexing the Body by Anne Fausto Sterling It's written by a queer nb woman and feminist. The book is great and as a feminist I agree with the concepts within.
Other than that I really don't think we have anything more to discuss.
I asked you to define a term. Your idea of function didn't seem to align with my understanding of evolution in regards to sex and gender and I wanted to see what you meant. The snark was unnecessary.
Not to mention, the way you use biological purpose implies that hormones can have only one function. Hormones serve many purposes; not just reproduction ones. Development of secondary sex characteristics. Emotion control. They are even used to regulate non sexual parts of your body. Furthermore, hormones may not even function for reproduction purposes on an individual basis. There are people who are naturally sterile and can never reproduce. They still have hormones that affect their bodies in many ways.
Unfortunately, your idea of hormones appears to be limited, but that isn't a bad thing. If you want to better understand how gender and sex function in the body scientifically, including as it pertains to hormones, I suggest you read Sexing the Body. It's written by a Biologist, Anne Fausto-Sterling, and describes everything I am saying in much better detail.
I think you're getting stuck on the idea that there are straightforward physiological facts of sex/gender. To that end, I would highly recommend this book. If you're comfortable giving me your email address, I have a pdf copy.
"Add sex hormones into people's systems and see what happens to their behavior"
If you'd like to know more about how it's not so simple with them hormones, and most of all, how they'd been artificially "sexed" I recommend this book to you: http://www.amazon.com/Sexing-Body-Politics-Construction-Sexuality/dp/0465077145
> There are people (males) who posses the ability to fertilize eggs,and there are people (females) who posses the ability to create eggs to be fertilized. That's what doctors are assigning at birth.
This is so not true. Check out "Sexing the Body". Sex assignment is hardly a culturally neutral process.
Why would you EVER think that a children's author writing her thoughts on Twitter are "academic"?
But ok. I'll take your word that you want to be properly educated on why these are bad and bigoted arguments as well as why they are harmful to trans people. To make it simple and so I don't have to requote each of those points I'll break down the responses into 8 parts since you quoted 8 times. I'll also pair each number up with the first few words of the Tweet so you can match them up from your post.
JK is taking offense to a clinical term that scientists use to be inclusive to trans men. Trans men, being people who were assigned female at birth, have a uterus and menstruate. However, trans men are men. Calling them women when talking about their periods would be offensive. Thus, "people who menstruate".
This term isn't superceding women in any capacity. Cis women can still be called women when they are menstruating. The language being used is just trying to also include trans men.
So when JK makes that sarcastic comment about the word women, she is actively refusing to acknowledge that trans men menstruate, that trans men are men and not women, or both. Hence transphobia.
2) "If sex isn’t real,"
No one is saying that sex isn't real. That is a complete fabrication of an argument on JK's part. What is said is that sex and gender are two distinct concepts. Gender is a social construct that represents our sex in society. Both exist and feed off of each other as we live our lives and grow old, but they are both separate concepts.
It's a bit more complicated to get into on Reddit, so if you want an actual biologist to describe what sex and gender are I suggest you read Sexing the Body by Anne Fausto-Sterling.
3) "The idea that women like me"
JK is using her past as a sexual assault survivor (and if she was I'm deeply sorry for her) to gain sympathy against trans women by suggesting that we trans women are just men trying to gain access to women's spaces to prey on cis women. This ENTIRE idea breeds actual violence against trans women. We can be targeted for just going about our lives and merely trying to go to the bathroom. This happens to gender non-conforming cis women who don't look feminine enough too. And the biggest issue with this "fear" of JK's is that it is unfounded. Cis men don't need to pretend to be trans to assault women. They just go assault women. Men don't need roundabout ways to go be dicks. Its a stupid narrative that only succeeds in breeding fear of trans women in women's spaces.
4) "I respect every trans person’s"
This part is JK gaslighting trans people by telling us that we aren't oppressed. What does this white, cis billionaire know about trans oppression? Plus. My experiences as a trans woman shape my identity as a woman too. Her statement is again trying to other trans women as **not** women.
5) "Many health professionals are concerned that young people"
This tweet grossly misunderstands how children transition. There are many precautions put in place for minors transitioning that show that people who make the above argument have never actually looked into the procedures governing childhood transition.
Young kids don't take any hormones whatsoever for instance. All that happens is they see a therapist, change their name, and wear different clothes. Once a kid gets to be around puberty age then they will start taking puberty blockers. PB's are 100% safe and reversible so if the kid changes their mind they just stop taking them and resume their original puberty. It is not until they are a late teenager can they even start talking hormones, and to get surgery you usually have to be on homornes for a while and presenting as your gender for over a year. This includes signoff from therapists affirming your dysphoria.
As you can see, the process is very involved and simple remarks like JKs just brew ignorance about a problem that is already accounted for by the medical community.
6) "Many, myself included, believe we are watching"
JK clearly knows absolutely NOTHING about conversion therapy. CT is actual torture where people would literally try to electro shock the gay out of people. No one is forcing anyone to become trans. Kids voice up that they may be trans and then that idea is pursued to see if it is more than just a phase. JK relating more kids coming out as the same as conversion therapy is INCREDIBLY insulting to the kids who did and still continue to go through conversion therapy. Many of which are also trans.
What JK is seeing is the same thing that happened to the gay community as it grew in social acceptance. Trans people who were afraid to come out of the closet are now more comfortable coming out of the closet and pursuing transition. So her comment also shows JK doesn't understand why LGBT+ folks wouldn't come out of the closet too.
7) "As I’ve said many times"
Transition is a decision to be made between patient and their doctor. JK has no right to talk about this. It isn't her business. If transition turns out to have been the wrong call for the person then that is a shame, but using detransitioners as a way to bring up problems with transitoning is incredibly dishonest. The detransition population is an incredibly small subset of the trans community. It's like 1 - 2% of the trans population. Most trans people transition successfully and their success stories shouldn't be outweighed by the few where transition wasn't right for them. Not to mention, many of the people who detransition detrans because they didn't like the social backlash for coming out, couldn't get access to hormones anymore, or other factors.
Using detransitioners as a cudgel in the way JK is doing shows she just wants to use that group as a tool to smear trans people. She has no intention of actually understanding any of the issues they go through though.
8) "The man who played Hagrid"
Great. The cis white man came to the cis, rich, white woman's defense...
Here's another book just to make things even more confusing:
http://www.amazon.com/Sexing-Body-Politics-Construction-Sexuality/dp/0465077145
Sorry but you are misinformed, this is a common misconception from the research in the 60's and 70's. If you castrate an infant it will not become a woman. A good book to read about this subject is Sexing the Body. There are two developmental paths, male and female. Zygotes are not "female" by default but rather asexual.
No one here has to be convincing. You are asking a very marginalized group of people to explain themselves in YOUR terms to you, and then maybe you'll decide our argumentation is enough to legitimize our lives and bodies in your eyes. But you clearly don't accept us--and the fact that you are making your acceptance of us contingent on how well we argue using your terms--it's abusive.
You don't actually have to understand trans people to accept that what we say about ourselves is true. If you accept we are competent adults, there really is no other explanation necessary.
I'm going to leave a book recommendation for you right here: http://www.amazon.com/Sexing-Body-Politics-Construction-Sexuality/dp/0465077145
You may find that in fact, sex is just as socially constructed as gender, and trans people were not written into this social construction due to cissexism. And then you ask US to explain why the system of sex doesn't account for us? Um, because we are a highly marginalized relatively rare portion of the population?
Good points.
In addition, if you read up on the subject (e.g., by reading Anne Fausto-Sterling's <em>Sexing the Body: Gender Politics and the Construction of Sexuality</em>, you actually find that “biologically female” itself as a nebulous term. You have external physical anatomy, sex organs, genes, and so on. Of course for most of us, these all align the same way (and match gender presentation and gender role), but the key here is that it is most but not all.
For that reason, I have a bit of a problem with the name of this subreddit too. By being “cute” and saying “two X chromosomes”, we slap some women in the face, namely women with Turner Syndrome (only one X), and AIS (XY chromosomes), as well as allowing in some men, such as those with Klinefelter's syndrome (XXY).
>I also don't like the idea of separating sex and gender; one for biology and the other for feelings
As I said:
>We often assume sex and gender mean the same thing. They're intimately related, yes, and inseparable; any responsible analysis must recognise that quality they share.
I was trying to articulate a complex thought that sees sex and gender as interrelated but also separate things. Biologist Anne Fausto-Sterling, drawing on the ideas of feminist philosopher Elizabeth Grosz, conceives of sex and gender as being like the 'sides' of a Mobius strip. That's the best way I can put how I'm asking you to see it. In terms of how they are different: gender is, by and large, a social performance that both the individual or society may or may not ground in a biological base. Sex is apprehended by how we perform gender. So, we 'read' our bodies based on what we are taught about them, as well as their natural, 'inherent' shape.
Studies have shown that children understand gender through hair length and clothing long before they bifurcate it based on who has a penis and who has a vagina. We teach them that those two organs have meanings denoting an ultimate, master class style sex/gender.
Thus this:
>I think it's odd to consider something that can be defined scientifically
Needs to be better defined. What do you mean by "scientifically"? The very fact that you describe intersex people as constituting "abnormalities" is not actually a scientific statement, particularly when it comes to sex.
The scientist interprets what she or he sees. This will be considered objective due to being based on observation, yes, but with what does one record an observation? What does one use when interpreting a phenomenon or an object being observed?
The existence of intersex people is empirical. They're there, as real as you are. So are their genitals and chromosomal structure. Many of them (save a select few) are not born with health problems stemming from their intersex nature. So why then do we have only two sexes?
Furthermore, why are chromosomes the basis for biological sex when so much overlap and variance occurs under their aegis? Boyish men and masculine women exist in abundance, without the help of an intersex condition.
The long and short of it is that 'male' and 'female' are artificial means of corralling vaguely similar physiologies into two classes, and in a society (i.e. a collection of sentient humans who've built something whose meaning exists outside of pure empiricism or tangibility) it seems strange that we limit people based on that.
Can we redefine and remake sex? Yes we can. It's a major part of what we do as humans. We reshape the world and we can reshape our bodies.
>because that seems to support gender stereotypes and doesn't really define someone who has both masculine and feminine characteristics.
I don't think there's a bigger stereotype than the master of them all, the idea that a person is essentially either male or female. And as to 'defining' someone who has both masculine and feminine characteristics, I think that Norrie May-Welby did that quite well for hirself, don't you?