Forums / Discussion / Serious Debate

Good explanation sis, thought I still have some dubts.
I mean: How can one tell that he has genuine dysphoria or just wont fit primitive stereotypes?
How can a straight person know that he/she has dysphorya or just love so much the other gender that he/she want to belong to? There are a lot of people like that.
I really hope humanity is going towards a genderneutral brain. I think we can help if we stop using stereotypes to denigrate the other sex, or our own sex (how many of you have looked at the other people of their own sex and though "Am I one of these assholes?").

In my case, dysphoria is a physical feeling. It has several stages. The least affecting stage is a stage of desire or jealousy for people who have what I want. In a sense, I feel like I've been denied something. In more complicated stages, which can be induced by medication and/or depression or just by the cyclical nature of the disorder, it leads to physical manifestations in that part of my body (in my case usually feelings of extreme eye pressure), and a desire to end all "dysphoria" associated with that body part through self harm. It's a strong desire to "just get it fucking over with" at that point, and just "transition". Acting on those desires by temporarily disabling the affected region helps reduce the feelings through simulation, but in its most intense moments, it's like you want the "real experience". So yeah, it's an actual feeling.

I would assume in someone who is transgender, they feel physically uncomfortable with having their penis, or in the case of transmen, they experience phantom feelings of a penis. It's not really analogous to simply admiring the other sex, either sexually or otherwise – and this is reflected in brain anaylsis of those with gender dysphoria, who have a brain more like the opposite sex for their body.

I don't know much about this in terms of gender dysphoria, but regarding BIID, a possible vector for at least the limb forms (amputee/paralysis) is a disorder in body mapping. Think the opposite of "phantom limb syndrome", a well recorded syndrome in amputees. A few studies suggest that there's an error in the right parital lobe that is the root of this disconnect. Body mapping is essentially how your brain configures your sense of physical self – it's entirely possible that those with gender dysphoria also experience an error in body mapping, which does not include their sex organs. Sadly sensory forms of BIID are extremely understudied so I can't really say anything on that respect, but it may suggest that senses are also connected to this body map in the same way.

I kind of fit in a weird place in all of this though. Unlike those with gender dysphoria, I'm not seen as a "natural difference" but rather a clear disorder, which is odd for me. I'm not really sure how I feel about it myself (I just try to take what I have and use my knowledge to educate people). If my issue is a physical brain difference like a transgender person (I hope one day to participate in a study to find out), then what actually makes me any different from a transgender person in this respect? This is where things get really hairy and where I disagree with most of the transgender community, as well as the social interpretation of things such as disability and identity in general.

First and foremost, I think there's a lot of people who claim to be transgender who don't understand what that physical feeling of dysphoria is actually like, and instead want to express themselves differently. In communities associated with my issues and related lifestyles, we call the practice of engaging in these desires "pretending", and there are many origins for this behaviour – a sexual desire, a curiousity, or physical dysphoria. While there's a distinct difference between the groups in communities like this, this appears to not be as clear cut in transgender communities, especially considering that being transgender and gender expression both have a much greater impact on identity. This leads to questions as the above, since most of us feel perfectly comfortable with our body and identity, and in cases like mine, the issue is more of a direct sensation than simply identifying as the type of person I wish I could be. On the other hand though, you're right, some people just like to "pretend" to be the other gender but don't have the feelings of pressure to actually want to do so.

Second, due to the nature of my condition, the pressure that the transgender community puts on people to transition seems absolutely insane. There are kids out there who are diagnosed with gender dysphoria as young as 5-6 years old, which is 3 years before I was even symptomatic, who are being thrusted on hormones. I understand the rush before puberty thing, but I don't think people understand how terrifying that is to actually see from someone who, if they transitioned, would have a very different outlook on life. At the end of the day it's something that the individual themselves really has to think through, instead of their parents being pressured by doctors what is the right thing, since it has permanent affects on your body.

All in all, I believe that the approach that current communities is running way too fast for something that we still are in the absolute infant stages of even wrapping our heads around. It's exciting, but also pretty intimidating and we are likely to make mistakes that leaves people's lives broken. Some people call it progressive, I call it haste.

Also, I do agree, a gender neutral society would be nice. However, I wasn't really addressing gender roles in general – human brains are sexed, and I personally feel that the ability for transgender people to integrate into society will cause their "opposite sexed brains" to "neutralize" how sexed our brains really our. Male and female brains have well recorded differences – what may eventually happen is gender dysphoria may eventually phase out as brains become more unisex. Society will likely will reach full gender neutrality way before our brains catch up via evolution.

I hope this clears stuff up.

This is exactly my concern about this topic, this 2 definitions are often present in this topic, and most people accept both as valid which make no sense.

The second one is problematic because literally everyone can hop in, this especially damages the reputation of the first one because now you have people claiming to be trangender like teens looking for attention (If you have teens claiming they are otherkins then is quite possible to fake being trans) or people with mental disorders looking for a escape valve. (again if there is people that claim to be hybrid alien-humans…), also makes the "brain/body mismatch" that the people of the first one suffers unimportant because its not even a requisite to be a transgender.
In short you can't put in the same bag a person who has a biological codition and needs threatment to a person who has nothing but want the threatment the second one needs other kind of help.

Other concern I strongly disagree is that children under the age of 10 are put on hormones threatment when they get "diagnosed " with trangerism, there so little research about this that its incredible they do that, I even saw a news that said that in UK around 77 children were put on hormones and that 21 were age of 3-5 and some doctor criticized that decision by saying that 80% of children that experiment trangender feels, this feelings dissapear when they reach puberty around 11-12.

Lastly I feel that one of the biggest problem of trangenders is the transgender community itself. Some people want just to be accepted others want to feel superior (die ciscum), others want to feel like special snowflakes, others are just crazy, it's a mess.

PD: sorry for bad english, I'll fix typos later.

^That's the problem.
How can we know it's dysphoria or just being oppressed by sexism and search a way to escape from it?

In some cases, we don't. But at the same time, that doesn't exclude the existence of people who want to change their sex. I think the best determining factor is seeing what people say once they've matured enough to understand, and go from there. Not every case of what may appear to be dysphoria is actually "dysphoria" after all – some people genuinely feel incredibly uncomfortable with their genitalia while there are those who simply just dislike the gender roles assigned to them.

Gender roles, especially for women, are becoming a lot more vague and fluid now, so I think this is helping cull some of this problem.

@Hypercat-Z How can we know it’s dysphoria or just being oppressed by sexism and search a way to escape from it?

That's the issue so far there is no way to determine who has dysphoria, there is some correlations between transgenders and brain structures but nothing enough to prove its there. And that's why I strongly disagree with transgender children. Sex change surgery should be only allowed to people at least 18 years old.
Before going any radical physical changes parents should be concerned about building strong self-esteem in the kid, the major risk transgenders have at the moment is suicide, sex change surgery does not solve this problem.

Holy unsubstantiated statements, Batman!

I definitely understand why you believe in barring minors from the opperation. In fact, I don't even necessarily disagree with you. However, there's a very good reason why you would begin the sex change process before 18. Once puberty is done, certain characteristics become much more difficult, and sometimes even impossible, to alter. And keep in mind the "process" aspect of it. You don't just walk in and get the surgery, or at least that's not what's supposed to happen. Hormone treatments beforehand can take months and even years, with their effects being quite reversible (today even more so than ever before). So it's not like you won't have plenty of time to think about it. And of course, there should be many medical professionals involved doing due diligence all throughout with thorough mental examinations and such.

@Hypercat-Z

Oh come on now, man. This has gotta be your worst rationalization yet. I mean… "I'm experiencing sexism" = "I suddenly feel like a different gender"? How does that even follow? Why in the hell are you having such a hard time just accepting this?

I understand what you say but considering the statistics you are catering the 20% and putting on risk other 80%. I did some googling and found this, maybe it's biased but actually cover scientific studies and makes good points.

Some fragment:

a. For deletion of the diagnostic category

Gender variance in childhood is normal. Risks of a GI-Childhood diagnosis include: Stigmatizing children with a diagnostic label when there is no disorder45; diagnosis can become iatrogenic, instilling a sense in the child that “there is something wrong with me”; and a poor predictive value – 80% of children diagnosed with GID do not continue to have GID of adolescence or adulthood. One presenter suggested moving to a narrative approach for historical preservation and also emphasized the unethical position around reparative therapy. This presenter proposed using Z codes with a ‘g’ modifier for gender diversity, and advocated that we educate carriers to reimburse Z codes (Z codes are rarely reimbursed). Another presenter argued that childhood diagnoses should be removed because their existence undermines the removal of adult & adolescent diagnostic category from mental health chapter. This presenter gave many suggestions for Z codes.

http://sexnotgender.com/studies-and-reports-transgender-children/

1. I'm not talking about 10-year olds here, but 15-year-olds. There is a massive difference.
2. Alright, you've got the first step down- you recognise that your source has a particular chance of being biased. Your next move should be to then critically analyse the message being pushed and the methodology behind it.
From the page of "sexnotgender.com" entitled Brain sex does not exist:
"Neuroscience is methodologically flawed. Even when an effect is objectively measurable, small sample sizes and poor statistical significance plague brain imaging studies."
Using a whopping one paper to discredit an entire field of research practiced by thousands of accredited scientists. Yikes. That's pretty bad. But wait, it gets worse. Later on…
"TRANSGENDERISM: these scientific authorities demonstrate with exhaustive research and great analytic detail that there are no meaningful differences between male and female brains, making implausible all arguments about transgenderism that depend on a connection between one’s brain and their sex."
Saying neurology is entirely bullshit because many who practice it are against your argument, and then immediately turning around and using reports entirely based in that field to support it?
Damn.
That reasoning isn't just not right- it's not even wrong.

1. I didn't realize you were talking about 15 year olds, that's right there is a massive difference my major concern goes for <10 years olds.
2. While it's true that "Brain sex does not exist" topic is controversial, I'm not talking about it and as I said this site could be biased but I found remarkable that actually uses studies to back their statements.
Regarding the brain sex theory there is a lot of interesting stuff there and open to debate, I remember seeing a TED talk about brain sex which actually backup that statements and advocates for a "intersex brain" so in a way is mixture of female and male characteristics which are defined during the fetus gestation and environmental factors, that's what I remember I look for that video.

I agree with most of what you're saying .999, although my only minor point is that I think that there should be a period of "observation" before actually beginning transitioning. In the fray of trying to grab a hold of who you are, a lot of teens go back and forth – if an identity is consistent for a period of time, I think that should be enough to warrant transitioning. I honestly believe that transitioning should not be an option for anyone under the age of at least 14-ish though.

Going back to my own issues, it took me 13 years of self-detective work to even get a grasp of what my issue was, even though it was fairly consistent in its manifestation. I see some kids questioning themselves on tumblr sometimes like, "Oh, I wonder if I'm [whatever identity], but if I were that, then I wouldn't be able to [whatever], so I don't know!" and I'm just thinking… man, it doesn't work that way, and if that kid acted on that, they're gonna be in for a world of hurt. Same thing goes for people who try to identify as transgender as an attempt to understand themselves, without thoroughly investigating the matter.

Again, I think there is a LOT of pressure from transgender communities online to try to convince people they're transgender (and I say this because I've personally felt the pressure myself, despite coming to terms with my gender identity almost a decade ago). So I think it's absolutely imperative to ensure that this is the best course of action, because yes, puberty is a big problem, but if you're wrong, and you're wrong because you convinced yourself that you were something you weren't, you're going to fuck yourself up as well. Hormone treatment is more reversible as an adult but in puberty, well, we all know what kind of mess that is in terms of hormones and how much that truly affects your body.

Man, this sure is a hairy subject, innit?

Do you know how merciless can be sexist people, forward those that don't fit their sexist standards? Enough merciless to make them dubt of their own gender.

For all you know, they may be subject to plenty of sexism themselves. That's a really ignorant thing to say. Anyways, I personally highly doubt that sexist pressures themselves would cause more than a few people to want to chop off their balls.

Also, it doesn't disprove the existence of transgender people – as I've stated 3 times in this thread, transgender people can still exist despite sexism, even though some people who claim they are transgender may only be doing so because they disagree with their gender roles.

The healthiest thing to do to prevent the problem you outline is to establish a firm definition of what being transgender entails. The most common definition is "people who feel gender dysphoria". As I've outlined with my own issues, dysphoria is something that does extend beyond a vague feeling and can be potent enough to be differentiated from simply feeling uncomfortable because of gender roles or sexism.

You still failed to address a lot of points despite humping the leg of this very flawed point. You still haven't addressed why so much evidence suggests that brains are sexed and that transgender brains are more like the opposite sex. You still haven't addressed people with extreme dysphoria that I lined out. At this point I feel like you really don't have much interest in actually sorting out this debate and simply continuing on this point. While your idea is tantalizing, it fails to address these two very important points. Please address these issues, because you're not presenting a very convincing argument, and honestly, it sounds like TERF garbage.

I do agree that I don't like how the transgender community handles a lot of issues. I think it's far too radicalized and far too invested in transitioning than actually helping people. I think that there's more than a few people who have been hurt by this behaviour – just look at all the people on tumblr and other social media websites desperately trying to understand themselves who constantly switch gender in this attempt. I think that the transgender community online puts way too much pressure on these people to actually transition instead of helping them figure out what their actual gender identity is, and that's just as wrong as denying them a non-cisgender gender identity. But that also doesn't mean that transgender people don't exist. It just means that the community conducts itself poorly.

Oh, absolutely. Of course you want to weed out as many people as possible who're just going through a confused time in their life or whatnot. You're never going to get everyone, but that's the same with pretty much any diagnosis.

---

What? Civil rights issues crossed with political issues crossed with sexuality crossed with contentious science crossed with semantics? What could possibly be controversial about that?

A gay man is a man despite his sexuality. They don't think they're "woman"…

God fucking damn it would people stop using that example
even if you're using this as bait I still need to say this
Transexuality =/= regular sexuality
They're not even related, for example
Sam, physically born as a man, believes that She is a woman
and if I'm remembering right (apologies if I'm wrong Sam), she is also a lesbian
we literally have an on site example of this, who's a rather frequent user as well.
So yeah, nonsense.

Honestly, "transexual" may be a really terrible term for it, since it implies sexuality or fetishism, when it's not really linked to either.

Quick question – if you're transgender, how does that actually affect your sexual orientation? Like, if you're a transwoman and you like dicks, are you straight because your gender is female or gay because your sex is male?…

Actually, "sexual" just means "related to sex". If you take the meaning of that last word to be XX/XY instead of the fucking, then it that context it perfect sense.

As for the question, in my opinion it's just a pointless semantics argument. You can define it which ever way you want.

No you can't be, you can identify as one but until you get a sex change surgery you will be biologically a women.

On one hand I realize identity can be completely Separate from biological sex, and I respect people's wishes as to how they perceive themselves and want others to perceive themselves as.

But on the other hand I still kinda feel that Penis = man and vagina = woman, with little to no headway between those identifications.

I guess I see the issue a bit hazily

I just watched a 20/20 special about Olympian Bruce Jenner coming out as trans and how he's going to start transitioning. It was really informative, even to me and I think I'm fairly well versed in trans issues already.

Here is a question. Why isn't transsexualism classified as a mental illness?

The idea that you can be be happier if you change you're sex to the one you wanted is a myth according to a study by the University of Birmingham. Think about it, if someone said they are going to be King of Israel within a few hours because of a dream they just had, we would call him insane. But if someone wanted to change their sex (which is a biological impossibility) we call it a civil rights issue? I view people as insane when they want to accomplish something completely absurd with no evidence backing their claims.

Transsexuals fit this definition perfectly. And according to that particular study transsexuals become incredibly suicidal and much worse than before after their sex changes. So why aren't we saying that transsexualism is a mental illness?

The idea that you can be be happier if you change you’re sex to the one you wanted is a myth according to a study by the University of Birmingham.

You should try reading the article and not just the headline. It explicitly states that some people are happier as a result of the transition just not as much as would be ideal.

But if someone wanted to change their sex (which is a biological impossibility) we call it a civil rights issue? I view people as insane when they want to accomplish something completely absurd with no evidence backing their claims.

You literally just linked to an article about the psychological impact of people who change their sex and now you are claiming that you can't change their sex. and what exactly do you mean by no evidence backing their claim? No evidence that they're transgender? No evidence that they can change? What are you talking about?

nd according to that particular study transsexuals become incredibly suicidal and much worse than before after their sex changes.

No it doesn't.

You should try reading the article and not just the headline. It explicitly states that some people are happier as a result of the transition just not as much as would be ideal.

Yes…I have seen the quote. The point about the entire article was that most gender reassignment end miserably. A certain majority percentage of disappointment (I estimate 70%).In other words getting a "sex" change would be the equivalent of a kid being given a random choice of probability 70% he will jump off a cliff and 30% he will receive a chocolate bar.

You literally just linked to an article about the psychological impact of people who change their sex and now you are claiming that you can’t change their sex. and what exactly do you mean by no evidence backing their claim? No evidence that they’re transgender? No evidence that they can change? What are you talking about?

Excuse my poor wording. My definition of insanity is flexible and works on many people. Not just transsexuals. As for me "contradicting" myself, i should be really be referring to "sex" changes as "attempted sex changes".

No it doesn't

First paragraph "distressed and even suicidal after the operation".

Yes…I have seen the quote. The point about the entire article was that most gender reassignment end miserably. A certain majority percentage of disappointment (I estimate 70%).In other words getting a “sex” change would be the equivalent of a kid being given a random choice of probability 70% he will jump off a cliff and 30% he will receive a chocolate bar.

Frankly I don't give a damn what you estimate. The article (which is far from the only one dealing with this issue) says that 1/5 of people regret it and that 18% remain suicidal. That's nowhere near 70% And its nothing like a kid being given a chocolate bar. It's a major component of their psychological health.

Excuse my poor wording. My definition of insanity is flexible and works on many people. Not just transsexuals. As for me “contradicting” myself, i should be really be referring to “sex” changes as “attempted sex changes”.

So them having a philosophical disagreement with you on what constitutes a sex change makes them insane?

First paragraph “distressed and even suicidal after the operation”.

"many people remaining severely distressed and even suicidal after the operation"
Remain. As in the same as before. A sex change won't magically fix every single problem that trans people face. There is still a massive stigma surrounding them (such as them being labeled insane) that it can make their lives hell.

I personally prefer going with how you identify (as pyroniusburn said I identify as a chick and have a penis butthink of myself as a lesbian) even though by definition I'm straight since it's "sexual orientation". Frankly I just don't fare though. It's just a label, I like girls, end of story. Definitions usually only mean something when you allow it too. Getting too caught up on technicalities isn't the best way of looking at life in my opinion.

Ah so I was right :P
Thanks for clearing that up, hate incorrectly applying aspects of people that aren't really there.

If by "no one else" you mean yourself then yes you are totally correct.

But clearly going from this thread alone, there are plenty of people around that will indeed accept whatever gender one identifies with. There have been 29 users that have participated in this thread so far, and out of that 29 there are around 5 people including yourself that will not accept identities that do not line up with biological gender. If you turn that into percentages, that means about 83% of participants in this thread will accept whatever gender one identifies as.

So last time I checked "no one else" did not mean 83% of people

So you're calling us liars for believing that trans folks actually are the gender they claim they are?

Wow son, enforcing opinions much?

Well, you said that "no one else will think you are." Implying that there are 0 people besides the trans person themself that believe that person is trans.

However, the people on this site are a subsection of 'everyone besides the trans person,' and since there are people on this site that would acknowledge that the person is trans, the statement "no one else will think you are" is false.

If that's not what you mean, please specify the population you are referring to when you say "no one."

You know… I don't believe that Franklin D. Roosevelt defeated Alf Lindon 44,427,179 votes to 0 that year, or even 531-0 in the Electoral College. But perhaps my sources are in error.

The context of your reply is not what I cared about in my reply. The guts to not admit the errors in your "no one else" statement were.

So to go into selection bias: As just our community, KYM is not representative of the population intended to be analyzed (the population being everyone), I give you that much. But Crimson Locks' post stated "participants in this thread". Meaning she was aware that our community alone is just a selection of data.

You on the other hand said "no one else". Given that you are bringing up selection bias, it can be asssumed here that you are not limiting you analysis to our community alone and instead mean everyone out there.

"No one else" means that there is entirely nobody else with one person already being too much.

Given that this community, a selected sample, already disagrees with your statement, is already proof enough that "no one else" can no longer apply even though we're a selected sample.

Conclusion: Your statement is bullshit and your pride is too stubborn to admit its faults. Evidence of this is that so far you have failed to reply being called out on it in 2 follow up posts already; instead you are bringing up strawman fallacies by directing the argument in an entirely unrelated direction (being the topic of selection bias).

(And I am at blame now as well for following up on this strawman, but it's worth it.)

There's the door, please don't hurt your butt on the way out.

2furry4me

They can you inbred twit. Do you know anything about the wonders of modern day surgery?

It ain't perfect.

Hormones can change some things. But there are some things it can't, such as bone structure. Sometimes the results are passable, sometimes they aren't.

Nor is the surgery perfect. Considering how MtF consists of inverting the penis into a hole which the body treats as an open wound, I think it's safe to say that the practice has a long way to go.

I know this is an old response, so don't beat me up KYM, but I honestly am surprised that people haven't addressed the question asked. I understand that modern day views see the question as taboo, but if we really think about it, we can find some really interesting things to ponder here. I don't really agree with his presentation of the question, but it does bring up interesting points.

Due to activism, those suffering from gender dysphoria have been classified further and further away from mental illness, and at this point, gender dysphoria simply exists basically to allow transgender folk to have access to the medical means to go through transition, such as hormone therapy or surgery.

But again, we bring up the thorny existence of BIID. Bodily Integrity Identity Disorder, as I mentioned previously in this thread, is an identity disorder in which patients desire to either disable themselves in a motor way (through amputation or paralysis) or in a sensory way (through blindness or deafness). The motor forms have been studied enough to give at least some evidence that, like transgender people, the problem lies in a physical difference in the brain [source]. The sensory forms are rarer and are understudied and origins aren't understood, but it's possible for it to be either psychological or physiological, or possibly both.

BIID shares a lot of similarities with transgender folk. They both feel dysphoria, to start with. People on both sides try to emulate being their desired physical form, usually crosddressing through transgender people and "pretending" through people with BIID. As stated previously, people with motor forms of BIID have physiological differences in their brain activity, and so do transgender people. The major difference between the two is the interpretation by society.

Transgender folk are slowly becoming more and more acceptable in society. This is due mainly due to activism. Meanwhile, people who have BIID are extremely stigmatized, due to the unusual nature of their condition. Not only do people not try to understand why someone would want to do such a thing to themselves, people can also be horrendously abusive and disgusting, up to the point of encouraging suicide, comparing them to horrible murderers, and the like, for something that is clearly a mental illness – a mental illness that has never harmed anyone besides the patient themselves.

So, if both manifest themselves in similar ways, what actually does make them different?

The question is though, despite the fact that they want to achieve a "less capable form" (i.e., a form in which you cannot do the same things due to physical limitations, in comparison to how you were when you were born), if those differences exist because of a physiological brain difference that cannot be "fixed", then how much different are they really from transgender people? What defines a "less capable form"? Is it truly such a "less capable form" if this form is desired? How much different is transgenderism from BIID, when you take out these objective differences? Why do many people feel that transgender people have the right to potentially mutilate their bodies through surgery, but claim that those with BIID have no right to do so?

BIID puts these beliefs to their limit and demands answers to questions that require a deep analysis of one's personal beliefs.

BIID also has tremendous implications for disabilities in general. The desire to become disabled is something that seems strange to most disabled folk, but what is intruiging is that it outlines that modern society actually protects most disabled people and gives them a platform that would enable them to be successful… except because of social issues, they are unable to achieve their full potential. While life with a disability is frustrating, many frustrations come from social negligence or even outright discrimination – due to people not understanding, caring or even being hateful towards those with disabilities.

A disability no longer is a disability if a person with a disability is able to function on an equivalent level as someone without one. Many species of animal, for example, are blind, or limbless, and yet survive perfectly fine, due to the fact that these "disabilities" are no impedement for their development. In a world where human beings have created their own niche habitat through society (one that most people would not survive outside of, disability or not), it begs the question – can physical disabilities eventually be integrated to the point where most are viewed with the same amount of indifference as one's different talents? Its entirely possible, as much of what makes a disability a disability is because of shortcomings in society.

Just look at the jump in employability of the blind in the last 30 years due to the advent of computers and screen reading technology. With more and more technology, blind people are becoming far more independent. With GPS, they have no need to rely on others to walk on their own to wherever they desire. With text to speech, they're capable of using a computer almost as fully as a sighted person can (as long as the program is written with proper accessibility standards in place). A blind person doesn't have to rely on Braille or other people to read things, they can use a screen reader or even a camera that can turn visual words into text strings that can be read to the blind person. The gap is closing as technology picks up, and it just makes me wonder about what the future will be.

When that gap almost completely closes, what will the social stance on BIID be then? At that point will there be people advocating for BIID patients to have the right to amputate, paralyze, blind or deafen?

It's all very interesting stuff, but it's a bit of food for thought for you all. Peace out, until next time.

Damn this shit is still going. Well you guys do know that a penis and a vagina do not determine whether something is Male or Female. I mean, that may be the case with humans, but even then its not so much a penis and vag, but what those things contain that determines sex.

Wouldn't it be X and Y chromosomes, then?

I'm going to jump in here and play some Devil's Advocate. I'll admit that I haven't read the first page in much detail recently though.
 
The original question (i.e., Can you be a woman just by saying you're one) begs for a bit of deconstruction. You can identify "be" in a lot of different ways, and you can identify (yourself or others) in a lot of different ways. Is woman talking about sex or gender? Stuff like that which avoids but is tangentially related to the point we're all trying to get at.

For example, if I remember my Women's Studies class properly, in order to be gay/lesbian, it's generally accepted that you:

1. Identify as being gay/lesbian (either internally or to others)
2. Have the desires aligned with being gay/lesbian
3. And have the gender match to suit it
   1. e.g., If you identify as a male, you'd have to like other males. And if you like other males, you'd have to identify as a male
      1. Which then works on the definition of being male/female, which is a different area.

So if you apply (perhaps improperly) similar logic to transfolk:

1. You'd have to identify as a gender the opposite of your sex (with the factual assumption a massive majority of people are not notably intersexed)
2. Have any related gender-desires and roles
   1. Which is odd, because gender is unstable compared to sex. So not everyone is going to subscribe to the same gender norms and roles, but if you decide to subscribe to them as you see fit, then you're getting into areas of being genderqueer and genderfluid, neither of which can peg you consistently as being "one or the other."
3. (The third doesn't have a readily identifiable corresponding response that I can see)

So if that does hold, you'd have to identify as the gender opposite your sex (in the case of transgender people,) and you'd have to align to some notable extent with gender roles.
 
Now here's an interesting point:

Gender is socially constructed.

It varies and changes based on society from society to society from era to era from circumstance to circumstance.
 
So both can be a pretty easy read:

A woman in terms of being a female is strictly based on physiology. It's a bit more complicated than having a bat and balls or a catcher's mitt, to be crude (as Triple[some number] said). But the chromosome and internal/somewhat external sexual organs/gonads should give you a hard answer at least 90% of the time.

A woman in terms of being socially a woman, the person in question, by definition of what gender is seen as by sociology, psychology, and even gender studies, must align themselves to some notable extent to the society's norms, values, and expectations of what a woman is for the culture in which the person is embedded in.
 
Now this isn't to say "You must feel and do and be this in order to be a woman." That's not my intent.

But in order to be a woman, a socially defined role in a society, you, by definition, have to be aligned closely enough with that role and set(s) of expectations.
 
So since the sexual definition is pretty straightforward, I'll posit that you can be a woman should you be pretty close to the social expectations for what a woman is for a society.
 
Now, you can discuss what a woman is for subcultures, which can be extremely lax and fluid in queer cultures. In this case, you can be a woman pretty dang easily. If the commonly accepted roles and expectations are lax, then it makes it very easily to be a man, woman, or something else/in between.
 
Given the atmosphere of this site, yeah, it's pretty easy to be a woman here. Gender norms here and in various communities on the Web are very different from the Western mainstream cultures.

You might even say that you could be a woman here and a man elsewhere and not change a thing about yourself at all.

---

Now here is something I saw that I thought was a little rude, but there is a point to it:

Yes, but no one else will think you are.

Please believe I'm all about acceptance of people who are different. I didn't take those gender courses, because I'm an intolerant person. I wanted to have a better informed opinion on matters that are very important to everyone and affect their lives even if they aren't in the non-cis arena personally.
 
But I'm a little too cynical to say that everyone will see a person who looks enough like a guy as a guy simply because he says he's a woman or vice-versa.
 
For example, going back to my proposed application of (perhaps rustily remembered) feminist theory, a large part of the social expectation of being a woman,
 
 
…is looking like a woman.
 
 
This isn't something most can just act like and be able to pull off. Some people can alter their voices, alter their body actions, and even the way they stand to "look" more feminine without looking like a bad drag performer. But most people simply cannot.

That's a true talent more than an innate attribute of a person, unless they just began to act more feminine as a "man" (which is hard to say how that happens; much of what appears as feminine or masculine in terms of walking/standing/etc. is based on hormones and what hormones do to a teenager's body. Getting a body to do that outside of those parameters would almost certainly be an act, even if you felt more comfortable acting like that all of the time.)
 
So let me pose this:

• If social expectations are a very large, if not the primary or even sole, aspect of gender,
• and being a woman (gender) is based solely on that fact,
• and simply looking like a woman is probably the most important aspect in a person determining whether or not a person fits the social expectations of being a woman,

Then can a person simply just say "I'm a woman"
if they don't fit social expectations of a woman in the society in which their embedded by not being seen as a woman?
 
Or more bluntly and less tactfully,

If society doesn't see you as a woman, and that society determines gender roles and expectations, then are you a woman in the sense of gender?

tl;dr
To you, sure.
To society, it depends on the society.

Yes but how does one determine whether something has an x or a y chromosome for a lifeform?

Holy shit, this thread will never die. Well, I suppose the same goes for the debate.

Speaking of which, I suppose I'll throw in a few more bits based on where this conversation has turned.

First of all, I'd like to briefly address josie's points. He's making a huge deal about society's perception of gender and the way one fits into said society based on it, to the point that it seems like he's actually defining the word strictly with that interpretation in mind. In my opinion, this is only fitting if the vast majority of individuals within a society actually agree on that, and it seems pretty obvious to me that this is no longer the case in most of the western world.

Someone in connection with that, it seems to me that the, for lack of a better word, "radical" side of the transgender community and its surrounding sphere of influence wishes to essentially abandon science when it comes to sex and gender. For anyone who knows me well, it should come as no surprise that I find this notion somewhat disturbing. I don't think there's anything wrong with saying that, from a purely biological perspective, XX chromosomes make you female with a vagina and XY chromosomes make you male with a penis and testicles. Anything else is a disorder, of which there are plenty of examples. To some, that's a "dirty" word, but I say "so what?" When you work with the assumption that admitting you have a disorder automatically equates to admitting a lack of worth among humankind, you've already let the worst kind of person win.

In my opinion, this is only fitting if the vast majority of individuals within a society actually agree on that, and it seems pretty obvious to me that this is no longer the case in most of the western world.

Not really. Until you can show a picture/video of, say, 100 randomly selected people in the US to, say, 100 randomly selected people in the US and get a large degree of inconsistency regarding the identification of who is a woman and who is a man, we can reasonably conclude a commonly held range of standards for how society immediately identifies gender.

Sure, some things vary such as hair length or the use of make-up. But it's not going to vary enough. The woman (sex) person with shorter hair is still going to be considered a woman if the features, voice, clothing choices, etc. are within a certain range. Skirts and yoga pants are primarily a clothing choice of (and especially identified for) women. And undeniably, the physiological aspects of a person play heavily into the shape and sound of people which will lend itself to looking more masculine and feminine, which is aligned with gender identification.
 
Or more directly, no one is going to feel confused about who is a woman and who isn't on your average street in practice.

And that's what social norms are for: functioning in society in practice.

Lol, sorry for reviving it. I just found something that I thought I'd like to comment on ;-;

Anyways, I don't get why people get all weirded out about the word "disorder". Disorder indicates that something is wrong, and if you are feeling enough dysphoria to want to change your gender, something is wrong. There is disorder. That doesn't make you crazy or horrible, it just means there's a problem that needs fixing.