Morphological Freedom

[Siúil a Rúin]

Morphological Freedom

It is interesting how much energy is presently being wasted on people getting upset about transgenderism. While that has a long history in human cultures, I find it interesting that it is becoming a focus during transitional time in society where we are moving towards having the technology to determine our own human form on a deeper level.

Society has this long history of creating categories, demographics, and then place them in relative levels of hierarchical power. I've heard the argument against transgenderism that says, "someone getting plastic surgery to look younger cannot declare themselves a younger age", or "someone changing the color of their skin cannot change their race". Those comparisons are not exactly parallel, but what is interesting to me is that society is moving towards having the technology to accomplish all of these very goals.

I think holding a value of morphological freedom is a natural way to breakdown societal hierarchies and is occurring at a natural point in time where we will actually have the capacity to accomplish this. If each individual can choose to self-determine whatever they are, then these established power hierarchies breakdown.

I thought this could make for an interesting discussion, but I do hope people won't get too upset.

 

[The Cat]

I find it interesting in a fairly alarming way that Transgender people are already being billed as an ism, in the general mindset of cis people... I suspect it is because an ideology is so much easier to hate these days than a person...

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I think holding a value of morphological freedom is a natural way to breakdown societal hierarchies and is occurring at a natural point in time where we will actually have the capacity to accomplish this. If each individual can choose to self-determine whatever they are, then these established power hierarchies breakdown.

I've thought this regarding the permeability of categories in general. Those who want to maintain societal hierarchies are precisely the people you see trying trying to keep the definitions and categories fixed. Hopefully I'm not trivializing, this but I think if there is more freedom for people to pick the categories that suits them, this will also translate to more freedom to people who don't feel as though they belong in a certain category.

Put another way, there are things about the way that people conceive of gender roles that I never felt fit me very well. There are assumptions people make that are really hard to dodge and there's not really anything you can do to stop people from making them. I'm not sure what this, if anything made me, but it would be really great if those things went away so I could live life on my on terms. People couldn't grasp the fact, for instance, that I was interested in a relationship and not not "sex without feelings", and so they'd just call me a misogynist who "thinks modern women are sluts" (I'd also often get a lot about how how I expect women to "owe me sex"). In retrospect I should have been less angry about how far off the mark all of it was, because it really just does seem like I was expressing things people couldn't understand from someone like me. (Maybe my anger was because I expected a lot more from everyone, which I suppose was a continuous feature of sociopolitical discussions on the internet until 2018 or so.) But there really is so much about my dating life that has kind of been screwed up just because people have so many expectations and assumptions about me that I have nothing to do with, and there really wasn't any good way to challenge of it. Since I think the discussion around gender has changed so much I feel more comfortable mentioning these sorts of things, and I think the more that conversation changes, the better it will get.

Bringing it back to the main point, if you allow people to pick what categories they belong to, there is no way that can't change the equation of which category is more valuable. The more freedom you gave people to belong to certain categories, the more the expected relations between categories will be disrupted.

 

[Coriolis]

Morphological Freedom

It is interesting how much energy is presently being wasted on people getting upset about transgenderism. While that has a long history in human cultures, I find it interesting that it is becoming a focus during transitional time in society where we are moving towards having the technology to determine our own human form on a deeper level.

Society has this long history of creating categories, demographics, and then place them in relative levels of hierarchical power. I've heard the argument against transgenderism that says, "someone getting plastic surgery to look younger cannot declare themselves a younger age", or "someone changing the color of their skin cannot change their race". Those comparisons are not exactly parallel, but what is interesting to me is that society is moving towards having the technology to accomplish all of these very goals.

I think holding a value of morphological freedom is a natural way to breakdown societal hierarchies and is occurring at a natural point in time where we will actually have the capacity to accomplish this. If each individual can choose to self-determine whatever they are, then these established power hierarchies breakdown.

I thought this could make for an interesting discussion, but I do hope people won't get too upset.

The current furor over gender transition is just one more example of legalized busybody behavior, and a particularly cruel and harmful one. A change of gender impacts those closest to someone: family, best friends, etc. These conflicts need to be worked out one on one. Everyone else is not affected. They have no dog in the show, and should have absolutely no say in what another person does, any more than they should be able to tell them whether to color their hair, get a tattoo, or pierce their ears. All the nonsense about bathrooms, "women-only spaces" and even sports are just red herrings, attempts to claim a stake in the matter when they have none.

 

[SensEye]

I've heard the argument against transgenderism that says, "someone getting plastic surgery to look younger cannot declare themselves a younger age", or "someone changing the color of their skin cannot change their race". Those comparisons are not exactly parallel, but what is interesting to me is that society is moving towards having the technology to accomplish all of these very goals.

Interesting. I have not heard that argument but it makes some sense. I wonder how the real pro-trans supporters (those who say if you identify as a man/woman you ARE a man/woman) feel about the concept of saying if you identify as a particular race, you ARE that particular race. I bet it's a hard no on the latter.

Personally, trans people can do whatever they feel like as far as I am concerned. However, I'm putting them in their own category. That is, a trans person is not a man or a woman regardless of how they identify, but rather a trans man/woman. You are stuck with your biology (just like you are stuck with your race I suppose) regardless of what you wish it to be. While modern medical tech can perform cosmetic surgery and hormone therapy, that's a far cry from engineering (or re-engineering) DNA. If medical science progresses to re-engineering DNA, I'll reconsider my position.

However, that doesn't mean a trans person can't live their life behaving in whatever gender role they see fit. But stick to the bathrooms and sports leagues of your biological gender or create a distinct category if sufficient demand exists.

 

[ceecee]

I find it interesting in a fairly alarming way that Transgender people are already being billed as an ism, in the general mindset of cis people... I suspect it is because an ideology is so much easier to hate these days than a person...

Working hard to dehumanize a group of people is like right wing authoritarian 101. Makes it much easier to extinguish the ism and the human in one shot.

 

[Sacrophagus]

The current furor over gender transition is just one more example of legalized busybody behavior, and a particularly cruel and harmful one. A change of gender impacts those closest to someone: family, best friends, etc. These conflicts need to be worked out one on one. Everyone else is not affected. They have no dog in the show, and should have absolutely no say in what another person does, any more than they should be able to tell them whether to color their hair, get a tattoo, or pierce their ears. All the nonsense about bathrooms, "women-only spaces" and even sports are just red herrings, attempts to claim a stake in the matter when they have none.

Agreed on whatever Y does it's their own business. Personally, it is not always the case. I might or will act in the best interest of someone who doesn't know any better.
The brouhaha regarding transgenderism aside, let's pretend you were in control of the upbringing of certain individuals and you knew for a fact that what they're doing is harmful. Would you not interfere just because it does not affect you on a personal level?

Someone acting for the "perceived" greater good to preserve the status quo is not farfetched. Systems act to preserve their existence. A defense mechanism is triggered especially if they think that those behaviors may affect or inspire those who are vulnerable and very suggestible.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Stumbled across this awesome bathroom graffiti today.
.

 

[Coriolis]

Interesting. I have not heard that argument but it makes some sense. I wonder how the real pro-trans supporters (those who say if you identify as a man/woman you ARE a man/woman) feel about the concept of saying if you identify as a particular race, you ARE that particular race. I bet it's a hard no on the latter.

Personally, trans people can do whatever they feel like as far as I am concerned. However, I'm putting them in their own category. That is, a trans person is not a man or a woman regardless of how they identify, but rather a trans man/woman. You are stuck with your biology (just like you are stuck with your race I suppose) regardless of what you wish it to be. While modern medical tech can perform cosmetic surgery and hormone therapy, that's a far cry from engineering (or re-engineering) DNA. If medical science progresses to re-engineering DNA, I'll reconsider my position.

However, that doesn't mean a trans person can't live their life behaving in whatever gender role they see fit. But stick to the bathrooms and sports leagues of your biological gender or create a distinct category if sufficient demand exists.

I suggest you brush up on biology, in particular intersex conditions and recent research. Gender identity and sexual preference are not choices or lifestyles, but appear to be hardwired much as handedness, perfect pitch, etc. People affected can spend their lives denying and fighting against this part of their makeup, much as those left-handed children in the 1950s who were forced to use their right hands; or they can accept it and swim with the current. The decision to do the latter has negligible impact on the broader society.

As for your bathroom comment, do you really think we are all better off if the person on the left uses the ladies' room and the person on the right uses the mens? All these new restrictions solve problems that don't really exist.

Agreed on whatever Y does it's their own business. Personally, it is not always the case. I might or will act in the best interest of someone who doesn't know any better.
The brouhaha regarding transgenderism aside, let's pretend you were in control of the upbringing of certain individuals and you knew for a fact that what they're doing is harmful. Would you not interfere just because it does not affect you on a personal level?

Someone acting for the "perceived" greater good to preserve the status quo is not farfetched. Systems act to preserve their existence. A defense mechanism is triggered especially if they think that those behaviors may affect or inspire those who are vulnerable and very suggestible.

The personal intervention of a friend, coworker, or neighbor is a far cry from law and regulation. I, too, would speak up if someone I cared about were doing something I thought could harm them. If they are an adult, though, the choice ultimately is theirs. Guiding a minor child for whom you are responsible is another matter, too, though this should work both ways. Some in our society will support parent/guardian rights as long as they agree with the choices (e.g. homeschooling), and oppose them if they do not (supporting gender identity, even just socially). That is just plain hypocritical. No one has yet shown any real negative impact on "the greater good", certainly no more than there was for ending segregation and Jim Crow laws.

 

[SensEye]

I suggest you brush up on biology, in particular intersex conditions and recent research. Gender identity and sexual preference are not choices or lifestyles, but appear to be hardwired much as handedness, perfect pitch, etc.

You misunderstand me. I don't disagree with you about the hard wired nature of sexual identify (or preference in the case of gay people). I'm just saying that if your gender identity psychologically does not match your biological gender, you are in a unique category. It makes you a trans person.

I have nothing against such individuals. But I don't see a trans woman or trans man the same as I see a CIS normal man or woman. It is unrealistic in my mind to expect to be treated the same as one or the other just because that's how you identify yourself. No reason to have a negative attitude towards them though.

The bathroom thing is a bit of a red herring. In a woman's public washroom, it's all stalls anyways, so nobody is going to see your junk regardless. Sports are different. A biological male, even if they are mentally wired as female and as such identify as a woman, is not the same as a biological female.

Not a big deal to me, but trans people should have their own sports leagues, although I don't think their are sufficient trans athletes to make that pragmatic. I figure if athletics are that big a deal to you, live the lie (i.e. stick to identifying as a male) until you achieve your sporting goals. Then switch. Pretty much all high level athletes are finished by age 35 or so, so do the Bruce (now Caitlyn) Jenner thing. Beat the men at their own game, then trans it up in retirement.

Note: I'm not to worried about trans men (i.e. biological females identifying as men) burning up the male leagues, so I'm just ignoring any controversy there (if there even is any).

 

[Coriolis]

You misunderstand me. I don't disagree with you about the hard wired nature of sexual identify (or preference in the case of gay people). I'm just saying that if your gender identity psychologically does not match your biological gender, you are in a unique category. It makes you a trans person.

I have nothing against such individuals. But I don't see a trans woman or trans man the same as I see a CIS normal man or woman. It is unrealistic in my mind to expect to be treated the same as one or the other just because that's how you identify yourself. No reason to have a negative attitude towards them though.

What do you see as the problem with treating transwomen as women, and transmen as men? The main difference in how they interact socially is that they were raised on and have experienced "the other side", which tends to make them more considerate and insightful. Note that cis-men and cis-women are not monolithic categories either. Treating A the same as B just because both are ciswomen/men will likely overlook many facets of who they are as individuals. Transpeople may act and respond more in keeping with their identified gender than many people born into that gender.

 

[SensEye]

What do you see as the problem with treating transwomen as women, and transmen as men?

It's not really a problem (outside of a few niches like sports and possibly a few other areas), but I simply can't see them that way. I will always see them as biologically what they are first, even though they identify as a different gender and perhaps exhibit the behavior patterns of the gender they identify with. As such, I simply can't see them as any category other than trans.

I'm not really sure it matters though. I don't think trans people should be discriminated against or ostracized, but I can't really figure out what to make of them.

I will note I have never personally got to know a trans person (none have entered my social circle, even at the fringes), so I don't have much insight into their mindset or whether I would start to associate their mindset as similar to normal men/women.

 

[Coriolis]

It's not really a problem (outside of a few niches like sports and possibly a few other areas), but I simply can't see them that way. I will always see them as biologically what they are first, even though they identify as a different gender and perhaps exhibit the behavior patterns of the gender they identify with. As such, I simply can't see them as any category other than trans.

I'm not really sure it matters though. I don't think trans people should be discriminated against or ostracized, but I can't really figure out what to make of them.

I will note I have never personally got to know a trans person (none have entered my social circle, even at the fringes), so I don't have much insight into their mindset or whether I would start to associate their mindset as similar to normal men/women.

It is quite possible that you know someone who is trans, without being aware of it. They often come across as just "normal" men and women, unless you get to know them well enough for them to explain their background. In professional or business settings, there is usually no need. Yes, as long as you don't discriminate or treat them disrespectfully, I suppose that is all one can ask, just as people who really think blacks are inferior to whites, or at best "separate but equal" can at most be held to the same basic standards of conduct. If only everyone did as much.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

 

[Sacrophagus]

It's not really a problem (outside of a few niches like sports and possibly a few other areas), but I simply can't see them that way. I will always see them as biologically what they are first, even though they identify as a different gender and perhaps exhibit the behavior patterns of the gender they identify with. As such, I simply can't see them as any category other than trans.

I'm not really sure it matters though. I don't think trans people should be discriminated against or ostracized, but I can't really figure out what to make of them.

I will note I have never personally got to know a trans person (none have entered my social circle, even at the fringes), so I don't have much insight into their mindset or whether I would start to associate their mindset as similar to normal men/women.

I share your conundrum. Biological predisposition does not fit what someone wants or feels in my book. It is what it is. I see it as a struggle, an identity confusion, or sometimes a mental illness which people instead of trying to ground the person in reality and comfort them, enabled their opinions rooted in feelings and whims.

What I know is that all people are worthy of respect. I worked with a man who dresses like women and I made sure he was treated with the same respect no matter how different our views are. We can agree to disagree.

On what Coriolis said, if I ever find out that a person I thought was a man or woman was actually trans in a workplace, I wouldn't care. In my dating life, however, I'm having none of that. I'll date biological women only.

 

[ceecee]

It is quite possible that you know someone who is trans, without being aware of it. They often come across as just "normal" men and women, unless you get to know them well enough for them to explain their background. In professional or business settings, there is usually no need. Yes, as long as you don't discriminate or treat them disrespectfully, I suppose that is all one can ask, just as people who really think blacks are inferior to whites, or at best "separate but equal" can at most be held to the same basic standards of conduct. If only everyone did as much.

Yeah I'm not for putting anyone in a "separate" category. I know a few trans people, some non-binary - one that I knew as a man for several years. They were always the person I had known - no different than when they were a man. I simply called them by their chosen name and that was all *I* had to get used to. You love who you love, make connections without judgement - this has been the policy for some time and it's enriched my life more than I can express.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Yeah I'm not for putting anyone in a "separate" category. I know a few trans people, some non-binary - one that I knew as a man for several years. They were always the person I had known - no different than when they were a man. I simply called them by their chosen name and that was all *I* had to get used to. You love who you love, make connections without judgement - this has been the policy for some time and it's enriched my life more than I can

I think it's a dumb thing to place so much weight on precedent when it's possible that entirely new, fascinating arrangements could work equally well.

I don't have trans-specific examples but a few weeks ago I had dinner with my platonic female friend and her friend who was married to another woman. According to conventional "common sense" thinking none of this was something that should work but it was a great time. (This may be obvious to everyone else but this is something I'm discovering more and more and loving it.)

 

[Coriolis]

I share your conundrum. Biological predisposition does not fit what someone wants or feels in my book. It is what it is. I see it as a struggle, an identity confusion, or sometimes a mental illness which people instead of trying to ground the person in reality and comfort them, enabled their opinions rooted in feelings and whims.

What I know is that all people are worthy of respect. I worked with a man who dresses like women and I made sure he was treated with the same respect no matter how different our views are. We can agree to disagree.

On what Coriolis said, if I ever find out that a person I thought was a man or woman was actually trans in a workplace, I wouldn't care. In my dating life, however, I'm having none of that. I'll date biological women only.

Romantic relationships are highly personal and individual. Honoring personal preferences here is understandable, and does not translate into a blanket judgment of entire categories of people. As you say, most of the time, one shouldn't care because it isn't relevant.

As for the "conundrum", gender identity is tied to biological predisposition, much like handedness. Scientists are just starting to understand these physiological connections, and I look forward to what we learn in the next years and decades. If someone's brain chemistry is out of step with their external genitalia, though, I don't see how anyone benefits by giving more weight to the latter than to the former.

 

[SensEye]

If someone's brain chemistry is out of step with their external genitalia, though, I don't see how anyone benefits by giving more weight to the latter than to the former.

That's kind of my point though. I'm giving equal weight to both, so where they meet in the middle is 'trans'. If you say you think brain chemistry is trump over physical biology, I say that is just an arbitrary decision as well, to give all the weight to that side. It seems to make the most sense to those whose have a mismatch as something in-between, a unique category.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

One thought I'll add for clarification: that argument comparing age and race alterations to gender identity are not equivalents in my understanding. This is because the fluidity of gender and identity has deep roots across geography and time. There are many cultures that have a third gender, or facilitate ways for people to express across genders. There is also some biological basis for gender fluidity with several chromosome expressions beyond XX and XY, (XXY, XYY, etc), intersex expression, hormonal impacts on fetal development in the womb, etc.

Here is a good article from Scientific America

While it's true that race is on a continuum, people already have a way to express and identify with cultures that are predominantly of a skin color different from their individual skin color. Also, the race categories have less genetic significance as groups. Even with all of that, I think individual identity should be defined by the individual.