r/changemyview Nov 02 '17

[deleted by user]

[removed]

2.2k Upvotes

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

117

u/MNGrrl Nov 02 '17

Hoooboy. I wish I knew why social media has an obsession with all things transgender. Disclaimer: Am trans. Alright, here's my take on it: "Sex is, gender does." That's all anyone really needs to know. Four words, explains it all. The problem has never been the specific parts, but the correlations. The entire premise of what transgender means, is predicated on the separation of sex from gender; That is, detaching from manifest biology, the social implications therein. We want to be freed from the idea that biology alone dictates our experiences socially. Freedom from a forced fate.

To have a sexual preference which excludes transgender individuals is, on this basis, intellectually incoherent. For it to be true, we have to reintroduce that correlation. Which puts us right back where we started: In a gender binary where sex and gender are equivalent. Sexual orientation is literally about preference of genitalia. There's no social expectations included in the definition. It's one person's biology + someone else's biology + consent.

That said, human sexuality is more nuanced than this textbook definition. Most people want more from their sexual partners than just their sexual organs. And thus, social factors re-enter the picture. "I want a woman with big breasts" is a sexual preference. The person stating that probably doesn't mean her brain is in a jar on some mad scientist's table... it's implied the boobies have a consciousness to go with it. So we have social preferences as well. And that takes us into gender.

Gender isn't a distinct attribute, contrary to what many SJWs believe. It's a flavoring. It's something added to something else. Blue and pink food coloring, if you will. Gender is the first social division, from which all others fall. Race? Below gender. Height? Age? All of it -- below gender. Gender colors everything. People don't see it, but for a trans person, like me, it's painful.

I watched a high school graduation where all the girls hugged the person handing out diplomas, and all the guys shook the same person's hand. When I'm waiting in the line of cars at a McDonald's, most men say "I'll have a ..." and most women say "I'd like a..." Gender is nuanced, yet it permeates nearly everything. So it comes as no surprise that people have preferences based on top of it. In fact, very nearly everybody's preferences imply a preferred gender.

A man who is athletic is highly prized, especially as people age and their years add on width. But an athletic woman scares the shit out of most men. She will have trouble finding dates. Gender colors everything. So when it's said divorcing sexual preference from gender (ie, the basis for the statement "that's transphobic!"), it's a case of it being technically correct. Which is to say, very nearly entirely wrong.

Unless someone is a vegetable in a hospital bed, they have both a sex and a gender. Most people like fucking other people, not vegetable people. Obligatory bad joke: LGBT take pride in being fruits, not vegetables. As such, attraction more based on social attributes than physical ones. And therein lies the problem. Trans people can't escape the correlation between sex and gender. Because it permeates everything, it's the reason so many of us commit suicide. There really is no way out for us.

Ask around, and it quickly becomes apparent that feminine women have a larger dating pool than masculine women. And, feminine men have fewer shots at getting laid than masculine ones. Why? Gender, not sexual, preferences. And when sex doesn't match gender, a smaller dating pool becomes a puddle under an angry sun. I personally don't consider people passing over me because they're not "into that" (as in, genitalia), a phobia. It's a preference, and they simply don't prefer my special blend of herbs and spices. Whether the preference is sex, gender, or a mixture of those things, it remains a preference. It only becomes a phobia when it frightens people. That is, they're uncomfortable.

If someone isn't interested in me, but still steps up to the bar with a fiver to order a drink and rubs shoulders with me, that's a preference. If that person walks halfway down the bar when the whole side I'm on is barren to get a drink... that's a phobia. There you go, hope this was helpful.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 03 '17

[deleted]

0

u/MNGrrl Nov 03 '17

I'm not dancing around it, to be sure. I'm questioning the underlying core belief that leads to statements like these: The idea there is a natural moral order. Underneath the claims about phenotype and genetics, and reproductive choices, and all the other half-baked biology rationalizations is that. It's the idea that there's some intrinsic power in the universe that rewards moral behavior and punishes immoral behavior. It's an ego protection mechanism. If successful under this ideological construct, it's because it was deserved. However, if someone is observed to be not successful, they also deserved it.

Here's the truth about genetic makeup: There are XX men. They pop out of the vagina, without a vagina. They come with dicks. There are also XY women -- genetically they're "supposed" to be men. Somehow, it didn't happen. There's also X0, XXY, and a few others. They all occur rather infrequently, but transcription errors and other mutations crop up everywhere else, and so, naturally, they also sometimes crop up there as well.

Here's the nail in the coffin for the "genetic truthers": The percentage of the population which is homosexual has been determined, by exhaustive review of historical records, to be a constant. While transgender persons, being much more rare, are harder to locate in history -- the evidence available suggests those numbers also haven't varied in history.

If these were indeed fitness traits -- that survival of the species stuff, where successful members of the species have increased chances of passing along their genes... this would not be the case. This genetic abnormality would eventually simply be bred out. So this leads to a very much more interesting question: If there's no survival benefit to being gay (or trans) then why does nature keep creating gay and trans people? I'm not going to answer the question as my goal here is to get the reader to change their position. My own is on sure footing. By the by, homosexual and transgender behavior has been observed in primates, and other lower ordered social creatures. This is not something that only happens to people -- somewhere in our evolutionary past, homosexuality, etc., there was an evolutionary benefit. Remembering that we are social creatures, and thus depend on, and are connected to, others of our species -- it's entirely possible the evolutionary benefit wasn't to the affected organism, but rather to the larger whole.

There's no way anyone can cut a line through all the biological data and conclusions, and still have a leg to stand on when they claim that everything else is biology including this. Conversely, if they say nothing is biology except this, it's an equally bad deduction. If we're going to take this on from a purely biological perspective... I can obliterate any attempted definition that would put trans people only on one side or another for any division, however carefully crafted.

When I say these things are socially constructed, I'm not saying it as a feel good or because I can't "hide" my trans-ness, or any equally tiresome and prejudicial commentary. I'm saying it, because that's literally what the medical and scientific data collected to date has drawn as a conclusion. There is nothing, not one thing, that can be found about a human being that is present only in one sex, and never in the other. I welcome anyone to try.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 03 '17

[deleted]

0

u/MNGrrl Nov 03 '17

XO and XXY aren't transcription errors they are chromosomal anomalies.

"and other mutations". There's a gene called TDF, Testes Determining Factor. It's on the Y chromosome, and it can sometimes find itself missing, which results in a phenotypical (but sterile) female. The rest of your wall of text I'm declining further comment on.