Wednesday 12 April 2017

Sex, Gender and Logic part 2

Part two..

In part one we looked at Sex and Gender as categories and what attributes are required for inclusion in each.

Part one

So following on from that:

How humans are sexed. 

If any of you reading this have kids, you'll know that feeling of anticipation and wonder as you wait to find out if you're going to have a son or a daughter. We can check now via ultrasound in utero to see what anatomy is present and of course at birth there are outwardly visible differences between the "male" and "female" categories as were described in part one.

So, basically just as we did thousands of years ago, we look at our offspring with our eyes and go, hmm, penis = male, therefore boy or vagina = female, therefore girl. Ok all is good with the world. 

But wait juuuust minute.....

In her study back in 2002 Fausto-sterling asserts that 1.7% of human births are what we would call "intersex". That is having genitalia that are indeterminate, not of one sex or perhaps even indicative of both.  This presents a problem at the very start, because it messes our categorical system. If we can't "sex" a new born human, how do we relate to that person? 

However that aside, this study was utilising a comparison between phenotypic sex (anatomical structure and actions) and chromosomal sex. Additionally this figure was decided to be too high since it included those who didn't quite fit the required criteria which was in itself rather broad. So where are we currently on the level of incidence of "intersex" births? The intersex society of North America states that 1 in 1,666 births are not xx/xy and that the number of births that anatomically differ from male and female is 1 in 100. 

The XX/XY myth.

Bet you thought I'd miss this one out eh? 

Darwins "origin of species" in 1859 produced a race. A race to prove Darwin's theories through cellular evidence. A german cytologist found an X element in the sperm of a wasp in 1891, and between 1903 and 1906 Nettie Stevens studied this X and found it had a small Y hidden next to it. In 1906 Edmund Wilson independently confirms the existence of the Y and also coined the phrase "sex chromosome". 

Around this time it was understood that inheritability and genetics usually required the interplay between multiple chromosomal factors, bits of a chromosome controlling multiple things. Thus a single chromosome could have effects in multiple areas. Wilson however was insistent that this X was entirely responsible for maleness, and thus sex, since 2 of them resulted in male and 1 female. Nettie Stevens disagreed, citing that something on the X was probably involved in sex, since the known evidence of studies suggested other chromosomes act on multiple traits and that logically the x and y should function in this same way. 

Wilson's view eventually won out in 1920, perhaps because Stevens died in 1912. There was however strong objection to the idea of a sex chromosome even at this point. Thomas montgomery of the university of philadelphia wrote that the theory was "absurdly simplistic" and and an "over extension of the chromosome theory of hereditary". Thomas hunt Morgan decried it for "inventing a special element that has the power of turning maleness into femaleness"

There were other holes in the premise of a sex chromosome, but for a better narrative than I can give here I'd suggest reading this article by Claire Ainsworth. A brief summary of the somewhat complex article would be to suggest that Stevens was closer to the truth. Bits of the x and the y play a part in the determination of sex, but are not in and of themselves the whole story. Thus we now know people with xx/xy/xxy or derivations thereof that will develop along male or female lines according to the hormonal and genetic triggers present in utero. 

So that then busts the intersex comparisons ? Well yes, in so far as comparing phenotypical sex to the XX/XY dichotomy. But it also paradoxically it gives us a reason for intersex in the first place since it highlights that the mechanisms inherent in determining the "sex" of a person are a much more complex beast than Wilson's simple initial categorisation might suggest. 

Soo.. were does this get us? 

Logically we have to revisit the category of "sex" and I would suggest add in some things that were missing from the initial list. 

I'd add in:

Development, in utero environment and chromosomal "activity" rather than 'structure", and lastly the brain.

Why the brain? Because from what we now know of other internal physiological and endocrine (hormonal) influences the brain is very much effected by these mechanisms as described in utero, just as the other organs are. To assume it must be left out is tantamount to repeating the mistake of Wilson and creating an erroneous assumption. There is considerable and growing evidence to support the theory that trans people could be thought of and thus "categorised" as intersex in relation to their brains, and that the interplay between a multitude of developmental combinations gives rise to many more than 2 possible outcomes. 

Furthermore as a result of the above, there is now significant evidence to suggest that "male" and 'female" should actually be joined by "intersex". Not in the realm of being viewed as a defect in "normal" development, but as a less common though still possible outcome of the normal gestational process that is as yet not fully understood at a cellular level. 

After all, intersex research cited in the article by Claire Ainsworth was completed in 2011, and the article itself in 2015. To use our 24 hour analogy from before regarding human civilisation, that's just over 7 minutes of research. Obviously we have barely scratched the surface here. 

So lets revisit our original premise, the youtube question or statement in part one that asserts that Trans philosophy of GI and LGB philosophy are mutually exclusive:

If you are for gay rights, then you accept the concept of sexual orientation. But sexual orientation presupposes an genital basis to manhood and womanhood. This directly contradicts the premise of gender identity, Therefore, the very concept of sexual orientation is homophobic. 

If you support trans rights, the you accept the concept of gender identity. That concept locates the basis for manhood and womanhood (or whatever) in the mind, making the body irrelevant to ones identity asa man or a woman (or whatever) This just makes complete nonsense out of the concept of sexual orientation and thereby erases the identities of Gays and lesbians. Thus support for the transgender community entails homophobia

So the statement cites sexual orientation:
     
It's the statement "Sexual orientation presupposes a genital basis to manhood and woman hood" that is problematic and TBH at first its not easy to see what is actually wrong here.

What is sexual orientation? What does being gay or lesbian or bi mean? I'm going to fall back on a suggestion by Dr Corivino here and say probably a lot more than the gentialia of the person you might fancy. Theres personality, behaviour, SOH, hair colour skin type, age range, interests, music etc etc, so on the face of it the "exclusive" genitalia argument a reductive premise. But it is fair to say that genitalia play a part in that over all conversation. Though i'd argue that would be to some extent as an effect of being attracted to "men" or "women" not a cause, and usual case scenario's with regard to anatomy in each case. 

What do I mean by that? Well if you're a gay man, then presumably you are going to be attracted to other men. That attraction on first meeting does not initially depend on whether the person does or does not have a penis. (as per a trans man for example) Similarly a lesbian, or bisexual woman may fall for a trans woman, who may or may not have had surgery, but I doubt that's their first topic of conversation.

Sure once a person finds out that a given individual may have a body that doesn't work for them, that may be grounds on which to reassess the situation or it may not. Is that trans phobic? No, because people like what they like. It's hardly fair for a trans person to stipulate what another person should or should not find sexually appealing. Is it potentially awkward? hell yeah. A rejection at this point based on anatomy is going to hurt, one party feels let down and the other unloved for who they are. But diversity by its very nature has to embrace that these situations are not a one size fits all.

I would suggest the first premise is based in the stipulation that if a gay man falls for a trans man, then they are not 'really gay" which extrapolates to "because they (the trans man) are not a real guy" Which leads to "real guys have a penis" and the result: "wow that's trans phobic"

Does that make sexual orientation transphobic. Of course it doesn't, since sexual orientation is a category like all the rest, and thus the borders and frames of reference exist in isolation to those who live within them. Sexual orientation is a concept, like the all others discussed in this article and in part one.

What the statement actually suggests is that the author has a prescriptive view of a genital basis to manhood and womanhood. we could re write it as: I presuppose a genital basis to manhood and woman hood and therefore orientations as result. It does not follow from that view that all discussion of sexual orientation would subscribe to that same view.

What of the second statement? Gender Identity as a concept and a basis for man and womanhood is again part of the argument, but not it's entirety. As we have seen from the exploration of the questions "what is sex" and "what is gender" there is significant suggestive evidence to include the brain in the developmental process that leads to a "male" or female" or "intersex" person, and therefore some inclusion of trans in that premise. Thus "The brain" which may be responsible for our "gender identity" is a physical anatomical structure. 

This serves to rebut the statement: 

That concept locates the basis for manhood and womanhood (or whatever) in the mind, making the body irrelevant to ones identity asa man or a woman (or whatever)

The brain is part of both the body and the mind*, thus is subject to the same developmental influences as all our other anatomical structures. We return therefore to where we began, an anatomical discussion of the causative biological factors of "sex" and "gender" as intrinsically linked, but still different. 

*(this of course depend on your view of the  dualist and  physicalist arguments of mind and body, something i'll be delving into in my basics of philosophy series a little later on) 

So based on this, is GI theory homophobic?. No. Since knowing that there is more than two sexes and thus more than two genders, and that the causes likely reside in a combination of genitals, gonads and brain development does not preclude two people of the same sex or the same gender having a relationship.

Of course, if you choose to define "manhood" and "womanhood" by genitalia and hitch concepts to your own definition...... thats perhaps a little different don't you think?

;-)

To sum up what has been quite a wordy pair of blogs, It would seem we humans are even now only just getting to grips with the modern versions of Anaxagoras' "seeds" as they might pertain to "sex" and "gender". After something of a false start thanks to the erroneous conclusions of Wilson that took hold in the early 20th century we are playing catch up. We now know at least that we "don't know", and as result can start reframing questions and categories.

I wonder in 3000 yrs time, will the humans that exist then look back at us and wonder at the language we use to describe things that they then understand in so much depth. Will our chromosomes and other descriptors seem to them like Anaxagoras seeds? It is an intriguing thought is it not?


-------------------------------



After all, back in 2005 Pluto was still a planet.
Sarah 

No comments:

Post a Comment