Reality? #2 Our focus determines our reality....

Hi world,

By now you'll likely have read my breakdown of the "reality concept" from Nigel Warburton's book "Philosophy, the basics"

If not have a peak here... 

So, given I'd been thinking about that stuff a while, a conversation I've had recently popped back into my head, or specifically comment from it. 

"...Ok, so you're a trans woman, but in your previous life you acted like a man and you're (still) interested in bloke stuff..." 

It's a fair point. I like motors, a tuned V8 will make me weaker at the knees than most things in life, (and if its an RB series straight six.. I'm putty in ya hands.. ) I like geeky gamer shit, guitars, loud music, riding bikes, fixing bikes, and messing around with spanners and fire pits. 

But under it all was this issue of gender dysphoria. I'm not a particularly "camp" individual...(although I was once accused of being so, but that's a story for a another day) So where does it all the "bloke shit" fit in? and more to the point where does it all manifest from? 

Cause, effect? 

Well. Growing up I really didn't have much of a handle on gender stuff, however I was a curious kid blessed with some intellect of sorts. "Dad how does that work"  "Mum what does this do?"  "but Miss what does that mean?" were comments often heard from me...I'm sure I drove people nuts. I read lots, lapped up the stories of CS lewis, Timothy Zahn, and more factual historical books on things like the falklands war etc with equal abandon. 

I just got on with the business of being me, and of having an interest in the world around me. The old man was a truck mechanic, so it follows i might pick that up, yet mum's a gardening type and I can't grow anything... 

Perhaps societal expectations and assumptions might play a little here... "Son spends time with Dad in garage" is a well known and well worn outcome of a father son relationship after all. But I wasn't pushed into it. And I remember - indeed I'm often reminded by - my daughter of when she did the same.."daddy what does that bit do?" whilst pointing at the fan in the sports car's engine bay...

For a teenaged girl she probably knows more than the average kid about what happens under the bonnet of a motor... why? because she was curious.. and her Daddy made it cool..and took time to teach her  stuff, just like mine did. Mum often says to me: If I'm interested in a subject it gets 110%...if not.. 0% So it's extremely unlikely that young me was coerced into something as part of any gender profiling kinda deal.

There's evidence out there from the like of Simone de Beauvior about the performative elements of  human gender, which may be at issue here. Yet performative implies perception on the part of the  viewer, thus in the act of "doing" a meaning is ascribed to the doing of an action by the viewer not just the performer. 

Consider that if a natal female had similar or identical interests to me, then they would not be viewed as "a man". More likely they would be viewed as a woman with atypical interests when one looks at  the stereotypical models of gender behaviours. Similarly a natal male into "Girly stuff" 

So the interests and activities argument alone doesn't stack up to disprove, or indeed prove, a trans gender identity, but in this case that wasn't the intention of the original comment. It came from (or at least i think it did) a place of wanting to understand the process of forming identity....

How do we humans form our identities? 

It's been said that "you", your personality and learned behaviours etc are the sum total of the five most influential people in your life. Usually those you spend the most time with. 

Because I was perceived as a boy, I spent most of my time with boys, and my family, who again perceived me as a boy. Girls wouldn't look the side I was on cos boys were yucky, and geeky awkward boys with glasses and zero charisma were just icky... so .. yup .. pretty much a girl free environment. 

There were certain lessons that I learnt from the authority figures in my life at that point that I now no longer believe are true. Yet back then, because they came from a place of perceived authority I took those lessons on board.. believing that they must be right simply because of my faith in where they had come from. 

As we grow, our social circle and sphere of influence increases and we learn stuff, some of which is contradictory to prior information, from other sources. We form our own opinions & beliefs and as a result we become independent, thinking, adult humans beings....yeah scary shit huh? 

Yeah yeah I hear  ya say...but opinion doesn't equal identity...so what is it? 

Well ok, opinion isn't identity, but it sure is part of it. How we think, how we perceive the world and our place in it is a huge deal as far as our self awareness and sense of self goes. Knowledge is the  key to unlocking those mental doors that in some people remain resolutely closed for life. Curiosity is the means by which we turn that key and open ourselves up to a world of unknown behind the door. Fear on the other hand is the one thing that can stay our hand at the point of turning... 

For me, knowledge and context of the jigsaw puzzle pieces that just didn't quite "fit" came during the  first year of nurse training. 

Once I'd lost the fear, or perhaps over came it, or maybe my curiosity was greater than the fear, I'm not sure even to this day, which one occured but once that happened I turned the key. What ultimately came through that door was ironically enough more "knowledge". Knowledge of the possibility and plausibility of something that I had both discounted and left unexamined for decades, based on an erroneous assumption that it wasn't possible. Why not? because of everything that is in the first 7 or so paragraphs of this piece. 

The line in the title of this piece comes from Star Wars: The phantom menace. Qui Gone Jin says to a  young Anakin Skywalker: 

Always remember: your focus determines your reality... 

Now, ok it precedes what many think is the worst line in the franchise, but it speaks of an essential truth. How many times have athletes use creative visualisation? Belief in the possible and a concerted  and defined effort to strive toward that goal. 

Once I knew where I was, and what I had. (gender dysphoria) I had to decide what to do about that knowledge. Where to place my focus and thus my reality. 

As a result my focus moved - in time - from being about outward things, acquisitions and the distractions of life to keep me entertained and busy. I'd spent so many years just putting on film after  film in that cinema of perception that I spoke of in my last blog, that I never noticed the seats, the lights, the screen or the "inside of my head" as it were. 

My focus shifted, for once, onto me. For the  first time i started to pay serious attention to my internal world. And whilst my interests and collection of films on that cinema screen didn't change, and probably won't... I'll be less restricted in the adding of new ones, since I've now changed the reel from 8mm Cinefilm, to an 8k Imax, and can see a damn sight more of "the world" as a result. 

Right I reckon that's enough deep and meaningful stuff for one day... time to put a film on... But which one.... hmmm 

It's all part of the plan... unless you step off the script... 

Till next time.. keep smiling, do what you do and just let life take care of the rest... 

Sarah 

xx

Back in the training Zone...

Hey,

Those that follow my other bloggings will know I'm into bike riding, a bit of running and am what people might call a lapsed fitness nut with middle aged spread.

For a variety of reasons I didn't train from Sept last year through till the beginnings of last week, save from a brief running spell at the start of this year.

This period of idleness resulted in significant weight gain, but also coincided with some developments regarding my medical transition...

So here's a subjective view from the inside of my head of what its like to train "with" and "with out" testosterone...

Training, tenacity and Other T's 

Ok, so throughout my first 40 odd years wherever I got into the physical training habit my biochemistry was that of the "typical" male. Testosterone as I'm sure you're all aware does a number of things, and is responsible for both bone density, & muscle mass, as well as the reproductive stuff.

Roughly 12 weeks ago I started on a inhibitor that essentially prevents my body from producing testosterone and recent blood tests indicate that my circulating T levels are equivalent to that of a natal female. (i.e. not a lot and considerably less than a male) This is in conjunction with a graduated introduction of Oestrogen, which has been on going almost a year, since to leave the body with neither of these hormones would be a "bad" thing..

Oddly, I've always experienced ups and downs in my motivation to train, simply because I like to be  fit and healthy but in the past I've always reached a point where my body image and physicality didn't match up..Dysphoria wreaking havoc with the results of the training and motivation dropping to zero. Thus throughout my life training has always been an episodic activity.

This means I know what its like to train having "gained weight", and been "fitter" in the past, I know how my body "usually" responds, fatigue levels etc

So what of now?

Well first off the main thing I'm noticing is a distinctly higher level of exertion for lower output. Notable changes being "light headedness" on resting at a level of work that previously wouldn't elicit this response. Perhaps this is a result of a reduction in testosterone and therefore its influence on the mechanisms of red blood cell production, and thus my bodies ability to carry oxygen to my tissues.

Of course we can't be sure without scientific testing, and this is purely subjective, but it's interesting none the less.

Out right power on the bike isn't really different yet.. that won't be noticeable until I retain my former levels of form and fitness. A peak power average for me was 220Watts, which aint exactly pro TdF level's but I'm currently sitting in 160 ranges which is on par with previous efforts at this fitness level.

Recovery: This is an odd one. I'm doing quite alot quite quickly. From being very sedentary to running every other day and one bike ride a week. I'm definitely tired, but "more" tired? Hard to say.

However here's where "motivation" raises its head. For the first time in my life the changes I'm seeing in the mirror and the "effects" of the training are not playing against my motivation but rather adding to it.

I'm no longer fighting ageing, or my own biochemistry.. and it's kinda cool. It means that I can just get on with the business of being healthy, and enjoy the runs without worrying about the times...which btw I used to do religiously.. (old army habit) or feeling that i'm not fast enough, or doing sufficient to stay slim enough blah blah blah.

Obviously this is all subjective and pretty much an initial thoughts kinda deal.. I've no definitives here, just idea's, musing and wonderings. Body positivity is a whole subject in and of itself. When I started riding bikes and running in my teen's & 20's it wasn't for anything other than "because it was fun" and because I liked the endorphin buzz. I ran because I liked it. I cycled because I liked it.

Then of course some stupid bugger decided it was a good idea to join HM forces and "fitness" became "work" with all those connotations.

It does go to show however that dysphoria and the resultant complications of living with it, can have  far reaching consequences into other areas of life that one might otherwise not expect.

As that "baggage" diminishes I am beginning to feel free-er than I ever have in years, un encumbered by the weight of this "disruptive mismatch"

Now, I i'm just "doing" stuff..

And that surely, can only be good thing.

Sarah

It's just "my opinion"

It's just my opinion!

How many times have we heard that defence? Usually, although not always, from someone who has just voiced an objectionable viewpoint or questionable statement.

Now ok, we all get to have a right to an opinion, and its been said that opinions are much like arseholes, (in that we all have one...)

But....

How do we counter this "defence" and what is it based in? Well some philosophers from the early 17th century - John Locke and Voltaire - had some thoughts on the issue as did the later philosopher  John Stuart Mill.

Each of them postulated arguments as to what opinion "is" and the reason(s) why we might consider exchange of opinion valid or perhaps best avoided.

This was later built upon by the work of Karl Popper in the latter half of the early 20th century, he suggested via his thoughts on the "open society" that tolerance would actually lead to it own demise.

(one could argue that tolerance is NOT synonymous with pacifist approaches thus we may never reach an absolute state of 0% tolerance and 100% intolerance.. much like the scientific principles of equilibrium and osmosis and indeed Karl did so citing the need to defend tolerance with a measure of intolerance once a critical point was reached.....)

Two well known quotes from Karl are :

“The so-called paradox of freedom is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any constraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek. The idea is, in a slightly different form, and with very different tendency, clearly expressed in Plato.

And

paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.

You can read the full article from which these quote were taken Here...

So since we all have an opinion, merely stating what your own one is does not prove it has, nor imbue it with, any validity.  Similarly shutting down the arguments around that opinion reduces our ability to learn, consider and grow as individuals and thus society. 

This "shutting down" isn't limited to the knowledge of specific viewpoints and opinions and whether they be correct, valid or otherwise. In my view it also concerns the methods by which we arrive at those view points. In my video I pose the question "how do we know where the limits of discussion are?" And at what point does opinion become "harmful" in the sense of Mill's definitions and thus worthy of censure? 

If you have a free 15 mins have a cuppa and listen to a few more thoughts...Apologies for the squeaky chair.. i'm gonna sort a new one soon! 

Well food for thought isn't it? 

Again, my own view is that we discover "that point of censure" by means of having the debates in the first place. If we allow a pervasive culture of no platforming to persist over a long enough period of time (say a generation or so) these academic skills are diminished, if not lost, and whilst people may still believe certain viewpoints wrong/right, they may well lack the (well practiced) critical thinking and analysis skills to explain why this is so as direct result. (not to mention the researched evidence base) This skills atrophy would apply equally to political arguments be they conservative or liberal, Scientific argument, ethical debate, you name it. 

Knowledge of how to discuss, critique and argue is as important, if not more so, than the topics being argued about,  so as I said in the video, we need to be mindful of that balance point. The equilibrium of censure, and acceptable argument. 

After all.....not every liberal is left wing nut job, nor every right winger a Nazi. A detractor from LGBT issues is not a necessarily a bigot, and not every cis (non trans) person hostile to trans issues...

Perception and reality are two other concepts that play into this when one considers the truths of any argument. And that's where I'm going next... Nigel warburton's comments on appearance, and reality, be that of arguments or otherwise... 

Strong and Stable or A Weak Leader?

Until then ...keep it real peeps.. 

xSarahx

"Privilege" and the Trans phenomenon...

Hey,,

I've been a busy bee today... Heres a few thoughts on my own experiences. As ever it's not an exhaustive or even comprehensive list of options. It is the story of one person and their navigation through life and the questions of gender, existence, meaning and morality.

Enjoy...

I'm sure theres more to come ...

Frivolity, Choices, and Decisions

Hi,

Prologue:

I wrote this some weeks ago for the F word blog site. Recent family events in my personal life have lead to me deciding to post the article here. 

I changed my name almost 2 years ago now, and informed various people in and around my family of the decision to deal with my own experience of the trans gender phenomenon. This resulted in a a general use of feminine pronouns, obviously the decrease in use of my old details and some positive changes. 

Two years down the line, I have a good relationship with the majority of my family, my Daughter is more interested in Skype, Minecraft and an impending visit to insomnia in august than in what she suggests are rather obvious questions of gender. (Kids.. don't you just love em?) And rightly so. 

However:

There are those who would paint themselves as LGBT friendly via social media etc, yet still refuse to use my actual legal name. I have let this pas on many occasion up to this point, since my focus was often elsewhere, but things change. Now OK, mistakes happen in verbal conversation. But not in written. This wilful and frankly dishonest variance between public and private actions is damaging.

Damaging, but not as you might think, to me. Rather it is damaging to one about whom I care deeply, and who cares for me, via disparaging and dismissive remarks around trans gender and me specifically. Remarks that come to the ears of one who is by virtue of circumstance bound through family ties to both sides of the argument.  

As regular readers may know, I'm a philosophical sort, open to discussion, and aware that multiple opinions exist.  However when one hides behind the flag of inclusion, yet denigrates that which it stands for and the principles upon which it was envisaged, then one forfeits the privilege of being taken at face value in any discussion. 

Why? because one has shown a lack of integrity. So with that in mind there are limits to my patience, and understanding. 

So in a departure from my usual general comments i'll make an aimed and specific one. By all means disagree with me. But be aware, your opinion is not universal, and your decisions and actions in choosing how and when to voice it leave much to be desired. Like all of us, those decisions, and actions will have consequences. I suggest next time you're tempted to voice things of this nature, you are mindful of that fact. 

So, since it seems relevant to the point at hand, here is an edited version of the article from a few weeks ago: 

Is “Trans Gender” a frivolous endeavour?

Recently Fay Weldon added her opinion to the ever increasing morass of views on the “trans gender debate” Suggesting that trans women choose their direction in life based on frivolous judgments and a perception that life is easier as a woman.

Gender is currently a fiercely divisive topic, and not least on the point of whether there should even “be” a debate on the issue. The temptation and indeed reaction from the trans population to recent comments from Fay Weldon, Jenny Murray, Julie bindel, and Germain Greer plus others like them is often derision, scorn and shouts of “trans phobia” and “exclusionary” rhetoric. The recent spate of “no platforms” at universities is evidence of the spreading “moral outrage” at these challenging views being given a stage from which to state their case.

But let's step away from the “outrage” and “knee-jerk name-calling” for a minute.

Consider that the latter two in the above list are long time contributors to the debate on gender as a whole, of which trans is simply one part. Both are noted academics and thus are not unthinking people. Arguably the other proponents of their views are less academically lauded, but non the less Fay read psychology and economics at St Andrews, and Jenni Murray is a long time served reporter.

The common thread here is age. And experience of the historical feminist shift in societal view. To dismiss out of hand the opinions of the contributors and founders of those early discussions is in my opinion to invoke a mistaken kind of moral relativism.

Many many years before our current crop of thinkers were born, another walked the athenian streets. He spent his time there questioning, thinking and criticising. At his death he postulated:

“The unexamined life is not worth living”

This man was Socrates, arguably the founder of modern philosophy and critical thought. So for the proponents of trans gender legitimacy to cry foul and disengage from the debate on the basis that these things should not be examined because they are “too important” or “already known” is perhaps not only erroneous logic, but also counter productive, and a little arrogant. So with that in mind, I decided to explore the question “Is trans gender frivolous”? 

To answer that one really has to consider “why, and how, does one transition?

In researching this article I came across a video of Germain Greer on a discussion panel in 2016. In it she acknowledges that the older interpretations of human sexual biology are perhaps too simplistic, and that some of her former arguments no longer stack up to new evidentiary rebuttal. (She alluding to research and knowledge of the oft misquoted xx/xy chomosomal sex dichotomy)  However the interesting point for me, is that she then went on to say the following:

“…...The interesting thing to me is this, if you decide because you're uncomfortable in the masculine system, which turns boys into men often at great cost to themselves, if you're unhappy with that, it doesn't mean that you belong at the other end of the spectrum”

At this point the chair intercedes, and there follows some discussion with a follow up from Greer that one can't know “what the other sex is”

I find this engaging because if one takes the first statement it seems to make the case for the genetic legitimacy of the `none binary” phenomenon. A perhaps surprising viewpoint for one such as Greer.

though not an unwelcome one.

Many trans people however, do begin at this place of discomfort that she describes. The prevailing pro trans argument over the last few decades has been that this was evidence of “always” having been what society describes as a “man” or a “woman” in-spite of outward appearances. The following sentence might fly in the face of a pro trans argument, but it would not seem unreasonable to question this, and examine the logic behind it. 

One is not born 'man” or a “woman”. One is born a child with a genetic composition that leads to a certain set of developmental outcomes. In some individuals that is “classically female”, in others “classically male”. However there are a significant proportion of the population that have a combination of both. This phenomena is called “intersex”. Not inter-gender. And with good reason, for it specifically relates to developmental biological factors. "Gender" although synonymous with "sex" is not quite the same thing.

Thus consider someone who was assigned “male” at birth (AMAB) due to examination of outward physical appearance, and who subsequently transitions. It is fair to suppose that despite initial appearances to the contrary, their genetic or internal anatomical composition may not therefore be “classically male” in this sense. It could be hypothesised that this difference is the driver for the transition to occur. I'm alluding to anatomical brain studies here, and the simple idea that “intersex” may actually include people of a trans gender nature to a greater or lesser degree.

What does this mean? Well it means that a trans woman wasn't “always a woman” nor a trans man “always a man” Since that's an over simplification and ignores valid societal developmental influence. (nature and nurture) Also the terms “man” and “woman” really belong to the field of gender, not to the field of biological descriptors, thus to use them as such is in my view confusing and wrong.

What the intersex argument may actually mean is that they were always themselves and then at some point decided to do something about how they felt. The cause of the feelings being the anatomy and physiology described above. After which they remain themselves. Knowledge of biological factors is now suggestive of a male/female continuum rather than dichotomy, as professor Greer seemingly accepts, thus it opens the door for yet more discussion on this point. In my view that's a good thing.

Gender: the new schrodingers cat?

The second point of “knowing” is also very much a philosophical context. A point Professor Greer makes during the panel in question.

Professor Greer isn't actually wrong in her comments here. Philosophically we can only “know” ourselves and cannot know or experience the life of others as they do, for we are not them.

It is this single point that sits at the heart of all debates on gender, sex, biology, human behavioural biology and genetics. What we might broadly group together as “The questions of the human condition”

We humans only “know” our own lives. Indeed, for many years pre transition I repeatedly returned to this same question in my mind. “how do I know what I feel like, for I always feel like me?”

I'm one of those people that professor Greer cites often in her arguments. An early 40's transitioning individual who came to a realisation about their own lived experience a little later than some. Singular narratives are always slightly limited in scope and applicability, but I know for myself the reason(s) why I transitioned were not merely clothes, or because of a perception of life being easier etc as Fay weldon might suggest. It was a long long long process of introspection and questioning, of consequential thought and “what if's”. Consideration of family, friendships, physical and mental health to name but a few. It was also a decision taken in the knowledge that society deems it questionable, stigmatising people as a result. Suggesting therefore that such a decision is frivolous would seem to be both illogical and false. 

With her comment regards "knowing" however, Professor Greer misses the bullseye by a mere inch, since in stipulating that a trans person “cannot know” what the/an other gender(s) feels like, she purports to “know” something that she advocates cannot be known, namely a lived experience of a human other than herself. A better premise would be to advocate that others cannot know what a trans person knows or perhaps more accurately, feels. 

This then is the Schroedinger's cat analogy of gender. One cannot prove what is or isn't known to another person by what one knows about oneself. The questions of perceptions, their validity and causality, and of the horizon between mind and body have kept philosophers busy for centuries, dualists and physicalist arguing about to what degree our minds are the sum of our parts.

The simple truth is we “do not know” how trans people feel, or why they feel it, except for that which they can communicate in respect of those feelings. I only know my own experience, it is mine, no other person has it and I cannot have theirs. Thus the way to gain a better understanding of the trans phenomena as part of the human condition is for trans people and cis (non trans) people to engage in debate.

Indeed Julie bindel herself makes this point in an article way back in 2007. She was part of a panel debate which considered the necessity or otherwise of “gender confirmation surgeries”. The debate considered the argument that these surgeries are performed in great numbers in countries where being gay or lesbian in illegal, and thus are used as societal tools to render people as “heterosexual”. We of course know the conflation of gender and sexuality to be a false one, but that doesn't mean certain countries, in this case Iran, have stopped using it as a basis for their societal ends.

Why is this important and relevant? Because it opened the future debate into questioning “why?”. How do we in the western world justify these confirmation surgeries and are they being used effectively? By monitoring the results of interventions and looking at results. These justifications regarding the improvements to a persons life resulting from surgeries and the arguments for those surgeries being the most ethical medical treatment route (when compared to reversion therapy) are still valid today. If society didn't have the debate we wouldn't have gathered data and thus could not prove it to be so.

So, to return to the title and the question raised by Fay weldon. Is trans gender frivolous? We've looked at why people feel the need to transition, and how people might arrive at that point of decision and action, but often once that decision is made I'd admit there can be an outward air of frivolity, or to put it another way the flood gates open and the world suddenly seems fun after years of feeling confined by unseen forces. I'd liken it to a bull who has spent their entire life in captivity chained up in a pen unable to move, and is then set free into a field and paddock. Im sure you've all seen the video's on you tube or Facebook, they go a bit nuts for a while, then eventually calm down. “kid in a sweet shop syndrome”

This is of course a part of an individuals journey in life and their own lived experience, thus informing the overall debate on gender issues, but its not the whole story. The gender debate is part of our questioning of the human condition, both individually and societally. To once more quote the old man in the athenian marketplace as written by one of his students - Plato:

“Know thyself”

In striving to do so I believe one can obtain a greater understanding, though not knowledge of, others as result. For some people, Knowing themselves is a life's work, and includes an element of gender transition. That is in my view, and despite ascertains to the contrary, is a very very long way from a frivolous undertaking.

Sarah Ellis

 twitter: @cycle_sol

Epilogue

To "know ones self" is the essence of what we teach our future generations. By placing upon them the burden of our prejudices coupled with an expectation of a shared viewpoint, we stifle not only our own lives, but theirs too. 

I was just thinking ...

Hi,

I was just thinking I had not written much on here for a while, being busy with the bike blogs and screwing up some part orders.

Then I stumbled upon this on facebook:

I wrote a reply, and as I was writing it I thought, "hang on its getting long winded, why not expand this into blog?"

So I have. ;-) 

Here's the reply:

As a trans woman, this meme is funny, but maybe a little unhelpful. Or perhaps incomplete. It's problematic because it conflates biological arguments with sociological ones and creates "a fact" from a categorical definitional argument that is somewhat subjective. It cites a same argument premise that is used by the opposition to denigrate trans rights. "namely i believe it, therefore its fact therefore all contrary opinions are wrong" In doing so any detractor or discussion is shut down as inappropriate, whether you agree with the bottom statement or not. Food for thought perhaps.

So, to expand on that:

Firstly I'm going to say I broadly agree with the meme. Or, at least the part that says trans women/men are women/men. I agree with it's inclusive sentiment. However:

Lets take the first statement. 

"Saying that some some women have a penis and some men a vulva and is biologically accurate".

Two questions need to be asked here. 

1) Is it true?

2) And how would we know this? 

1) Some people are born with indeterminate or ambiguous genitalia. Some are born with what appears to be normally formed genital antomy, and then later in life express feelings or desires that would lead them to identify with an "opposite" social gender group in some way. The first people we call "intersex", the second group "trans". The reasons as to why this occurs are wrapped up in discussion of anatomical, physiological and genetic human development. Thus it centres around the male and female categories. These terms are still being un picked, due to the erroneous conclusions of an early 20th century biologist being given false credence. However it is the case that some people who present in the social groupings of  "women" or "men" may have genitalia more commonly associated with an "opposite" gender group. 

(I go in to much more detail on this here )

Thus the first statement may be true. I say "may" and the reason for that will become apparent shortly. 

2) We know this much because of research and the existence of both trans people, and intersex people. Research into the brain, human in utero development and multiple studies be they anthropological sociological or otherwise. Plus simply just talking to people.

Let's take something else that seemed odd. If the first premise can only be proven to a level of "may be true" then what of the second ascertain?  Since it uses the word "because", one has to believe the second premise in order to believe the first as they are written: 

"Because trans women are women and trans men are men and your opinion on the matter does not change that fact". 

The meme further digs a hole here by stating that trans women are woman and trans men are men as "fact" Yet "a fact" by is it very definition is something which we "believe" to be true, usually due to evidence or what we call proof. For example how many known facts have we humans proven to be false over our history? Specifically in the realms of scientific discovery? It was once a known fact that the sun revolved around the earth for example. 

Thus a "fact" is a movable feast. It is merely the commonly shared belief that something is true to the best of our knowledge at the time in question. In other words a "best guess" given the available evidence. 

Indeed it was "a fact" that females genetically had XX and males XY until very recently. Similarly this fact is now being disproven. Thus to hang an entire argument on the validity of what one believes to be "a fact" may see that argument fail when/if the "fact" is disproven. 

So, given that I am in the pro trans camp how do we pitch this whole premise onto more solid tera firma?

By recognising that the evidence suggests that there may be biological arguments that back up a widening of the sex categories. By recognising that the social categories of man and woman may need redefining to indclude those previously excluded on the basis of old out dated "facts". Therefore engaging in debate on how this should best be achieved. 

And crucially: By refusing to cite "facts" as a reason to shut down discussion of the issue and thus label any detractors to the concept as "wrong" bigoted" "outdated" etc. 

I'd rewrite this as: 

"Saying that some some females have a penis and some males a vulva is biologically correct".  Therefore trans people are valid, and they deserve to be treated as such. "

My biggest gripe with this meme is that it speaks of inclusion whilst shutting down discussion. It speaks of, or alludes to the rights of the trans population with out inviting discussion as to why. And finally it leads those who have for years based notions of gender on genitalia and xx/xy which was after all a known "fact" to disengage from the debate since they believe our "facts"  to be based in fallacy, and that our unwillingness to discuss them is evidence of a lack of evidentiary backing. 

These are the very people we need speak with and to. To educate, and not simply shut the door on. 

If we shut the door, some people may see that as taking a stance against detractors and the nay sayers.  But if we shut that door, discussion and knowledge cannot progress. Decisions as to what role the trans and intersex concepts play in human society cannot be made. 

In short. Trans cannot grow behind a door shut to the possibility of discussion and debate. 

Those who oppose the validity of trans concept will always debate. Therefore so must we. 

Sarah 

I didn't really wanna write this but then....

Hi,

I really was in two minds as to whether to write something on this topic, since it's rather revealing and quite a personal statement.

Yet I felt compelled to do so for two reasons.

1) If I acquiesced to fear and social stigma as a blogger and shied away from some some topics I'd inevitably have to look at the ethics of that choice. That examination would I feel be unfavourable.

2) Keeping quiet doesn't help others in this situation, which is the whole point of the blog, so....

Loneliness. 

What does that word conjure up in the mind when you hear it?

Isolation? perhaps. fear? maybe. Sadness?. That depends I suppose.

You may well ask what started this train of thought? Well I woke up this morning from a dream that had left me with a sense of acceptance and belonging. Theres not much point recounting it, save to say it's obvious my brain was unpacking a whole bunch of stuff, and throwing it at me in the form of these regurgitated dream memories.

But as ever it's sometimes what one would like rather than what happened. So to cut to the point here, I woke up with a dawning realisation that these memories weren't actually true, my situation was as it was before and tbh that was a bit of a let down.

The inevitable outcome of that was the inherent loneliness of my situation hit home.

So aside from the fact that you now all know I'm a fruit loop, chatting about dreams and stuff, where does this put me, and why write about it?

Well because the feelings and thoughts in question revolve around being understood, accepted and finding that one person (or if you're into the poly thing a few) who "gets" all your weird, wonderfulness, and you theirs.

It is impossible to do as much introspection and thought swimming as I do without realising the potential contradictions of my situation as a trans person. The likelihood that for a whole host of complex reasons of interplay between society and individual, I may find such acceptance on that level difficult to find.

When society gives you constant, repetative messages that you don't fit the majority narrative, some of those messages will inevitable hit home. No amount of philosophical armour can stop every arrow. I imagine this is much like the slow dawning realisation for LGB people who are realising their own minds. They acknowledge a difference and thus the rules change & things, at least initially, seem ... more challenging.

It has been said that a "second marriage is a triumph of hope over experience". Of course this is a tongue in cheek cliche, but on a certain level its true. Perhaps though it is a triumph of the choice to believe in people over the knowledge gained from experience of (some of) them.

The Human social animal.

There's a contradiction here. Validation from external sources isn't all that healthy a premise. One needs to be sure of the relationship to ones self and be able seek internal validation. After all that's a core tenant of all mental health doctrine. Yet sometimes the balance is too far in one direction or the other.  To acknowledge and take ownership of the simple fact that one is lonely allows consideration of what to do about it.

Of course there's the rub. Friends are great, colleagues and shared interest's are awesome, having stuff to do and people to do it with is fantastic. So is having the resources to take advantage of those opportunities when they are offered.

But as for finding that wonderfully weird connection with a fellow human being who becomes all and more than any of those things...well ...

That's bit trickier.

But "tricky" does not mean impossible, nor even improbable. It just requires more focus, effort and attention, and a bit of "extra" faith in the nature of humans.

So, as I make my third cuppa of the morning and return to 4 hours of critical role, I remain stubbornly optimistic that one day life might just surprise me outta left field.

Maybe.

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 

Sex and Gender and Logic. Part 1

Hi,

Sex, Gender and logic walk into a bar:

Sex says, "gimme some of that biological looking stuff, I like that,"
Gender says: I'll have whatever I like the look of, I never read the labels on the bottles any way.
Logic says: oh you Guys... you're both concepts of categorical thinking you can't walk into pubs let alone order stuff...

Todays subject is Sex, Gender and Logic. The relationship between these is continually revisited time and again in respect to the trans or non binary arguments, their respective cause and thus validity.

Here's a comment I found on a youtube in reply to a video by Dr Corivino:

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

f you support trans rights, then you accept the concept of gender identity. That concept locates the basis for manhood and womanhood (and whatever) in the mind, making the body irrelevant to one's identity as a 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.

I'll link the actually video at the bottom of this article since its worth a listen in its own right.

But, having read this comment I realised that if I was going to talk and write about trans issues, gender and the arguments around the societal acceptance of those phenomenon, I perhaps needed to explore the validity of this core contradiction

Firstly, as I usually do, I want to quickly take a journey back to ancient greek times... a pre socratic thinker called Anaxagoras. He watched how the food that we and other animals eat becomes part of our bodies. He watched how children and young animals grow as a result. He therefore theorised that the food must already have tiny bits of bone, muscle, hair etc in it, on an infinitesimally small scale. These he called "Seeds".

Today we know these as "molecules" or "atoms", the building blocks of "matter". Anaxagoras was correct, but limited by the technology and language of his time. There are perhaps some parallels here with the sex and gender argument(s) when one poses the question "what is"?

"What is sex?"

"What is gender"

Let take the first question:

"What is sex?"

Well the term "Sex" can mean many things. It is both a noun and verb for example. In this case lets leave the "doing" use of the term sex to one side and focus on the use of the word as a noun, ala a descriptor of something ...

It fair to say a widely accepted view of the word is that Sex is a term that can be used to categorise things that are alike, similar or dissimilar.  A descriptor if you will. So if we accept this premise, what is the term "Sex" used to describe? What physical observations do we need to make in order to decide if a thing belongs in the category of "sex" or not? And what do we mean by someone having "A sex"?

Physically speaking, there's anatomy. The presence or absence of a Penis, vagina, uterus, fallopian tubes, breast tissue,  testes, ovaries, vas deferens, prostate etc. Some of these structures were described in ancient times, they're relatively easy to explore scientifically and can be seen with the naked eye, so they are long established and known objects.

Then theres the more modern cellular arguments, only recently possible in human history, Things like DNA, chromosomal structure, etc. To put our physical understanding of these later categorical factors into a sort of timeline and perspective, consider that humans have been around on the earth for about 200,00 years. Civilisation 6,000. Industrialisation, 200yrs. 

Chromosomes were first observed in plant cells by Swiss botanist Karl Wilhelm von Nägeli in 1842. In 1905 the first chromosomal work was done on the XX/XY theory of sexual development, continuing up until around 1923 with the emergence of the "sex chromosomal pairing". Watson and Crick discovered the double helix of DNA in 1953, just 64 years ago. Chromosomal pairs (23) were identified in Lund in Sweden in 1955, for the previous 30years it had been thought to be 24, 48. 

So in percentage terms, if we take human civilisation and thus history as 6,000 years old, we have really been exploring the minute detail of our existence for approximately 2% of our known time here. Or to put it another way, if the 6,000 yrs were one 24 hour period, the entire scientific knowledge described above would take just short of the last 29 minutes before midnight.

Food for thought eh? But what of the subdivisions of sex? And the mechanisms by which someone is said to have "a sex"? They have been around along time...where did they come from ?

Sex as a word is derived from the latin term, sexus, historically encompassing two other categories "male" and  "female" So where did these sub categories arise from?  

Female comes from Latin femella (compare feminine) and is not related to male which comes from Latin masculus (whence masculine, macho). The terms being derived from latin dates them pretty emphatically long before the newer scientific stuff. So, the concept of male and female based on broad anatomical observations possible with the naked eye was very much accepted long before the discovery of chromosomal pairs in 1905 and was reinforced by early scientific works on anatomical structure etc. 

So then, "Sex" in this sense can be defined as a categorical term, which encompasses two major subdivisions, "male" and "female". This being based on our understanding of ancient observations of the gross anatomical structure of humans coupled with more recent ones regarding the composition and drivers of our cellular physiology.

(If you're thinking at this point hang on, thats very binary and old school bear with me... all will be well...)

So much for sex, now what about the other question? gender?

"What is gender"

In a similar way to the discussion regarding sex, gender is a categorical grouping used to describe beings that are similar or different. However it refers in this instance to observational differences in a societal and cultural sense. It's a term that is in some sense very new, since it was first coined in relation to gender roles by John Money in 1955, around the same time Watson and Crick were doing their double helix thing. However the word itself has been around since long before this point and is derived from the latin meaning birth, family or nation. Thus one can suggest it's original meaning probably owes more to similarities rather than differences.

Usually the starting point for the development of these similarities/differences arises from the observed individual "belonging" to one of the categories of the "sex" groupings that we have already discussed. 

So what sort of things are included in the descriptive category of gender? Here's a few, I'm sure you can perhaps think of more:

Attire, mannerisms, conduct, profession, expectations, height, attractiveness, use of make up, prestige, social grouping, physicality and sex. 

Much like "Sex" it has been subdivided into two categories that are known as "man" and "woman" Interestingly "man" in the historical context was a neutral term simply meaning "human" up until the early 20th century where it came be used to define the male of the specifies. Woman similarly has it's roots in older language and has at times been synonomous with "wife" a fact I'm sure a few feminists would raise an eye brow at today. 

So, The two categories "Sex", and "Gender" are different, but also arguably quite closely linked  since it is fair to suggest that the one is at least in part the cause of inclusion in the other. It would seem to be true that before we begin to assign a person a place in the category of gender, the convention has been to first determine an individuals place in the category of sex. 

This leads us rather neatly into a discussion of "why" and "how" we place certain individuals in each group and something of a cause and effect argument. 

Since this blog is now getting incredibly long I'm going to split it into two parts, The cause and effect argument as to why people are assigned to either category being part 2 

Heres the video I promised...(sorry no t shirts) 

Sarah 

;-) 

The basics of - Morality & Ethics part 3

Recently I've been pondering a thought.

Is "vested interest" and what is deemed "appropriate" replacing the human progression towards "universal good"?

Universal good in this context being, opportunity, parity, education, prospects, happiness, and the access to sufficient means to provide for ones self and ones family.

It kinda ties into the 3rd part of my philosophical mini series:

Applied Ethics.

Consider the theatre of politics. Very often lobby groups will push their agenda and may, via quiet meetings with various people, agree to support certain other agenda's or goals - IF their own needs are met. This in essence is the very spirit of collaborative working and compromise, but the driver, or "maxim" to use Kant's expression, is merely a vested interest in a certain type of outcome.

Arguably an immoral use of a system.

BUT if that lobby group happens to be trans rights, or funding for pre natal hospital care, or women's access to health care, or ACLU, the Gun lobby, Oil industry, even evangelical groups etc, then people will make various decisions regarding the morality of the lobbying process based on the cause that is being lobbied for.

Me for instance, I'd suggest trans rights would be a "good cause" but judging by the comments section in the lower third of the internet, I'm sure many would disagree. The reasoning behind a decision as to the morality of a given goal or methodology could be the application of the consequential, or maybe duty bound theories.

For example I believe it (trans rights) an ethical cause because the outcome of success would see an improvement in peoples lives, and improvement in their access to the universal goods listed above. An opponent might disagree on religious or scientific grounds, since they subscribe to a view that the concept of "trans" isn't a legitimate way of being and thus to promote it is ethically wrong, since its harmful in wider sense, regardless of the consequences of such a view point to a given indivudal.

Of course I am trans. ( Or, if your an opponent of that concept, you would have to accept that I at least believe myself thus, even were you to disagree) So does that place me in the the vested interest category? You betcha it does. Does that undermine my arguments? No, only my perceived (and actual) impartiality.

That issue of impartiality is the central reason for my preference to look at the trans issue through the lens of anthropological and philosophical thought, rather than the reverse, which is to perceive everything in life through the lens of my vested interest in the trans question. If (some of) the arguments made by the trans community on its own behalf cannot stand up to structured critical scrutiny, they are thus proven as bad arguments. That fact doesn't change, regardless of how I feel about the underlying wider context.

It's small though signiifcant effort on my part to "balance the books" as it were.

Back in my nursing days I often considered the use of the word "appropriate" in the medical context. Seldom would you hear  "right", "wrong" or "good" "bad" used in the context of an action pertaining to a patients care.

The "most appropriate treatment" was the universal phrase.

Yet this, like many things is open to interpretation. Appropriate for whom? The establishment? The patient? The family? The wider society?

This "appropriate argument" is raging in America at the present with regard to not just trans issues, but a whole swathe of the population for whom it is deemed "inappropriate" by some to provide the basics of what we in the UK have come to expect of a healthcare system.

The ACA was America's first foray for many years into addressing its healthcare access disparity. Yet still some people wanted to pull it down, presumably for their own vested interests rather than the common of access to a universal good. (health)

After all, History will record that it was postulated and set up by a black guy. Certain sections of  todays America simply won't stand for that. Nor the idea that "an underserving poor" can access health care that "they pay for". Both premises are of course open to fairly stringent rebuttal, yet  a significant number of people still cling to these types of "moral" viewpoints.

I read recently of the case of a poorly baby girl. Again this is in America. She was denied treatment for a minor, yet potentially serious condition. One easily sorted within todays modern medical world.

The reason for the denial of health care to this infant? Her parents were Lesbian and the Dr objected to treatment on the basis of religious moral objection to the parental lifestyle.

Consider the hypocratic oath: written by Hippocrates, in ancient greek times, circa 300BC (damn those clever greeks again!) A modern version of which is shown below:

I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:

I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.

I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.

I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.

Consider those lines of the text in bold. The doctor in question cited "religious objections". Not to the treatment, but to the actions of a family member of the patient. 

Religious/ethical exceptions do apply in the UK and US. To cases of abortion for example. However the essential difference here is that in the case of abortion, medical personnel object to the action and/or proceedure they are being asked to perform, and not an extraneous factor that is irrelevant to the treatment of the patient. 

Duty based theories of right and wrong, such as those derived via a literal interpretation of some of the Christian teachings, would suggest this Dr "may" have a case. However, those same arguments would preclude her from treating people who are Bisexual, polyamorous, or eat shell fish and wear mixed fibre cloth. (Leviticus) Thus it would seem theres an inherent objection present and the  religious argument is brought out when convenient. Where have heard that before? 

Furthermore in taking the hippocratic oath, or subscribing to the broader tenant of it meaning, by virtue of being a Doctor, there is an expectation to put aside personal and moral view points and act "in the interest of the patient" at all times. Clearly the Doctor is in breach of that specific and central premise of being a healer of others. 

Is she therefore demonstrating a fitness of judgment sufficient to the work of a Doctor? You decide. 

It raises an interesting point however. The separation between church and state. Or moreover Church and legislature. Something the USA is again currently wrestling with. Religion is a duty based theory or morality and ethical out come. It presupposes right and wrong actions as prescribed via it's teachings and disregards the outcome of those actions. Law is utilitarian, derived from a branch of consequential theory. Creating either the greatest "happiness" or the least "sadness" for people via prior examination of the potential outcomes of any decision.

It doesn't take much to deduce that the two are in many ways mutually exclusive.

So Applied Ethics is a minefield. Since the answer one gets or seeks, in response to ethical questions depends almost entirely on which ethical model one uses to frame those questions. The unscrupulous will use one or other ethical model to justify their actions in rebuttal of condemnation from those who see things differently.

Philosophers are generally agreed that the existence of human nature is a contentious concept, since it would contravene the free will argument and thus responsibility for our own actions.  But, given all the above, and the contradictory outcomes inherent to differing views of what it means to be/do good or bad, it it puts me in mind of Moral Relativism.

The first law of Einstein's theory of relatively suggested that "everything will be measured in relation to Something else"

And so it is with Ethics. judgments cannot exist in a vacuum. They must be compared to something, be it history, or examples of another viewpoint.  To say Morality is relative, in as much as it shifts with time and perception, is true enough. After all what was once viewed as immoral is now not, and what was once viewed as moral is not now so. The two major examples in recent times being homosexuality and Slavery. Of course there are some who still condemn homosexuality on the basis of they preferred moral framework, yet that stance carries all the legitimacy of an opinion, if not backed up by reason.

So, to conclude my mini series on ethics and the morality of actions, thoughts and intent. I will once again revisit a paraphrasing of the words of Dr John Corivino, for I cannot put it any better. (I hope he will forgive me the small change)

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

I'm not suggesting to you "don't make moral judgements",

I'm asking to make sure you have reasons for the moral judgements that you make. 

To put yourself in someone else shoes, before you judge them. 
Not to Judge someone on how they live and love, but on whether they Live and love.

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

Sarah.