That Trans thing part 3.. the legal and moral bit.

Hi,

Way back in September of last year I started a three part blog entry all about how I see the issue of trans gender in today's world. The first two parts dealt with the sociological implications of "trans" and the physiological and psychological questions around the existence of the trans thing in the human species.

You can find the articles below :

Part 1
Part 2 

So it'll come as no surprise to you oh perceptive readers of mine that this here entry is the long awaited part three:

Legal and moral questions concerning "Trans" gender stuff in the human population. 

So, the obvious question is: "why the large gap from Sept last year until now to write part three"? Quite honestly because I've been researching, questioning and figuring out in my own mind what the situation is and what it perhaps could and - depending on ones POV - should look like.

The recent events in America on which I've written extensively over the last few weeks, my own philosophical musings plus questions directly to my trans peers have all served to shape my view. The keen observers amongst you will note I've added in "moral" to the title as well as legal, which is an addition that owes its inclusion directly to these influences.

So first a brief explanation of law, and the first conundrum with "Trans" phenomena. Laws are by their very nature utilitarian, and universal. They are made to be applied equally to all based on specific defining criteria, or specified exceptions. For example the sale of goods act will define what it means by "goods" and "sale" and anti discrimination legislation will set out what it means by the terms "employee" "contract" , "duties" and so forth. This avoids ambiguity and creates universally understood language so that these terms carry distinct meanings in law and their interpretations can thus be somewhat fixed. Also within these legal definitions are elements of known causality, known origins, thus known and accepted definitions of the terms themselves.

Of course this is in part due to common language. But it highlights a major issue with "trans".

Recently the 2010 equalities act included "transgender" and "gender reassignment" in the legal word pool, and intimated that it is unlawful to discriminate against a person based on these terms or their "gender"

The transgender equality report (which you can see here) Made a few recommendations, and is a positive step in a broadly well meaning direction for trans people. However a bill was tabled in parliament late last year to add in "gender identity" to the legal nomenclature of protected characteristics. (see here) This gave me significant pause.

Why? you might ask? as a trans person surely you'd be in favour of such a move. Well perhaps in principle, but remember what I said about law being universal and utilitarian, and that legal terms need to have solid foundations of clear definition and unambiguity?

"What is Gender identity?"

Ask a dozen trans people, be that M2F F2M or NB, post, pre op, medicated unmedicated etc and you will get a dozen differing definitions ranging from "nature" to "its an intrinsic part of me" to "it is what i say it is"

Ask a dozen cis gendered people and you're likely to get variations on a theme of  "sex" "physicality" "woman" "man" etc etc.

So my question is:

"How can we protect something in law when we cannot define critically and clearly what that protected thing is? "

Plus a cis persons "gender identity" is rarely questioned since it follows that its perceived as physiological, and assumed to be thus. Its only the validity of a trans persons "gender identity" that is often called into question because it "appears" to have no basis in commonly held belief systems of the general populace relating to the causality of "gender"

This is at the heart of what I believe has for the last 30 years or so kept "trans" as an issue somewhat murky for the population at large and ill defined even for those more aware of its nuances. It's very diversity of nature appears to be its undoing. (That and being lumped in with LGB issues and then
seen erroneously by the well intentioned unknowing as merely an orientation)

One cannot have "gender identity" protected in law under a basis of "its my opinion" because quite simply that opens the door to the likes of "religious freedom" discrimination exclusion clauses in legislation through legal precedent. "opinion" is subjective. In order to be fair the law MUST be objective. So what to do?

I attempted to define causality of Gender Identity, rooting it in some grounded scientific fact and/or tested theories, and thus giving it a definable nature.

This brought me back to Dr Robert Salpolsky's lectures and the work on the human brain. Heres a link to a short piece by Francine Russo (2016) about the work of Antonio Guilimon et al

Click through to the article here

The original research report in the new scientist was from 2011

See here

(Recap: In essence it suggests that there is a significant and consistent difference in the brains of trans people, when compared to cis. In that the brain of a trans person more closely resembles that of the male/female gender they identify with, or is somewhere in between. This is based on a measure that is routinely and widely used to "sex" brains and has been for sometime.)

So, we have a potential if relatively new scientific explanation for what this "trans"phenomena is. How then can we link this into "gender identity", and how the person "feels"? Behavioural biology is something of a mine field. Correlation often being mistaken for causation and vice verse. It's obvious that a lot more work is required to unpick this, and as such one humble blogger is unlikely to come up with the revolutionary answer in 5000 words or less.

BUT. Here's where it gets interesting. Lets assume this physiological link is valid. Even Dr Guillamon himself said brain scans may not always detect these differences. The result of which is that proving an individual person has the brain structure to "validate" their "gender identity" is still fraught with unknowns. It merely leaves us with the possibility that "gender identity" when applied to people exhibiting a trans trait could be anatomical/biochemical and physiological in nature.

This is of course an imperfect solution. It is however better than simply saying "self definition is a mater of opinion and this opinion should be enshrined in protections of law" Taking that route leads to an animal farm-esque "some opinions are more equal (and thus legal) than others"

Let us assume the physiological link isn't true, what then? Well since we can prove it to be neither true nor untrue at this time (on living patients) one must assume the ethical standpoint that does the least harm to persons exhibiting the conditions being considered. I.e. accept that it may be true and act accordingly, in light of evidence based best practice.

So we come to the morality question.

Opponents of "trans rights" and of theories of gender that break from the general populace's perceived wisdoms of an XY/XX chromosomally defined dichotomy often cite the harm that could result from affirming what they see as erroneous expressions of gender or in extreme cases mental disorder. (as a side note trans gender is now close to not being regarded as mental illness by the forthcoming WHO ICD-11 revision in 2018 and in some cases nationally it already isn't see here)

Some of these objections may come from genuine concern regards the scientific legitimacy of the condition, after all we humans often doubt that which we cannot see. However most come from either religious conviction, or positions of ill placed fear, ignorance (such as the  bathroom debate) or it has to be said plain simple old fashioned discriminatory "othering" of that which we don't understand or approve of.

It occurs to me therefore that if more of the trans community took an interest in their causality, as society moves towards being more open to exploring this once taboo area of our genetic, anatomical, physical and psychological beings, then we could turn those well intentioned critics into allies. Not all disagreement comes from a place of hate, some eminates from a genuine desire for the truth.

Once those questions of causality have well known answers, then dependent on those answers we humans have direction. It is possible we may find that trans is not directly linked to anatomy. It is possible this could all be a dead end in the evolutionary tale of human knowledge. But given what we already appear to know I personally feel that outcome is unlikely. Sure it'll feed into the nature and nurture arguments, and we may never fully unravel that which is our building blocks, but every little helps.

The questions of the morality of legal protection for trans people is therefore one that bears striking similarities to the fight for gay and lesbian rights, simply because those opposing the legal protections are the same people, and often using the same arguments.

Dr John Corvino gave (in my view) a brilliant series of lectures entitled "Whats morally wrong with homosexuality?" There much of his work on youtube but if you have an hour of so I heartily suggest a listen.

Dr John Corivino's website

Dr Corivino is a philosophy professor, and is in no small part responsible for my growing interest in the subject. (see my other blogs for that)

So with Apologies and thanks to Dr Corivino"

"Whats morally wrong with "trans"if any thing? and if nothing whats all the fuss about? 

Currently we know via evidence that reversion therapies don't work, and gender identity affirmation does work for the benefit of the Patient, with better outcomes. So that would seem a no brainier in allowing trans patients to access medical care. 

Trans people have identities thats have scope way beyond just that gender bit. (or their body parts) They are sports people, academics, therapists, nurses, bus drivers and all sorts of things. So why focus just on the biology?

There are Male people, and Female people, then there are Non binary (+ other) people (and they mess up our neat categories . That the biology of those categories is now not as clear cut as it once was believed to be has already been covered, regardless of that they remain people. 

The bible condemns it. Christian doctrine is a mixed "blessing" and worthy of a blog all of its own. But suffice to say the bible says less of trans gender than it does of homosexuality, which isn't itself all that much. Plus religion is a matter of faith, and thus opinion, and as I've already said, we know all to well how legislation for one opinion above another ends up.

You might think trans is gross. That's just aesthetics. One cannot tie morality to that. Some of us look odd, and thats the way it is. (earlier transition may address this particularly in the M2F group, so if  we can have better access to medical care as per my first point society perhaps wont have to deal with this one much longer) 

Why do you have to be "publicly trans" ..err Derrr! We kinda have to be cos unlike sexual orientation, trans is intrinsically an externally obvious social, verbal and non verbal conversation. 

You get the idea. Many of the historical objections aimed at LGB through the years are now being used on trans people. Perhaps one can hypothesis this has more to do with the accusers than the accused but i'll leave that issue alone for now.

So, where does this all leave us?

Legally trans people now have some growing protections in various places across the globe. Those protections are still so new it's painfully obvious the birth pains of the legislations are still subsiding. In America the legal protections are being rolled back by what is at best a questionable regime, wrapped up in race hate and all sorts of terrifying doctrines.

So it's now more than ever important to look not just at the legal standing of trans, but the moral implications of denying healthcare and employment and discrimination protections and housing etc to these people solely on the opinion that they are "doing something we don't agree with"

Whilst my arguments above on the legitimacy of a legal definition and causality for "gender identity" that goes beyond opinion still stands. from a moral standpoint it really is secondary. "Trans" people are trans "people" and as such deserve the same level of consideration, respect and validity as any others group of people.

In considering the terminology, and the words "Trans" & "Gender identity" and given the arguments I've put forward for a causality of what I've called "trans trait" I'd suggest that "trans"as we know it, in those who make a permanent life changing affirmation of who they are, is perhaps merely a symptom of that which we already know as "intersex". But rather than being focused on the gonadal physiology, has it's origins in the structure and "wiring" of the brain. More research is undoubtably needed to flesh out that theory, but its an intriguing thought.

To finish on a another point made succinctly by Dr Corivino and one that can be applied in my view equally to trans:

Acknowledging they are trans gender makes some people happy(ier). 

You may disagree with their decision & thats fine. I hate liver and onions.. but since it doesn't harm those who don't eat it you can still legally and publicly buy it, and I'm told some people even like it.

My opinion does not make the buying and eating of liver and onions "wrong".

So, if you have questions about trans, about what some of it means, or maybe just want to find out more, Get to know a trans person, not just their trans-ness, you never know you might find you have more in common that you thought possible.

until next time keep it #stubbornlyoptimistic.

Sarah

That Trans thing Part 2...The physical and psychological

Hello, and welcome to a Sunny Saturday morning in the North east of England. A few doors down the lawns are being cut, and the sky is a clear blue with no clouds, the recent major thunder and lightning storm having cleared the air somewhat.

I'm sat at my desk a little like a modern day Bilbo Baggins, wondering where to begin then the idea struck me....So with apologies  to J.R.R Tolkien ..

"Concerning Trans...."

Today I thought I'd revisit a subject I wrote about last week, that of me being a Trans gendered person, what that all kinda means and where it all fits, or doesn't, in the wider picture of the big bad world.

For those that missed the first bit...you can find it Here

All caught up? Ok.. so admittedly it was a loooong lunch...(days would be a stretch even for a Politician) So onto the next aspects of what it is to "Be Trans" in my view, which is of course open to as much question, analysis and disagreement as is anyone's on the planet.

So we've covered some of the terminology and the sociological challenges of trans, but what of the physical, psychological and legal stuff? I'm going to look at the first two of these together as to try and separate one from the other in terms of their explanations is potentially confusing.


Physical/Psychological

Every human has a physical presence. Our bodies are our own, we walk this earth with them and inside them and generally pay them little heed save the usual things of "does this hurt, or do i need food" on a daily basis. "Activities of daily living" if you will.

But what "are" bodies? we humans like to believe through multiple methods of expression we call spirituality or religion that we are more than the sum of our parts. Is this the case? Or are we simply that of which we are made?

The physicality of our being could be described as something akin to a vehicle. It's that which carries the "soul" "essence" or "chi" ..our life force inside it and thus allows us to move around the world. Our essence is not however indefinitely tied to our physical being, since when we die the body physically remains... (unless you're lucky enough to be Yoda and live until you're 900....) however the essence  of "the person" has left.

So what are we?

This of course is an almost unanswerable question. Almost. We are self aware beings. That is, we have a concept of self, and with it imagination. learning, memory.  I quite like the concept that Dr Wayne Dyer used in one of  his lectures.

"Human beings are not physical beings having a spiritual experience. Rather they're spiritual beings having a human experience" 

Now, a belief in God, a specific religion or even an intelligent power of creation is not absolutely necessary for this to make some level of sense. As I've mentioned we all die. the body remains yet our essence doesn't. Therefore what makes us "live" and what defines "life" cannot be wholly physical.

Or is it?

"Ok Sarah.. so what on earth has this got to do with Trans stuff....??"

Fair enough. Trans theory, as it is broadly understood today has a few underpinning concepts. (Note I'm not going to go into the morality of each as that would be a bit wordy and an off topic 'mission creep" If you guys are interested in some thoughts on that let me know i'll do a piece on it later..??)

Gender and sex are not the same thing.
Gender can be thought of as a sociological construct.
Gender presentation as a societal construct is inherently fluid, and does not imbue "trans" on a person. (i.e its not about the clothes)
Physicality/anatomy can explain some elements of the trans phenomenon.
Biology of sex and chromosomal mapping of "gender" as a result is as yet not fully understood. (we thought we had it down but perhaps not, as it's bound by years of sociological or cultural baggage), there being more than the XY or XX sex genome.

What we actually have underneath all this "concept stuff" is a cause/effect argument. Similar in its eternal presence to the nature/nurture argument.

Trans people "feel" different to Cis people specifically in regards to their "gender". The questions therefore are "why?" and what is "feeling" anyways?

As to why, some may say: "Because they're nuts..  if you're walking round in a body that has male anatomy then you're a male"

Are we? or are we just walking round in that body? We were all once walking round in a 2yr old body...then 3,4 12, 16 ...22..80, 90...all of which are different. An old woman was once a young girl. Same spirit walking round in different bodies. "Ageing"as a concept and agent of change is well established in society, and is not questioned.

Scientifically we know a little about developmental changes in the womb, the complex and ever changing hormonal and biochemical soup that is the creation of another human being has incalculable levels of complexity. The randomness of these gives rise to many things. Twins for example. Some are identical, resulting from the separation of one fertilisation process into two developing embryo. Some are not, which in mixed race couples can give rise to a double implantation pregnancy resulting in two babies of different skin colour to the same parents. Some babies have black hair some blue eyes, some even have one eye a different colour to the other. Some result in "downs syndrome", or maybe lack of something like a limb, or eyes or differences in the internal organs, Dextrocardia for example where the heart and in some cases all internal organs are on the opposite side to what is more commonly seen.

Notice I have not said that any of these are "abnormal" or "defects". To do so would infer a preference on each outcome. Society does that. It ascribes somewhat arbitrary values to certain in utero changes being desirable or otherwise. Recently a woman in America gave birth to a healthy baby girl. The baby had black skin, a genetically generated trait from her parentage, and was otherwise healthy. A happy occurrence yes? Not so, as this was a IVF baby and the mother was a white middle american woman. She specifically requested from the IVF clinic a white baby. What she got was a perfectly healthy human being and society defined that babies colour as a pathology or "fault" thus abnormal due to the nature of its conception. (Theres a whole heap of other sociological unpicking in this morality tale but lets leave that for another time)

So my point is changes in utero happen. There is no morality in biochemical interaction and the cellular division that occurs. There is only replication, growth and evolution. It just happens.

Now to bring it back to trans stuff. What we know of development in utero regards genetic or anatomical sex is that the most common outcome is a person with one complete set of reproductive organs, of one particular type. Known broadly as male or female anatomy. What we are also now beginning to see are that there are concurrent related (?) developments that aren't so outwardly obvious in terms of the brain's development.

Consider Androgen insensitivity syndrome. Androgen for those that don't know is the method by which it is thought a foetus develops what we know of as a traditional male anatomy.

A brief explanation of AIS

Triggered by the chromosomal genetical material broadly understood at this time to be XY for male, Androgens when released result in the further development of the male anatomy. If the Androgen does not have any effect or is reduced/absent then we get variations from the "complete set of reproductive organs"  and see outcomes such as a person who is entirely visually female in anatomy with internal male testes and XY chromosomes. The salient point is those variations are in themselves variable, with mild AIS being a possible outcome, some people being perceived as male and others not. etc.

(ya might wanna get a cuppa and re read that .. its a bit heavy if  you're not familiar with all the biological stuff.)

Soooo.... consider the brain. The physicality that is most linked to that thing we call our "chi" or "soul" The physical link between "who we are" and "what we are made of"

There's been interesting work done recently that has opened the door to brain anatomy being affected in a similar way along the path of a developing baby

Study on trans brains

Dr Robert Sapolsky gave a few lectures in 2015. Here's a clip ..

The full lectures are available on youtube, and if you want to follow Dr Robert, I heartily recommend a look up. 

So what am I trying to say here? Well in essence theres some scientifically sound evidentiary stuff coming forward that seems to indicate that anatomical development of the body does not always follow a set male/female dichotomy, and that the development of the brain and brain chemistry is subject to this in a similar way to the rest of our physical body. It presents an explanation in the physical sense for "how" trans people come to be here. 

That brings us to the second question....(yeah remember that?..twas a while ago) 

What is "feeling" 

Depression is currently understood to be resulting from chemical imbalance and interactions in the brain chemistry. Similarly with elation, sadness, love, attraction etc. All of which points to us humans being more "animal" than we care to admit on occasion, and subject to the same rules of evolutionary response that we seem as a species to fondly believe we are separated from.

"Feeling" is very different to "thinking" Thinking you are something you're not is cause for alarm and can be rightly treated as a delusional mindset. "feeling" as defined in the terms above and specifically  regarding brain chemistry is entirely different.

We get to choose our thoughts, which with practice, patience and application plus self awareness and strength of mind are great tools as we pass through this world. "Feelings" however are trickier little blighters. How many of you have fallen in love with someone you shouldn't have? Or felt anger/fear/excitement at the "wrong" time? Exactly.

Note I don't say "Belief" either. Belief is a thought borne of a feeling, or an unconscious mindset from years of social conditioning and an information source imbued with a perceived authority. (Just look at how many young kids support the same football team as their parent, or decide they don't like the dentist, black people, gays, exercise or tuna on on the same basis. )

Why do I make the distinction between feeling, belief and thought? Simple. For the longest time I myself refused to entertain the thought that I may be trans. My belief systems didn't allow for that outcome. I do however have an insatiably curious mind and I like to learn, to ask questions and figure stuff out. In doing so I discovered that I deconstructed much of my own arguments and thus had to change my own world view, both internally and externally.  It took a wee while. 41 yrs to date and its still a work in progress but we are getting there. (wherever that is)

So I choose to change my world view in light of the new evidence, scientific, anecdotal, moral and emotional that I was presented with, and I chose to act on these feelings that I'd had for a very long time.

Physical changes are "relatively" simple to access, via endocrinological changes that will then alter my biochemistry, with results both visible and hidden. Psychological changes in mood etc may result, self image will change and to an extent i'll have to relearn how to interact with larger society with a different set of rules. Not those of a woman, since I have different life experience as alluded to in my last blog being a mid life transitonee. No, rather the rules for a trans person.

Those rules are still being figured out. Science may well give us the "how we get here" and go some way to explaining the method of our creation, but gives us little guidance on what we do with that info. What we do about it as a species, as groups, or individuals is down to us, our morals and societal values, thoughts and beliefs.

Thankfully being a self aware species we recognise often that the "chimp" to use  Dr Steve peters analogy, is a bad influence and the "human'  should be in control. Self restraint, sociological boundaries and self preservation serve to keep us all broadly moving in the same direction, that of progress for the good of all. (yeah I know we regularly stuff it  up.. go figure..) Are we at the mercy of our biochemistry or are we spiritual beings experiencing our biochemistry and living through it?

Choice. Thorny one that...

Trans people may not choose their anatomy and resultant physicality that leads them to be trans. But they choose how to deal with it, and in many cases that is irrevocablly linked to how society chooses to perceive both them and their choice of action or inaction. This scene in the matrix spoke to me years ago, therefore I was not surprised in the slightest to learn of Lana Wachowski's transition in recent years. Some people are wed to a system in which trans does not fit. Some people are not. some trans choose to act, some do not. We may be at the mercy of our biochemistry in some ways but choice is rather ironically the best hope we have for societal growth and the very reason its still needs to grow. 

We don't yet have all the answers, and that's perhaps a good thing. Sometimes it's ok to work towards an unseen unpredicted outcome, as our friend Neo did. Looking for the third option. The one it was said "didn't exist".

So are we the sum of our parts? Depends on how you feel and what you choose to believe when you think about it.

until next time, when we look at the legal stuff...

Stay #stubbornlyoptimistic

Sarah...