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 

;-) 

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