What scientifically makes us a particular sex or gender

[ananda]

But what makes a man feel like a man? What makes a woman feel like a woman? What makes a person, born male, feel female...and vice-versa?

This makes me think of a related question: Why do some believe that feelings are more important than rational logic? Feelings are impermanent, they come and go, and we can observe that on a moment to moment basis.

 

[Freodin]

This makes me think of a related question: Why do some believe that feelings are more important than rational logic? Feelings are impermanent, they come and go, and we can observe that on a moment to moment basis.

As I had one transgender woman tell me, it is not about "feelings". It is about who they are.
It's a difficult situation. Rationally, we simply do not have a way to compare "ourself" - our selfs - to others. We are aware of how we "feel" - and with that term we mean a lot more than our current emotional situation. We use it to describe our whole nature, our being... our self-image.
How much of that is innate, how much is societal? I don't know. Does it matter? Society changes, but so does biology.

But in the same way that we "feel" ourselves, we don't have any means to "feel" others. This same transgender woman told me, in the same post, that she doesn't identify "as a typical woman", as she put it.

"When I was born, I got an "M" on my birth cert. But that doesn't make me an "M" like a typical man--Barack Obama, e.g. So am I saying I'm a woman like a typical woman--Hillary Clinton, e.g.? No, I'm not like her either. She's a ciswoman. That's not me.

So, I'm neither a man like Barack Obama nor a woman like Hillary Clinton. I'm something different. I'm transgender. Male according to birth-sex, female by gender identity. I know exactly what I am, and those who think I'm confused are those generally who have not copped on to the notion of gender identity."

I think she described it perfectly and completely on the point.

 

[Freodin]

I am a woman (female) and I definitely don't feel like a man and wouldn't want to be one (except for practical reasons, such as it would be really handy when taken short to be able to 'go' behind a lamp-post LOL). But what a pain to have to shave! How awful not to be pregnant and give birth! I think it must be awful being a man. But, of course, conversely men might think they'd hate to be a woman.

What you describe here is what you think makes you a woman. What if others disagree? Don't care about shaving or being pregnant?

But what makes a man feel like a man? What makes a woman feel like a woman? What makes a person, born male, feel female...and vice-versa?

These are questions that interest me also, and I haven't found any good answer for them. But by a lot of thinking on my own as well as from conversations with a lot of people heavily engaged in this topic, I have come to the conclusion that there are the wrong questions.

What makes "a [wo]man" feel like a [wo]man is irrelevant. Meaningless even. You can only ask "what makes me feel like a [wo]man?". Even further, you should ask "what makes me a [wo]man?". And this is the relevant question substitute for your last question also: transgender are not "born male" and "feel female". They don't change. They are and have been all their life "transgendered females".

The hard part is realizing this and standing to it, when all the world tells you that your are confused or crazy or an abomination.

I am not transgender, and I will never know what it "feels" to be. I do not understand it.
But I do not need to. All I (and you) need to understand: these people are just people. They are not more different from cisgenders than cisgenders are from each other, just in a different field.

I am me, you are you. That's all that is important.

 

[Radagast]

As I had one transgender woman tell me, it is not about "feelings". It is about who they are.

It is about their feelings about who they are.

This is distinct from, say, people with physically ambiguous external genitalia, where doctors make a diagnosis independent of any feelings.

 

[Freodin]

It is about their feelings about who they are.

But in reality, they are not? They are "only feeling"?

That would be correct for everything that is not materialistically "independent" verifiable then, wouldn't you say?

This is distinct from, say, people with physically ambiguous external genitalia, where doctors make a diagnosis independent of any feelings.

So what does the doctor base their diagnosis on, if it is ambiguous?

 

[Radagast]

But in reality, they are not? They are "only feeling"?

In gender dysphoria, people have subjective feelings of gender identity which do not match the objective reality of their physical body.

The resulting distress can be addressed by (1) counselling to make the feelings match the body, which was the old approach, (2) surgery and hormone treatment to make the body match the feelings, which is the more common solution today, or (3) various social accommodations.

 

[Freodin]

In gender dysphoria, people have subjective feelings of gender identity which do not match the objective reality of their physical body.

That would mean that their gender identity should be defined by "the objective reality of their physical body"... that is, their sex.

Who says that this is correct?

 

[Radagast]

That would mean that their gender identity should be defined by "the objective reality of their physical body"... that is, their sex.

That's not actually what I said.

 

[Freodin]

That's not actually what I said.

No, but it is what it implies.

The alternative would be to accept that people have an objective gender in addition to an objective sex, and that sometimes these can divert.

 

[Radagast]

The alternative would be to accept that people have an objective gender in addition to an objective sex, and that sometimes these can divert.

I think we're using the words "subjective" and "objective" in different ways.

Let me put it another way. If I'm injured, and I say I feel pain, that's subjective (which is not the same as "not real"). If there's some kind of measurable neural response, that's objective. Analgesia is generally administered according to the subjective response.

 

[ananda]

As I had one transgender woman tell me, it is not about "feelings". It is about who they are.
It's a difficult situation. Rationally, we simply do not have a way to compare "ourself" - our selfs - to others. We are aware of how we "feel" - and with that term we mean a lot more than our current emotional situation. We use it to describe our whole nature, our being... our self-image.
How much of that is innate, how much is societal? I don't know. Does it matter? Society changes, but so does biology.

But in the same way that we "feel" ourselves, we don't have any means to "feel" others. This same transgender woman told me, in the same post, that she doesn't identify "as a typical woman", as she put it.

"When I was born, I got an "M" on my birth cert. But that doesn't make me an "M" like a typical man--Barack Obama, e.g. So am I saying I'm a woman like a typical woman--Hillary Clinton, e.g.? No, I'm not like her either. She's a ciswoman. That's not me.

So, I'm neither a man like Barack Obama nor a woman like Hillary Clinton. I'm something different. I'm transgender. Male according to birth-sex, female by gender identity. I know exactly what I am, and those who think I'm confused are those generally who have not copped on to the notion of gender identity."

I think she described it perfectly and completely on the point.

My own experience - which accords with the teachings of Buddhism - suggests that a permanent "I" cannot be identified.

Buddhism takes a phenomenological approach to Reality; all things are in constant flux, including the sense of "I", which includes our bodies, emotions, thoughts, consciousness, etc.

If I am angry one day, I do not say I have an "anger identity" because it is "what I am". I understand it is merely a feeling, which will eventually change into something else.

I am not suggesting that some people don't feel differently in terms of sex or gender, but that it seems to be folly to assign permanence to those feelings when there isn't any.

 

[Freodin]

I think we're using the words "subjective" and "objective" in different ways.

Let me put it another way. If I'm injured, and I say I feel pain, that's subjective (which is not the same as "not real"). If there's some kind of measurable neural response, that's objective. Analgesia is generally administered according to the subjective response.

Ok.
But then why make the distinction you initially made? If they - "subjectively" - are a certain gender, why distinguish that from a "feeling" of being that gender?

Perhaps we are using the word "feeling" differently here? As I said in my first post, "...with that term we mean a lot more than our current emotional situation. We use it to describe our whole nature, our being... our self-image."

You don't just "feel" that you are a Christian, do you?

 

[Freodin]

My own experience - which accords with the teachings of Buddhism - suggests that a permanent "I" cannot be identified.

Buddhism takes a phenomenological approach to Reality; all things are in constant flux, including the sense of "I", which includes our bodies, emotions, thoughts, consciousness, etc.

If I am angry one day, I do not say I have an "anger identity" because it is "what I am". I understand it is merely a feeling, which will eventually change into something else.

I am not suggesting that some people don't feel differently in terms of sex or gender, but that it seems to be folly to assign permanence to those feelings when there isn't any.

My own experience suggest that something like gender is a lot more "permanent" than something like anger.

But, ok, I understand where you are comming from. But in that light, I don't understand your post that my response was made to. Why do you think this has something do with "feelings over rational logic"?

 

[ananda]

My own experience suggest that something like gender is a lot more "permanent" than something like anger.

But, ok, I understand where you are comming from. But in that light, I don't understand your post that my response was made to. Why do you think this has something do with "feelings over rational logic"?

The post I was responding to suggests that a "male" would feel "female" (or vice-versa). If rational logic says he was "male", and feelings says he feels "female", then that is prioritizing feelings over logic.

 

[Freodin]

The post I was responding to suggests that a "male" would feel "female" (or vice-versa). If rational logic says he was "male", and feelings says he feels "female", then that is prioritizing feelings over logic.

That's why I pointed out what a transgender directly told me... and what other transgenders confirmed. They don't "feel" being a certain gender. It isn't an emotional reaction to them. Just like it isn't an emotional reaction for the cisgenders. It is what they are. It is "rational logic".

You might, from a buddhist point of view, argue that this "what they are" is irrelevant... but that would equally apply to all of us.

 

[ananda]

That's why I pointed out what a transgender directly told me... and what other transgenders confirmed. They don't "feel" being a certain gender. It isn't an emotional reaction to them. Just like it isn't an emotional reaction for the cisgenders. It is what they are. It is "rational logic".

You might, from a buddhist point of view, argue that this "what they are" is irrelevant... but that would equally apply to all of us.

I also distinguish between "feeling" and "emotional reactions" - but yes, "what they are" is ultimately irrelevant; what matters is how one responds to such feelings.

 

[Motherofkittens]

Okay, I'm back. Finally. Ugh.

So, I read all of the sites and most of the information in them that I'm linking to. I already took long enough to recommend them for you. I just really wanted to make sure they were accurate. Obviouslly there is a lot to pick from. But here are a few that I personally got the most out of. I only went to about 10 other sites though.This one is by a Ph.D multi-published scientist. She has other topics besides gender and sex, I'd recommend reading it all if you have time, it is all inter-connected.Sociology of Gender
Then there is this:
All About the Sociology of Gender . It is basic stuff but I found it helpful for the many terms they introduce, then if you want you can search those on the internet. And here is this, it is a sociology 101 open source text book. : Chapter 12. Gender, Sex, and Sexuality | Introduction to Sociology – 1st Canadian Edition

With most scientific classifications there is a system to it but also a kind of arbitrariness.
"Sex refers to physical or physiological differences between males and females, including both primary sex characteristics (the reproductive system) and secondary characteristics such as height and muscularity. Gender is a term that refers to social or cultural distinctions associated with being male or female. Gender identity is the extent to which one identifies as being either masculine or feminine (Diamond 2002)." Then there is this one: Introduction to Sociology/Gender - Wikibooks, open books for an open world which starts out questioning why we have this current system of classifications and if we even should have it, or at least places less importance on it.

Sociologists make a distinction between gender and sex. "Gender" refers to a person's perceived or projected social location within culturally established designations between masculine and feminine behaviors (e.g., gender refers to a person's attempt to signify a masculine or feminine self as well as a person's attempt to categorize someone else in terms of their presentation (intentional or otherwise) of masculine or feminine selfhood). Sex, however, refers to a person's assignment, usually by medical, religious, familial, and / or governmental authorities, into categories socially co

 

[FireDragon76]

My own experience - which accords with the teachings of Buddhism - suggests that a permanent "I" cannot be identified.

Buddhism takes a phenomenological approach to Reality; all things are in constant flux, including the sense of "I", which includes our bodies, emotions, thoughts, consciousness, etc.

If I am angry one day, I do not say I have an "anger identity" because it is "what I am". I understand it is merely a feeling, which will eventually change into something else.

I am not suggesting that some people don't feel differently in terms of sex or gender, but that it seems to be folly to assign permanence to those feelings when there isn't any.

Be careful here. It is potentially dehumanizing to say that transpeoples' identity is merely feelings. Transpeople come to their self-understanding, of course, by interacting with other people to understand themselves, as do we all. That is where we find the social context for gender which makes it meaningful. Whether this fits with Buddhism or not, strictly speaking, doesn't matter because we are not talking about something spiritual here, how to escape rebirth, we are talking about how a person born biologically male as their sex, could identify as female.

 

[ananda]

Be careful here. It is potentially dehumanizing to say that transpeoples' identity is merely feelings. Transpeople come to their self-understanding, of course, by interacting with other people to understand themselves, as do we all. That is where we find the social context for gender which makes it meaningful. Whether this fits with Buddhism or not, strictly speaking, doesn't matter because we are not talking about something spiritual here, how to escape rebirth, we are talking about how a person born biologically male as their sex, could identify as female.

Everyone's identities are feelings to a great extent. I know many people who "feel" as if they're in their 20's or 30's but are physically in their 60's or even 70's. It is attachment to those changing identities that causes suffering.

 

[FireDragon76]

Everyone's identities are feelings to a great extent. I know many people who "feel" as if they're in their 20's or 30's but are physically in their 60's or even 70's. It is attachment to those changing identities that causes suffering.

So? People still have the right to autonomy and self-determination, whether or not it causes suffering.