GC: What are your arguments against "lesbians and trans men are men in women's bodies" and "gay men and trans women are women in men's bodies"?

submitted by CuteAsDuck from (self.GCdebatesQT)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]MarkTwainiac 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (27 children)

if a female is closer in height to that of the average male than that of the average female, then she perceives the world from a height that is a more common perception among men than of women--it is not a "male height", but because more males are of that height, then to have that height is to have more in common with males than with females regarding it, seeing the world in regards to height as more men see it.

So Jerry Hall at 6'0 sees the world more as males do, and Jimmy Sommerville at 5'2 sees the world more as females do? Bet Jimmy would beg to differ: https://youtu.be/88sARuFu-tc

BTW, here's Jimmy S performing with Sarah Jane Morris. She's not only taller & bigger than Jimmy, but she's got the much deeper voice. Are we really to think that she sees the world more as a male than he does, and he sees the world more as a female than she does? https://youtu.be/1RHBAd5YUR8

A person's perception is more similar to that of the opposite sex, in every way but actual sex. They can never share that perception, but everything associated with it may be shared in common, and could lead someone to be convinced they have the same feelings and thoughts as the opposite sex, and be convinced by it that they actually belong to the opposite sex.

A person can only become convinced of this only if their views are based on sex stereotyping. The only thing all the members of each sex has in common is our sex, which is about our biology. Except when they relate to our sexed bodies and experiences - I like my dick, I hate my periods - feelings and thoughts and human traits are not sex-specific. Women can be tall, insensitive, aggressive and rude. Men can be short, sensitive, soft-spoken & sweet.

More Jimmy S & the gang to show that males & females come in all sizes, shapes & types: https://youtu.be/Hvlv5qrhDUM

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (17 children)

Physically-speaking, wouldn't they? Only in terms of height, though. And that's only because a height of 6'0" is more common among men and a height of 5'2" is more common among women. They're not seeing things in a sexed-based way, but rather by nature of features more common to a given sex.

Most importantly, I will never not appreciate (good) musical examples in debate and discussion, thank you 😁

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

What would a tall woman and a “normal height” man be expected to have in common aside from the ability to reach high shelves and maybe an assumption that they’re both good at basketball (/s)? Tall people have being tall in common. Tall women have being tall for their sex in common but aside from that I’m not sure what would connect them.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

What would a tall woman and a “normal height” man be expected to have in common aside from the ability to reach high shelves and maybe an assumption that they’re both good at basketball (/s)? Tall people have being tall in common. Tall women have being tall for their sex in common but aside from that I’m not sure what would connect them.

This is exactly what I'm trying to elucidate. Being tall is the only connection, but tall people would share the same perception and experience the world in a way that a short person does not. It isn't sex-based, but by nature of men being taller than women on average, wouldn't a tall woman experience height in a manner more similarly to men? It doesn't make her a man or perceive the world the way a man does precisely because she is not a man, and it is certainly not a sex-based attribute, but her experience of being able to reach high shelves would be one that more men experience than women.

This could apply to anything as might apply to objective difference between sexes. As MarkTwainiac said, it isn't stereotyping so much as "categorizing based on observations of objective material reality that can be scientifically substantiated". All of these things like our attributes and our senses taken together create our perception of everything. As there are such physiological differences between women and men, it would make sense that a person would perceive anything in any way that may be more commonly experienced by one sex than another.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

It isn't sex-based, but by nature of men being taller than women on average, wouldn't a tall woman experience height in a manner more similarly to men?

The fact that we are discussing a woman being tall is precisely why she wouldn’t experience it in a manner more similarly to men. She’d be an anomaly. Her height would make her stand out- but it’s worth acknowledging that what’s considered tall for a woman can be considered average or even short for a man. A woman who’s 5ft8 is tall, but a 5ft8 man is not considered tall and could even be mocked for being considered short. A 6ft tall woman is remarkable. A 6ft tall man is not. I’ve even heard a lot of tall women say things about not wearing heels around their (male) partners, because them being the same height or taller than their partner feels awkward to them or makes the man feel uncomfortable for various reasons. Tall women aren’t the standard. Men being taller than women is the standard. So I’d imagine that a tall woman actually had a vastly different experience than men.

As far as the shelf thing, stools and kitchen ladders are accessible enough to most people that I don’t imagine that reaching a high shelf is that extraordinary- and I’d guess that women of middling stature don’t have a huge issue with reaching things that are high up. Unless a woman wants to play basketball or be a runway model, her height is not going to make a huge difference for her.

As far as I see it, women who possess features typically associated with men and men who possess features typically associated with women don’t share anything with the opposite sex in regards to those features, instead they experience being “othered” or even special/remarkable, for possessing features that on the opposite sex are standard. This to me means that they have distinctly opposing experiences than that of the opposite sex, solely because they possess that feature.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

As far as I see it, women who possess features typically associated with men and men who possess features typically associated with women don’t share anything with the opposite sex in regards to those features, instead they experience being “othered” or even special/remarkable, for possessing features that on the opposite sex are standard. This to me means that they have distinctly opposing experiences than that of the opposite sex, solely because they possess that feature.

The subjective experience would be different between sexes, but the objective experience would be the same. The objective experience is banal and merely just the undisputable fact itself that everyone can see and comment on, and the subjective experience is complex, personal and influenced inextricably by a person's sex. It's why a person might feel embarrassed or ashamed of a feature they may have because the world chooses to point out how it's something not typical of their sex, even though the person doesn't necessarily experience it subjectively as the opposite sex. Denying or rejecting or invalidating that person's sex is denying a part of their humanity and personhood, which is why people might cruelly point out and put down those parts of another person, and it's just hurtful. The fact that it hurts means it isn't experienced the same way as by the other sex, where that isn't something that can really be effectively insulted. So it is strange indeed when a person may have features of the other sex and conclude that it is evidence that they are internally the opposite sex, or experience the world subjectively as the opposite sex does.

It would make me wonder if sexual inversion might exist, but is only created by extreme homophobia, to the point they would reject their own sex or find it intolerable. The idea of sexual inversion in LGB people is homophobic and sexist. But because of that, might not an LGB person with internalized homophobia then become convinced or convince themselves that they themselves are sexually inverted? Sexual inversion doesn't sound like anything that can actually occur in nature, but it does seem to me that it could exist as the result of social interactions, environment and pressure, and become a self-imposition that one commits oneself to.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I get what you’re saying, but I think it would take a combination of internalized homophobia and some type of moderate/sever mental illness for someone to convince themselves that having a feature here and there that is typically associated with the opposite sex makes them sexually inverted. I don’t think solely being internally homophobic is enough to get someone there, I don’t even know if I believe that being internally homophobic and dysphoric is enough to get someone to that thought process. Someone thinking that would likely have several sever mental health concerns that extend past dysphoria and internalized homophobia. That’s just my opinion, obviously. I’m not an expert lol

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

No, I fully agree with you about that. I think what you're saying is entirely likely, that there must be some X factor or je ne sais quoi that would give such extreme results. No expert here either, obviously, but it's a fun mystery! (well, as fun as a mystery about mental illness might be!)

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

It isn't sex-based, but by nature of men being taller than women on average, wouldn't a tall woman experience height in a manner more similarly to men?

Yes, actually, in a very limited way -- barring disease or musculoskeletal disorders, she'd have proprioceptor sensitivity (and density maybe, to an extent) relative to her bone length, joint size, and anti-gravity muscle function. This would be hardwired to her brain and inform her senses of balance, range of motion, and position in space (in averaged terms) more in line with what men of her height experience.

But that would be functioning almost entirely below the level of conscious awareness. Could she make that awareness conscious and assign some cognitive meaning or emotional values to it ("This is me experiencing the outer world at average-man-height")? Possibly. 🤔

[–]MarkTwainiac 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

barring disease or musculoskeletal disorders, she'd have proprioceptor sensitivity (and density maybe, to an extent) relative to her bone length, joint size, and anti-gravity muscle function. This would be hardwired to her brain and inform her senses of balance, range of motion, and position in space (in averaged terms) more in line with what men of her height experience.

Thinking more about this, I'd wager that men and women of the same exact height would always have different perceptions of their bodies & themselves based on the measures you mention.

Since men and women have a different center of gravity, wouldn't we have a different sense of balance too? https://youtu.be/_YEmYqziusg https://youtu.be/sZbrVxcvIyE

Not only do we have a different range of motion in certain body parts - the hips & pelvis especially but also the legs and feet - but the female & male thigh bones are angled differently, & thus relate to the knees differently, which causes the two sexes to walk, run, jump, kick, move in water, pedal a bike, ski and so on differently - and to have different rates of lower limb injuries too.

Also, wouldn't males and females have somewhat different anti-gravity muscle function coz of the difference in the amount of overall muscle each sex has, women's generally greater natural elasticity & flexibility, and the impact of the menstrual cycle on women's core muscles, ligaments & other connective tissues?

When comparing the perceptions of self & the world of males & females of the same height in an effort to figure out if being of the same height really would mean having similar or the same perceptions of self & the world as was proposed earlier on this thread, pregnancy would have to be factored in too. After all, 85% of the world's women will have at least one child - many will have several, and some will have a whole bunch. Over the course of pregnancy, women's balance, range of motion, position in space, center of gravity, spine curvature, amount of pelvic tilt, gait pattern all change enormously so our sense of these things has to change too. And certainly, our awareness of the amount of space we take up horizontally is radically altered, and that's something we always have to be aware of - or if for a moment we forget, we get reminded of it when we try to fit our big bellies behind the steering wheel of an auto, into a booth in a restaurant or inside a cramped stall shower.

Now pregnancy is a relatively short-term experience in life, but it is one of those experiences that really does tend to alter women's perceptions of our bodies as well as of the world and our place in it.

(Tangent: This got me thinking about the impact of a woman's height on pregnancy & her perceptions of her body during pregnancy. It's been proven that the taller a woman is, the more likely that her pregnancy will go full-term or past-term, the less likely she will have a premature labor & birth, and the less likely she will have labor & birth complications resulting in the need for an emergency C-section as well as such adverse outcomes as stillbirth, a baby with low birth weight and/or low APGAR scores, and her own death in labor or in the post-partum period. From what women report, there's also evidence that taller women are less likely less likely to experience pregnancy-related chronic heartburn, constipation, urinary incontinence, piles and lower backache. But I've never come across any literature about whether a woman's height has any measurable impact on the mechanics of her pregnant body in terms of balance, range of motion, center of gravity, changes in gait and so on - and whether that, in turn, might cause her to experience her pregnant body in the way a woman of a different height would.)

Back to the matter of height alone, another difference between males & females of the same height is that girls develop breasts at 10-12, and many girls' & women's breasts are quite large. The size of girls' & women's breasts definitely affect our sense of balance, range of motion & our perceptions of our bodies - and other people's perceptions of us & our bodies too. As soon as girls start developing breasts, the world becomes a minefield in which being catcalled, perved on, groped, hit on & treated like a piece of meat by boys & men are part of our everyday experience as we make our way in the world. Trans-identified males who go on PBs & CSH early might experience this. But those who adopt a trans identity later in life won't.

I know slight, pretty boys, androgynous boys and young gay male "twinks" get sexually preyed upon & harassed by boys & men too. But not to the extent that girls do. Coz compared to the proportion of the male populace who are sexually attracted to females, the number of boys & men who are sexually attracted to males is much smaller.

Of course, with CSH, many males who identify as trans in adulthood develop breasts, but usually their breasts are not nearly as large as female breasts often naturally are. Nor would their breasts have the same characteristics, coz being female & going through female puberty is necessary to develop all the milk glands, ducts & lobes that women have. (If Jazz Jennings' tubular breasts are any indication, the breasts of males put on PBs at 10 & CSHs at 11 might differ from female breasts in significant ways.) Similarly, whilst many trans-identified adult males have augmentation surgeries so as to obtain what appear to be quite large breasts, there's a world of difference between how it feels to have female breasts grown naturally since the start of female puberty and having silicone sacs of fluid or gel surgically attached in adulthood. Moreover, when augmentation surgeries are done on males, the silicone sacs are attached to a torso with male shoulders and male chest muscles.

Women who've had breast reconstruction following mastectomies for cancer report that they experience their new surgically-constructed breasts very differently to their original, natural breasts. So I don't see how a male person who gets a factory-made breast facsimiles would have any idea what it's like to have genuine female breasts.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352587815000522

But I've strayed far afield, LOL. Sorry!

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Now pregnancy is a relatively short-term experience in life, but it is one of those experiences that really does tend to alter women's perceptions of our bodies as well as of the world and our place in it.

Just using this as a jumping-off point -- it completely alters perception. You alluded to relaxin, and that fluctuates with the menstrual cycle as well as its big role in pregnancy and childbirth -- and frankly, parts (pubic symphysis, SI joints, the rectus abdominis in diastasis) don't always go back into place . . . if ligaments go into any degree of sprain, even in the knees, for instance, for adjusting to balance a pregnant belly, it may damage or up/down-regulate the proprioceptors around the joint in a way that won't fully reset, so post-partum balance, gait, ROM, etc. may be very different from pre-pregnancy.

That really surprises me about tall women and pregnancy -- I would have guessed the opposite, since connective tissue diseases seem to correlate with height (no data, just an observation). You see it more in self-selected populations like professional dancers and basketball players -- I don't know if they've looked at female leagues, but male basketball players have a high incidence of arrhythmias that commonly feature in valvular disease, which is very common in connective tissue disorders. Clearly something else is going on with height that's advantageous for birth. Huh.

I'm a woman and as tall as the average man in North America, so I do get the "taking up vertical space" and having eye-level interaction aspects of what it may be like in a man's body of comparable height, and I'll own I've used that to hold my ground with men in assertive-but-nonviolent situations before (education and work in male-dominated environments). It has been useful. But all the intrinsic details -- relaxin, pelvic shape, Q-angles, lower numbers of fibers per muscle -- those are uniquely female, and I don't see how they could be "imagined."

And yes to the sexed differences in balance, gait, ROM, center of gravity, those are all in play. Growing breasts is a game-changer. Not just the weight, but the forward flexion, the self-conscious "curling inward" so many girls do because of all the factors you mentioned -- if that persists, it can chronically stress the mid-back, C-spine, TMJs, provoke migraines and autonomic dysregulation and all sorts of unpleasantness. It's basically a postural "startle response" that becomes a lived-in body position, and, well . . . it's sadly self-explanatory, isn't it?

I've seen some really sketchy (non-SRS) surgical outcomes and postsurgical chronic pain conditions -- probably in the hundreds by now. Including women with purely cosmetic breast implants. I'm shocked at how casually reassignment procedures are treated by transtrenders. I had major invasive surgery myself, and though it went brilliantly, it took years to regain my ROM and re-adjust to the postsurgical new-normal. I wouldn't wish that on anyone, and I've seen much, much worse.

No worries for the straying. I could endlessly nerd out about A&P and neurology!

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

That is very, very interesting. I wonder if bringing something so unconscious to conscious awareness would then have impact on developing anything that might resemble sexual inversion, or even just gender dysphoria. That seems like it would almost be an overanalyzation of the body and self.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Totally not my area of expertise, but I think it could potentially be tied in with overanalyzation, in synchrony with other factors. Trauma, certainly -- that casts a long shadow. But I often wonder about other conditions and experiences, tho, like early-onset OCD, synesthesia, scrupulousness, high perceptual sensitivity, high empathy, precociousness, highly active imagination, hypnagogia -- how could all of these interact with the places where sensation and cognition meet, along with real-life experiences, during our key developmental stages?

This is a gross oversimplification (and in no way meant to be insulting), but -- as a ferinstance -- we know that some children have a more heightened sense of empathy than others, and those traits do track into adulthood. What would happen if a highly empathetic child began imagining (idly or actively) very early on what it was like to be the other sex, and was also an early-enough abstract thinker to notice some existential or physical discomfort with "being in a body," and through individual preference was drawn to modes of gendered expression and adornment sanctioned by the child's culture . . . even absent some trauma of rejection or abuse or homophobia, and with not-all-that-uncommon genetic "brain processing stuff" going on -- could we see the possibility of that child developing a transgender identification as a multifactorial adaptation to their uniquely inner and constraining outer circumstances? With adverse experiences, could that identification later develop into something that resembles GD?

In other words, I think it's far more complicated than we currently understand. As they say in the journals -- "more research needed."

[–]MarkTwainiac 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

If clinicians working with children diagnosed as having "gender dysphoria" (or in previous eras "gender identity disorder") had observed that an excess of empathy, or empathy at all, was a common factor in these children & might be involved in the etiology of their GD, then they've certainly kept it very quiet. Using the search terms "empathy in children with gender dysphoria" on Google Scholar & PubMed doesn't yield much. Virtually all the papers are about the need to show empathy for children with GD, not empathy within such children.

A couple of different researchers have tried to show that adult males with GD have higher empathy than other males, and/or their level of empathy matches the level often found in females (or assumed to be true of females), but AFAIK this hypothesis has not held up.

As for boys with GID, this is all I could find, which does not support the theory that an excess of empathy is at the root of their issues: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10578-007-0072-7

If anything, in children & adults diagnosed with GD, there seems to be much more of a tendency in the other direction - towards excessive self-involvement, self-preoccupation, vanity & attention-seeking as evinced in the need for external "validation" - as we discussed in our exchange about the meaning of the term "narcissist" on a different thread.

Also, my understanding of empathy is that key to it is the ability to listen to other people describe their experience - whether in words or in cries or whimpers - and to relate this to an emotional state one has experienced or is capable of experiencing. It's about emotionally connecting & relating, not (solely or largely) about imagining or abstract thinking.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

That does surprise me, the GD and NC boys registering about the same -- I would have guessed they'd register higher. So in GD-related "I feel like ___" assertions, this isn't showing up as a porous boundary kind of thing ("I can't tell the difference between where I end and x begins")? I'd like to know more about what is meant by feel and felt wrt gender identity and gender expression. From close interaction with an adult AGP (no GD, but definitely PD stuff going on) I can absolutely see the self-involvement in action; it's very clear, the patterns are very obvious. But what's happening with GD and assertions of "felt" identity?

[–]MarkTwainiac 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (3 children)

But what's happening with GD and assertions of "felt" identity?

Presumptuousness? And projection and fantasy. My impression is, most of the people who claim to feel like the opposite sex - or not like their own sex - live largely (entirely?) in their own heads, and have not spent much - or any - time having deep, probing convos with other people about how they feel inside, experience their bodies & see the world. The root issue is not just narcissism, it's solipsism.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

A person can only become convinced of this only if their views are based on sex stereotyping. The only thing all the members of each sex has in common is our sex, which is about our biology. Except when they relate to our sexed bodies and experiences - I like my dick, I hate my periods - feelings and thoughts and human traits are not sex-specific. Women can be tall, insensitive, aggressive and rude. Men can be short, sensitive, soft-spoken & sweet.

Exactly! Even most women and most men who have such sex-stereotyped characteristics won't identify as the other sex, nor would they necessarily be seen as any less woman or man than they are by those who aren't thinking of them in stereotypes. But is it stereotyping to say though that most women are shorter than men, or men are on average taller than women?

[–]MarkTwainiac 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

No, it's not stereotyping to say that males on average are taller than women on average. That's categorizing based on observations of objective material reality that can be scientifically substantiated. What's stereotyping is to assume that all males and females think, feel & see the world the same way. Or all tall people, or short people think a certain way.***

But IMO, the bigger problem is with your contention that because some people have some physical characteristics more commonly associated with or frequently found in the opposite sex, but which are not at all definitive of sex - such as short stature, high voice and slight build - then of course those people view the world as the opposite sex sees it, and would reasonably

be convinced they have the same feelings and thoughts as the opposite sex, and be convinced by it that they actually belong to the opposite sex.

Which brings us back to stereotypes - & one-dimensional ones at that. The only way someone could come to such conclusions is if they have a very narrow view of what the two sexes are like in terms of thoughts, feelings & personality. Which suggests to me that growing up and in adult life as well said person has not had much IRL contact with a wide variety of human beings of both sexes - and that in the case of those persons he/she has met & interacted with, there's not been all that much in the way of deep, probing discussions that provide a window into other persons' inner lives and how they truly think & feel about things & how they experience the world.

My guess is, someone who comes to these conclusions did not grow up in crowded household/family with a lot siblings & other assorted relatives always about, that they haven't spent much or any time caring for younger siblings or kids, & their childhood & adolescence also didn't involve a lot of spending time with other families, or in other households/situations where they'd be exposed at close range to all sorts of kinds of grownups & kids alike.

But that's speculation... The point is, I see you constantly making the case that it's reasonable for people to become convinced that their perceptions, thoughts and feelings are the same as or very similar to the opposite sex - and that they themselves are the opposite sex - based on a whole bunch of stuff apart from the defining characteristics of sex itself, as here:

A person's perception is more similar to that of the opposite sex, in every way but actual sex.

All that aside, glad you like the songs! The regressive sexism & sex stereotyping that have come roaring back & are now so popular today really make me nostalgic for the 70s and 80s, LOL.

*** BTW, in these arguments, I think it's best to stay away from height, especially when talking about developing physical characteristics "resembling the opposite sex early on in life" as you were. The fact is, although boy babies tend to be longer & to grow faster earlier in infancy, we all start out life very short - and much of our basic world view gets set before we've reached our full adult height.

Also, growing up, males & females reach adult height at different ages - which can affect people's perception of their own & other people's heights & their sense of what's normal. Females not only start puberty earlier than boys, but we have our main growth spurt towards the beginning of puberty, whereas for males the growth spurt comes nearer the end.

Also, it's best to keep in mind that one percent of the world uses a wheelchair FT - and a much higher percentage of people will spend time in a wheelchair at some point over the course of their lives. Moreover, in today's world, with people spending so much time behind keyboards and in autos when out & about, height probably has less significance in shaping perceptions than previously. With things like online banking & shopping, a lot of short people no longer have to face the hassles of counter heights that are too high & stuff on store shelves that are out of reach as before.

Finally, most girls & women - particularly if they grew up with brothers, boy pals & BFs, and of course if they've been assaulted by males - have an awareness that height isn't a great leveler or signifier of "sameness." A woman & man of the same height, weight & fitness level will still be unmatched physically. He will have much greater grip strength, punching power, speed, musculature & overall strength - & he likely will be able to squeeze her to unconsciousness with one hand on her throat.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

the bigger problem is with your contention that because some people have some physical characteristics more commonly associated with or frequently found in the opposite sex, but which are not at all definitive of sex - such as short stature, high voice and slight build - then of course those people view the world as the opposite sex sees it

But those people don't necessarily view the world as the opposite sex sees it. It wouldn't make sense that something only like short stature, high voice or slight build, or even a combination of those sorts of things, could make a person see the world the way the opposite sex sees it, because of course they cannot be the opposite sex and therefore not experience the world that way. It would take much more for a person to be convinced they see the world and themselves that way, or I would hope at least. I do believe, however, that it wouldn't be the wildest thing to say that the sum of a person's perception based on those attributes might lead to them having more perceptual kinship with one sex than the other. I realize this is a bit fanciful, but I hope that what I'm saying is a bit more clear. I think you nearly understand my point, but I haven't quite found the right words or phrasing to fully get this across.

Which brings us back to stereotypes - & one-dimensional ones at that. The only way someone could come to such conclusions is if they have a very narrow view of what the two sexes are like in terms of thoughts, feelings & personality. Which suggests to me that growing up and in adult life as well said person has not had much IRL contact with a wide variety of human beings of both sexes - and that in the case of those persons he/she has met & interacted with, there's not been all that much in the way of deep, probing discussions that provide a window into other persons' inner lives and how they truly think & feel about things & how they experience the world.

My guess is, someone who comes to these conclusions did not grow up in crowded household/family with a lot siblings & other assorted relatives always about, that they haven't spent much or any time caring for younger siblings or kids, & their childhood & adolescence also didn't involve a lot of spending time with other families, or in other households/situations where they'd be exposed at close range to all sorts of kinds of grownups & kids alike.

You might be right! That could explain much for a person who comes to such conclusions...

I see you constantly making the case that it's reasonable for people to become convinced that their perceptions, thoughts and feelings are the same as or very similar to the opposite sex - and that they themselves are the opposite sex - based on a whole bunch of stuff apart from the defining characteristics of sex itself

I kind of think it's hilarious, because life really can be strange like that. It's downright silly and absurd, yet I do find it reasonable. And despite my quirks, I would like to think myself a reasonable, rational person.

That's a good point about height, too, I wish I'd have thought of a better example first. I had an idea to use different color M & Ms, but I don't want that to sound too dumb nor get lost in details again so I'm trying still to think of better examples.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I think the flaw (for lack of better word, sorry) in your theory is that any female typical feature on a man or male typical feature on a woman is the opposite of the expectation. And because it’s the opposite, they don’t elicit the same reactions or responses that they would on a person who is the sex typically associated with the feature(s). Does that make sense? Meaning, it’s the very fact that they aren’t the sex typical of whatever feature that makes their experience different. A man with “moobs” is gonna be mocked or considered overweight, a woman with big breasts is often considered a positive thing in society (and the point where a man has “moobs” is still not comparable to the point where a woman is considered as having big breasts, if that makes sense?). Conversely, a woman with a “flat chest” is often mocked or deemed less desirable (ex: the “itty bitty titty committee” thing 🙄).

People are held to the physical standards of their sex, so having a feature normally associated with the opposite sex makes them an outlier, rather than giving them a kinship to the opposite sex- because those features would be unremarkable and likely go unnoticed when they are on a person of the sex they are attributed to. Kevin Hart, for example, he’s the average height for women. But since he’s a man, his height is always a punchline. Look at the height of basketball players, to use that example again- female basketball players average in height somewhere between 5’6-5’10. Male basketball players are often well over 6ft. Allen Iverson is 6ft and was considered a short player (there are shorter players too, to be fair).

It’s the very fact that they aren’t the sex associated with whatever feature that isolates their experience and perception (rather than connecting them with the opposite sex), as well as how they are perceived by others. So a woman with a typically male feature is going to be considered and possibly treated as “different”, where it’s typical and unremarkable for a man, and vice versa. And again, it’s worth noting that the point where it becomes atypical on the opposite sex than the expected is always going to be a point where it’s standard on the associated sex.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think the flaw (for lack of better word, sorry) in your theory is that any female typical feature on a man or male typical feature on a woman is the opposite of the expectation. And because it’s the opposite, they don’t elicit the same reactions or responses that they would on a person who is the sex typically associated with the feature(s). Does that make sense? Meaning, it’s the very fact that they aren’t the sex typical of whatever feature that makes their experience different.

I'm trying very hard not to get too wrapped up in semantics or nitpick words, because what I've been trying to describe is a paradox that I think you're actually finding the words to (good on you! And thank you! 😊). A feature or attribute could be not sex-typical for a person, and indeed because it isn't sex-typical it would cause that person to be unable to experience it as the opposite sex does, yet embodying that feature means they appear to be sharing a feature more common to the other sex, which may be pointed out by others by doing things such as teasing. The person isn't really experiencing something the way the opposite sex does, but others, whether maliciously or not, point out the commonality.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Responding a lot, sorry, can’t sleep and finally figured out how to word what I couldn’t earlier...

Re you looking for better examples: imo, This thread reminds me of tra/qt arguments (not your points, just the conversation in general). The idea that “women can have penises” or “men can have vaginas” or even the “you can’t know what genitals someone has” thing that tras love to say- they say those things because they know that we expect certain parts or features on people based on sex, and they want to diminish that expectation. A person attracted to men may have a preference for a particular penis size- but whether you like ‘em big or small, you still expect there to be a penis when you get naked with them. A penis that’s smaller/larger than you may prefer may be disappointing, but a vagina instead of a penis is a whole different situation for the vast majority of people. When we see articles or coverage of TW athletes, people who oppose TW participation in female sports always point out the height and build of the TW- because those features being pointed out are associated with males.

I don’t think it matters what example you find, it’s always going to be a feature that’s associated and expected with the opposite sex, and it’s that factor, rather than the feature itself, thats going to inform someone’s experience and perception.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Not to sound callous, but I'm glad for the insomnia, because you're better wording what I'm trying to say as well.

I was actually thinking of the other discussion of athletes and trying to reconcile what I saw as inconsistencies of logic: that sex influences total biological development resulting in differences between female and male bodies in nearly every way, but the way that bodies can vary and defy expectations is a given that makes it difficult or impossible to say something like "being tall is a male attribute" because a woman may be tall too and be just as much a woman as any other and truly perceive things as only a woman can. So, to tie this back to the original post's statement of LGB people having sexual inversion (hopefully using that correctly), part of it is a convincing that someone like an extremely homophobic homosexual person could be convinced that their own features or attributes provide evidence that they mentally/spiritually are the opposite sex. There is no real sexual inversion except that created by one's own self, and to be able to convince oneself something like that about themselves, I imagine it would take looking for every bit of supporting evidence one could find and willfully misinterpret as proof that they are a heterosexual member of the opposite sex "trapped" in the body of the "wrong" sex.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 8 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

I think that the “sexual inversion” that you’re talking about is something that would occur on any body by chance. I don’t see how that would be a trans specific thing, which is what your initial comment seemed to suggest. Rather, it would be a thing that just happens to some people based on genetics/what features they inherited from their parents, and that if someone happened to be trans, they’d interpret as a sign they were meant to transition. But the way you phrased your first comment gave me (and I think a few of us) the impression that you were saying that this was a phenomenon that occurs specifically in trans people.

However, I don’t think having developed some typically opposite sex features is ever going to mean someone naturally developed so many of those features that they are a able to really see themselves as a member of the opposite sex. I just don’t know what features someone could develop that would logically support that. I think that people who transition have a mental health issue, but I think someone convincing themselves that because one to a few features on their body is more aligned with the opposite sex means they are trapped in the wrong body would be more deeply mentally ill than the average dysphoric person. There’s just no feature typical of a woman that a man can naturally develop (or vice versa) that I think would reasonably justify that thought process.

Yes secondary sex characteristics can vary- that’s why they are secondary, and we define and observe by primary. Still- someone would have to develop significantly more secondary features typical of the opposite sex than their own for it to make sense that having those features changes their perspective and experience in life, unless they were several mentally ill. And even then, them convincing themselves doesn’t do much to make the idea in their head a logically sound one. I understand what you’re saying now, but initially it did sound as if you were implying that trans people, specifically children, somehow have the possibility of naturally developing physically more in line with the sex they’ll eventually want to transition to appear as, and that doing so informs their perspective. That doesn’t seem to be what you’re saying now. Now it sounds like you’re saying that a trans person may cling to any feature(s) they naturally developed that is typically associated with the opposite sex as a sign or proof that they were meant to transition, even though the rest of their body and features are typical of their sex?

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think that the “sexual inversion” that you’re talking about is something that would occur on any body by chance. I don’t see how that would be a trans specific thing, which is what your initial comment seemed to suggest. Rather, it would be a thing that just happens to some people based on genetics/what features they inherited from their parents, and that if someone happened to be trans, they’d interpret as a sign they were meant to transition. But the way you phrased your first comment gave me (and I think a few of us) the impression that you were saying that this was a phenomenon that occurs specifically in trans people.

No, I didn't mean that as a trans-specific thing, thank you for picking up on that and clarifying.

However, I don’t think having developed some typically opposite sex features is ever going to mean someone naturally developed so many of those features that they are a able to really see themselves as a member of the opposite sex. I just don’t know what features someone could develop that would logically support that. I think that people who transition have a mental health issue, but I think someone convincing themselves that because one to a few features on their body is more aligned with the opposite sex means they are trapped in the wrong body would be more deeply mentally ill than the average dysphoric person. There’s just no feature typical of a woman that a man can naturally develop (or vice versa) that I think would reasonably justify that thought process.

I don't think those features alone, no matter how numerous, could cause a person to see themselves as the opposite sex, either. I think that things like that might help convince a person in light of other circumstances and events and experiences, all things interplaying to eventually tip the scales in favor of transsexualism, but a slew of physical features alone would likely never be enough to do that. If that were to happen, I agree, they would likely be more mentally ill than the average dysphoric person.

Yes secondary sex characteristics can vary- that’s why they are secondary, and we define and observe by primary. Still- someone would have to develop significantly more secondary features typical of the opposite sex than their own for it to make sense that having those features changes their perspective and experience in life, unless they were several mentally ill. And even then, them convincing themselves doesn’t do much to make the idea in their head a logically sound one. I understand what you’re saying now, but initially it did sound as if you were implying that trans people, specifically children, somehow have the possibility of naturally developing physically more in line with the sex they’ll eventually want to transition to appear as, and that doing so informs their perspective. That doesn’t seem to be what you’re saying now. Now it sounds like you’re saying that a trans person may cling to any feature(s) they naturally developed that is typically associated with the opposite sex as a sign or proof that they were meant to transition, even though the rest of their body and features are typical of their sex?

I don't think the features themselves actually affect the perception, but rather society's reaction to those features and the judgement and interpretation by others that affect the perception of just having those features. And I'm sorry for probably causing even more confusion now, but I am actually saying both, because I think both ideas are actually the same: one is the objective perception, one is the subjective perception. They are the same thing, but the interpretation differs between the outside observer and the observed. The outside observer will rightfully see a mental illness, the observed will not. They may come to understand that they have a mental illness, but so long as they maintained the conviction of a cross-sex identity, they will never be able to see their illness as the outside observer does--I would think if they could, they would probably not be able to maintain such an identity as strongly as they do.

I sort of understand the lucidity that might actually be able to occur. To have a moment of such security to relieve homophobia entirely that it wouldn't really matter whether they were a woman or man, and in fact could be OK with openly acknowledging one's sex and one's sexual orientation. An LGB person comes to have peace with themselves. I'm not sure how much of a cross-sex identity might be resolved in the case of transsexuals, but perhaps the worst parts of the illness could be. Personality would remain, but the illusion would disappear. But that's just curious wondering on my part.