ftmichael.livejournal.com (![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
ftmichael.livejournal.com) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
trans2003-01-16 09:33 am
ftmichael.livejournal.com) wrote in trans2003-01-16 09:33 am
SexEd 101
Source: TG Harmony News
Author: Rebecca Kastl
Date: Jan. 2003
Location: AZ,US
Item: Commentary
To even be writing this piece seems a bit too much for me. But there seems to be a gap of knowledge that must be filled in order for us as a community to remain effective and integrated with the rest of the LGBT folks out there.
What is the gap of knowledge you ask? The gap is in what we know about sex.
I'm not talking about basic anatomy (although that comes into play as well) but I am talking about the confluence of each and every attribute which we consider to be a part of what is construed by us and those around us as "sex"--what makes you what you are?
To start with, society (and even the transgender community) seems to couch the concept of sex on the configuration of the genitals with little consideration given for anything else. How is the transgender community guilty of this? Any time one asks another about whether or not they've had "the operation"--SRS--we are guilty of falling into the trap of thinking that one's genital configuration actually means something to anyone besides the owner.
Last year two things happened to me that brought much of this issue into much clearer focus. To start with, I was fired from my job as a college professor for failing to disclose what my genitals were. I reasoned that the school had no right to be asking such things. Secondly, I tried to join an Internet mailing list for transsexual women (I guess I should have qualified). But the list owner predicated my participation on the list on me disclosing what my genital configuration was.
Just the same as I wouldn't disclose to the school district what was going on "down there," I was no more inclined to disclose that same iformation to a complete stranger, no matter what she felt gave her some sort of default right to demand such information.
So, I have encountered discrimination by both society at large as well as those within the transgendered community for failing to disclose what my genitals look like. How much sense does that make?
But this isn't about me. It's about the meaning of "sex."
We all should be aware that possessing a penis or vagina is not proof positive of belonging to one sex or another, or even identifying as anything between the two. Chromosomes, our favorite tell-all genetic marker, in conjunction with our genital makeup go a long way to define more accurately our maleness or femaleness. But even these are not definitive. There have been documented cases of men with XX and women with XY, as well as so-called supermen with XYY or superwomen with XXX (makes an interesting movie, huh?).
If we look at the whole X vs. Y debate in a simpler light, things get a lot easier to understand. Cosider simple binary math: we start with a 0 or 1. This only offers two possible permutations of the value.
Adding a second value to the equation, instead of considering just 0 or 1, we now are presented with 01, 10, 00, 11. This provides us with four possible permutations of chromosomal makeup--not just two.
Now, let's consider that additional chromosomes have been documented out as far as three (with potentially more) places in addition to the default "X" we all get to start with. Three positions would give us a total of 8 possible permutations. Hardly an either-or concept anymore, is it?
Now take these 8 possible permutations, and add in the possession of categorically male or female genitalia. But we can't stop there as there are degrees of variation here, ranging from John Holmes to the Grand Canyon. Even if we allow for 4 potential degrees in this spectrum, our 8 possible permutations of sex has now increased to 32 (8x4=32).
And we haven't even gotten to the best part of the equation yet: the brain. What does your brain say you are? Male? Female? Or one of those other 30 possible combinations?
Hmmmm . . . . 32 physical combinations combined with 32 mental combinations gives us a potential for 1,024 possible combinations.
In the end, there is a binary basis for our understanding of sex: 1024 is the representation of 2 to the 10th power.
What happens when we add in our visual presentation? I won't even start the math on that part as I think I've fairly illustrated the point so far.
So is it fair to state that anyone who wants to limit "sex" to male or female simply hasn't gotten beyond step one of a basic understanding? Yes and no. Provided that we continue to keep cramming people into a box of either-or in regards to sex, regardless of where they fall within that spectrum of 1024 possible combinations of sex, we don't get to understand that these permutations even exist. And if we don't know that they exist, how do we factor them into our daily understanding of "sex"?
And the transgendered community, insofar as we limit our membership to male-to-female transsexuals or cross-dressers, is about as diverse in its understanding of "sex" as society at large.
I have made statements in the past regarding the willingness of the gay and lesbian community to exclude or include the transgendered community in the umbrella of LGBT. We, as a community, should also take a moment to examine our own ideas of diversity and inclusivity. At bottom, are we any different? And have we really differentiated ourselves from society at large?
Those who would oppose us, or those who would be our allies, should each consider the entirety of the spectrum, and not focus in a single instance of the spectrum of "sex". And our community should not exempt ourselves from this same criteria or consideration.
Author: Rebecca Kastl
Date: Jan. 2003
Location: AZ,US
Item: Commentary
To even be writing this piece seems a bit too much for me. But there seems to be a gap of knowledge that must be filled in order for us as a community to remain effective and integrated with the rest of the LGBT folks out there.
What is the gap of knowledge you ask? The gap is in what we know about sex.
I'm not talking about basic anatomy (although that comes into play as well) but I am talking about the confluence of each and every attribute which we consider to be a part of what is construed by us and those around us as "sex"--what makes you what you are?
To start with, society (and even the transgender community) seems to couch the concept of sex on the configuration of the genitals with little consideration given for anything else. How is the transgender community guilty of this? Any time one asks another about whether or not they've had "the operation"--SRS--we are guilty of falling into the trap of thinking that one's genital configuration actually means something to anyone besides the owner.
Last year two things happened to me that brought much of this issue into much clearer focus. To start with, I was fired from my job as a college professor for failing to disclose what my genitals were. I reasoned that the school had no right to be asking such things. Secondly, I tried to join an Internet mailing list for transsexual women (I guess I should have qualified). But the list owner predicated my participation on the list on me disclosing what my genital configuration was.
Just the same as I wouldn't disclose to the school district what was going on "down there," I was no more inclined to disclose that same iformation to a complete stranger, no matter what she felt gave her some sort of default right to demand such information.
So, I have encountered discrimination by both society at large as well as those within the transgendered community for failing to disclose what my genitals look like. How much sense does that make?
But this isn't about me. It's about the meaning of "sex."
We all should be aware that possessing a penis or vagina is not proof positive of belonging to one sex or another, or even identifying as anything between the two. Chromosomes, our favorite tell-all genetic marker, in conjunction with our genital makeup go a long way to define more accurately our maleness or femaleness. But even these are not definitive. There have been documented cases of men with XX and women with XY, as well as so-called supermen with XYY or superwomen with XXX (makes an interesting movie, huh?).
If we look at the whole X vs. Y debate in a simpler light, things get a lot easier to understand. Cosider simple binary math: we start with a 0 or 1. This only offers two possible permutations of the value.
Adding a second value to the equation, instead of considering just 0 or 1, we now are presented with 01, 10, 00, 11. This provides us with four possible permutations of chromosomal makeup--not just two.
Now, let's consider that additional chromosomes have been documented out as far as three (with potentially more) places in addition to the default "X" we all get to start with. Three positions would give us a total of 8 possible permutations. Hardly an either-or concept anymore, is it?
Now take these 8 possible permutations, and add in the possession of categorically male or female genitalia. But we can't stop there as there are degrees of variation here, ranging from John Holmes to the Grand Canyon. Even if we allow for 4 potential degrees in this spectrum, our 8 possible permutations of sex has now increased to 32 (8x4=32).
And we haven't even gotten to the best part of the equation yet: the brain. What does your brain say you are? Male? Female? Or one of those other 30 possible combinations?
Hmmmm . . . . 32 physical combinations combined with 32 mental combinations gives us a potential for 1,024 possible combinations.
In the end, there is a binary basis for our understanding of sex: 1024 is the representation of 2 to the 10th power.
What happens when we add in our visual presentation? I won't even start the math on that part as I think I've fairly illustrated the point so far.
So is it fair to state that anyone who wants to limit "sex" to male or female simply hasn't gotten beyond step one of a basic understanding? Yes and no. Provided that we continue to keep cramming people into a box of either-or in regards to sex, regardless of where they fall within that spectrum of 1024 possible combinations of sex, we don't get to understand that these permutations even exist. And if we don't know that they exist, how do we factor them into our daily understanding of "sex"?
And the transgendered community, insofar as we limit our membership to male-to-female transsexuals or cross-dressers, is about as diverse in its understanding of "sex" as society at large.
I have made statements in the past regarding the willingness of the gay and lesbian community to exclude or include the transgendered community in the umbrella of LGBT. We, as a community, should also take a moment to examine our own ideas of diversity and inclusivity. At bottom, are we any different? And have we really differentiated ourselves from society at large?
Those who would oppose us, or those who would be our allies, should each consider the entirety of the spectrum, and not focus in a single instance of the spectrum of "sex". And our community should not exempt ourselves from this same criteria or consideration.