![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
alienchangeling.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
transSuppose that one day in the near future, someone discovers a brain pattern visible on MRI or a gene complex noticeable with a blood test or hormone levels during pregnancy or some other such externally recognizable signal that has a high correlation with transgenderism. Medical professionals everywhere breathe a sigh of relief as they no longer have to deal with the ambiguities of the subject; perhaps insurers even begin covering medical treatment and politicians relax the laws on gender markers on identification—providing the test checks out, of course.
What happens when a female-bodied person comes into a doctor's office and says, "I don't feel like a woman, I feel like a man, and I want to live as a man from now on," but when the test is done, their results come back negative? What's the appropriate response, on the part of the doctors, politicians, public at large, and other trans-identified people, to this situation? What do you think the real response would be?
Suppose, instead, that a century from now, people have looked and looked for a biological basis for transgenderism, but haven't found it. Initial promising results didn't pan out and now people are stuck: they know there's a physical connection somewhere, since, after all, there must be some representation in the brain of the belief, "I want to be a different gender than my genitals indicate," but it's buried in the architecture of the brain and no more observable than the neural qualities of a great artist. No one knows why transgenders exist or where they come from. This is not a disproof, because that's impossible in science, but it's strong evidence that there's no simple biological explanation for transgenderism.
What happens when a male-bodied person comes into a doctor's office and says, "I don't feel like a man, I feel like a woman, and I want to live as a woman from now on?" though there's no objective basis for affirming or challenging this belief? What's the appropriate response, on the part of the doctors, politicians, public at large, and other trans-identified people, to this situation? What do you think the real response would be?
My feelings on this topic will probably be kind of controversial.
Let's get the preliminaries out of the way: I think the former scenario is more likely than the latter. What I don't believe is that there will ever be an unambiguous definition of or test for transgenderism. Physical sex is a complicated subject when you start examining the edge cases; I don't think we have any reason to expect that gender will be any easier. A 95% co-occurrence is good enough to say, "This factor is most likely connected to transgenderism," but as a test, it means that one out of every twenty people who take it will identify as transgender even though that "contradicts" the results of the test.
I've heard arguments for the acceptance of transgenderism based around the notion that it has a biological cause and therefore is not a personal choice. Many cisgendered people seem sympathetic to this argument and its cousin, the argument for acceptance of homosexuality based on the same logic. Nonetheless, this argument bothers me, for two reasons. First, I worry that if it succeeds, while some lucky people may benefit, society will relegate others to continued or even worsened discrimination. Second, I think it dodges around the nature of transgenderism.
My first thought experiment is intended to illustrate the first problem. My hypothetical FtM is in the same situation as every transgendered person up to the present day: he believes in his own identity, but has no objective confirmation of that identity. If we accept transgendered identities, now, though, why should we not accept his identity? My moral intuition balks at the idea of using a biological basis to deny someone their own self-determination; but if biology legitimizes transgenderism, doesn't that mean it needs legitimizing in the first place? If so, isn't the logical outcome of that discrimination for those who can't verify their identities with biology?
My second thought experiment is intended to cut to what transgenderism is. I believe there's nothing wrong with claiming a transgendered identity because I believe that gender shouldn't restrict people's choices, even choices like going on hormones or wearing a dress in public. (As a practical matter, I know not many people agree with me.) I feel the central conflict is over who gets to determine an individual's identity: the individual themselves, or other people. If one accepts that individuals have the right to determine their own identities, it doesn't matter what the biological causes of transgenderism are.
What happens when a female-bodied person comes into a doctor's office and says, "I don't feel like a woman, I feel like a man, and I want to live as a man from now on," but when the test is done, their results come back negative? What's the appropriate response, on the part of the doctors, politicians, public at large, and other trans-identified people, to this situation? What do you think the real response would be?
Suppose, instead, that a century from now, people have looked and looked for a biological basis for transgenderism, but haven't found it. Initial promising results didn't pan out and now people are stuck: they know there's a physical connection somewhere, since, after all, there must be some representation in the brain of the belief, "I want to be a different gender than my genitals indicate," but it's buried in the architecture of the brain and no more observable than the neural qualities of a great artist. No one knows why transgenders exist or where they come from. This is not a disproof, because that's impossible in science, but it's strong evidence that there's no simple biological explanation for transgenderism.
What happens when a male-bodied person comes into a doctor's office and says, "I don't feel like a man, I feel like a woman, and I want to live as a woman from now on?" though there's no objective basis for affirming or challenging this belief? What's the appropriate response, on the part of the doctors, politicians, public at large, and other trans-identified people, to this situation? What do you think the real response would be?
My feelings on this topic will probably be kind of controversial.
Let's get the preliminaries out of the way: I think the former scenario is more likely than the latter. What I don't believe is that there will ever be an unambiguous definition of or test for transgenderism. Physical sex is a complicated subject when you start examining the edge cases; I don't think we have any reason to expect that gender will be any easier. A 95% co-occurrence is good enough to say, "This factor is most likely connected to transgenderism," but as a test, it means that one out of every twenty people who take it will identify as transgender even though that "contradicts" the results of the test.
I've heard arguments for the acceptance of transgenderism based around the notion that it has a biological cause and therefore is not a personal choice. Many cisgendered people seem sympathetic to this argument and its cousin, the argument for acceptance of homosexuality based on the same logic. Nonetheless, this argument bothers me, for two reasons. First, I worry that if it succeeds, while some lucky people may benefit, society will relegate others to continued or even worsened discrimination. Second, I think it dodges around the nature of transgenderism.
My first thought experiment is intended to illustrate the first problem. My hypothetical FtM is in the same situation as every transgendered person up to the present day: he believes in his own identity, but has no objective confirmation of that identity. If we accept transgendered identities, now, though, why should we not accept his identity? My moral intuition balks at the idea of using a biological basis to deny someone their own self-determination; but if biology legitimizes transgenderism, doesn't that mean it needs legitimizing in the first place? If so, isn't the logical outcome of that discrimination for those who can't verify their identities with biology?
My second thought experiment is intended to cut to what transgenderism is. I believe there's nothing wrong with claiming a transgendered identity because I believe that gender shouldn't restrict people's choices, even choices like going on hormones or wearing a dress in public. (As a practical matter, I know not many people agree with me.) I feel the central conflict is over who gets to determine an individual's identity: the individual themselves, or other people. If one accepts that individuals have the right to determine their own identities, it doesn't matter what the biological causes of transgenderism are.