Today I identify as a trans aardvark called Samantha

[iNow]

58 minutes ago, joigus said:

Something like that.

Indeed ✌🏼

[MigL]

This will probably get me in trouble ( with the usual suspects ), but I would add to Joigus' point ...

4 hours ago, iNow said:

Even if we limit our inquiry purely to humans, there’s still XYY Syndrome, XXY Syndrome (aka Klinefelters), Triple X Syndrome (XXX), Turner Syndrome, Noonan Syndrome, X0/XY Mosaicism, among others.

And there are plenty more genetic conditions and 'abnormalities', which we apparently spend millions of dollars researching ways to cure.
Why do some 'abnormalities' require concentrated efforts to find cures or treatments, but, just mentioning 'cure/treatment' for others gets you labelled  a  '****phobe', or worse ?

Please explain.

[StringJunky]

24 minutes ago, MigL said:

This will probably get me in trouble ( with the usual suspects ), but I would add to Joigus' point ...

And there are plenty more genetic conditions and 'abnormalities', which we apparently spend millions of dollars researching ways to cure.
Why do some 'abnormalities' require concentrated efforts to find cures or treatments, but, just mentioning 'cure/treatment' for others gets you labelled  a  '****phobe', or worse ?

Please explain.

First thing to ask is 'Is the behaviour pathological to the subject or to those around them. If not, then in the long term, it probably can be accepted as 'normal' behaviour , or at least looked into for potential recategorisation. A lot of the pathology is a result of how such people are received. The social pathology towards these people is caused by lack of acceptance, rather than anything intrinsically wrong with them. If it's not harmful it is another evolutionary arrow to put in our quiver that can ensure our continuity as a species, and indeed all species.

Edited February 3 by StringJunky

[iNow]

2 hours ago, MigL said:

Please explain.

People often claim there are two binary sexes, and then further try to cloak themselves in the respect of biological science when they do.

In many instances, these claims are a direct conscious attempt to dismiss and dehumanize the validity of other citizens who are transsexual, to diminish and ostracize those who feel they were wrongly assigned an identity at birth that fails to match who they are today. Those who are simply being open and honest about who they are.

People, including myself, are wrong every single day. It happens, but presenting information from biology regarding the approximately 10 other accepted “sexes” in science to those asserting “biology only allows two sexes!” ought to cause any rational honest person to do some rethinking and reevaluation of their stance, since the claims of binary categories is self-evidently false. 

There are more than two sexes in biology and this we’ve known for decades. Ignoring a spectrum like an ostrich with head in sand doesn’t magically make that spectrum invalid. Rather, it makes the claimant a liar or a fool when repeated corrections go unheeded.

2 hours ago, MigL said:

just mentioning 'cure/treatment' for others gets you labelled  a  '****phobe', or worse ?

You identify as Italian. Maybe we ought to explore a cure or treatment for that? You identify as Canadian. Shall we push for a cure for that, too? I believe you’re an engineer, or a corporate employee. We likely will need to institutionalize you for fixing that, eh?

If not, one must ask why your identities are any more valid or acceptable than someone’s trans identity. Usually bigotry is involved, or at least ignorance… which is thankfully fixable with open honest feedback like that which you appear to decry above. 

Tl;dr. It’s not a median outcome, but why frame it as an abnormality? Red hair is rare too, but that’s not abnormal. Words and framing matter. 

Edited February 3 by iNow

[swansont]

2 hours ago, MigL said:

Why do some 'abnormalities' require concentrated efforts to find cures or treatments, but, just mentioning 'cure/treatment' for others gets you labelled  a  '****phobe', or worse ?

If they aren't sick, why do they need a cure?

[TheVat]

10 hours ago, iNow said:

But that’s incorrect, as already clarified both here and elsewhere. 

Even if we limit our inquiry purely to humans, there’s still XYY Syndrome, XXY Syndrome (aka Klinefelters), Triple X Syndrome (XXX), Turner Syndrome, Noonan Syndrome, X0/XY Mosaicism, among others.

Nature is under no obligation to fit neatly into forced arbitrary binary human buckets. It’s a shame so many humans try forcing her to due to arbitrary social reasons. 

While I agree with the closing paragraph, I think there remains a confusion about asserting there are around ten sexes, but then most of them are ending with the word "syndrome" and being associated with a variety of symptoms.  When things are so termed medically that tends to make people fall back on the two sexes that are not associated with an error in chromosomal pairing.  I am most familiar with Klinefelter's syndrome because I worked with a client (when I was a social worker) who had this condition and had several physical problems linked with it.  He was very clear that he would not take offense at the idea that science could look for a cure for the syndrome or at least minimize symptoms.  Such perspectives are why we need very open discussions that give free rein to curiosity, rather than just dismissing any view that some conditions might benefit from medical treatment.  

 

[iNow]

Transgenderism is neither a syndrome, a condition, a disease, nor an illness to be cured or treated any more than homosexuality is and that was the gravitational locus of my post. 

If someone needs treatment to improve quality of life, then they should have access to it, even if others like myself are referencing their situation in an attempt to shatter the canard of biology saying only two sexes are possible. 

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

When things are so termed medically that tends to make people fall back on the two sexes that are not associated with an error in chromosomal pairing.

I take the point, but they’re still wrong. If someone claims there are only two skin colors, then highlighting humans with vitiligo in response offers a rather simple and powerful counter example which has the benefit of calling their central claim into question. 

 

[MigL]

My post was referring to INow's post about aberrations  to the XX and XY chromosonal pairings.
I pointed out that there are many other genetic conditions for which we seek cures.
For example, there are genetic conditions that result in deformities, or altered growth rates or limits, and these conditions can often make life unbearable for these individuals, even though there is no physical 'harm' to them, or those around them.
So we seek a cure, or treatment, for such conditions.
Does that sound similar to any other groups, String Junky ?

7 hours ago, swansont said:

If they aren't sick, why do they need a cure?

Is 'dwarfism' a sickness ?
Almost all 'short' people can lead healthy, normal, lives, yet society tends to look down on them ( really, no pun intended ).
Are you going to tell me there is no active research into curing that genetic condition.

8 hours ago, iNow said:

one must ask why your identities are any more valid or acceptable than someone’s trans identity

My 'identities are apparent to the outside world.
My Birth Certificate says I was Born in Italy.
My Passport and citizenship papers say I'm Canadian.
And anyone can note the absence of a ring on my finger which indicates I'm not an engineer.
( Engineers use those fancy equations for flows, stresses, etc. that we Physicists derive from first principles 😁 )

Sometimes, to the outside world, I appear to be an asshole; and sometimes I definitely am.
But I'm still looking for an explanation.

Edited February 4 by MigL

[StringJunky]

3 hours ago, MigL said:

My post was referring to INow's post about aberrations  to the XX and XY chromosonal pairings.
I pointed out that there are many other genetic conditions for which we seek cures.
For example, there are genetic conditions that result in deformities, or altered growth rates or limits, and these conditions can often make life unbearable for these individuals, even though there is no physical 'harm' to them, or those around them.
So we seek a cure, or treatment, for such conditions.
Does that sound similar to any other groups, String Junky ?

Is 'dwarfism' a sickness ?

Dwarfism is a disadvantage under open-air conditions. In forests and subterranean environs it's an advantage; some Amazonian groups tend to be short.

Edited February 4 by StringJunky

[swansont]

4 hours ago, MigL said:

Is 'dwarfism' a sickness ?

I would say no

4 hours ago, MigL said:

Almost all 'short' people can lead healthy, normal, lives, yet society tends to look down on them ( really, no pun intended ).

Indeed. The problem is with society's attitude.

4 hours ago, MigL said:

Are you going to tell me there is no active research into curing that genetic condition.

I don't know. Are the efforts for curing or preventing?

[dimreepr]

3 hours ago, swansont said:

I don't know. Are the efforts for curing or preventing?

That depends on the level of commitment...

[iNow]

9 hours ago, MigL said:

these conditions can often make life unbearable for these individuals, even though there is no physical 'harm' to them, or those around them.

In context of this threads topic, the only thing making life unbearable to trans people is their fellow humans and the hate (and refusal to accept) those fellow humans so constantly direct toward them, despite the complete lack of any physical harm a trans person authentically sharing who they are causes to those around them.

[MigL]

7 minutes ago, iNow said:

In context of this threads topic, the only thing making life unbearable to trans people is their fellow humans and the hate (and refusal to accept) those fellow humans so constantly direct toward them, despite the complete lack of any physical harm a trans person authentically sharing who they are causes to those around them.

And dwarfs used to get tossed ...  for sport.

Not disagreeing with your assessment; simply pointing out that we treat other groups differently.

[iNow]

At least nobody is arguing that biology disallows humans from being shorter than 4 feet tall. 

Or that being short is like claiming you’re an aardvark 

[TheVat]

16 minutes ago, iNow said:

In context of this threads topic, the only thing making life unbearable to trans people is their fellow humans and the hate (and refusal to accept) those fellow humans so constantly direct toward them, despite the complete lack of any physical harm a trans person authentically sharing who they are causes to those around them.

Would it be more accurate to say that being trans is the cure rather than the syndrome?  Most become trans subsequent to the miseries of body dysmorphia, a syndrome.  The former can induce suffering that is intrinsic (painful mirror confrontations where one sees something other than what one feels) and not necessarily a result of social pressures.  Most will also experience the social pressures, but there is a core to body dysmorphia that is intrinsic and would be experienced even in a PLAU-filled commune outside of Eugene, OR.  (my guess is fewer would seek a surgical reassignment in the PLAU environment, simply because acceptance would be at that shining level of no one dictating that chicks can't have dicks or men have vajayjays.  Why am I thinking of a Billy Joel song atm?)  

 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

That depends on the level of commitment...

I don’t understand. If the efforts are ongoing, where does the level of commitment come into play?

[TheVat]

7 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Dwarfism is a disadvantage under open-air conditions. In forests and subterranean environs it's an advantage; some Amazonian groups tend to be short.

From a medical perspective, not all little people are in the same boat*.  Some conditions are not advantageous in any environment because they are a result of pathologies in bone and joints and cause significant misery.  Some forms are accompanied by other hormonal and neurological issues (like Prader-Willi syndrome ) that aren't much fun.  But yes, natural dwarfism, like insular dwarfism, or midgets who do not have any skeletal dysplasia, seem to be adaptive.  If climate change led to a major reduction in food supply, such variations might prove adaptive all across the globe.  (unless, per your point about open-air conditions, tall stature outweighed as an adaption for, say, hunting)

* though being small, they might all fit in the boat

[iNow]

43 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Would it be more accurate to say that being trans is the cure rather than the syndrome? 

I prefer not using the syndrome / abnormal framing and to instead just allow people to be authentically who they are openly and transparently. So long as they’re not harming others, then others should not seek to harm them.

Nothing prevents us from acknowledging this is just another path through life and it’s one we can actively seek to acknowledge without judgmental valance, cultural taboo, or desire to legislatively strip away civil rights and protections.

Some people they may call me a dreamer, but I’m not the only one. 

[CharonY]

4 hours ago, TheVat said:

Would it be more accurate to say that being trans is the cure rather than the syndrome?  Most become trans subsequent to the miseries of body dysmorphia, a syndrome.  The former can induce suffering that is intrinsic (painful mirror confrontations where one sees something other than what one feels) and not necessarily a result of social pressures.  Most will also experience the social pressures, but there is a core to body dysmorphia that is intrinsic and would be experienced even in a PLAU-filled commune outside of Eugene, OR.  (my guess is fewer would seek a surgical reassignment in the PLAU environment, simply because acceptance would be at that shining level of no one dictating that chicks can't have dicks or men have vajayjays.  Why am I thinking of a Billy Joel song atm?)  

 

In this context I think it is important to highlight that definitions like disease/syndromes etc. are context-driven and are not something that is ultimately biological per se, despite having biological origins. 

A crude example includes forms of sickle cell anemia, which in isolation is harmful, but in the context of high malaria risk, becomes beneficial. Ultimately, any variation that exists in nature simply exists, regardless of frequency and any "norm" we associate with it, is almost entirely context-driven. For practical purposes, we consider mutations a deviation from something (i.e. the wild-type), but given the fact that everything we see is the result of one mutation or another, it is obviously not something that is really not normal in nature.

So obviously the association with genotype and sex is specific to a number of species (including humans), but is clearly not universal. And even within these, a number of variations exist. As SJ mentioned before, whether we call them a syndrome is related to whether they cause issue in their daily lives, which obviously is very specific to the human condition and society and should not be mixed with biological interpretation. 

[MigL]

3 hours ago, iNow said:

Some people they may call me a dreamer, but I’m not the only one. 

You're not J Lennon, either.

[CharonY]

11 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Dwarfism is a disadvantage under open-air conditions. In forests and subterranean environs it's an advantage; some Amazonian groups tend to be short.

And also a function of nutrient availability. This is another example why focusing on a seemingly fixed (genetic or other biological interpretation) of a presumed normalcy is inherently flawed. Nature just is creates all kinds of variations. Otherwise we would still be superoptimized unicellular organisms. 

[iNow]

6 hours ago, MigL said:

You're not J Lennon, either.

“You don’t need anybody to tell you who you are or what you are. You are what you are!”

 

[Phi for All]

23 hours ago, MigL said:

And dwarfs used to get tossed ...  for sport.

Not disagreeing with your assessment; simply pointing out that we treat other groups differently.

Why do we treat this particular group differently? Are we unhappy with their definition of man and woman? Again, I ask you who gets to define what being a man is FOR YOU? And if you get to decide, why isn't that courtesy extended to others?

[MigL]

12 hours ago, Phi for All said:

And if you get to decide, why isn't that courtesy extended to others?

If I get to decide what ?

I will recap the previous discussion; maybe you missed it.
My 'question' was for clarification of something INow replied to Joigus.
Essentially that there are genetic conditions other than the typical XX and XY chromosonal pairings, and therefore no clear definition of male or female.
I posted that for other genetic conditions like dwarfism ( or autism, as per the other thread ), even though there is no ill effect on the individual or those around him/her, there is active research going on to 'cure' such conditions.
I wondered why there is no research going on for the treatment of XX/XY chromosonal aberrations, and all I got in response was an appeal to sympathy for those so afflicted.

But I don't know, maybe  there is research to find a cure, for those who aren't strictly genetic males or females, or maybe discussion of the subject is frowned upon.
I still await a proper explanation.

Oh, and your line, which I quoted above, makes me sound like the 'fascist' INow accused me of being ( in jest, of course ), when all I'm asking for is clarification.

[dimreepr]

On 2/4/2024 at 3:59 PM, swansont said:

I don’t understand. If the efforts are ongoing, where does the level of commitment come into play?

At some point the alphabet people will have to commit to laughing at themselves, if they want to be accepted.

 

On 2/3/2024 at 3:12 PM, dimreepr said:

Indeed, today I had mushroom soup, and now I have a craving for ant's named stewart...

I'm on my third shoe with this joke, it would seem.