Gender Neutrality

[4gold]

In today's political and social climate, policies are changing toward accomodating gender as a personal choice while homosexuality is natural.

In New York City, the city's Board of Health would allow residents to choose what gender they want on their birth certificate, whether the resident has had a sex change operation or not.

In Oakland, California, elementary schools are creating "gender fluid" atmospheres to allow students to choose for themselves which gender role they prefer.

In Oshkosh, Wisconsin, the ACLU is filing a lawsuit that inmates diagnosed with gender identity disorder are Constitutionally allowed taxpayer-assisted sex change operations.

Questions for debate:

Should society create a gender neutral atmosphere?

Should psychology's standards be our foundation for our cultural laws?

Am I only pointing out absurd examples, or is gender-neutrality really a growing trend in the US, North America, and/or Western culture?

For non-theistic responders: Do you believe that gender is a personal choice, and that homosexuality is natural?

For theistic responders: Does God create transgendered humans?

[Confused]

In today's political and social climate, policies are changing toward accomodating gender as a personal choice while homosexuality is natural.

In New York City, the city's Board of Health would allow residents to choose what gender they want on their birth certificate, whether the resident has had a sex change operation or not.

In Oakland, California, elementary schools are creating "gender fluid" atmospheres to allow students to choose for themselves which gender role they prefer.

In Oshkosh, Wisconsin, the ACLU is filing a lawsuit that inmates diagnosed with gender identity disorder are Constitutionally allowed taxpayer-assisted sex change operations.

Questions for debate:

Should society create a gender neutral atmosphere?

Should psychology's standards be our foundation for our cultural laws?

Am I only pointing out absurd examples, or is gender-neutrality really a growing trend in the US, North America, and/or Western culture?

For non-theistic responders: Do you believe that gender is a personal choice, and that homosexuality is natural?

For theistic responders: Does God create transgendered humans?

Boy you go for it all don't you?

First: should tax payers pay for inmate sex change operations: that should be up the the tax payers of that state. If it is put up to vote and they agree, then so be it. But I would no more agree to paying for a sex change operation than I would a tummy tuck, liposuction, or breast implants.

Gender Identity Disorder is defined by the DSMIV as:

Individuals with this mental disorder are uncomfortable with their apparent or assigned gender and demonstrate persistent identification with the opposite sex.

Diagnostic criteria for Gender Identity Disorder
(cautionary statement)
A. A strong and persistent cross-gender identification (not merely a desire for any perceived cultural advantages of being the other sex). In children, the disturbance is manifested by four (or more) of the following:

(1) repeatedly stated desire to be, or insistence that he or she is, the other sex
(2) in boys, preference for cross-dressing or simulating female attire; in girls, insistence on wearing only stereotypical masculine clothing
(3) strong and persistent preferences for cross-sex roles in make-believe play or persistent fantasies of being the other sex
(4) intense desire to participate in the stereotypical games and pastimes of the other sex
(5) strong preference for playmates of the other sex. In adolescents and adults, the disturbance is manifested by symptoms such as a stated desire to be the other sex, frequent passing as the other sex, desire to live or be treated as the other sex, or the conviction that he or she has the typical feelings and reactions of the other sex.

B. Persistent discomfort with his or her sex or sense of inappropriateness in the gender role of that sex. In children, the disturbance is manifested by any of the following: in boys, assertion that his penis or testes are disgusting or will disappear or assertion that it would be better not to have a penis, or aversion toward rough-and-tumble play and rejection of male stereotypical toys, games, and activities; in girls, rejection of urinating in a sitting position, assertion that she has or will grow a penis, or assertion that she does not want to grow breasts or menstruate, or marked aversion toward normative feminine clothing. In adolescents and adults, the disturbance is manifested by symptoms such as preoccupation with getting rid of primary and secondary sex characteristics (e.g., request for hormones, surgery, or other procedures to physically alter sexual characteristics to simulate the other sex) or belief that he or she was born the wrong sex.

C. The disturbance is not concurrent with a physical intersex condition.

D. The disturbance causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.

Code based on current age:

302.6 Gender Identity Disorder in Children
302.85 Gender Identity Disorder in Adolescents or Adults

Specify if (for sexually mature individuals):

Sexually Attracted to Males
Sexually Attracted to Females
Sexually Attracted to Both
Sexually Attracted to Neither

Reprinted with permission from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision. Copyright 2000 American Psychiatric Association

While some may not view this as a mental disorder, currently, medicine defines it as such.

I believe that in some sense Gender is determined by the individual in their form of expression, but genetics ultimately is how we define gender today. You are either XX or XY. While there exist anomalies and mutations, these are the general forms. However, just as one may feel more female than male or vice versa, their DNA is what we currently use to distinguish. Homosexuality is a way of life and has no gentic code linked to it as of now. Now that isn't saying that someday a gene will will be found that will indicate more than just a predisposition to it. But currently it doesn't exist. One is currently under investigation as to causing a predisposition only.

Society has created a gender neutral atmosphere as much as is possible in todays world. But human anatomy limits how neutral it can be. A sex change still wont aid in procreation, nor will it magically produce hormones internally. But there are certain limits to male capabilities just as there are to female capabilities. This is nothing more than the creation of the human body.

Psychology still views this as a mental disorder. I can't say if it is wrong or right, but if one decides to undergo the surgery, this is their right. But psychology isn't what defines gender cultural influence. Genetics does.

[4gold]

Boy you go for it all don't you?

First: should tax payers pay for inmate sex change operations: that should be up the the tax payers of that state. If it is put up to vote and they agree, then so be it. But I would no more agree to paying for a sex change operation than I would a tummy tuck, liposuction, or breast implants.

In this particular case, the voters did decide to outlaw taxpayer assistance of sex change operations (or the city council, I can't remember). The ACLU is challenging the Constitutionality of that law. They claim, as you showed below, that GID is a legitimate medical condition in the eyes of the APA. As a medical condition, the inmates have a Constitutional right to treatment and taxpayer assistance.

Gender Identity Disorder is defined by the DSMIV as:

Individuals with this mental disorder are uncomfortable with their apparent or assigned gender and demonstrate persistent identification with the opposite sex.

Diagnostic criteria for Gender Identity Disorder
(cautionary statement)
A. A strong and persistent cross-gender identification (not merely a desire for any perceived cultural advantages of being the other sex). In children, the disturbance is manifested by four (or more) of the following:

(1) repeatedly stated desire to be, or insistence that he or she is, the other sex
(2) in boys, preference for cross-dressing or simulating female attire; in girls, insistence on wearing only stereotypical masculine clothing
(3) strong and persistent preferences for cross-sex roles in make-believe play or persistent fantasies of being the other sex
(4) intense desire to participate in the stereotypical games and pastimes of the other sex
(5) strong preference for playmates of the other sex. In adolescents and adults, the disturbance is manifested by symptoms such as a stated desire to be the other sex, frequent passing as the other sex, desire to live or be treated as the other sex, or the conviction that he or she has the typical feelings and reactions of the other sex.

B. Persistent discomfort with his or her sex or sense of inappropriateness in the gender role of that sex. In children, the disturbance is manifested by any of the following: in boys, assertion that his xxx or testes are disgusting or will disappear or assertion that it would be better not to have a xxx, or aversion toward rough-and-tumble play and rejection of male stereotypical toys, games, and activities; in girls, rejection of urinating in a sitting position, assertion that she has or will grow a xxx, or assertion that she does not want to grow breasts or menstruate, or marked aversion toward normative feminine clothing. In adolescents and adults, the disturbance is manifested by symptoms such as preoccupation with getting rid of primary and secondary sex characteristics (e.g., request for hormones, surgery, or other procedures to physically alter sexual characteristics to simulate the other sex) or belief that he or she was born the wrong sex.

C. The disturbance is not concurrent with a physical intersex condition.

D. The disturbance causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.

Code based on current age:

302.6 Gender Identity Disorder in Children
302.85 Gender Identity Disorder in Adolescents or Adults

Specify if (for sexually mature individuals):

Sexually Attracted to Males
Sexually Attracted to Females
Sexually Attracted to Both
Sexually Attracted to Neither

Reprinted with permission from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision. Copyright 2000 American Psychiatric Association

While some may not view this as a mental disorder, currently, medicine defines it as such.

Thanks for this definition. Just as the argument for Christians stems from choice versus natural, the argument for atheists and agnostics often stems from science.

I chose the above three examples, because I figured that even though science endorses gender neutrality, I am pretty sure there is something within even the most strident atheist that would reject this as being a little absurd.

Hence, my question: should psychology be the foundation of our laws?

I believe that in some sense Gender is determined by the individual in their form of expression, but genetics ultimately is how we define gender today. You are either XX or XY. While there exist anomalies and mutations, these are the general forms. However, just as one may feel more female than male or vice versa, their DNA is what we currently use to distinguish. Homosexuality is a way of life and has no gentic code linked to it as of now. Now that isn't saying that someday a gene will will be found that will indicate more than just a predisposition to it. But currently it doesn't exist. One is currently under investigation as to causing a predisposition only.

Society has created a gender neutral atmosphere as much as is possible in todays world. But human anatomy limits how neutral it can be. A sex change still wont aid in procreation, nor will it magically produce hormones internally. But there are certain limits to male capabilities just as there are to female capabilities. This is nothing more than the creation of the human body.

Psychology still views this as a mental disorder. I can't say if it is wrong or right, but if one decides to undergo the surgery, this is their right. But psychology isn't what defines gender cultural influence. Genetics does.

Yeah, I would agree with pretty much all that you stated here...especially this quote: "psychology isn't what defines gender cultural influence."

The ACLU is trying to argue that the APA does get to define the cultural laws. New York City is doing something similar. Oakland elementary schools are using their own interpretations of the APA to create their own cultural influence.

I am pretty sure that Christians and atheists could unite to say that gender influence should be neutral -- elementary schools should not encourage students to choose their own gender roles, and at the same time, they should not discourage them either. Leave it up to the parents. I think we could all probably unite and state that taxpayer-assisted sex change operations is not a Constitutional right. And as far as what shows up on the birth certificate, it's probably an inconsequential decision, other than a possible slipper-slope argument.

The goal I was trying to achieve with this post is how far we'll let science influence our cultural laws. I am pleased to see that you agree with me that there are limits to which laws we should base on the "soft sciences".

[Confused]

Boy you go for it all don't you?

First: should tax payers pay for inmate sex change operations: that should be up the the tax payers of that state. If it is put up to vote and they agree, then so be it. But I would no more agree to paying for a sex change operation than I would a tummy tuck, liposuction, or breast implants.

In this particular case, the voters did decide to outlaw taxpayer assistance of sex change operations (or the city council, I can't remember). The ACLU is challenging the Constitutionality of that law. They claim, as you showed below, that GID is a legitimate medical condition in the eyes of the APA. As a medical condition, the inmates have a Constitutional right to treatment and taxpayer assistance.

Gender Identity Disorder is defined by the DSMIV as:

Individuals with this mental disorder are uncomfortable with their apparent or assigned gender and demonstrate persistent identification with the opposite sex.

Diagnostic criteria for Gender Identity Disorder
(cautionary statement)
A. A strong and persistent cross-gender identification (not merely a desire for any perceived cultural advantages of being the other sex). In children, the disturbance is manifested by four (or more) of the following:

(1) repeatedly stated desire to be, or insistence that he or she is, the other sex
(2) in boys, preference for cross-dressing or simulating female attire; in girls, insistence on wearing only stereotypical masculine clothing
(3) strong and persistent preferences for cross-sex roles in make-believe play or persistent fantasies of being the other sex
(4) intense desire to participate in the stereotypical games and pastimes of the other sex
(5) strong preference for playmates of the other sex. In adolescents and adults, the disturbance is manifested by symptoms such as a stated desire to be the other sex, frequent passing as the other sex, desire to live or be treated as the other sex, or the conviction that he or she has the typical feelings and reactions of the other sex.

B. Persistent discomfort with his or her sex or sense of inappropriateness in the gender role of that sex. In children, the disturbance is manifested by any of the following: in boys, assertion that his xxx or testes are disgusting or will disappear or assertion that it would be better not to have a xxx, or aversion toward rough-and-tumble play and rejection of male stereotypical toys, games, and activities; in girls, rejection of urinating in a sitting position, assertion that she has or will grow a xxx, or assertion that she does not want to grow breasts or menstruate, or marked aversion toward normative feminine clothing. In adolescents and adults, the disturbance is manifested by symptoms such as preoccupation with getting rid of primary and secondary sex characteristics (e.g., request for hormones, surgery, or other procedures to physically alter sexual characteristics to simulate the other sex) or belief that he or she was born the wrong sex.

C. The disturbance is not concurrent with a physical intersex condition.

D. The disturbance causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.

Code based on current age:

302.6 Gender Identity Disorder in Children
302.85 Gender Identity Disorder in Adolescents or Adults

Specify if (for sexually mature individuals):

Sexually Attracted to Males
Sexually Attracted to Females
Sexually Attracted to Both
Sexually Attracted to Neither

Reprinted with permission from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision. Copyright 2000 American Psychiatric Association

While some may not view this as a mental disorder, currently, medicine defines it as such.

Thanks for this definition. Just as the argument for Christians stems from choice versus natural, the argument for atheists and agnostics often stems from science.

I chose the above three examples, because I figured that even though science endorses gender neutrality, I am pretty sure there is something within even the most strident atheist that would reject this as being a little absurd.

Hence, my question: should psychology be the foundation of our laws?

I believe that in some sense Gender is determined by the individual in their form of expression, but genetics ultimately is how we define gender today. You are either XX or XY. While there exist anomalies and mutations, these are the general forms. However, just as one may feel more female than male or vice versa, their DNA is what we currently use to distinguish. Homosexuality is a way of life and has no gentic code linked to it as of now. Now that isn't saying that someday a gene will will be found that will indicate more than just a predisposition to it. But currently it doesn't exist. One is currently under investigation as to causing a predisposition only.

Society has created a gender neutral atmosphere as much as is possible in todays world. But human anatomy limits how neutral it can be. A sex change still wont aid in procreation, nor will it magically produce hormones internally. But there are certain limits to male capabilities just as there are to female capabilities. This is nothing more than the creation of the human body.

Psychology still views this as a mental disorder. I can't say if it is wrong or right, but if one decides to undergo the surgery, this is their right. But psychology isn't what defines gender cultural influence. Genetics does.

Yeah, I would agree with pretty much all that you stated here...especially this quote: "psychology isn't what defines gender cultural influence."

The ACLU is trying to argue that the APA does get to define the cultural laws. New York City is doing something similar. Oakland elementary schools are using their own interpretations of the APA to create their own cultural influence.

I am pretty sure that Christians and atheists could unite to say that gender influence should be neutral -- elementary schools should not encourage students to choose their own gender roles, and at the same time, they should not discourage them either. Leave it up to the parents. I think we could all probably unite and state that taxpayer-assisted sex change operations is not a Constitutional right. And as far as what shows up on the birth certificate, it's probably an inconsequential decision, other than a possible slipper-slope argument.

The goal I was trying to achieve with this post is how far we'll let science influence our cultural laws. I am pleased to see that you agree with me that there are limits to which laws we should base on the "soft sciences".

I think the ACLU was formed for good intention intially and is now abused just like most other organizations that start with good intentions.

Gender infleunce should be neutral, but gender identity is not. Regardless of the sex operation, you will still have an xx or xy chromosome. Period.

People forget that the APA isnt' the AMA. Most of the APA is based on theory, or soft sciences. They don't cure, they treat. And usually their treatment is never ending. For example, alcoholism and addiction. Now, I don't doubt that these are disorders. But I don't think they should be disabilities. I know I am going to get a blood bath for this, but you can choose not pick up that drink or shoot up that drug. Why should my taxes pay for you to continue in relapses etc..... Does it make a mother feel better to hear that had that driver not been drunk, he would never have swerved into your lane and killed your daughter? It's the alcohols fault. Blah blah blah blah....... But no, now it isn't a disorder, but a disease. Personal responsibility has been shifted and I resent having it categorized the same as my leukemia. I digress, my apology.

There are limits to what science can influence. Hitlers medical experiments prove the ends don't justify the means.

[Cephus]

Am I only pointing out absurd examples, or is gender-neutrality really a growing trend in the US, North America, and/or Western culture?

I don't think your examples are absurd, but the number of examples are very small and I think that a lot of them, like the state-paid sex change, is ludicrous. We don't pay for plastic surgery, we shouldn't pay for non-life-threatening procedures regardless of what they are.

For non-theistic responders: Do you believe that gender is a personal choice, and that homosexuality is natural?

Homosexuality is demonstrably natural, there's no question whatsoever. As far as gender being a choice, no, I don't think it's a choice, it's something you are born with, even if your internal gender doesn't match your external gender. People, at least people with a clue, don't simply wake up one day and decide they're going to be the opposite gender. It's something they know their entire lives.

[4gold]

Homosexuality is demonstrably natural, there's no question whatsoever. As far as gender being a choice, no, I don't think it's a choice, it's something you are born with, even if your internal gender doesn't match your external gender. People, at least people with a clue, don't simply wake up one day and decide they're going to be the opposite gender. It's something they know their entire lives.

Obviously, there is a question of whether homosexuality is something developmental or environmental. It has been debated ad nauseum.

But as far as gender choice goes, do you subscribe to the theory that people can be a different gender than their chromosomes? How is gender determined, in your opinion?

[Confused]

Homosexuality is demonstrably natural, there's no question whatsoever. As far as gender being a choice, no, I don't think it's a choice, it's something you are born with, even if your internal gender doesn't match your external gender. People, at least people with a clue, don't simply wake up one day and decide they're going to be the opposite gender. It's something they know their entire lives.

Obviously, there is a question of whether homosexuality is something developmental or environmental. It has been debated ad nauseum.

But as far as gender choice goes, do you subscribe to the theory that people can be a different gender than their chromosomes? How is gender determined, in your opinion?

I know you requested this of Cephus, but I would assert that gender isn't a choice. Gender is an assignment based on science not psychology. I think they can feel like a man trapped in a womans body or vice versa, but this is psychological, not genetics. Chromosomes are pretty straight forward in this area-XX, XY. There are anomalies such a hermaphrodites, but they still have a genetic gender.

[Cephus]

Obviously, there is a question of whether homosexuality is something developmental or environmental. It has been debated ad nauseum.

There isn't really any question that it's developmental since we find homosexuality practiced in other species. As for whether environmental factors in humans can override nature, I'm sure there is quite a bit of that going on.

But as far as gender choice goes, do you subscribe to the theory that people can be a different gender than their chromosomes? How is gender determined, in your opinion?

In the end, it's irrelevant. The human species has the ability to change gender, at least physically, as it sees fit, hence it doesn't matter if you want to believe Joe should be Josephine or not. If Joe wants to be Josephine, what business is it of yours?

[4gold]

There isn't really any question that it's developmental since we find homosexuality practiced in other species. As for whether environmental factors in humans can override nature, I'm sure there is quite a bit of that going on.

I really don't want to debate this point, since we can find this debate subject in another forum. Suffice it to say that even secular scientists do not have consensus that there is causal link between developmental and finding it in other animal species.

Personally, I accept the theory of Dr. Joan Roughgarten, a transsexual biology professor at Stanford, who claims that evidence of homosexuality in other animal species indicates that homosexuality cannot be developmental, since Evolution should have taken care of homosexuality long ago. She argues that it cannot be environmental, either, but rather must be the result of communal cooperation in advanced species. She is currently developing a game theory to support her hypothesis.

I'll let you have the last word on this, but if you want to pick up this conversation, please leave me a note in the other subject on this matter, and I'd be happy to discuss why Dr. Roughgarten's theory may or may not be plausible.

In the end, it's irrelevant. The human species has the ability to change gender, at least physically, as it sees fit, hence it doesn't matter if you want to believe Joe should be Josephine or not. If Joe wants to be Josephine, what business is it of yours?

I disagree. No amount of surgery will ever change a person's chromosomes. Even after surgery, the patient will still have the XX or the XY chromosomal makeup as they did at birth.

This is why I asked the question: is gender something you are born with, or something you can choose later on in life?

I also disagree that this is irrelevant, unless the answer to my third question was that this is not a growing trend, but rather just examples of absurdity. I demonstrated how this idea can have tax consequences, and not only that, but it has developmental influences on our elementary school students.

[Confused]

There isn't really any question that it's developmental since we find homosexuality practiced in other species. As for whether environmental factors in humans can override nature, I'm sure there is quite a bit of that going on.

I really don't want to debate this point, since we can find this debate subject in another forum. Suffice it to say that even secular scientists do not have consensus that there is causal link between developmental and finding it in other animal species.

Personally, I accept the theory of Dr. Joan Roughgarten, a transsexual biology professor at Stanford, who claims that evidence of homosexuality in other animal species indicates that homosexuality cannot be developmental, since Evolution should have taken care of homosexuality long ago. She argues that it cannot be environmental, either, but rather must be the result of communal cooperation in advanced species. She is currently developing a game theory to support her hypothesis.

I'll let you have the last word on this, but if you want to pick up this conversation, please leave me a note in the other subject on this matter, and I'd be happy to discuss why Dr. Roughgarten's theory may or may not be plausible.

In the end, it's irrelevant. The human species has the ability to change gender, at least physically, as it sees fit, hence it doesn't matter if you want to believe Joe should be Josephine or not. If Joe wants to be Josephine, what business is it of yours?

I disagree. No amount of surgery will ever change a person's chromosomes. Even after surgery, the patient will still have the XX or the XY chromosomal makeup as they did at birth.

This is why I asked the question: is gender something you are born with, or something you can choose later on in life?

I also disagree that this is irrelevant, unless the answer to my third question was that this is not a growing trend, but rather just examples of absurdity. I demonstrated how this idea can have tax consequences, and not only that, but it has developmental influences on our elementary school students.

I agree that it isn't irrelevant. I also agree that regardless, our gender is defined by science. It is something you are born with. Now gender identity can be debated on the scientific level or psychological level. Science is going to say gender identity is XX and XY. Psychology is going to say that you gender is what you deem it to be (though it is still listed as psychological disorder in the DSMIV). You may be able to choose to express your gender identity later on, but you gender is still determined at conception. I think the idea of taxpayers paying for sex change operations is abusrd, period. But I think that gender neutrality is a concept that is important in early childhood and on. It dispells the myths that boys are stronger than girls, that only girls cry, etc...... So neutrality is a good thing. But the ACLU is doing it's typical overzealous abuse of its organization.