.

Dear Armchair Critic

.

You raise some interesting questions there, but you are getting us into deep water.

I'm afraid I'm a little out of my depth and don't pretend to hold the truth on anything concerning the questions you raise.

My thoughts are rather basic and somewhat simplistic, but I'll gladly share them with you for what they're worth – if anything.

In particular, you wtite :

« I'm absolutely certain that the currently recognised gender options are not in any way a 'reality of nature' or a 'biological fact' »

Life in all its forms, to me, is an integral part of nature. I understand nature to be an objective reality, and life, a constituent of the objetive reality of nature, a biological fact.

Identity, an idea in the minds of cognitive life forms endowed by nature with the faculty of consciousness. I understand mind to be a form of neuronal activity and, as such, also a faculty developed by nature and a biological fact.

Gender identity, which is what interests you, has been considered, since time immemorial, a simple matter of male and female. We now realise it is far more complex than we thought.

Any variance in the traditional dichotomy male-female had always been considered, until recent times, an anomaly, a disorder, classified by the American Psychiatric Association in its DSM (Diagnostic & Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) as gender dysphoria.

It has since been reclassified as "gender incongruence", a condition related to sexual health. The working group responsible for this recategorisation recommends keeping such a diagnosis to preserve access to health service.

In December 2002, the British Lord Chancellor's office published a Government Policy Concerning Transsexual People document that categorically states, "What transsexualism is not ... It is not a mental illness." In May 2009, the government of France declared that a transsexual gender identity will no longer be classified as a psychiatric condition, but according to French trans rights organizations, beyond the impact of the announcement itself, nothing changed. Denmark made a similar statement in 2016.

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

A 2014 High Court of Australia judgment unanimously ruled in favor of a plaintiff named Norrie, who asked to be classified by a third gender category, 'non-specific', after a long court battle with the NSW Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages. However, the Court did not accept that gender was a social construction: it found that sex reassignment "surgery did not resolve her sexual ambiguity" :

http://www6.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/2014/11.html

In Australia, the 2016 census indicated that some 1,260 people were considered to have provided a valid and intentional sex/gender diverse response (sex/gender because many did not give enough information to determine which). This is a rate of 5.4 per hundred thousand people - a very small proportion, and unlikely to be an accurate number of people with sex/gender other than male or female :

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/2071.0~2016~Main%20Features~Sex%20and%20Gender%20Diversity%20in%20the%202016%20Census~100

Australia's non-heterosexual population aged 18+ in mid-2016 was a little under 600,000, representing 3.2 per cent of the total adult population (18,750,000). The figures indicate there were more non-heterosexual females than males in the younger adult ages, with the situation reversed in the older age groups :

http://www.australianpopulationstudies.org/index.php/aps/article/download/23/13/

In view of these relatively recent revelations that shed a radically different light on the question of gender identity, I am inclined to consider that gender variance or gender nonconformity (including so-called "intersex") is a perfectly natural biological phenomenon.

.

Banjo, given that in nature, we all agree, there are only two basic life forms that are the "pure" and "un-adulterated' version of each.
Anything other than a + or a - is a ?.
I do not care for the tripe these so called experts and scientists put out, it is an overreach at best to look for and subsequently act surprised, when they find differences which were obvious before they began their research, only to declare as if to have discovered a new gender (or species).
If they wish to be seen as unique and something other than male or female, then they are by definition, something other than homo-sapien.
To that end their true gender then is "alien", and then are in fact, and must be considered in the same category as mutations or a flawed version of homo-sapien, in the same way a mentally impaired or physically dis-abled person or even dwarfism is an imperfect form of homo-sapien.
They are not under any circumstances a "new" gender so I will not facilitate these mental deficients in bolstering their selfish, arrogant stance and dogmatic mantra.
These "mutants" are described, as having a "condition" when the word "gender" is researched.
So it is that if they wish to remain under the genetic definition of "homo-sapien", then they are a "physically and or mentally impaired or flawed" male or female.
But they are still MALE and FEMALE.
If they want to be classified as something other than male or female, then they are another species or aliens and cannot be regarded or included in the same category as homo-sapiens as this life form is very specific in it's terms of reference, and any, ANY departure from this renders the person a flawed version of what is a strict genetic code or structure which identifies and classifies us as MALE and FEMALE!

.

Dear ALTRAV,

.

I see you are a man of conviction.

But, obviously, the claim that gender deviance is what we call a « manufacturing error » in industrial terms – in this instance, a biological error in which people's gender identity does not match the sex they were assigned with at birth – would be rejected  "manu militari" by all those whose firm conviction is that the creation of their hypothetical God is perfect.

Let's face it, they represent 84% of the world population at the latest count (http://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/aug/27/religion-why-is-faith-growing-and-what-happens-next). According to religious doctrine, aberrations concerning gender identity are to be attributed, in part or in whole, either to the gender deviants themselves (as « sinners »), their parents or their entourage.

It appears that the causes of gender deviances have been the object of numerous studies for many decades. The most studied factors, so far as I can ascertain, have been biological – certain brain structures in particular. As a result, it has been found that hormone therapy helps align secondary sexual characteristics of nonconforming gender individuals with their gender identity at birth.

Whereas, so far as non-biological factors are concerned, the failure of an attempt to raise David Reimer (a Canadian man born as a boy) from infancy through adolescence as a girl, following medical advice – after his genitals were accidentally mutilated during a botched circumcision – is conidered to disprove the religious doctrine that gender identity is determined solely by the nonconforming gender individuals themselves or by parenting.

As I see it, ALTRAV, nothing is crystal clear in this debate on gender identity. Your conviction is just as good as anybody else's – at least until further knowledge comes to light and we find a better explanation.

.

Banjo, I am a little curious as to why you would not consider my argument as a very convincing and more than plausible one.
From what I read of your submission, it has a heavy focus on subjective reasoning.
As soon as religion is brought into a debate or discussion, it is immediately rendered moot, as the whole concept of religion is merely a man made construct and any attempt at trying to promote it as having ANY connection to something other than a fictitious entity called GOD, is pure fiction, and therefore by definition, is not a real or tangible entity but rather intangible, and subjective, so therefore is not what it is purported to be, and certainly not something we should worship and definitely not to the extent we are expected to.
So given that religion and the holy books, Bible, Koran etc are fiction, written by men who followed a particular dogma, which co-incidentally means, "something that 'seems' true", I believe my submission on this topic is more accurate, if not because of this one point alone.
We should not pander to or facilitate these flawed people.
They can call themselves whatever they want, I will call them, exactly what they are, and to their face.
If enough people did this we would not have to give sway to these morons and mis-fits.
So, I'm sorry but queers are exactly that.
I choose to call them that because of my limited knowledge of the English language.
It is my natural narrative.
I am not engaging in hate speech, you would know if I was.
No this is my normal speak so you see why it is important to leave the freedom of speech alone and let it be FREE!

.

Dear ALTRAV,

.

Superstition and religious dogma aside, the most plausible explanation of the genesis of life appears to have been provided by the ancient Greek philosopher, Democritus (460 BC – 370 BC) who is reported to have observed that “Everything in the universe is the fruit of chance and necessity”. Jacques Monod, the French biologist, a 1965 Nobel Prize winner, later accredited and developed that theory in his book “Le hasard et la nécessité” (Chance and Necessity) published in 1970. From this it is deduced that “Life is a spontaneous, evolutive, sensitive and reproductive process triggered by the fortuitous encounter of complementary elements of matter and energy in a favourable environment”. Chance in this context should be understood as meaning a “random variable” and necessity an “inevitable” event.

The natural biological reproductive process of the species appears to operate on the basis of trial and error and, as Charles Darwin observed, when nature is allowed to operate freely (without any human intervention of any sort), the rule of the “survival of the fittest” applies.

But, as I noted in a previous post, we human beings are an integral part of nature. We have been created, produced and developed by nature through a process of random variables , inevitable events, trial and error and survival of the fittest.

Nature has endowed us with consciousness and intelligence which we have developed to a greater extent than all other life forms, gaining in autonomy (free will) through individual endeavour and efficiency through cooperation with others.

I am inclined to think that the natural biological reproduction process based on trial and error and survival of the fittest is the most plausible explanation for the phenomenon of gender incongruence.

I have no empirical evidence to back this up, ALTRAV. It is simply my best guess based on present knowledge – which is pretty scanty.

.

(Continued …)

.