Unexpected News: The Wachowski Sisters! Second Wachowski Sibling Comes Out As Trans.

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

I was listening to an episode of the Skeptic's Guide to the Universe, and the female podder they have in their cast (I forget her name as I don't really listen to it anymore), she's a scientist of some degree, I forget which. I'm thinking genetics, but I could be way off there. Anyway, I'm rambling, she did a breakdown of what the most recent evidence suggests about homosexuality in particular. The subject was some conservative organization in Australia (I think the Salvation Army?), wasn't allowing gays to help them or something, and she went into a breakdown of why their argument was bunk, explaining that a lot of it seems to be based on fetal development, and what hormones/other stuff, and at what levels the fetus is exposed to during development. That while it's not a 100% guarantee, the evidence does strongly suggest that a lot of the internal wiring for sexuality, gender identity is in the womb, and determined by how much of what stuff you get cooked in.

Womb conditions are of sizable importance in the instance of homosexuality. But people tend to have the wrong idea ... for stuff like this, it's not just a single cause or factor. We know for a fact that specifically homosexuality in this case, that the more children you have the youngest male of that family unit is more likely to be homosexual than their siblings, despite the same partner. One of the reasons being is due to the ever changing nature of womb conditions after each subsequent birth. Regardless of actual genetics. Humans are complex, boiling it down will do more to mislead than to inform.

 

[HybridChangeling]

Congrats to the Wachowskis! I applaud them for their bravery in a trying time of dealing with the cesspool that is The Daily Mail. As much as people make fun of them, they changed a lot in the industry and did plenty of good. That's all I got really, just happy for them.

 

[Emanuele Ciriachi]

If words still have a meaning they are still brothers - no human being can change their gender regardless of their inclination or the way they dress or behave.

 

[happyninja42]

I was listening to an episode of the Skeptic's Guide to the Universe, and the female podder they have in their cast (I forget her name as I don't really listen to it anymore), she's a scientist of some degree, I forget which. I'm thinking genetics, but I could be way off there. Anyway, I'm rambling, she did a breakdown of what the most recent evidence suggests about homosexuality in particular. The subject was some conservative organization in Australia (I think the Salvation Army?), wasn't allowing gays to help them or something, and she went into a breakdown of why their argument was bunk, explaining that a lot of it seems to be based on fetal development, and what hormones/other stuff, and at what levels the fetus is exposed to during development. That while it's not a 100% guarantee, the evidence does strongly suggest that a lot of the internal wiring for sexuality, gender identity is in the womb, and determined by how much of what stuff you get cooked in.

Womb conditions are of sizable importance in the instance of homosexuality. But people tend to have the wrong idea ... for stuff like this, it's not just a single cause or factor. We know for a fact that specifically homosexuality in this case, that the more children you have the youngest male of that family unit is more likely to be homosexual than their siblings, despite the same partner. One of the reasons being is due to the ever changing nature of womb conditions after each subsequent birth. Regardless of actual genetics. Humans are complex, boiling it down will do more to mislead than to inform.

Well like I said in the text that you quoted, it's not the only factor, but that it is a significant factor. Please don't tell me to not say something when I didn't actually say that thing.

 

[Lightknight]

If words still have a meaning they are still brothers - no human being can change their gender regardless of their inclination or the way they dress or behave.

The concept here is that they are not changing their gender but rather were born as a gender that did not match their physical sex. Any work they do on their outer appearance is then to just come more in line with their internal gender. Can they turn their X into a Y or their Y into an X? No, but that's not the point. The point is to look in the mirror and not feel like you're in the wrong body.

We have all kinds of disorders and strange medical conditions in the world, is it so strange to imagine that there could be a condition like that? Hell, we have a condition where you get born with the genitalia of both sexes.

As for the linguistic argument of gendered nouns having meaning, it was only somewhat recently that we've begun to distinguish between the male gender (internal) and the male sex (external). Language is just catching up. If it helps you any, they are called gendered pronouns and not sex pronouns which now does mean reference to one's gender identity.

 

[9tailedflame]

Wow, fuck the daily mail, i could understand reporting against someone's dishes for political corruption, but outing someone as being trans without their permission, or threatening to do so so pretty much makes you a scum-sucking piece of shit, fuck the daily mail

 

[Lightknight]

Wow, fuck the daily mail, i could understand reporting against someone's dishes for political corruption, but outing someone as being trans without their permission, or threatening to do so so pretty much makes you a scum-sucking piece of shit, fuck the daily mail

Two things:

1. It is not unethical to report on this if she was presenting in public.
2. I didn't catch the part where they said they were going to publish it regardless of her wishes.

Again, I'm perfectly willing to pile on top of them with all of you people but I like to get the full story before lynching the poor bastard. Something about knowing history and not wishing to blindly repeat it and all that...

 

[ThatOtherGirl]

What are the odds of them both being trans? I assume genetics is a factor here but to be honest, I don't know a damn thing about the underlying causes of trans-sexuality.

Genetics is a factor. They've done a bucketload of monozygotal twins studies. 33% likelihood of both monozygotal twins sharing a transgender identification. Which is obviously much higher than the incidence rate of the general populace.

There's no single cause, because people are complex balls of walking circumstance and choice. But genetics does play a factor.

Do you have a source for that? Because god damn that is compelling evidence given the estimated percentages in the general population.

OT: Congrats to her on transitioning! Screw the Daily Mail with with rusted barbwire!

 

[Silvanus]

1. It is not unethical to report on this if she was presenting in public.

Well, it kind of is. Something as personal and sensitive as this should be up to the individual, not a news agency. There is tremendous potential for harm here, both mental and physical, and no discernible public good.

2. I didn't catch the part where they said they were going to publish it regardless of her wishes.

They did so before. They've even done so before in the form of hit-pieces.

Do you have a source for that? Because god damn that is compelling evidence given the estimated percentages in the general population.

Here [http://press.endocrine.org/doi/full/10.1210/jc.2014-1919] is one good article, which links to several studies on it. Skip to the sixth paragraph of the section "Current Concepts of the Biology of Gender Identity" for the relevant bit to this.

 

[Jack Action]

...why in the hell are their private lives news?

 

[WindKnight]

Who the hell keeps buying that newspaper then? Is that the UK's Fox News? Cause American's have an excuse. We're mostly morons. We built Monster Trucks because we were bored. But the UKers should know better.

You'd think so, but we have our own prejudices, and people who haven't let go of the fact we used to have an empire, and think that fact matter nowadays. We even have our own Trump in Boris Johnson, though he's rather small potatoes compared to the original.

I just know them as That UK Newspaper That Does Shit Things. Like, every time one hears about a shit thing being done by journalists in the UK they're always from the Daily Mail. Every time.

The Sun and The Daily Star are pretty bad too. Along with the Mail, they spent three months harassing a school teacher for transitioning, ultimately leading to her suicide.

 

[Gengisgame]

If words still have a meaning they are still brothers - no human being can change their gender regardless of their inclination or the way they dress or behave.

We have all kinds of disorders and strange medical conditions in the world, is it so strange to imagine that there could be a condition like that? Hell, we have a condition where you get born with the genitalia of both sexes.

That this condition could exist? no.

That it exists naturally in such a great number? yes.

Realistically there is almost certainly a reason linked with modern society as to why so many MEN are identifying as the opposite sex but anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together knows that any research put into finding out whether that is true or not would amount to political and social suicide if they found the WRONG results.

 

[JimB]

"We don't know shit about why or how the brain does what it does??" I think the entire field of neuroscience would have strong things to say on the statement that "they don't know what they're doing." We know a lot about why/how the brain does what it does. Not everything sure, but to say we know nothing is kind of silly.

It's a bit hyperbolic, sure, but until medical science figures out why one pill made of X, Y, and Z makes me want to jump off a bridge and second pill made of equal amounts of X, Y, and Z makes the voices in my hear shut up, I'm saying we basically don't know what we're doing.

 

[ThatOtherGirl]

Wow, fuck the daily mail, i could understand reporting against someone's dishes for political corruption, but outing someone as being trans without their permission, or threatening to do so so pretty much makes you a scum-sucking piece of shit, fuck the daily mail

Two things:

1. It is not unethical to report on this if she was presenting in public.
2. I didn't catch the part where they said they were going to publish it regardless of her wishes.

Again, I'm perfectly willing to pile on top of them with all of you people but I like to get the full story before lynching the poor bastard. Something about knowing history and not wishing to blindly repeat it and all that...

Requiring a person to remain in private at all times in order to retain privacy is not reasonable in my opinion. It puts a unreasonable burden on visibly different people. Reporting on such things against peoples wishes is morally reprehensible.

That said, I do not think I would make a law against it. Basically, the Daily Mail scrapes by with the absolute minimum level of ethics here to qualify for not illegal, in my opinion. They are the worst type of people and no one should give them a penny for their rag, but I cannot actually justify going after them legally. Which is exactly why they stopped at where they did, I am sure.

 

[happyninja42]

1. It is not unethical to report on this if she was presenting in public.

Well, it kind of is. Something as personal and sensitive as this should be up to the individual, not a news agency. There is tremendous potential for harm here, both mental and physical, and no discernible public good.

I think what he's trying to say is "If I'm going around in public wearing a giant purple top hat, and wearing a leopard print pant suit, I shouldn't be 1: suprised, or 2: upset, that people in the media suddenly report "Happyninja42 sighted wearing a giant purple top hat and leopard print pant suit!" I'm going out in the public, where it's perfectly legal for people to photograph me when I'm out in public, so I can't really get onto them for accurately reporting something I'm putting out there in the public circle.

Now if it's a case of "We broke into his house, and secretly filmed him wearing his purple hat and pant suit around his house, and we're going to publish this without his consent/permission", then yeah, that's a dick move. The first example is simply reporting on public events, the second is deuchebaggery of the utmost degree.

"We don't know shit about why or how the brain does what it does??" I think the entire field of neuroscience would have strong things to say on the statement that "they don't know what they're doing." We know a lot about why/how the brain does what it does. Not everything sure, but to say we know nothing is kind of silly.

It's a bit hyperbolic, sure, but until medical science figures out why one pill made of X, Y, and Z makes me want to jump off a bridge and second pill made of equal amounts of X, Y, and Z makes the voices in my hear shut up, I'm saying we basically don't know what we're doing.

.....okay then, keep being hyperbolic if you like, it's still completely incorrect. They have metric tons of data on the subject of neuroscience, but sure, if you want to say it all amounts to nothing, go right ahead.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Well like I said in the text that you quoted, it's not the only factor, but that it is a significant factor. Please don't tell me to not say something when I didn't actually say that thing.

That wasn't the point I was making. The point I was making is trees and forests. I meant no criticism and to be fair I should have made this point far bit clearer than I did. I was merely attempting to suggest that the approach to understanding is likely a dud one.

Do you have a source for that? Because god damn that is compelling evidence given the estimated percentages in the general population.

OT: Congrats to her on transitioning! Screw the Daily Mail with with rusted barbwire!

http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/2010to2014/2013-transsexuality.html

That's just one ... though keep in mind that the n value is far too small to be taken as fact, but the data suggests that there is a correlation. Given what we know of womb conditions of transgender identity and other brain development patterns and that there is a genetic factor, then it would make sense there would be a high concordance rate. Couple in the fact that the Daily Mail itself is a perfect example why even in the West coming out as trans is a hardship beyond question.

And yes, fuck the Daily Mail with rusted barb wire.

I find it difficult to perceive why shitheads try to pretend that this is okay.

(Edit) Oh, and I also found a medscape article that seems to overlap multiple lines of research over a larger number of disciplines. I'm sure I could find more on Jstor or some other academic journal collection, but you likely won't get free access to that.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/840538_3

Funnily enough there's not a lot of trans born as monozygotic twins. Given the odds of being trans are already low.

 

[Silvanus]

I think what he's trying to say is "If I'm going around in public wearing a giant purple top hat, and wearing a leopard print pant suit, I shouldn't be 1: suprised, or 2: upset, that people in the media suddenly report "Happyninja42 sighted wearing a giant purple top hat and leopard print pant suit!" I'm going out in the public, where it's perfectly legal for people to photograph me when I'm out in public, so I can't really get onto them for accurately reporting something I'm putting out there in the public circle.

Now if it's a case of "We broke into his house, and secretly filmed him wearing his purple hat and pant suit around his house, and we're going to publish this without his consent/permission", then yeah, that's a dick move. The first example is simply reporting on public events, the second is deuchebaggery of the utmost degree.

I can appreciate that, but there's a gulf between your neighbours and workmates knowing and the country knowing. The latter invites a lot of attention, which isn't necessarily welcome (and isn't necessarily constructive). I would call it unethical nonetheless.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

If words still have a meaning they are still brothers - no human being can change their gender regardless of their inclination or the way they dress or behave.

Gender and sex are different things, that's why the word transgender has replaced the stupid as hell word "transsexual". Neither sibling has changed their genders, they just stopped pretending to be the gender they're not. Now the FDA listed gender and sex as the same thing, but that's more an indictment of how traditionally awful the FDA has been.

Also don't use the linguistic argument to support transphobic ideas, especially ideas that erase trans folk's gender identities. Firstly supporting transphobic sentiments really isn't constructive, also more and more science is validating the condition of being transgender, so it's also denying scientific fact. Second language, as in words, have constantly evolving meanings and uses, so language is not a constant. More over, dictionaries are great for general usage, but they're not the authority people want them to be, as they're constantly playing a game of catch up. The definitions are always behind the full usage of words in the language, so dictionaries are constantly reviewing and catching their definitions up to current meanings and usage.

...why in the hell are their private lives news?

For several reasons:
[ol]
[li]Some people have a sick fascination with who might be gay or trans.[/li]
[li]Some "news" outlets use someone's status as a GSM[footnote]Gender and Sexuality Minority[/footnote] as a personal and political attack.[/li]
[li]Most people are fascinated with the personal lives of any celebrity.[/li]
[li]Members of the GSM/LGBTQIA+ community wear their identities proudly, this includes celebrities.[/li]
[li]When a celebrity comes out as gay, trans, or something, a lot of people in the GSM/LGBTQIA+ community see it as personal validation.[/li]
[/ol]

Besides that, transitioning is something the public notices, celebrities are public figures, so this private information doesn't stay private. Besides that there are only two kinds of trans people whose trans status is fully private; those in the closet and those who are stealth and have passing gender presentation. Many trans folk don't pass during transition, many don't pass after transition, and many of us are actually open about being trans, just to name a few reasons why this "private" thing tends to get a lot of public attention. When it's a celebrity, many come out so they can be activists for trans rights, other shittier celebrities, like Caitlyn Jenner, come out so they can capitalize on being something the general public thinks is "crazy", "weird", and "freakish"... So using a "news" article as a hit piece also sells a lot of papers/magazines. The reason Lilly Wachowski is in the news is because she had to preempt the Daily Fail Mail shit-rag tabloid in coming out, before they outed her in a supremely negative fashion.

 

[happyninja42]

I think what he's trying to say is "If I'm going around in public wearing a giant purple top hat, and wearing a leopard print pant suit, I shouldn't be 1: suprised, or 2: upset, that people in the media suddenly report "Happyninja42 sighted wearing a giant purple top hat and leopard print pant suit!" I'm going out in the public, where it's perfectly legal for people to photograph me when I'm out in public, so I can't really get onto them for accurately reporting something I'm putting out there in the public circle.

Now if it's a case of "We broke into his house, and secretly filmed him wearing his purple hat and pant suit around his house, and we're going to publish this without his consent/permission", then yeah, that's a dick move. The first example is simply reporting on public events, the second is deuchebaggery of the utmost degree.

I can appreciate that, but there's a gulf between your neighbours and workmates knowing and the country knowing. The latter invites a lot of attention, which isn't necessarily welcome (and isn't necessarily constructive). I would call it unethical nonetheless.

But, I mean if you are going out in public, and you are celebrity, someone who is always being followed by the media, how would you even expect it to not be picked up and reported? I mean, like I said, it's perfectly legal for people to publish information in the public circle, about thigns that are happening publicly. If I don't want anyone to know about my Purple Hat deal, I shouldn't be going out wearing a giant purple hat. Whether my neighbors know isn't really relevant, I'm making the conscious choice to go out, presenting myself in a way that is going to attract attention, and will be published. I can't really then cry foul for them doing exactly that.

I'm a firm believer in celebrities being able to have a private life, and it being private, and that it's not my fucking business if they don't want to share it with me. But that stance kind of goes out the window in my opinion, when they are no longer keeping it private, and are instead making it publicly known.

You say it's unethical for the media to publish in the above Purple Hat example, but what about the random person who decides to take a photo of me, and put it on their facebook page "Hey check it out! Saw this guy wearing a crazy hat, walking down the street!" Are they being unethical? If they knew who I was, would it be unethical, compared to them simply posting a picture of a guy in a funny hat? What if that innocent post, then someone goes "Hey! That's Happyninja42! I never knew he identified as a Purple Hat guy! Holy shit! I have to tweet about this!" How could I not expect that to happen, if I am going out in public, openly presenting myself as a Purple Hatter? To expect the entire world to not react, or comment, or share this information that I have presented to them publicly at this point seems irrational.

Again, that's only if the person is out of the closet about their Hatness. If they are wanting ot keep it private, have only told a few trusted people, and make every effort to keep that part of their life private. That's fine, they are 100% free to do so, even if they are celebrities. And I defend their right to keep parts of who they are, out of the public eye. But it's unfair to call people unethical for simply reporting on what is public fact at this point. I wear Purple Hats, it's out there, I wear it walking down the street, for all the world to see. To say the world has no right to then comment on my Hatness is unfair.

But again, that's just 1 scenario, I don't know what the case is with the Wachowski woman. If she's been open about it, well then,yeah, it's going to get comment, sorry but it just is. Being open and public invites comment and criticism. If she was keeping it private, and the information somehow got out without her knowledge/consent, then yeah, they are being dicks to basically blackmail her into coming out or they would leak it. That is totally uncalled for.

 

[Lightknight]

Ok, I've looked it up on Wikipedia. Definitely known as a tabloid so I'm not really surprised if this is all malicious on their part. I mean, I don't really expect anything else from tabloids in the states. Frankly, it sounds as though if Lily had entirely ignored them that it would have just been viewed like any other garbage story they produce.

1. It is not unethical to report on this if she was presenting in public.

Well, it kind of is. Something as personal and sensitive as this should be up to the individual, not a news agency. There is tremendous potential for harm here, both mental and physical, and no discernible public good.

There is an entire field of journalistic ethics for exactly this sort of thing. The way the journalist comes up with the information is really important to how ethical it is. If the person was presenting in public then it falls out of being automatically unethical into the realm of discretion. If it's a public figure then most often it is deemed appropriate news. There are qualifiers to that, of course, but generally if you can walk into public and observe it clear as day then it's on the table and free of ethical concerns.

2. I didn't catch the part where they said they were going to publish it regardless of her wishes.

They did so before. They've even done so before in the form of hit-pieces.

From the context of the article, it sounded like the journalist wanted to sit down with Lily and get her perspective on everything. He stated that this would be far better than a tabloid breaking the news.

That doesn't indicate that this instance was a hit piece or that if she didn't want it it would happen anyways. But again, it is also clear that this newspaper itself looks very much like a tabloid itself.

I would be interested in seeing this particular journalist's prior works. We could have a situation of a new journalist just trying to enter the market or we could have the exact same journalist who wrote the hit piece on the previous transgender teacher. If it's the same person, then it would be nice to put a face to this practice rather than just waving our hands at the company that has dozens of contributors.

If words still have a meaning they are still brothers - no human being can change their gender regardless of their inclination or the way they dress or behave.

We have all kinds of disorders and strange medical conditions in the world, is it so strange to imagine that there could be a condition like that? Hell, we have a condition where you get born with the genitalia of both sexes.

That this condition could exist? no.

That it exists naturally in such a great number? yes.

Why? That it exists in such great numbers only gives credence to the reality of it as a condition. Otherwise you're talking about mass delusion that has been recorded as happening for millennia and at severe cost to the individuals expressing it. What's the point, what is the goal of it considering the ramifications of coming out as transgender?

Realistically there is almost certainly a reason linked with modern society as to why so many MEN are identifying as the opposite sex but anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together knows that any research put into finding out whether that is true or not would amount to political and social suicide if they found the WRONG results.

What are you talking about? Money is being poured into demographics research like this all the time. We still got results on the gay twin studies despite them pointing to a heavier environmental factor than the gay community had hoped. The transgender twin studies point to a much higher biological factor. Did you know that transpeople actually regularly have some sex-linked physical traits in common with the opposite sex? Things like the digit ratio (look it up, men and women have different finger proportions on average), brain plasticity, hand-eye coordination, spatial awareness and a few other things.

Have you considered that the reasons why it is so much more commonly known in today's society is that it is no longer the death sentence it once was (that would be a point towards in your social qualification but not in the way you'd like) and hormone therapy now enables individuals to pass in a way they never could before? Not only that but just the nature of the internet allows these topics to be reported on far more than ever before, same with anything else. If the number of transgendered people is higher today, and we don't know that it is, then it could also be due to any number of other things ranging from the use of antibiotics to so many other things modern medicine and manufacturing has made common place in today's society. Let's consider just antibiotics, we know that there is a causal link between them and causing the different condition of schizophrenia. What if they or other drugs consumed in the right time of a pregnancy led to transgenderism instead?

What that does not negate is whether or not someone is suffering from the condition.

I think what he's trying to say is "If I'm going around in public wearing a giant purple top hat, and wearing a leopard print pant suit, I shouldn't be 1: suprised, or 2: upset, that people in the media suddenly report "Happyninja42 sighted wearing a giant purple top hat and leopard print pant suit!" I'm going out in the public, where it's perfectly legal for people to photograph me when I'm out in public, so I can't really get onto them for accurately reporting something I'm putting out there in the public circle.

Now if it's a case of "We broke into his house, and secretly filmed him wearing his purple hat and pant suit around his house, and we're going to publish this without his consent/permission", then yeah, that's a dick move. The first example is simply reporting on public events, the second is deuchebaggery of the utmost degree.

Exactly, I'd even say if they were filming from across the street through an accidentally open window we could also cry ethics violation. But if this is just something where she has been presenting openly and just wanted people not to know about it then that's not going to happen when you're famous nor is it the obligation of news organizations to pretend like they don't know something.