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

[Silvanus]

This entire subject is one of definitions, not about the freedom to behave, act or dress at one's leisure - there is no discussion to be had about what defines a man or a woman.

Well, yes, there clearly is, or we wouldn't be having it.

There are a half dozen biological indicators of sex, including genitalia, hormones, body shape, and chromosomes. Undeniably, none of them correlate 100% with sex. Also undeniably, the first three of those are mutable (I.E., may be changed).

You're not only insisting that sex (as opposed to gender) determines the correct pronoun, but also that only one of those biological indicators is the correct one to judge by. You're also choosing the least practical one. The number of assumptions here is so high, that of course there is a conversation to be had.

 

[JimB]

You are technically correct - the best kind of correct.

Yes, I know.

Still, it is a reasonable approximation to assume that he is a man given the context; otherwise assuming a female identity wouldn't make him a trans.

No, it is not. You insist on conflating sex with gender, and you insist on refusing to even acknowledge anyone's attempts to explain the difference between them except to incorrectly define "gender" as synonymous with "sexual orientation," so I must confess I feel absolutely zero faith that you will bother to read or address this, but:

"Gender," in the context of the term "transgender," refers to social perceptions and expectations as well as a person's experience of that gender. In scientific and academic contexts, it is completely inappropriate to pretend that gender is the same as sex, and has been for a good fifty years now, which is one of several reasons why your limp appeals to scientific objectivity by incorrectly asserting chromosomes is so infuriating; it's like when someone who can't cook tells you onions and scallions are the same thing and that you're making the meal wrong for not frying scallions while calling them onions. If you want to insist that sex is the only thing that matters in describing a person, you are ignoring decades of consensus among medical professionals and social scientists.

And that--focusing on gender alone--is ignoring the physical, genetic, and psychiatric components of gender dysphoria, but that too is ground well-covered in this thread, and I am not interested in treading it again. Suffice it to say, your definitions are flatly incorrect, and your knowledge of the science surrounding biological sex and social gender is shallow to the point of being totally inaccurate. If you have some basis in recorded fact for your assertions, something beyond "I believe heteronormative society is good for self-evident reasons," then I invite you to share it.

 

[Wrex Brogan]

Both your definition of "respect" involves lying about someone's status as a man or a woman - this is both utterly irrational and unrelated to respect. I will not go out my way to change the definition of words in order to accomodate someone's will to be what they are not; at the same time it is certainly not a hobby of mine to look for trans people and address them by their sex just for the hell of it.

Additionally, I am neither afraid of trans people nor I suffer for mental illnesses related to them - if you want to be taken seriously I would avoid the use of similar politically-correct neologisms.

...alright, just going to double down on the transphobia then. Well, at least you're honest about it.

And Transphobia - while sharing the root -phobia with fears - doesn't mean you have a fear or mental illness in relation to transgendered people.

It just means you're kind of an asshole towards transgendered people out of biases/ignorance.

Misgendering people? It's a dick move. You can try and sell it anyway you want, but calling someone a gender they aren't... is a dick move. Given people have already explained the actual biological differences transpeople have from birth and the differences between 'sex' and 'gender' to you yet you still stubbornly cling to your ideas... well, as said, you're transphobic.

Quite simple, really.

 

[s0denone]

Wow, it seems crazy that two siblings could both be transgender. In fact I don't understand that at all and the chances of it have to be astronomically low.

That being said, more power to them and fuck the daily mail :O)

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

Wow, it seems crazy that two siblings could both be transgender. In fact I don't understand that at all and the chances of it have to be astronomically low.

There are probably a number of contributing genetic factors that increase the chance of any given child being transgender, gender-nonconforming, homosexual, bisexual, and other gender identity and sexuality variants. There are also prenatal womb conditions, along with hormone boosts from the mother that also can account for the likelihood of siblings being gender or sexuality variant. In monozygotic twins(a.k.a. maternal/identical twins) the likelihood of both twins being transgender if one shows signs is around 33%, which is significantly higher than transgenderism in the general populace. Amongst dizygotic twins(a.k.a. fraternal/non-identical twins) the rate is much lower, around only 2.6% of DZ twins turn out to be transgender, when one is found to be transgender. Still the likelihood is far higher amongst siblings than in the general population generally speaking. That also means that social and identity factors also likely play a role too(the nurture side of the equation). Since biology, both genetics and hormones, along with social and personal identity factors play a role, it seems that it's a complicated series of factors that play in. Meaning both nature and nurture factors. What this means is it's probably more likely for siblings to be transgender when one sibling is known to be transgender.

Source study from the University of Hawaii. [http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/2010to2014/2013-transsexuality.html]

That being said, more power to them and fuck the daily mail :O)

Indeed the Daily Fail is one scummy publication, how they're still in business is beyond me. Hopefully what happened to Gawker happens to them too.