Con: [MN] Transgender policy defies common sense

It’s a matter of common sense that putting boys in a girls’ locker room would create confusion, anxiety and discomfort. It’s a matter of common sense that boys, with their greater muscle mass, should not be allowed to compete on girls’ athletic teams. Those norms are self-evident to an overwhelming majority of the public.

On Thursday, the Minnesota State High School League (MSHSL) will vote on abolishing those norms of common sense. A pending policy would end the traditional rule of dividing athletes by biological gender. Instead, it would grant boys with a “deeply felt internal sense” of being female the right to compete on girls’ teams.

The policy is meant to look as if it gives schools a measure of discretion. But it contains a clause that any capable lawyer can drive a truck through. It virtually guarantees that any school denying a boy the right to compete as a girl will face a lawsuit.

The policy calls for schools to review particular matters (for example, statements from parents and teachers). Then it states: “When there is confirmation of a student’s consistent and uniform gender-related identity or any other evidence that the gender-related identity is sincerely held as part of the person’s core identity, the student will be eligible” to play on his team of choice (emphasis added).

Any lawyer can tell you that such language generates lawsuits. The disjunctive “or,” the boundless “any other evidence” and the mandatory “will be eligible” are potent grounds for a claim. The clause would grant boys a right to play as girls virtually on demand.

“Do you realize how rare such people are?”

It’s unclear what you mean by using “such people” as a reference. My comment began by observing that 100% of human males begin their fetal development in the first seven weeks from conception with a female genital anatomy. This initial female genital anatomy is transformed into a male only if and when a sufficient number of the subsequent required developmental stages are successfully completed to result in a full physical and mental transformation to a male. So, in that context there is nothing rare about 100% of all males being subject to this developmental requirement.

“And even then, that the only chromosomal defect that results in feminized men is Klinefelter’s?”

That is a false statement. With respect to the development of males you are denying the existence of:

Partial Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (PAIS). People with the 46 XY karyotype develop ambiguous genitalia, and medical doctors will perform corrective surgery on the infant and thereby assign to child to a physical gender identity without regard to the child’s actual mental gender identity.

Swyer Syndrome. People with an XY karyotype are born without functioning sexual gonads (XY gonadal dysgenesis). Such a person develops the appearance of a female due to the inability to virilize, whether or not the mental gender identity is male or female.

Mosaicism. During the embryonic development the cells fail to divide properly, so the infant is born with a mix or mosaic of cells having different chromosomal karyotypes, including 46, XY/ and another karyotype. Depending on the mosaic of karyotypes, a variety of sexual and gender types will result.

“The issues with transgenders are hugely mental issues, not physical.”

Mental functionality is fundamentally governed by physical organization, especially so when the hormonal mechanisms are involved. The extent to which physiology determines mental gender identities and behavior is at a rudimentary stage of research and remains poorly investigated and understood with respect to mechanisms and consequences.

There is a lawyers’ saying that interesting cases make bad law.

Certainly folks whose sex chromosomes do not correspond to their sexual phenotype. who were born with ambiguous genitalia and the like, should be shown compassion and cut some slack in these matters.

The problem is that there are phenotypically male human beings with an XY chromosome pair who insist they are “women” and phenotypically female human beings with an XX chromosome pair who insist that they are “men”. In either case, this is a contrafactual belief, which for some reason our society has decided should be treated in a radically different way than other deep seated contrafactual beliefs, which we almost uniformly regard as delusions, and when they cause unhappiness or harm to the person holding them as signs of mental illness.

We are not enjoined by our society to credit the claim of the homeless fellow my wife met in Seattle, who professed to be the Archangel Michael, but the bloke with both an XY chromosome pair and the usual male “hardware” who insists he is a woman is supposed to be referred to as “she” and allowed to use the women’s restroom, locker room and the like.

I have yet to get a straight answer as to why this delusion is different from all other delusions, and referring to the hard cases of physiologically intersexed persons is non-responsive.

“I have yet to get a straight answer as to why this delusion is different from all other delusions, and referring to the hard cases of physiologically intersexed persons is non-responsive.”

The references to the cases involving intersexed people were never intended to address the question of whether or not some forms of transgendered behavior are “delusions” or “delusional behavior”, so the discussion of the intersexed has so far never meant to be responsive or perhaps directly responsive to that type of question. Instead, there has been a number of preliminary reasons for relating the cases of intersexed people to the situations of other transgendered people.

First, there have been a number of crude comments which made no reasonable effort to discriminate between persons who are transgendered as a circumstance of their intersexed birth and those persons who do not exhibit any currently known intersexed or other physiological reasons for transgendered behavior. These discussions should remind the ill informed that there are literally millions of American citizens whose natural born physiological genitalia, internal sex organs, adrenal functions, and related brain functions do not conform to common ideas of gender identity; and these non-conforming gender identities may not be readily apparent to anyone but a physician, not even those patients whom the physicians chose not to inform.

There have been numerous instances where a person has become extremely distressed when a physician informed them they had an XX or XY chromosomal karyotype the opposite of the sex they always believed themselves to be on the basis of their genitalia and upbringing. It would prove to be highly ironic if a person who made extremely derogatory remarks about transgendered people were to suddenly discover their sex chromosomes were XX when they believed themselves to be an XY or XY instead of XX their entire life.

Take for example how you commented: “The problem is that there are phenotypically male human beings with an XY chromosome pair who insist they are “women” and phenotypically female human beings with an XX chromosome pair who insist that they are “men”. See how your assumption is contrary to the medical science on the issue:

Does having a Y chromosome make someone a man?

A lot of unintended harm happens when people assume a Y chromosome makes a person a boy or a man and the lack of a Y chromosome makes a person a girl or a woman.[...]

[....]

So now we have 2 genes that can turn a female into a male, and one of them is not located on the Y chromosome! How can that be? It turns out that SRY is probably just a facilitator that allows a more critical gene (or genes) to function, by blocking the action of another opposing factor. Can the magic of genetics do the opposite – turn a male into a female? Indeed it can. A gene on the X chromosome (the chromosome one typically associates with “femaleness”) called DAX1 when present in double copy in a male (XY) mouse, turns it into a female.

So now we have genes on the Y that can turn females with XX chromosomes into males and genes on the X that can turn males with XY chromosomes into females… wow! Maleness and femaleness are NOT determined by having an X or a Y, since switching a couple of genes around can turn things upside down.
Copyright © ISNA 1993-2008
http://www.isna.org/faq/y_chromosome

Second, suffice it to note how an understanding of the way in which transgender identities are the outcomes of a wide variety of natural born physiological properties is essential before a discussion of less observable properties which determine sexual and gender characteristics can become rational and productive. Extending that line of inquiry takes us beyond just the chromosomal factors to a variety of non-chromosomal factors which produce obvious and non-obvious differences in genitalia, sexual development, and gender identities. These non-chromosomal, biological, and medical factors remain to be discussed.

Third, we haven’t addressed the ways in which disease and pharmaceutical treatments can affect gender identity. The required use of a number of prescription drugs for heart disease, edema, liver disease, and more have the effect of anti-androgens and facilitate the conversion of testosterone into estrogens, which has feminizing effects on adult males.

Fourth, it is irrationally presumptuous to prejudicially assume we currently know enough about brain functions and mental responses to determine which transgender behaviors are or are not necessarily the result of observed or unobserved physiological causes. This is an area of human biology which is in its rudimentary stages of research.

Now, referring back to the situation in Minnesota that was the origin of this discussion, dealing with that controversy is going to be problematic enough without the different sides disregarding or misrepresenting the science for the benefit or their own advocacies. Arbitrary mixing of the gender roles presents obvious problems which should and must be addressed. However, those who advocate those certain traditional attitudes that cause harm without proper Christian and/or other moral consideration for the actual or potential existence of very real physiological influences can also be counter-productive to earning respect for conservative moral principles. We can do bettr than that and still respect conservative and religious principles.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.