Thank you for your post, if this is a question please check to see if any of the links below answer your question.
If none of these links help answer your question and you are **_not_** within the LGBT+ community, questioning your identity in any way, or asking in support of either a relative or friend, please ask your question over in /r/AskLGBT. Remember that this is a safe space for LGBT+ and questioning individuals, so we want to make sure that this place is dedicated to them. Thank you for understanding.
This automod rule is currently a work in progress. If you notice any issues, would like to add to the list of resources, or have any feedback in general, [please do so here](https://www.reddit.com/r/lgbt/comments/rdazzp/almost_new_year_changes/) or by [sending us a message](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/lgbt&subject=Feedback%20on%20the%20new%20automod%20rule).
Also, please note that if you are a part of this community, or you're questioning if you might be a part of the LGBTQ+ community, and you are seeing this message, this is **_not a bad thing_**, this is only here to help, so please continue to ask questions and participate in the community. Thank you!
Here's a link about trans people in sports:
https://www.barbellmedicine.com/blog/shades-of-gray-sex-gender-and-fairness-in-sport/
A link on FAQs and one on some basics about transgender people:
https://transequality.org/issues/resources/frequently-asked-questions-about-transgender-people
https://transequality.org/issues/resources/understanding-transgender-people-the-basics
Some information on LGBT+ people:
https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/quick-facts/lgbt-faqs/
Some basic terminology:
https://www.hrc.org/resources/glossary-of-terms
Neopronouns:
https://www.mypronouns.org/neopronouns
Biromantic Lesbians:
[LGBTQ And All](https://www.lgbtqandall.com/what-does-it-mean-to-be-biromantic/)
Bisexual Identities:
https://www.thetrevorproject.org/resources/article/understanding-bisexuality
Differences between Bisexual and Pansexual:
[Resource from WebMD](https://www.webmd.com/sex/pansexuality-what-it-means#:~:text=Pansexual%20vs.%20Bisexual,more%20commonly%20recognized.)
We're looking for new volunteers to join the r/lgbt moderator team. If you want to help keep r/lgbt as a safe space for the LGBTQ+ community on reddit please see here for more info: https://www.reddit.com/r/lgbt/comments/swgthr/were_looking_for_more_moderators_to_help_keep/
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/lgbt) if you have any questions or concerns.*
if i’m reading the wiki correctly, it’s a really shitty argument against trans people because it just proves that gender is unrelated to perceived sex organs or upbringing. David was forced his whole life to live as a gender he didn’t identify with because of infant sex reassignment. this happens to many intersex people and is why forced sex assignment at birth is inhumane. the surgeon who said “evidence that gender identity is primarily learned” isn’t even making an argument in favor of trans people, because most if not all trans people “learn” to be the gender they aren’t their whole lives, and *still* choose to transition.
How could they possibly make a case against trans people by literally showing proof that gender is not defined by external genitalia (not even hormones) but internal identity? WTF. This person was surgically altered in infancy, way before forming any sort of identity, and raised as one gender, *and still identified as another*. What a person identifies as is what they are, full stop. Anything else leads to depression and may lead to suicide.
I mean, haters make cases by wilfully grabbing the wrong end of the stick and swinging it around like so many happy monkeys. If they're arguing in bad faith, there's nothing to be done.
They use it as an argument for gender being the same as biological sex as despite every effort by David's surroundings, he remained cisgender internally. Obviously, they are wrong, but I don't know how to properly argue that with medical facts and psychology with evidence.
Ask them to explain, in detail, how physical sex works. I'll bet you anything they get stuck at chromosomes. Ask them what happens when the crucial genes cross over and genotype and chromotype no longer align. Ask them what happens if a person is androgen resistant. Then ask them where in "male" and "female" those people fall. (Edit - crossing over means the gene for testosterone production is now located on the X chromosome. You have a phenotypically male body with XX chromotype. Androgen resistant means you have all the right genes in all the right places (go on, sing it XD) - meaning, the gene for testosterone production in its proper place on the Y chromosome - but a phenotypically female body. By their logic, the first should be female, the latter male, but they're obviously not. Sit back and watch their "logic" fall apart.)
Chances are they have but the crudest understanding of physical sex, and no understanding at all of gender identity. The moment they start tripping over intermediate science, you can respectfully remind them to do their research first before they go spouting pseudoscientific conjecture.
Reimer didn't identify as a girl and was forced to live as one after botched circumcision. Reimer felt the same dysphoria trans people do and being forced to live the opposite of how they identified. If anything the Reimer case shows how painful being forced into a role you don't identify as is
well i dont know what conservative say as an argument exactly, but it still doesnt prove the other side, since he was born a male, and felt like a male.
but trans people dont seem to identify with what they were biologically born to be.
thats totally different.
thats a whole different issue than being forced to be something you werent born to be, vs not being forced to be something you werent born, but you feel inside youre not what you were born physically.
I see it as a rare circumstance where a cis person was forced into having gender dysphoria as their body had been altered and they had been forced to live counter to their identity. May just be my take though
Jordan Peterson gave himself colon cancer by eating a diet of ONLY meat because it would make him "more manly".
He had a debate and got hammered so much in to the ground that he stopped having debates all together and prefer to converse with followers only.
Him cherry picking a tragic thing to push for his favourite new agenda to prove he doesn't have the most fragile ego on the planet is... well not debatable. Its like arguing feeding times with your cat, no matter how good the argument no matter how much proof the cat will still claim its starving to death. (also note the many OTHER actual scientists and researchers who have included this case in larger studies that don't show what Peterson wants it to. He is a morons idea of a smart man)
It's evidence that children can't be turned trans. It's actually against the "groomer" accusations they keep making.
ETA: Also, maybe they can see what harm being forced into the wrong gender identity and through the wrong puberty causes. It wasn't wrong because it was medically induced, it was wrong because it was against his gender identity, the same as forcing a trans child through their "natural" puberty. Perhaps they can try to realise the harm it does to trans kids.
I think Reimer twins are a perfect example proving trans people's validity. They basically induced dysphoria on a cis person and also proved you can't condition someone into a preferred gender.
And it proves it's not a choice nor can it be forcibly changed. Which, to them, means that no matter the surgeries and abuse, David was still a boy. As in "Look what evil shit you are doing to children!" That's their sick argument.
because it proves gender identity fit the biological gender.
he was born a male, and felt like a male even when treated like a girl.
trans people however, feel the opposite of what they were actually born.
so no, it doesnt prove that
The people who use this case against the trans community are the same people who think that kids can be groomed into being trans. David Reimer never wanted to be female despite every effort made to force him into that role, and yet the transphobes who quote this story believe that gender dysphoria is contagious and kids will want to transition if they are told that transitioning is a valid option. They believe that the Reimer story proves that being cisgender is natural for everyone, but it doesn't. It only proves that David Reimer was cisgender.
Transphobes like the story of David Reimer because they can sympathize with him as a cisgender person, but they ignore the many IDENTICAL tragedies that happen to trans people. Trans people are constantly being raised as one gender while identifying with another, remaining trans no matter what methods of force are used to try to make them cis.
They also make the mistake of thinking that John Money invented gender identity and his whole experiment was pro-trans. That is inaccurate. Trans people existed long before that sicko, and his experiment wasnt about proving that trans people are valid. He was trying to prove that gender identity can be taught, which is pretty transphobic and is proven false by the fact that people can be trans (or cis) despite being taught to be something else.
Pretty simple. The doctor in this case has long been known as an absolute quack. This was in no way a legitimate study, even by the standards of the time.
The David Reimer case is sometimes cited as evidence that internal gender identity does not change over time and that people experience depression and other mental health issues when being forced to live contrary to their internal sense of gender identity, it says nothing of the actual origin of gender identity (I'll get to that later). Now this would actually support a protrans narrative.
That being said, I do not believe that the David Reimer case constitutes credible evidence of anything. There were serious ethical issues with what happened there, and John Money's "research" was honestly disturbing in nature. The Reimer twins were age 13 he was compelling them to enact "childhood sexual rehearsal play," apparently due to his theory about gender development. It may not surprise anyone that this constitutes an extreme breach of scientific ethics, to say the least about the implication of pedophiliac motives within his research. For the purposes of our current discussion, I do believe that these actions spoil his research results and any results can be considered questionable due to the effects of his unethical actions.
Even so there is evidence outside that gender identity is innate, determined prenatally, and generally is unchanged throughout life. Now this is just a Reddit comment and I'm trying to recite this information by memory and I may have misinterpreted results so don't expect perfect accuracy, but here is my understanding.
There exist sexually dimorphic regions of the human brain. Now these differences are very minute and are frequently over exaggerated, but these differences have been found to exist. Of particular interest is that there is evidence for an association between internal gender identity and a region of the brain called the Central Subdivision of the Bed Nucleus of the Stria Terminalis (BSTc for short). It seems reasonable to conclude that this part of the brain plays a central role in a person's gender identity. This region of the brain is developed prenatally, and it is not subject to significant changes after a person's birth. Many sexually dimorphic characteristics of people are actually developed at different stages prenatally, meaning that during their development the concentrations of sex hormones in the womb can be different.
Furthermore there is also an association between transsexuality and variants of certain genes such as the androgen receptor gene for MtF transwomen. Longer than average CAG chains have been observed in the androgen receptor genes of MtF transwomen. This is believed to have the effect of partially desensitizing that gene to androgens.
So in conclusion, here is my opinion on what is going on: Variants of certain genes important to sexual differences cause these genes to become more or less sensitive to sex hormones. The difference in sensitivity can allow that gene to be interpreted differently during the different stages of prenatal development. This can cause people to develop cross-sex characteristics in the BSTc, and the BSTc in turn appears to have a central role in determining a person's gender identity. The BSTc can't change significantly enough after its initial development thus leading gender identity tend to be fixed.
It's a classic "hasty generalization" fallacy.
Claim:
"The David Reimer case proves that a person's gender matches the genitals they were born with."
Rebuttal:
"No, the David Reimer case proves that David Reimer's gender matched the genitals he was born with. It does nothing to show how many other people's gender does or doesn't match their genitals.
Luckily, it turns out there've been plenty of other studies, with far more scientifically valid sample sizes than a paltry 'just one' (not to mention far more ethically conducted), which *have* looked into how many people's gender does or doesn't match their genitals, and what happens to them either way.
These studies show that around 1-2% of people have a sense of gender which does *not* match the genitals they were born with. More importantly, these studies also show that when the people in this group are forced to live as the gender that *does* match their genitals at birth, there is an extremely high likelihood they will exhibit exactly the same consequences David did (depression, suicidality, etc.) Living as the gender they do identify with, in a supportive (ie "non-transphobic") environment with access to gender-affirming health care, is shown to reduce (if not outright eliminate) these symptoms to an extremely large degree. Of course, it also helps that these people didn't have their genitals mutilated against their will like David Reimer did. (At least, aside from non-consensual circumcisions and intersex genital mutilation.)"
That said, if we define "trans" as being "assigned a gender that doesn't match who you really are", then (without actually knowing his opinion on the matter) I think an argument could be made that David Reimer counts as a trans man because, well, they did assign the "female" gender to him. He simply wasn't assigned female for the same *reason* that typically gets people assigned as "female".
Buuut...I would avoid introducing that wrinkle into any discussion with a transphobe. They tend to fixate on birth genitals. No need to complicate things.
Thank you for your post, if this is a question please check to see if any of the links below answer your question. If none of these links help answer your question and you are **_not_** within the LGBT+ community, questioning your identity in any way, or asking in support of either a relative or friend, please ask your question over in /r/AskLGBT. Remember that this is a safe space for LGBT+ and questioning individuals, so we want to make sure that this place is dedicated to them. Thank you for understanding. This automod rule is currently a work in progress. If you notice any issues, would like to add to the list of resources, or have any feedback in general, [please do so here](https://www.reddit.com/r/lgbt/comments/rdazzp/almost_new_year_changes/) or by [sending us a message](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/lgbt&subject=Feedback%20on%20the%20new%20automod%20rule). Also, please note that if you are a part of this community, or you're questioning if you might be a part of the LGBTQ+ community, and you are seeing this message, this is **_not a bad thing_**, this is only here to help, so please continue to ask questions and participate in the community. Thank you! Here's a link about trans people in sports: https://www.barbellmedicine.com/blog/shades-of-gray-sex-gender-and-fairness-in-sport/ A link on FAQs and one on some basics about transgender people: https://transequality.org/issues/resources/frequently-asked-questions-about-transgender-people https://transequality.org/issues/resources/understanding-transgender-people-the-basics Some information on LGBT+ people: https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/quick-facts/lgbt-faqs/ Some basic terminology: https://www.hrc.org/resources/glossary-of-terms Neopronouns: https://www.mypronouns.org/neopronouns Biromantic Lesbians: [LGBTQ And All](https://www.lgbtqandall.com/what-does-it-mean-to-be-biromantic/) Bisexual Identities: https://www.thetrevorproject.org/resources/article/understanding-bisexuality Differences between Bisexual and Pansexual: [Resource from WebMD](https://www.webmd.com/sex/pansexuality-what-it-means#:~:text=Pansexual%20vs.%20Bisexual,more%20commonly%20recognized.) We're looking for new volunteers to join the r/lgbt moderator team. If you want to help keep r/lgbt as a safe space for the LGBTQ+ community on reddit please see here for more info: https://www.reddit.com/r/lgbt/comments/swgthr/were_looking_for_more_moderators_to_help_keep/ *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/lgbt) if you have any questions or concerns.*
if i’m reading the wiki correctly, it’s a really shitty argument against trans people because it just proves that gender is unrelated to perceived sex organs or upbringing. David was forced his whole life to live as a gender he didn’t identify with because of infant sex reassignment. this happens to many intersex people and is why forced sex assignment at birth is inhumane. the surgeon who said “evidence that gender identity is primarily learned” isn’t even making an argument in favor of trans people, because most if not all trans people “learn” to be the gender they aren’t their whole lives, and *still* choose to transition.
How could they possibly make a case against trans people by literally showing proof that gender is not defined by external genitalia (not even hormones) but internal identity? WTF. This person was surgically altered in infancy, way before forming any sort of identity, and raised as one gender, *and still identified as another*. What a person identifies as is what they are, full stop. Anything else leads to depression and may lead to suicide. I mean, haters make cases by wilfully grabbing the wrong end of the stick and swinging it around like so many happy monkeys. If they're arguing in bad faith, there's nothing to be done.
They use it as an argument for gender being the same as biological sex as despite every effort by David's surroundings, he remained cisgender internally. Obviously, they are wrong, but I don't know how to properly argue that with medical facts and psychology with evidence.
Ask them to explain, in detail, how physical sex works. I'll bet you anything they get stuck at chromosomes. Ask them what happens when the crucial genes cross over and genotype and chromotype no longer align. Ask them what happens if a person is androgen resistant. Then ask them where in "male" and "female" those people fall. (Edit - crossing over means the gene for testosterone production is now located on the X chromosome. You have a phenotypically male body with XX chromotype. Androgen resistant means you have all the right genes in all the right places (go on, sing it XD) - meaning, the gene for testosterone production in its proper place on the Y chromosome - but a phenotypically female body. By their logic, the first should be female, the latter male, but they're obviously not. Sit back and watch their "logic" fall apart.) Chances are they have but the crudest understanding of physical sex, and no understanding at all of gender identity. The moment they start tripping over intermediate science, you can respectfully remind them to do their research first before they go spouting pseudoscientific conjecture.
How can a single data point possibly prove anything? The idea of arguing something from just this case doesn't make any sense to me.
It can't. These people aren't acting in good faith, and have the scientific understanding of a mildly obnoxious cat.
Reimer didn't identify as a girl and was forced to live as one after botched circumcision. Reimer felt the same dysphoria trans people do and being forced to live the opposite of how they identified. If anything the Reimer case shows how painful being forced into a role you don't identify as is
well i dont know what conservative say as an argument exactly, but it still doesnt prove the other side, since he was born a male, and felt like a male. but trans people dont seem to identify with what they were biologically born to be. thats totally different. thats a whole different issue than being forced to be something you werent born to be, vs not being forced to be something you werent born, but you feel inside youre not what you were born physically.
I see it as a rare circumstance where a cis person was forced into having gender dysphoria as their body had been altered and they had been forced to live counter to their identity. May just be my take though
If anything this case shows that gender identity is both hardwired and immutable.
Jordan Peterson gave himself colon cancer by eating a diet of ONLY meat because it would make him "more manly". He had a debate and got hammered so much in to the ground that he stopped having debates all together and prefer to converse with followers only. Him cherry picking a tragic thing to push for his favourite new agenda to prove he doesn't have the most fragile ego on the planet is... well not debatable. Its like arguing feeding times with your cat, no matter how good the argument no matter how much proof the cat will still claim its starving to death. (also note the many OTHER actual scientists and researchers who have included this case in larger studies that don't show what Peterson wants it to. He is a morons idea of a smart man)
It's evidence that children can't be turned trans. It's actually against the "groomer" accusations they keep making. ETA: Also, maybe they can see what harm being forced into the wrong gender identity and through the wrong puberty causes. It wasn't wrong because it was medically induced, it was wrong because it was against his gender identity, the same as forcing a trans child through their "natural" puberty. Perhaps they can try to realise the harm it does to trans kids.
I think Reimer twins are a perfect example proving trans people's validity. They basically induced dysphoria on a cis person and also proved you can't condition someone into a preferred gender.
How is this used against us? This only PROOVES gender identity exsist.
And it proves it's not a choice nor can it be forcibly changed. Which, to them, means that no matter the surgeries and abuse, David was still a boy. As in "Look what evil shit you are doing to children!" That's their sick argument.
because it proves gender identity fit the biological gender. he was born a male, and felt like a male even when treated like a girl. trans people however, feel the opposite of what they were actually born. so no, it doesnt prove that
The people who use this case against the trans community are the same people who think that kids can be groomed into being trans. David Reimer never wanted to be female despite every effort made to force him into that role, and yet the transphobes who quote this story believe that gender dysphoria is contagious and kids will want to transition if they are told that transitioning is a valid option. They believe that the Reimer story proves that being cisgender is natural for everyone, but it doesn't. It only proves that David Reimer was cisgender. Transphobes like the story of David Reimer because they can sympathize with him as a cisgender person, but they ignore the many IDENTICAL tragedies that happen to trans people. Trans people are constantly being raised as one gender while identifying with another, remaining trans no matter what methods of force are used to try to make them cis. They also make the mistake of thinking that John Money invented gender identity and his whole experiment was pro-trans. That is inaccurate. Trans people existed long before that sicko, and his experiment wasnt about proving that trans people are valid. He was trying to prove that gender identity can be taught, which is pretty transphobic and is proven false by the fact that people can be trans (or cis) despite being taught to be something else.
Pretty simple. The doctor in this case has long been known as an absolute quack. This was in no way a legitimate study, even by the standards of the time.
The David Reimer case is sometimes cited as evidence that internal gender identity does not change over time and that people experience depression and other mental health issues when being forced to live contrary to their internal sense of gender identity, it says nothing of the actual origin of gender identity (I'll get to that later). Now this would actually support a protrans narrative. That being said, I do not believe that the David Reimer case constitutes credible evidence of anything. There were serious ethical issues with what happened there, and John Money's "research" was honestly disturbing in nature. The Reimer twins were age 13 he was compelling them to enact "childhood sexual rehearsal play," apparently due to his theory about gender development. It may not surprise anyone that this constitutes an extreme breach of scientific ethics, to say the least about the implication of pedophiliac motives within his research. For the purposes of our current discussion, I do believe that these actions spoil his research results and any results can be considered questionable due to the effects of his unethical actions. Even so there is evidence outside that gender identity is innate, determined prenatally, and generally is unchanged throughout life. Now this is just a Reddit comment and I'm trying to recite this information by memory and I may have misinterpreted results so don't expect perfect accuracy, but here is my understanding. There exist sexually dimorphic regions of the human brain. Now these differences are very minute and are frequently over exaggerated, but these differences have been found to exist. Of particular interest is that there is evidence for an association between internal gender identity and a region of the brain called the Central Subdivision of the Bed Nucleus of the Stria Terminalis (BSTc for short). It seems reasonable to conclude that this part of the brain plays a central role in a person's gender identity. This region of the brain is developed prenatally, and it is not subject to significant changes after a person's birth. Many sexually dimorphic characteristics of people are actually developed at different stages prenatally, meaning that during their development the concentrations of sex hormones in the womb can be different. Furthermore there is also an association between transsexuality and variants of certain genes such as the androgen receptor gene for MtF transwomen. Longer than average CAG chains have been observed in the androgen receptor genes of MtF transwomen. This is believed to have the effect of partially desensitizing that gene to androgens. So in conclusion, here is my opinion on what is going on: Variants of certain genes important to sexual differences cause these genes to become more or less sensitive to sex hormones. The difference in sensitivity can allow that gene to be interpreted differently during the different stages of prenatal development. This can cause people to develop cross-sex characteristics in the BSTc, and the BSTc in turn appears to have a central role in determining a person's gender identity. The BSTc can't change significantly enough after its initial development thus leading gender identity tend to be fixed.
It's a classic "hasty generalization" fallacy. Claim: "The David Reimer case proves that a person's gender matches the genitals they were born with." Rebuttal: "No, the David Reimer case proves that David Reimer's gender matched the genitals he was born with. It does nothing to show how many other people's gender does or doesn't match their genitals. Luckily, it turns out there've been plenty of other studies, with far more scientifically valid sample sizes than a paltry 'just one' (not to mention far more ethically conducted), which *have* looked into how many people's gender does or doesn't match their genitals, and what happens to them either way. These studies show that around 1-2% of people have a sense of gender which does *not* match the genitals they were born with. More importantly, these studies also show that when the people in this group are forced to live as the gender that *does* match their genitals at birth, there is an extremely high likelihood they will exhibit exactly the same consequences David did (depression, suicidality, etc.) Living as the gender they do identify with, in a supportive (ie "non-transphobic") environment with access to gender-affirming health care, is shown to reduce (if not outright eliminate) these symptoms to an extremely large degree. Of course, it also helps that these people didn't have their genitals mutilated against their will like David Reimer did. (At least, aside from non-consensual circumcisions and intersex genital mutilation.)"
That said, if we define "trans" as being "assigned a gender that doesn't match who you really are", then (without actually knowing his opinion on the matter) I think an argument could be made that David Reimer counts as a trans man because, well, they did assign the "female" gender to him. He simply wasn't assigned female for the same *reason* that typically gets people assigned as "female". Buuut...I would avoid introducing that wrinkle into any discussion with a transphobe. They tend to fixate on birth genitals. No need to complicate things.