Board Thread:Fun and Games/@comment-48285-20161205164344/@comment-26871067-20170619220149

Pigzillion wrote: Yeah, sorry about that. Delusion suggests a lack of rational and the capacity to reason, so the word itself is inappropriate for this particular subject. There's a debate still going on at Kite's talk page where the issue is being considered, so my point of view and the reasoning behind it has certainly evolved past what it originally was. With that said:

Is a person's self-identity more important than their biology, in terms of how we refer to them? I'll respect your answer, regardless. Apology accepted. It means more than you know, probably. I'm pretty used to people digging their toes in and not wanting to admit their knowledge isn't as complete as they thought, so it honestly is pretty reassuring to see someone mature enough to admit their point of view has shifted based on new information.

As for that question... Yes. I strongly believe it is more important.

Biology is fickle, there are plenty of conditions out there that permanently alter it. Even among cis people, there's no consistency in how a person's body looks. Some cis guys, like my father for instance, have amazingly low testosterone levels that are more on the level expected from a female body. And there are plenty of things that are not conditions that also alter it, because the shape of our bodies has never been as concrete and "in our DNA" as we like to pretend. The fact that identical twins (genetically identical) don't always come out actually physically identical is definitely something to consider on that regard. Increasing research indicates that the amount of people who are chromosomally intersex is much higher than initially believed - they don't visibly appear to be intersex in any way, but their chromosomes don't match with what they "should" be based on what kind of body they ended up with.

There's plenty of stuff that's less overt (or more overt, we have to do genetic testing to find chromosomally intersex individuals). Some guys just can't grow beards (me, but it runs in my family to have shitty facial hair until like ~40s). Some women are flat as boards (and some men look like they could be breastfeeding champions). And what should be said about the people who physically and intentionally alter their biology? At what point should we consider their biology to have "changed"? With medical technology continuing to advance at an astounding rate, we're fast reaching a point where a transgender woman can be completely indistinguishable from a cis woman in every way except for DNA. So what's more important? Her DNA that no longer strictly dictates what her body looks like? Or her own feelings and the respect she deserves as a human being?

Another thing to keep in mind is that there have been plenty of studies (and in fact this has been one of the leading concepts in the medical field regarding transgender people and is the concept that Yoshihiro Togashi used when creating the transgender man who transitions over the course of Level E) that indicate a transgender man's brain, what parts of it have developed in what ways, are consistently significantly closer to a cis man than a cis woman. Sure, the structure of our (humanity's) brain is something that's measurably affected by our childhood environment to the point where the idea that brains have sexes is scoffed at in some scientific communities, but the strong correlation between cis and trans men on that front (and vice versa with trans women) indicate that on the fundamental brain level, trans men are men and trans women are women. Which is which? A Y chromosome, or a brain that is indistinguishable from a "female" brain?

As far as I'm concerned... the only thing that's actually important is what a person tells you about themself. I won't cling to things that are intangible - our guidelines for what makes something x instead of y, our society's rules. They're constructs, which I think a lot of people misunderstand. They're constructs. They're real, but we made the rules for them and we're not infallible. Baseball's a construct. It has rules, but we decided what they are. It's real but only because we made it real.

We didn't used to have a word for the color orange, that's why redheads are called redheads. Language evolved. Interracial marriage was illegal in the 60s where I live. Gay marriage is still a battle we're fighting. If I decided I wanted to change my surname name to match my step-dad's, it'd be my name. I make the choice. If I want to stick with what was initially given to me I can. And if I don't, I can shed it and find something that fits better.

I think the thing that should be strived for above all else is respecting another person's existence. That's how we got to where we are, why we weren't outcompeted by some other species when we were still trying to figure out how our damn thumbs worked. We helped each other. That's why things are falling apart these days. We've become uncompromising and wrap ourselves uselessly around crap that doesn't matter, crap that we don't understand and can't measure (I can't do a DNA test, and I don't know anyone who can), above caring about people. It's not about whether or not you're what people expect you to be.

It's about whether or not someone is willing to respect you enough to accept what you say about yourself. I think that's pretty simple. Sorry that this answer is long as hell, I think that it's an important topic to be thorough with since it's something that's honestly been life-or-death both re: homicide and suicide.

(As for the Kite debate, my thought remains that there's adequate evidence for either side and I'm more than willing to accept whatever choice is made as long as it's based in said evidence. I'll pop in and offer a more complete summation of my POV in a bit, I guess. From the phrasing you're using, it seems like a decision hasn't been made yet.)