More for the reversals series. Following on from the comment I made over at scum-o-rama, I thought it deserved special-snowflaking status with its own post.
The twanz argument effectively goes along the lines of ‘sex’ being the mutable element, and ‘gender’ being the immutable element, because ‘sex’ (the sexual characteristics) should be the ones to change to accommodate ‘gender’ (being the airy-fairy so-called internal state).
Classic reversal tactic.
For humans, the biological sex you are born as, is just a fact, nothing more, nothing less. 99% of the human population are born either female or male, with a small number of anomolies known as intersex. Every cell in your body is coded with DNA, including the sex chromosomes XX or XY (or intersex variants).
SRS just changes the appearance of the primary sex characteristics, but not the chromosomal make-up of the human. Additional changes in appearance are brought about by taking steroids, artificial hormones, but again, it does not change the DNA, and most of the changes will revert back once hormones have been stopped for a while.
As I said in my comment, it is a bit like a blonde dying her hair brunette. The blonde whose hair is dyed may appear to be brunette, but she is not permanently changed into a brunette. As soon as the hair dying is stopped, the natural hair colour again becomes visible. All that has happened is that a natural characteristic has been masked by artificial means.
Same too with the hormones. In order to maintain the appearance of the opposite sex, hormones must be continued, because once stopped, most or all of those changes will go away as the natural biological sex reasserts itself. Gonad removal will make this less dramatic (but gonad removal is generally an artificial process of itself).
So in the topsy-turvy world of twanz theory, the thing that is difficult, if not impossible to change, must be changed in order to conform with the thing that is a societal construction and easily changed, that of ‘gender’.
The so-called identifiers of ‘gender characteristics’ differ between cultures, and even over time within a culture, depending what is deemed to be ‘masculine’ or ‘feminine’. Even little boys having their toenails painted pink is seen as ‘evidence’ of ‘(female) gender identity’, because it toenail painting is deemed a ‘girly’ thing to do. Once upon a time it was acceptable for men to have long hair and wear wigs, it was the fashion of the time. These days, males who want long hair or to wear wigs are seen as wanting to be women, because long hair is deemed ‘feminine’. It’s all just fashion. Fashion is changeable. Gender, and the attributes assigned to a sex group on the basis of gender, is just all fashion. Highly changeable. Highly mutable.
Just as ‘liking the colour pink means you are really a female, or female trapped in a male body’, is a load of hooey. The ‘pink for girls‘ thing was just a 20th Century fashion. So I will seriously slap some sense into the next M2T that insists his love of pink was proof that he was always a girl, or should have been a girl. It means jackshit. It means nothing more than a preference for that colour, or a belief in the current cultural associations of that colour.
– – – – –