On hairdye and hormones

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.

– – – – –

Related posts:

UndercoverPunk: Trans childrens
GallusMag: NHS to begin controversial Chemical Castration Studies on Gay Children as result of Transgender Lobby

18 thoughts on “On hairdye and hormones

  1. Undercover Punk

    Oooh, I read this article the article in the link below just this morning! Perfect!!

    http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/When-Did-Girls-Start-Wearing-Pink.html

    For example, a Ladies’ Home Journal article in June 1918 said, “The generally accepted rule is pink for the boys, and blue for the girls. The reason is that pink, being a more decided and stronger color, is more suitable for the boy, while blue, which is more delicate and dainty, is prettier for the girl.” Other sources said blue was flattering for blonds, pink for brunettes; or blue was for blue-eyed babies, pink for brown-eyed babies, according to Paoletti.

    In 1927, Time magazine printed a chart showing sex-appropriate colors for girls and boys according to leading U.S. stores. In Boston, Filene’s told parents to dress boys in pink. So did Best & Co. in New York City, Halle’s in Cleveland and Marshall Field in Chicago.

    I hate that trans “waaah! we’re NOT artificial” bullshit. Yes, yes you are. DEAL. Or I will be forced to do my “YOU CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH” performance. Again.

    Like

    Reply
  2. FAB Libber

    LOL, thanks UCP, yes, totally perfect.
    I can understand the excitement. And feel free to do a “you can’t handle the truth” performance at any time 😛

    Apparently it was Hitler that prompted the switch, assigning pink to homosexuals. Thereafter, the colour switch was cemented.

    The article you found reminded me of the experiments they did on babies/adults back in 60s/70s/80s? (can’t remember) whereby they dressed the babies up in the opposite colour-coding to see if the adults treated the babies differently. Without fail, they did, being more gentle with those perceived as girl babies, and rougher with those perceived as boy babies. So adult perceptions on how sex (and gender) are played out are important in child development.

    Also, I just linked to UCP’s and GallusMag’s related posts. They were on my mind when I wrote this, but I could not think of a nifty way to reference them. So footnotes it is then!

    Like

    Reply
  3. Undercover Punk

    The article you found reminded me of the experiments they did on babies/adults back in 60s/70s/80s? (can’t remember) whereby they dressed the babies up in the opposite colour-coding to see if the adults treated the babies differently. Without fail, they did, being more gentle with those perceived as girl babies, and rougher with those perceived as boy babies. So adult perceptions on how sex (and gender) are played out are important in child development.

    Yes, yes, yes!! I remember hearing about those. I don’t actually READ the studies because they are both mind-numbingly boring AND one cannot stop herself from picking everything apart mentally (sample size, questions asked, researcher bias, blah, blah, blaaaaaahhhh). But I digress. BABIES KNOW GENDER.

    Look, babies know RACE too! http://www.newsweek.com/2009/09/04/see-baby-discriminate.html At SIX months. Not only can they SEE the differences between males and females (hello exaggeration of sex-traits via gender), but they internalize the values we put on those constructs! Duuuuh. Maybe trans jacktivists think racism is innate too? Like, babies didn’t LEARN that anywhere?? What the hell.

    PS. In shameful confession, I treat male and female babies differently too. I do! I know I do! I try not to, but I do. What else do you coo and oooh and ahhh about when the baby is a lump?? Oh, she’s so beautiful! Oh, he’s so….adorable? You can only say CUTE so many times before you get tired of hearing *yourself* speak. Gender always ends up playing into the descriptions of the baby. I’m bad, I know. Everyone knows. Sorry.

    Like

    Reply
  4. FAB Libber

    Don’t feel too badly UCP.
    Dale Spender found a similar problem with children she was teaching, and wrote about it “Invisible Women: The Schooling Scandal”. She was aware of the way teachers treated boys and girls differently, and found herself still doing it to an extent.

    A lot of problems could be solved by just handing over boy babies to the males to raise. I guarantee a huge reduction in the number of males that make it to adulthood. Luckynkl always said “males don’t do human maintenance”.

    Like

    Reply
  5. jilla

    I am surprised if this isn’t true: little boys up to about age 6 are very sweet, demonstrably loving, shy, gentle, sharing. And no I’m not talking about how they were raised, really, just naturally it seemed. I am thinking of certain children I knew well to that age. But I’ve experienced it in public too. Sometimes unfortunately, it comes dressed as “chivalry” and how they should behave toward women, in Christian communities, or teaching little Christians how to behave in the wider community. I

    Kinda OT: I was once subjected to the goodness of such upbringing WHILE having a CAT scan. Eyes rolling. I got even though; flashed him, My huge HH breast just wouldn’t get out of the way!

    Like

    Reply
  6. FAB Libber

    On babies and race (or sex) differences, sure they recognise the differences. It then (later) depends on the value judgements that the adults around them put on those differences.

    Last week I finally met the neighbour’s daughter (granddaughter of the couple I have known for years). They are of Pakistani origin, so yes, brown, and the kid (8mths old) is used to seeing lots of brown people. She did notice that I was a whitey, and was a little puzzled at first, seeing something different, but quickly smiled and laughed as I gave her baby-relevant attention (and let her clap and touch my face etc).
    She is really cute btw, has the most beautiful eyes.

    Like

    Reply
  7. radicalesbian

    In a shameless confession, I also treat male and female infants differently. I avoid the male ones altogether, so as not to give into the overwhelming urge to dropkick the fuckers. It’s not worth going to jail (again). And I’ve informed my sisters that if they ever have male children, I will refuse to ever meet or speak of/to them.

    Like

    Reply
  8. Pingback: Discrimination and gender | twanzphobic since forever

  9. noanodyne

    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’.

    Yep, yep, yep. DOESN’T. GET. ANY. CLEARER. THAN. THAT.

    Like

    Reply
  10. joy

    radicalesbian, me too. I avoid male children, glare at them, don’t give them attention. I like interacting with female children, though, and they apparently like me. Possibly because I take them seriously instead of patronizing them and treating them like airheaded, frilly princesses.

    I’ve met a few boy children, like jilla said, under the age of 6 or so who were decent. But it always surprises me, because often they’ve internalized shit so deeply even by that point. My friend who’s a teacher has told me about four-year-old male children acting sexually inappropriate and dominant with one another. And male babies, due to the way they’re treated (every cry answered, every whim catered to), tend to have entitlement complexes before they learn how to talk.

    Like

    Reply
  11. Pingback: Congruity – the word of wankers | twanzphobic since forever

  12. Pingback: Jendah: The emperor’s new clothes | twanzphobic since forever

  13. Pingback: Twanzsplainer of the Week: Ashlie | twanzphobic since forever

Leave a rilly rilly twanzphobic reply, go on, dares ya!

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s