Comments on Sentient Developments: Overcoming gender

I am happy that these issues are being discussed. ...

2009-04-12T19:25:05.909-04:00

I am happy that these issues are being discussed. In my opinion, removing limitations is one of humanity's great quests and this includes the limitation that gender in its current form currently imposes on us.

Biological sex is a disability, I have been unluck...

2008-04-05T08:32:00.000-04:00

Biological sex is a disability, I have been unlucky to be born female, and hate it, but current medical technology has no way to get rid of biological gender yet.

I long to leave this nightmare behind, but I guess there is no hope. All my life I have been constraied by this.

Your bit about undeniable gender differences is pr...

2008-01-12T00:36:00.000-05:00

Your bit about undeniable gender differences is problematic. What we cannot deny is the existence of certain traits which are statistically gendered in certain ways. The whole picture is complicated because of the way in which gender is not neatly divided into two boxes, even now. Gender identity and expression are both complicated things, working on many, many axes. Declaring that gender differences are an element of everyone's lived reality simply isn't possible due to the incredible grey area that exists already. In the end, we already have an incredible number of genders, because no one experiences their own gender in quite the same way. There are frequently shared commonalities, and vague attractors corresponding to male and female, but no two people are going to have quite the same configuration.

Sex is slightly different, and generally more what you're actually talking about here, but even this exists on a spectrum, with nothing approaching a universal experience of what it means to have body that is sexed either male or female, as well as the existence of many individuals who challenge the construction of a clean dichotomy between these.

But all that only strengthens the need for commonly available, consensual non-normative or -normativizing medicine. We need to remove all forms of gender discrimination from society (the three sexisms: traditionally constructed sexism, heterosexism, cissexism). We need to allow every individual to freely choose and express their own gender identity and expression, as well as fight the medicalization of transsexualism, so that medicine which affects the sexed form of a body can be made more readily available, with a proliferation of new possibilities of consensually developed sexes can be created, to better suit the multiplicity of genders which already exist.

All of which is sort of getting at the point Dale is fond of, which is that none of this is specifically transhuman stuff: this is what's going on in the already existing community of gender-deviant, progressive individuals.

And I'm really not sure Harraway is properly read the way you're proposing there. I think you're missing the way in which her Cyborg is the already existing, lived reality for humans as technologically constructed and dependent entities. Cyborg vs. Goddess is more about the way that gender is framed and understood than it is about an actual modification or deification as such.

Society, in its current form, is a construct estab...

2008-01-10T22:30:00.000-05:00

Society, in its current form, is a construct established by the evolution of humans to fill certain roles. These roles revolve around the concept of community, specifically the family unit and the raising of children to continue the genetic line that is Homo Sapiens. If I understand your desire to break down society correctly, there is more than a bit of misunderstanding of this construct.

While the desire to allow people the opportunity to accomplish their goals is admirable, as is the establishment of an option to declare one's gender as M, F, or N, the desire to force said choice on the human race as a whole by stating "this is what should be" is counter-productive. Freedom is not the declaration of being post- or trans- anything, it is the state of existing the way one wishes, as long as that existence doesn't impinge on another's ability to live. We are not all equal in intelligence, ability, stature, or desire, and this needs to be taken into account whenever a philosophy emerges that claims to know the "best" for all of us.

There are two books that might be called for here. One is "Sophie's World," which gives a nicely concise history of philosophy from the Greeks onward. The best and most widely accepted philosophies are the ones that apply to humans as a whole, across cultural and historical lines. Pay close attention to the descriptions of each philosophy attempting to deal with the concept of limits and limiting factors.

Another is Cryptonomicon, by Neal Stephenson. Specifically, in this, a section towards the end of the book that deals with a hive-mind society. They sound quite a bit like this post, in the attempt to be uber-intellectual and use a number of large words and invented concepts to sound self-important.

Belief structures are all well and good, but this is not one that will ever be well accepted because of its nature being contrary to everything society is. We have existed and survived for this long because of our social constructs, not in spite of them.

@rasmus:I think you might mean postgender. I'm a b...

2008-01-10T10:42:00.000-05:00

@rasmus:

I think you might mean postgender. I'm a bit confused--you do mean people like me, right? On the female side, perhaps menopausal or those who have had ovaries removed (even some birth control methods).

Transgender means feeling like the opposite sex.

@Besna:So, did it come for free?-Another thing - i...

2008-01-10T05:38:00.000-05:00

@Besna:
So, did it come for free?
-

Another thing - if gender in its current configuration is seen as a clear constraint, that would mostly be because of social, political factors inhibiting people - that seems to be the most controversial part of it, anyway. Sports and child care don't seem so interesting.
So, if this is taken into account - do transgenderists (my term, is there a better one?) not risk becoming the new, weak, even shunned, gender? The social trade off might wreck the entire plan, true?
How is it certain that gender will EVER disappear given such a scenario?

Well, I'm not a talking head here. I've had my tes...

2008-01-09T14:11:00.000-05:00

Well, I'm not a talking head here. I've had my testosterone reduced by means of bilateral orchiectomy (removal of both testicles). I'm not just someone spouting off on the internet. I've had it done. I do not in any way intend to become female. I have chosen to, as George, says "reject gender altogether". I can answer any questions you might have.

Did anyone pause to consider that gender might hav...

2008-01-08T13:27:00.000-05:00

Did anyone pause to consider that gender might have a purpose?

How do you know that eradicating the gender as a biological necessity will not break social systems, impoverish cultures, skew a delicate balance in the way humanity thinks, acts, cooperates?

It's very well to dream of the ultimate free choice but you seem to be skittering past the possible negative consequences - and I doubt that "transgenderism" comes for free.

Very well written, George.We certainly should be a...

2008-01-08T12:36:00.000-05:00

Very well written, George.
We certainly should be able to overcome our biological limitations especially those of sexual nature; it is only natural to have the ability to chose your sex and sexuality at will.

Cheers,
Ilir

Thought-provoking stuff, George.I agree with you t...

2008-01-08T02:22:00.000-05:00

Thought-provoking stuff, George.

I agree with you that more choice is better (same with cures for aging). Those not interested can just choose not use the opportunity.

Good, thought-provoking article. I agree with you ...

2008-01-07T21:12:00.000-05:00

Good, thought-provoking article. I agree with you (of course) about the desirability of equality and freedom (even morphological freedom, should such a possibility ever arise), and I share your discomfort at the fact that people can be constrained in their potential, and even in their thinking and attitudes, by factors beyond their control.

However, it is worth noting that it has *not*, in fact, been established beyond doubt that neurological gender differences (most of them, at least) are genetic and innate. Certainly there are highly significant gender differences in brain structure and chemistry, but it is not impossible that (many of) these result from environmental differences in infancy, rather than genetic heritage. Given how pervasive many social attitudes are concerning gender, and given that children may be influenced developmentally even prenatally, it is exceedingly difficult to exclude the possibility that environmental differences may be the root cause of most neurological gender differences. (A probable exception being the neurochemical changes affecting women during menstruation, which appears to produce measurable psychological differences, for example by affecting brain lateralisation). Certainly it *might* be the case that many gender differences are indeed innate, and could thus be altered only by technological intervention, but this is far from proven. I wouldn't give up on social solutions just yet!

Nic Shakeshaft

1. I'm not saying everyone should; I'm saying ev...

2008-01-07T09:20:46.480-05:00

1. I'm not saying everyone *should*; I'm saying everyone *should have the choice.*
2. If we're not going to work towards genetic egalitarianism, who gets to decide who will be the genetically advantaged and who the genetically disadvantaged?
3. "Hundreds of thousands of genders" sounds fine and well, but it seems like something out of a b-grade science fiction novel to me a at this point; if you're arguing in favour of morphological diversity, count me in.
4. Equal access to transhuman-tech will equal the genetic playing field; neurological diversity is set to increase and not decrease -- although there will be social trade offs for those who deviate far beyond normal functioning and into more experimental cognitive realms.

While I'm all for posthuman evolution and eliminat...

2008-01-07T06:26:00.000-05:00

While I'm all for posthuman evolution and eliminating disadvantageous behavioural traits, I don't understand why should we level everyone to the same set of behavioural standards. I think instead that we should increase this diversity; that instead of a couple (or a few more) genders we should have a hundred, a thousand genders. This would add richness to the (post)humankind, while your hypothesis would make everyone dull equal. This would be a very boring world to live within. I think you misunderstand "egualitarian": one thing is to want equal rights and equal opportunities to everyone, another thing is to make everyone a twin of each other.