Trans characters in Mass Effect Andromeda

fialka

My response to an earlier post of yours:


I would rather these people seek help that doesn't contain irreversible surgery.

Someone can meet a tragic end whether they go through with the surgery or not.

Why are women treated differently in Tevinter? Why can't a woman progress in the military? I can't think of any legitimate sensible reason. I believe that someone simply wanted a transgender character in DA then cooked up some silly halfassed nonsense to give the character background.

I remember reading a book many years ago about a powerful wizard named Elminster. Early in his magic career Mystra the goddess of magic turned him into a woman. I don't recall why. He lived and adventured as a woman named Eldara for years. Mystra turned him back into a man at some point but if i were to do a transgender character i would do it that way.

Krem is a woman who thinks she's a man because she suffers from a mental condition that makes her feel uncomfortable as the sex that she is.

Someone who is a natural born woman will remain a natural woman even unto death. A woman unable to bear children is still a woman.

I don't believe that being a man or a woman feels any particular way. You're just you. If you happen to have a cock/pussy then so be it. If a girl wants to dress and behave like a stereotypical guy then she has my full support. Tomboys are my favorite type of girl. If a guy wants to dress and behave like a stereotypical girl then I'll laugh at him because i feel as if he's humiliating himself. >

Corrective and cosmetic surgery for deformities is all well and good in my eyes.

Cosmetic surgery to suit the personal views of someone suffering from a delusion brought on by a mental disorder is wrong in my eyes.

Here are just a selection.  All from reputable sources -- most are from medical or research universities.  There's way more than this out there as well.  This is what I came up with in a simple google search for it.  So, you might want to do this yourself.  It takes about a minute to get some good results that you can use to shape your view on it.  All of this (with the exception of one) comes from research done within the past 5 years. 

As with every other aspect of science, with increased technology, new information is learned about what we thought was "fact".  The most common consensus on transgender identity is that it is a combination of biological (both neurological and structural) and psychological (cognitive) causes.  With the ultimate take-away being that biology causes psychology, which we've always known.  It's not necessarily a new finding.  Interesting that there is evidence that the brains of transgender people more closely resemble the brains of the gender that they identify with.  So it's actually morphological as well, according to some of the current research.  And, likely, there are chemical causes from when a fetus is in development.  This means that, yes, people are born transgender. 

These first few are from science journalism, but they all discuss actual medical and research studies from reputable universities:
www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-there-something-unique-about-the-transgender-brain/ (University of Barcelona/VU University Medical Center)
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150213112317.htm (Boston University Medical Center)
www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/biology-gender-identity-children/ (University of Washington)

And here are some peer reviewed articles suggesting the same thing:
www.academia.edu/download/31032217/100.pdf (La Trobe University)
vrosario.bol.ucla.edu/CV/BiologyofGender.pdf (UCLA)
www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19359705.2013.753393 (NYU)

And, of course, almost all of these studies are careful to note that they are working with small samples and that there is still much to be learned about this.  Basically, it demonstrates an uptick in recent medical and research studies that support a biological determination for transgender identity.  Which is why all of the people who go, "Boys have penis and girls have vagina" (BONUS points if you id the quote) are using only ONE set of biological determinators and totally disregarding another.  Or they are unaware, in which case they should probably do a little research first.  Again, this just represents a few of the first ones that I grabbed.  There are way more (and likely way better ones), but I didn't feel like spending my time proving this to people who could very well do the work themselves. 

I'm just gonna take seat here and watch you awkwardly with my mighty mug....

@daveliam

Leave it to you to do this well written and researched post and then drop a "Kindergarten Cop" reference near the end of it.

Interesting. Though I'm taking all of this very carefully. That doesn't mean much. There are serious scientific researchs about creationism after all, with the support of books, university researchs too, etc. Yes supported by science, I do not lie. And all these researchs were done by biased folks as well, well at least I suppose most of them. And I'm not willing to give up the idea of human evolution as long as most scientifics do not tell me that everything was wrong with their previous researchs, that they were utterly wrong since the beginning. Which is not going to happen anytime soon I think. I still consider it as a fact. 

I read your scientific links,, and i tried to find something similar in my own language to understand better what was said. I find it weird that nothing ever talks about that if it was so much a big news. Maybe I suck with my researchs, but if it was so big, It should be easy for me to see a few articles in my language explaining the whole process. If it is not the case, then it can only mean these folks have showed nothing that could be considered as facts and  true evidences to the whole world of scientifics. Also there are scientifics who criticize this way of doing bold hypothesis like this on a very small sample. i Tried finally to learn myself on this subject. 

You said consensus ? There is not. I found this report from 2016 that doesn't seem to agree. www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/lgbt-gay-transgender-study/2016/08/22/id/744644/

“In reviewing the scientific literature, we find that almost nothing is well understood when we seek biological explanations for what causes some individuals to state that their gender does not match their biological sex.”

In addition, studies comparing brain structures of transgender and cisgender individuals demonstrate "weak correlations between brain structure and cross-gender identification" and do not provide any evidence for a neurobiological basis for cross-gender identification

 “The hypothesis that gender identity is an innate, fixed property of human beings that is independent of biological sex — that a person might be ‘a man trapped in a woman’s body’ or ‘a woman trapped in a man’s body’ — is not supported by scientific evidence.” . After reviewing studies of neurobiological differences in the brains of transgender persons, the report’s authors state that “all interpretations, usually in popular outlets,” suggesting that brain differences between transgender people and others are “the cause” of being transgendered are “unwarranted.”

I am not saying who is right, who is wrong, I am just not willing to believe anyone just yet with so little. I tend to agree with " there is a lack of evidences so far " though. I am very sceptic when it comes to what a few might claim, as long as it is not considered as a solid fact by most. And so far, it is not a fact to me. Your studies could be totally mistaken as far as I am concerned. It already happened in the past with a lot of previous theories finally not certified. There are no evidences, they are still doing their research, they are still trying to figure out, they are giving their thoughts even if they are talking as scientifics, but I don't see where is the certainty, something nobody would object.  Let's wait and see, it should take a few years before we rally know. But so far I would consider as careless jumping the gun and already believing these studies. 

Still, I always said it was up to debate and to each to decide what they believe. As far as I am concerned, these people are not sure and are still doing researchs, but interesting studies. I doubt that it will ever change my mind, as long as most scientifics do not agree over that, There would still a lot to explain to be enough for me to be satisfied since that would raise a few questions.

Well I'm glad that both of you guys weren't totally dismissive. 

To be clear, I'm not saying that it's a settled thing.  Because it's not.  But it's also not nearly as black and white as you were both indicating earlier.  My goal was just to get you to see that your singular way of viewing it isn't the only way to see things.  I'm not trying to get you to totally change your mind; just open your mind up to the idea that it's not nearly as simple as it seemed. 

I'm sure that, as researchers continue to do work in this area, we'll see more and more of the results and start to get an idea of the reality of the situation.  But that's probably years off.  After all, science takes a long time to make it's way into "lay people" terms. 

Interesting answer. And yeah, I know it's hard to answer scenarios like this until you're confronted with them in real life, but thanks for answering anyway



Sure, it is open for everyone  And noooooo, poor fingers  

...though I guess if you wouldn't be able to move them there was no point in keeping them :/

Grrraaaaagghhh!!! We know Gavorn's 10 million missing votes's tricks. We leave!

I try to be supportive of the trans people I know in real life, and will use he/she/they if they ask me to, but I draw the line at made up pronouns.

If a non trans person asked me to address them as "lord or lady" I would refuse because it comes across as them being pompous and self-important. And, although it may sound mean, I feel the same way about weird and obscure pronouns. Nobody should have to memorize your bizarre pronouns, that's just causing everyone you meet an unnecessary hassle. 

I had a friend at university who was a trans woman and she hated people who would request weird and obscure pronouns because she felt like they were trying to politicize their identity and gave other trans people a bad name. Telling people you identify as butter, however serious you are, cheapens and mocks people who legitimately suffer from gender dysphoria. It makes it much harder for the average person who doesn't really understand the topic to take trans people as a whole seriously. 

Interestingly, despite my stance on this topic, I'm also a bit mixed on the gender neutral pronouns.  It feels a bit self-indulgent. 

That being said, if I were ever asked to use one, I'd almost certainly use it because of all of the reasons that I've already stated.  It costs me nothing and I think it's respectful to do.  I also don't think it's very common at all.  I mean, I work in NYC.  I run a graduate program (and higher education tends to be a place where you see more dialogue on gender).  And I have pretty substantial experience with the LGBT community through volunteer work and my social life.  And I've never once had someone ask me to use a gender neutral pronoun with them. 

In practice i would probably end up using it anyway since I generally don't like upsetting people. I suppose when I say "draw the line" I mean the line at what I would actively encourage/support. I probably wouldn't use the pronoun when speaking about them to other people like I would with the more common ones. 

Honestly I don't expect it to happen. The people who identify as the gender-neutral stuff seem to be a minority of a minority who seldom exist outside of educational institutions. 

On an unrelated note, it's nice to see you again. I know that our interactions on the old forums were... strained, at times, but It's great to see some familiar faces here on the new BSN. Takes me back to the ol' pre-Inquisition days when I spent way too much time on the old boards!