A. J.,
I want to urge a significant caution with this kind of reasoning, used
as a legal basis for recognition of offical sex designation:
"the two recent Zhou et al (and related) articles
demonstrating that the physical somatic structure of transsexual brains do
not match apparent gender based on superficial observation at birth and in
point of fact match the characteristics of the opposite gender ...
The argument must be made that in the case of transexuals no so-called "sex
change" ever took place -- instead, a superficial physical birth defect was
repaired by appropriate medical/surgical intervention"
The problem is this: If the argument is that *physical* (i.e.,
anatomical) differences are to be accepted as the only measure of
accepting the "correct" sex designator, then how is one to accept that
someone born John and wanting to be Joan is correct in claiming the
desired sex, as there is no physical way of checking up on the person's
claim (short of post-mortem examination)? Zhou et al. suggests that
people making such verbal and behavioral claims may have an accompanying
physical difference from their birth-assigned sex, but by no means
establishes that everyone making such claims necessarily has that difference.
When it comes down to it, the only way of establishing that John ought
to be known as Joan, with all accompanying legal changes, is,
essentially, to take Joan at her word. Commonly there is a requirement
of a supporting statement from a health professional, but that, too, is
based solely on personal interaction with Joan, not on examination of
any "physical proof" that she is what she says she is. (There is
commonly also a requirement for surgery, etc., but that speaks only to
the person's committment to the change, not to its inherent justification.)
Perhaps Zhou et al. can be used to persuade the appropriate body (court?
legislature? adminstrative officer?) that there is a good case for
establishing, as public policy, that change of sex (in legal recording)
is appropriate when the bona fides of the individual case have been
established by usual means. In other words, Zhou et al. can help
provide the theoretical justification for making that judgement on
public policy (the practical justifications being pretty evident). The
issue I raise here is caution against taking a point of view that
elevates physical aspects over behavioral ones.
Steve
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|