Gregg,

I have been reflecting on this discussion union the past few days, and am increasingly unsure of any one argument to try and 'defend.' I love framing this issue using the I fluency matrix. It does allow for a much more clean and nuanced understanding of the interplay of mental, biogical, and social forces at play in this issue. One such aspect that I have noticed in my clinical work with transgender individuals, that many here have mentioned, is the role of social influence not only in pursuing gender identity (which for cisgender individuals doesn't tend to be a point of reflection to begin with - though obviously still is for many). I can count on one hand the amount of times the person I have worked with was committed to a full sex-change operation and going through hormone therapies. Most consider it/are considering it, and many simply wish to retain their gender identity and don't have plans to go through with surgeries and other treatments (though this is also for several very different reasons).

My point here is exactly the one we have been making. The issue of gender identity is not an issue of biology, it is not an issue of culture, I would go as far as to say it is not an issue at all depending on the frame of thought in which one camps. What is an issue is the unnecessary suffering of individuals whom these debates are meant to reflect. That itself is the camp I tend to traverse, and from working in this one area I have apparently decided to throw out other areas of thought because of their

lack of nuance on this subject when taken alone. So if we are to advance the discussion, be it to clarify the academic debate (power), to alleviate suffering (love), or to aid our social institutions in policy-making around gender (influence), we MUST adopt a metamodern sensibility. The discussion here is highly reflective of the need for metamodernism and a general acknowledgement of the failings of any one plane of complexity in being explanatory of gender identity.

Not only can we almost instantly see that gender identity is not a 'problem' or an 'issue' but a process of a kind that again isn't purely biogical or social when we hold multiple epistemogies at once, but we can see it is readily explaining itself so long as we don't engender (sorry I couldn't resist the word choice) it with our own preconceived notions about what gender means in these different contexts. The answers are there, both individual subjective differences, aggregates, and more or less naturalistic facts, so long as we genuinely ask questions and seek to describe, not prescribe (at least not until we've properly accounted for our current precepts in the matter).

I laughed at myself the other night when I caught a thought about whether gender had an answer and then found myself wondering what the actual question was.

I have been writing a bit about the role of interpersonal, developmental, complex, and other traumas as they mediate the identity-focused aspect of the transgender journey for some. Although the direction I see that going is in a very different direction than would metamodernism on the whole, and is not meant to be (nor should it) a view on gender identity in such a narrow regard. While I am happy to share these ideas, and I see the alignment with IM as the perfect frame for that discussion in particular, I am skeptical the ideas (of trauma in relation to gender) can be understood through anything short of a metamodern lense without becoming dangerously toxic to a more simplistic level of debate.

Regards,

Nicholas G. Lattanzio, Psy.D.

On Sun, May 23, 2021, 6:48 AM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Thanks for your reflections, Cory. I am in large agreement.

One thing I would like to comment on and add regarding this issue is that we can use the ToK map of reality and science to show that just thinking in terms of “biological” and “social” sides of the equation is insufficient. The reason is that it overlooks mental evolution and the behavioral inclinations we have as primates. This is the psychological or mental behavioral level of analysis.

This comes into high relief when we look at the masculine and feminine primate relational styles through lens of the Influence Matrix, as I point out in this blog:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/theory-knowledge/201907/simple-way-understand-the-origin-gender-roles

It also speaks to Mike’s well argued points.

Best,
Gregg

From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Cory David Barker
Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2021 2:47 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: TOK Psychology Prof Removed From APA Discussion After Saying There Are Only 2 Genders (*Newsweek*)

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi all,

See the below article and paper. I just remembered this from way back, and the article was still available online (to my surprise). This sort of neuroscience explains a lot.

Gay brains structured like those of the opposite sex >>>

Savic, I., & Lindström, P. (2008). PET and MRI show differences in cerebral asymmetry and functional connectivity between homo-and heterosexual subjects. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(27), 9403-9408.

C.

############################

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1

############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1