Re: @ Mr. Benny: "Its their actual biological sex" and so on.
I really wish I hadn't written that "if you reply" comment. It is condescending. Supercilious. Snarky. That's my my mental quirkiness showing up. I failed to control it.
Yes, everyone is different from the average. However, you're confused: I didn't write that conservatives as individuals differ from the average. I wrote that, as a group, conservatives on average differ from other humans. If a group is different on average, it means that most members of that group have a difference which sets them apart from the rest of humanity. Or at least the "rest of humanity" which has contributed to the averaging!
For example, political conservatives as a group have relatively enlarged amygdalas. The amygdala is the seat of threat perception, anxiety, fear, anger, aggression. Liberals, as a group, tend to have more gray matter in the cingulate cortex. The cingulate cortex is the seat of empathy, reward motivation, other stuff. (All this is approximation -- lots of things figure into emotions, but seen in MRI these brain areas are more active under these conditions.)
Personally, I would judge the language you use in your post to be lacking in empathy ("...then tough, that's the way you're perceived" and so on). Blame it on more active amygdala, less active cingulate cortex? Well, that's too simplistic. But on average there is a correlation.
Nothing I write will change your thinking. It can't.
And if you've been paying attention, you may have noticed that I have stepped in front of the bus several times. Because nothing you write will change my thinking either. We're the same.
I (probably) have a slightly enlarged cingulate cortex; and my neocortex "outvotes" my insular cortex relatively often. Meaning I'm not especially disgusted by "a dock worker in a wig", and I'm likely to be interested in his experiences.
So what? None of this is intrinsically "good" or "bad".
Or is it? Leon Kass, a bioethicist who served in the (second) Bush administration, argued for what he called "the wisdom of repugnance": the idea that disgust is all you need in order to know right from wrong, ethically speaking. And he claimed, I believe, that is how some policies and laws should be formulated -- if it is disgusting, it should be against the rules.
Yeah, OK. So, disgusting to whom? That's one moving target. Pork is disgusting to some people, so should it be illegal? And disgusting at what time? That another moving target. The idea of blacks having the same rights as whites was once repugnant to most whites, so should it be illegal now?
Maybe it's a very bad idea to base policies and laws on an irrational criterion like the emotion of disgust.
We started writing about the way transgender people are viewed, and by implication, how they should be treated under the law -- how they are "expected to behave" by society. You and I cannot agree, because the sum of our experiences, our genetics, our social and cultural legacies, and particularly our brain physiology and chemistry, are different. Just like the experiences, genetics, and brain physiology and chemistry of a transgender person are different.
To my mind, the rules of society need to respect me. Society needs to respect you. And society needs to respect transgender people.
If you read to the end, I salute you. Iron willpower, you've got.