quote:Who would do that to their child, tell them they are the wrong gender and only give them clothing and toys of the wrong gender? Seems wrong.
Assuming he's talking about who I think he is, It was a pair of identical male twins, one of whom had a botched circumcision that left him with no penis. which they then put on female hormone therapy and raised as a girl.
posted
I actually wanted to refer to this story earlier! I'm glad you found it. It's a pretty important (and tragic) case study.
quote:Money argued that a child's gender identity is fluid up to a certain age, after which this gender would become consolidated and more-or-less immutable. This theory was applied in the case of a male child, David Reimer, whose penis was destroyed due to a botched circumcision using an electric cauterizing instrument. This came to be known as the John/Joan case.[10]
The child was subsequently sexually reassigned as female. However, even though David Reimer was raised as a girl and never knew his early history, he behaved in a masculine way appropriate to a boy while he was a young child. Later attempts to socialize him as a girl failed.[1] In 1997, Milton Diamond and Keith Sigmundson authored a followup of the Reimer case, suggesting that future cases be managed in light of what occurred.[1]
As for Reimer, when he finally reached the age to make his own medical decisions, he was so distressed by Money's demand for further surgery to complete his "female" genitals that his parents decided to reveal his medical history to him. He immediately re-transitioned to a male gender role and later underwent genital reassignment surgery again, in order to complete his male gender identity with male genitalia. He underwent four rounds of reconstructive surgery to facilitate his reappropriation of the male sex. Towards the end of his life he lost his job, was separated from his wife, fell victim to an unscrupulous financial investment, and mourned the death of his twin brother Brian, who died in a drug overdose. He committed suicide on May 5, 2004.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: How many people, even transgender people, have really intense gender issues before the age of 5?
You might be surprised. And... I guess it depends on how you're defining "really intense gender issues".
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I think most people at some point in their life have difficulty finding a balance between their individual desires and interests and societal expectations based on gender. I'm a woman engineering professor so I have some experience in what it means to pursue something that's not gender traditional.
I think you're confusing male/female with masculine/feminine. The two aren't the same. There are males who have feminine traits and females who have masculine traits, but that doesn't mean they have gender issues. A kid who has a boy's body and a female gender identity doesn't necessarily want to play with dolls, except insofar as that may seem like something which represents being female. That kid will look at boys and think "them" and will look at girls and think "us" and be really friggin' confused.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I had some difficult times back in my teens trying to balance my natural proclivities against the gender norms of a conservative LDS society. But even with that, I really can't comprehend why anyone would have sex reassignment surgery. I have to presume that the biological and psychological factors involved in transgenderism are something fundamentally different and not just a more extreme of normal struggles.
That's right. I've met a female-to-male transsexual who performs as a drag queen. I've met a butch biker dyke who grew up as a Hasidic boy in Williamsberg. Female and feminine aren't the same thing, which I think you're aware of, and male and masculine aren't either. Masculine and feminine are societal things. Male and female are visceral. I'm not sure there's any way for someone who isn't trans to really understand that except in a very tenuous intellectual way. It's like describing color to someone who is blind. There are no referents.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I understand that gender and genitalia don't always match, but they do an overwhelming majority of the time. It's hard to get good statistics on this. The best I've been able to find is that 1/30,000 men and 1/100,000 women seek sex reassignment surgery.
It's hard to tell. Back in 1996, Yvon Menard in Montreal used to do 4 operations a week, and he was books a long, long time in advance. And he's just one surgeon in North America (not to mention the rest of the world, like Thailand, where it's much more common).
This paper by Lynn Conway estimates that the prevalence of gender reassignment surgery in the US is on the order of 1 in 2500.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I know that this is just the tip of the iceberg, but even if there are 1000 times as many people struggling with transgender issues, we are still talking about only a couple percent of the total population.
quote:I do find it fascinating that three times as many men as women undergo gender reassignment surgery.
As do I. I wonder to what extent that is reflective of an underlying difference and to what extent it reflects the fact that femininity in men is far less well accepted than masculinity in women, at least in modern western culture.
Um... no. It's because FtM surgery (a) is much, much, much more expensive, and (b) has far less aesthetically pleasing and functional results. If you'll pardon the crudity, the expression I've heard is "it's easier to make a hole than a pole".
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I actually wanted to refer to this story earlier! I'm glad you found it. It's a pretty important (and tragic) case study.
quote:Money argued that a child's gender identity is fluid up to a certain age, after which this gender would become consolidated and more-or-less immutable. This theory was applied in the case of a male child, David Reimer, whose penis was destroyed due to a botched circumcision using an electric cauterizing instrument. This came to be known as the John/Joan case.[10]
The child was subsequently sexually reassigned as female. However, even though David Reimer was raised as a girl and never knew his early history, he behaved in a masculine way appropriate to a boy while he was a young child. Later attempts to socialize him as a girl failed.[1] In 1997, Milton Diamond and Keith Sigmundson authored a followup of the Reimer case, suggesting that future cases be managed in light of what occurred.[1]
As for Reimer, when he finally reached the age to make his own medical decisions, he was so distressed by Money's demand for further surgery to complete his "female" genitals that his parents decided to reveal his medical history to him. He immediately re-transitioned to a male gender role and later underwent genital reassignment surgery again, in order to complete his male gender identity with male genitalia. He underwent four rounds of reconstructive surgery to facilitate his reappropriation of the male sex. Towards the end of his life he lost his job, was separated from his wife, fell victim to an unscrupulous financial investment, and mourned the death of his twin brother Brian, who died in a drug overdose. He committed suicide on May 5, 2004.
The interesting thing about the Reimer case is that Money used it as "proof" of his theory that gender was a social thing. It was sort of like the gender version of Lysenkoism. But what he wound up proving was the opposite. That gender is innate, and that no amount of forcing someone to be one gender is going to work if that isn't who they are inside.
I remember seeing an episode of Nova, or something like Nova, when I was a kid, where they talked about "John/Joan", which was how David was referred to at the time in public. I remember reading about it in Psych 101 in college. Money was an ass. There was an episode of Law & Order SVU based on the story, but with a much better ending. The twins, after they found out what he had done, killed the S.O.B.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa, Surprisingly I think we a very largely in agreement here. Thanks for confirming my speculation that transgenderism* is something very different from the more ordinary struggles people have with gender stereotypes.
*sorry if that's the wrong word but it seems less judgemental than "transgender disorder".
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stone Wolf, it was a long time ago, and I don't think it's done that way any more.
Rabbit, yes. As far as terminology... I don't know. I don't much like talking about the subject, so I probably use "trans stuff" more than anything else. Transsexuality, gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder... any of those are fine by me, because I think it is a disorder. But one that has a physical, rather than psychological, cure.
I tend to differentiate between transsexual and transgender, though. To my understanding, the term transgender was invented as an umbrella term to include transsexuals, transvestites, drag queens/kings, the "bi-gendered", and pretty much anyone who doesn't seem to fit in the standard two-gender "none shall pass!" framework. While those going from one anatomical sex to another would be transsexuals. But it's probably a losing battle, with Oprah & Co. using transgender exclusively.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: I remember a study that had followed a child from its birth up to its teenage years and they kept telling him he was a girl. They let him play with dolls and gave him dresses, but he ended up liking girls anyway.
. . . and no one who is a girl likes girls? :blink:. Gender identity and sexual preference are two very different things.
I get what you're saying here, but the assumption of heterosexuality grates.
First of all, how is it an assumption? Would you have said the same thing if I had referenced a gay boy who had been raised to be attracted to girls? No, because that happens all the time. The interesting thing about this example was that it was the complete opposite.
Secondly, the point of my referencing the study was to show that "nurture" does not always override a person's "nature", which would apply to this particular situation. It has nothing to do with being gay or straight. It's about the fact that people can't be forced into being attracted to a particular sex because eventually their genes will decide it for them. I'm not really sure where you got the anti-homosexual stuff from. If anything, that study should go to prove that homosexuality and heterosexuality are both genetic and not necessarily a choice. By your stance on the subject, it sounds like you should be applauding the end result of the case study. Don't you think so?
[ June 07, 2011, 03:10 PM: Message edited by: Jeff C. ]
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jeff, the parents study was messing with the child's gender not his sexual orientation. Your post conflates the two.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: I remember a study that had followed a child from its birth up to its teenage years and they kept telling him he was a girl. They let him play with dolls and gave him dresses, but he ended up liking girls anyway.
. . . and no one who is a girl likes girls? :blink:. Gender identity and sexual preference are two very different things.
I get what you're saying here, but the assumption of heterosexuality grates.
First of all, how is it an assumption if that is what the guy ended up being? Secondly, the point of my referencing the study was to show that "nurture" does not always override a person's "nature", which would apply to this particular situation. It has nothing to do with being gay or straight. It's about the fact that people can't be forced into being attracted to a particular sex because eventually their genes will decide it for them.
Okay, let me try this. I'm going to make a few assumptions of my own: that you're a guy, and you like girls. If I'm wrong, I apologize. But if that is the case, imagine you came across the following statement:
"They let him play with toy trucks and gave him overalls, but he ended up liking girls anyway."
Wouldn't the "but" in that sentence, the implication that the first and second clauses are in conflict, make you blink and double-take?
I am a girl. I played with dolls and wore dresses as a child. I like girls.
When I read "They let him play with dolls and gave him dresses, but he ended up liking girls anyway," I get the same dissonance as I imagine you might get for my example, above. I had to read your post multiple times to realize that you meant "he ended up liking girls anyway and identifying as a man." Because the two things are not the same, and I don't assume one will coincide with the other. (On my first read-through, I thought you were saying the young person had grown up to identify as a transgendered lesbian, and you were simply using the wrong pronoun; lots of people do use the wrong pronoun when talking about transgendered people. I couldn't figure out what that had to do with the original post, though, so I eventually worked out I'd misread you.)
When I say "the assumption of heterosexuality," I'm not referring to an assumption made by the child's parents. I'm referring to your assumption, in your phrasing, that liking girls is somehow an opposing state from being a girl/playing in a traditionally feminine manner.
If you had said "I remember a study that had followed a child from its birth up to its teenage years and they kept telling him he was a girl. They let him play with dolls and gave him dresses, but he ended up identifying as a boy later. I don't think that's the exact same thing as this is, but it seems to me that if that kid can grow up to still feel like a man, than this one will probably be just fine," I would have nodded my head in agreement. We are on basically the same page here. But the original phrasing was jarring to me.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
. . . or, you know, what Kate said, a lot more succinctly. Sorry. Brevity is not my middle name!
Posts: 650 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Jeff, the parents study was messing with the child's gender not his sexual orientation. Your post conflates the two.
If that's how it appeared, then I guess that's my fault. I was trying to imply that a person's genes dictate who they will like, rather than the way they are raised. Keep in mind that I did not remember the details about the case study (I didn't know they actually changed his sex), so the child's gender change had nothing to do with the original post, only that they had raised him to be a woman (and I assumed from what I remembered, encouraged him to like men, which was where I was coming from originally).
I still stand by what I said about genes, though.
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jeff, I am still not sure you are getting the difference between sexual identity and sexual orientation.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Jeff, I am still not sure you are getting the difference between sexual identity and sexual orientation.
One's an identity (like doing things that are typically masculine or feminine...playing with dolls vs action figures, etc) and the other is what sex you prefer to get down and dirty with. What's not to get?
Anyway, this is getting dragged out a little too much. Let's just move on.
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jeff, As long as you are using the term "genetic" to mean "biological" in origin and you get that sexual identity and sexual orientation are not synonymous I'm OK. Genetic means something very specific and a lot of our biological problems, even those we are born with, are not genetic in nature. This very likely true for both transgender disorders and homosexuality.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ambyr: If you had said "I remember a study that had followed a child from its birth up to its teenage years and they kept telling him he was a girl. They let him play with dolls and gave him dresses, but he ended up identifying as a boy later. I don't think that's the exact same thing as this is, but it seems to me that if that kid can grow up to still feel like a man, than this one will probably be just fine," I would have nodded my head in agreement. We are on basically the same page here. But the original phrasing was jarring to me.
Actually, let me revise this. I would also have changed it from "be just fine" to "be able to figure out his own preferred gender identity." Because the original phrasing implies that there's something that isn't fine about being transgendered. And that I would emphatically disagree with.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Jeff, As long as you are using the term "genetic" to mean "biological" in origin and you get that sexual identity and sexual orientation are not synonymous I'm OK.
Yeah that's basically what I was saying.
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Actually, let me revise this. I would also have changed it from "be just fine" to "be able to figure out his own preferred gender identity." Because the original phrasing implies that there's something that isn't fine about being transgendered. And that I would emphatically disagree with.
My concern with saying "be just fine" is the implication as long as the kid doesn't end up with gender identity issues no harms been done. There is plenty of evidence that David Reimer wasn't "just fine". He committed suicide for gosh sakes.
Now I have no idea how much of his emotional and psychological problems were due to his parents and shrinks trying to force him to be a girl as a child and how much was due to other factors. I'm just saying that this kind of thing can cause lots of problems besides gender confusion.
I'm a lot more concerned about whether Jazz, Kio and Storm will be able to have normal fulfilling social interactions with people other than their parents and ultimately become well adjusted, productive members of the community than I am about their sexual identity or orientation.
[ June 07, 2011, 04:41 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Jeff, I am still not sure you are getting the difference between sexual identity and sexual orientation.
One's an identity (like doing things that are typically masculine or feminine...playing with dolls vs action figures, etc) and the other is what sex you prefer to get down and dirty with. What's not to get?
Well... no. I played with Planet of the Apes action figures. Granted, I switched Zira and Cornelius' clothes, but that's not too surprising. A lot of kids don't like dolls or power tools. There are three things here.
Masculinity/femininity is a social construct. People tend to call it "gender appropriate behavior", but that's the societal bias speaking. A boy who likes dolls or cooking or flowers -- in US society today -- is considered feminine, and might be called a sissy, though that's become less and less socially acceptable, because it's seen as offensive. A girl who wants to be a quarterback and roughhouses and plays with tools -- in US society today -- is considered masculine, and might be called a tomboy, which isn't a term that's seen as offensive.
Male/female is gender. But there are five different things that term is used for. There's gender identity, gender role, gender role identity, gender attribution and gender assignment (link). But gender identity is an innate psychological identity. You can try and insist that someone with one identity behave as though they were the other, but you're likely to wind up with a very troubled or dead teenager or adult.
Gay/Straight/Androphilic/Gynephilic are also innate, but they're on a spectrum, and it's probable that most people are somewhere in the middle, albeit towards one end or another. For people who aren't transsexuals, those four orientations collapse to two. Gay men and straight women are both androphilic, and lesbians and straight men are both gynephilic. The only time it becomes relevant that there are actually four is in the case of transsexuals. If an ostensible male is attracted to women, there's no way to know if the attraction is to women as such, or to the opposite sex. After transition, if she was attracted to women, she'll wind up a lesbian. If she was attracted to the opposite sex, she'll wind up straight. It's just one more thing that's more complicated for transfolk.
posted
One of the things that interests me about this story is the mother's comment about Jazz having really intense gender issues when she was pregnant with Storm. I'm not sure what that means. I wonder whether the whole gender explorer thing came before or after these issues arose.
Gender is something kids have to figure out. They aren't born knowing what it means and 4 years is about the time kids start trying to figure it out. My first brother was born when I was 4 and half. I had two sisters. I remember asking my Mom how they would tell if the baby was a boy or a girl since babies all have short hair. (I had short hair at the time so I'm no idea why I thought that was a defining feature of boys) I'm not sure if I'd never seen a little boy naked before my brother was born or just never paid attention, but I was pretty surprised to find out what boys looked like with pants off. My sisters son was 4 years old when was expecting her 4th child. He had two sister and told his Mom they should have a boy this time. When his Mom tried to explain that wasn't a choice, he suggested "Just name it a boy". Even though he'd seen his sisters naked, he figured that it was the name that made the difference. A daughter of one of my friends, at roughly the same age, figured out that boys had a penis (or as she called it a tail) and for several days she would ask her Mom "Does he have a tail?", every time she met a male person (much to her mother's embarrassment).
Anyway, I think its foolish to think you can make any kind of a judgement of people based on what gets reported in newspapers nonetheless I do wonder to what extent this boys gender issues are the result of his parents obsession with raising gender neutral children and to what extent the parents obsession is a reaction (or over reaction) to their sons questions and issues.
[ June 07, 2011, 06:58 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Jeff, I am still not sure you are getting the difference between sexual identity and sexual orientation.
One's an identity (like doing things that are typically masculine or feminine...playing with dolls vs action figures, etc) and the other is what sex you prefer to get down and dirty with. What's not to get?
Well... no. I played with Planet of the Apes action figures. Granted, I switched Zira and Cornelius' clothes, but that's not too surprising. A lot of kids don't like dolls or power tools. There are three things here.
Masculinity/femininity is a social construct. People tend to call it "gender appropriate behavior", but that's the societal bias speaking. A boy who likes dolls or cooking or flowers -- in US society today -- is considered feminine, and might be called a sissy, though that's become less and less socially acceptable, because it's seen as offensive. A girl who wants to be a quarterback and roughhouses and plays with tools -- in US society today -- is considered masculine, and might be called a tomboy, which isn't a term that's seen as offensive.
Male/female is gender. But there are five different things that term is used for. There's gender identity, gender role, gender role identity, gender attribution and gender assignment (link). But gender identity is an innate psychological identity. You can try and insist that someone with one identity behave as though they were the other, but you're likely to wind up with a very troubled or dead teenager or adult.
Gay/Straight/Androphilic/Gynephilic are also innate, but they're on a spectrum, and it's probable that most people are somewhere in the middle, albeit towards one end or another. For people who aren't transsexuals, those four orientations collapse to two. Gay men and straight women are both androphilic, and lesbians and straight men are both gynephilic. The only time it becomes relevant that there are actually four is in the case of transsexuals. If an ostensible male is attracted to women, there's no way to know if the attraction is to women as such, or to the opposite sex. After transition, if she was attracted to women, she'll wind up a lesbian. If she was attracted to the opposite sex, she'll wind up straight. It's just one more thing that's more complicated for transfolk.
Really, all this detail isn't necessary. We're starting to get into territory that borders the obscure, debating definitions and the like (and giving five different branches of "gender" definition is just prolonging it). I was using the action figures reference as an off-hand example that I really didn't give much thought to because I was growing tired of discussing it. It wasn't perfect, but who cares. Let's move on and stop dwelling so much.
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
As soon as you're bothering to talk about a family withholding information about their child's sex, you pretty much have to be getting into this much detail or you're ignoring the issues. These subtleties are all relevant.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:There was an episode of Law & Order SVU based on the story, but with a much better ending. The twins, after they found out what he had done, killed the S.O.B.
... in the episode the therapist was also having the siblings get naked and pretend to have sex with each other. I thought that played a non-insignificant role in their decision to murder him...
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't forget that House episode where the kid turns out to have been a boy but something happened and he ended up being a girl and taking hormones. Or something. I forget the specifics.
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the Reimer case, wasn't there some sexually inappropriate behavior in therapy? Like he did have the kids get naked to emphasize one was a boy, one was a girl. It has been a while since I read about that case, but I thought that there was some parts that made me think, uh, that is over the line, even accepting the premise of the experiment.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:There was an episode of Law & Order SVU based on the story, but with a much better ending. The twins, after they found out what he had done, killed the S.O.B.
... in the episode the therapist was also having the siblings get naked and pretend to have sex with each other. I thought that played a non-insignificant role in their decision to murder him...
That was based on real life as well. Money was a sick, sick man.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm a lot more concerned about whether Jazz, Kio and Storm will be able to have normal fulfilling social interactions with people other than their parents and ultimately become well adjusted, productive members of the community than I am about their sexual identity or orientation.
This is just a guess but I surmise that because they will be unable to have normal social interactions that will engender resentment towards their parents, and their familial relationships will become dysfunctional as a result.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
yeah, let's take bets. Who would honestly be willing to wager that these kids are going to have an easy time of it?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't buy that. Childhood doesn't have to be a crucible to forge children into having a personality. An easy, easy childhood doesn't make you bland, which is great news for americans, because our concept of what counts as 'entitlement' and an 'easy childhood' is on a sliding scale that forgets most of the non-modernized world.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You'll still have a personality even if your whole life is ridiculously easy. What you won't have is any perspective.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't buy that either! Not having any perspective could be likely, but not guaranteed by an easy life.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, if you look at someone with an easy life, they still find ways to have problems. We're human beings, defined by our personal drama. It's why reality TV is so popular.
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
How much is perspective worth? If you've gone through a real trauma, I totally get cherishing the silver lining of experience and perspective that you gained from it. But if you can avoid the trauma, I think that is always, always better. Trauma is scarring and most of those scars aren't silver lining.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer: But if you can avoid the trauma, I think that is always, always better. Trauma is scarring and most of those scars aren't silver lining.
True, but without any of that, we wouldn't have the writers and artists we know and love (who drink/drug themselves to death). Just sayin.
For some reason, creativity is born in trauma. I suspect it's because our imaginations kick in to give us a means of escape. That's why Tolkein was so good with wars(he wrote the first line of the Hobbit in a WWI trench), and why Poe was so interesting (even though he died in a gutter). Most authors who write anything truly meaningful have some kind of deep, dark issue that causes their brain's imagination to go into overdrive. It's why Sharon Olds is such a great poet (parental abuse), and also the reason J.K.Rowling was so creative (she was homeless). The same was true for Charles Dickens (his dad was jailed and all their money taken away), Rudyard Kipling (he was reportedly beaten in his foster home on a daily basis, and he was blind), and Jean Walls (had to survive on eating garbage as a child).
I'm not saying it's a good thing, but sometimes traume can be molded into something positive. You just have use it the right way.
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Most of the extremely creative people I know were life of riley sorts and I can name a few offhand who had no significant source of trauma in their lives.
this is not to say that trauma/hard knocks can't be molded into a creative furnace, it's just not a requirement for creativity, perspective, personality, or any of the other things it's been suggested as.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
