|
In order for this topic to stay open, keep in mind the following: - Understand the difference between sex and gender- Please be respectful to those involved, particularly the transgendered - If you post without reason, or do not add to the discussion, you will be met with moderator action - If you don't know which pronoun is appropriate please feel free to read the topic and inform yourself before posting. We're all for debate but this is a sensitive subject for many people. |
+ Show Spoiler +On April 04 2012 01:34 Rationaleyes wrote:
I'm not sure I really understand transgender people. I am all for letting people be who the feel like they are, and therefore have no qualms about the trans community in general, but in this thread I see some people being banned or warned for saying he or him. I dont agree with banning people who choose to refer to the people by the original gender the trans person was.
I mean first you have to define what a woman or a man is, and I see people here saying that it is based on who they feel they are mentally, or what their body looks like now, and not what they were born. But if we take it from the most basic difference between what makes a man or a woman, then the definition is unchangable throughout life.
I'm talking about the 23rd chromosome, the XX or XY chromosomes. This is impossible to change throughout your life. It is what forms your body into the gender it is, secretes the sex specific hormones and defines the gender of your birth.
I'm aware of accidental mutations in the 23rd chromosome such as the triplet instead of the pair which can give XXX or XXY but those too are defined.
I am just wondering what anyone would think about defining based on genetic code and not what one thinks, as then you have a strict definition of man or woman, no grey area.
Did you read this mod message at the top?
In order for this topic to stay open, keep in mind the following:
- Understand the difference between sex and gender
- Please be respectful to those involved, particularly the transgendered
- If you post without reason, or do not add to the discussion, you will be met with moderator action
You might be born into gender expectations but you aren't born with a gender.
Edit: That WHO should only be an introduction/guideline. It is by no means sufficient.
|
On April 04 2012 01:23 Hinanawi wrote:
Anyway I think this thread has lost new topics of discussion, so here's one I'm genuinely curious about: Can post-op MtF trans experience any significant sexual pleasure? Also, any advances in being able to give FtM trans working penises? I understand it's impossible with today's science, but who knows in the future what could be possible.
I'm going to answer that one in spoiler, because some people wouldn't want to know in this level of detail and because it's going a bit off topic...I think. I'm not sure at this point!
+ Show Spoiler +
There are actually a few different options available to trans women regarding genital surgery. Depending on your surgeon, your prior health and the method you'd chosen you have basically a fully sensitive sexual experience, including a clitoris and a kind of g-spot experience may be possible. Many newer surgeries also allow for the body to self lubricate and skin grafts are used and altered to replicate the correct feel for both the woman and her partner as well. Almost all trans women with more recent surgeries report being able to orgasm within 1 year, though older surgical techniques resulted in almost a complete loss of sensation.
FtM developments are actually far further along than most people realise. They can get one that is sensitive, and can be used to urinate and which can become erect for sex (though so far as I understand that still requires basically a testical that acts as a pump). I'm not so informed on the subject though, so I can't go in to as much detail without researching further.
|
Seems a bit stupid to disqualify someone over this but then again, it's a idiotic competition to begin with.
|
On April 04 2012 01:34 Rationaleyes wrote:
I'm not sure I really understand transgender people. I am all for letting people be who the feel like they are, and therefore have no qualms about the trans community in general, but in this thread I see some people being banned or warned for saying he or him. I dont agree with banning people who choose to refer to the people by the original gender the trans person was.
I mean first you have to define what a woman or a man is, and I see people here saying that it is based on who they feel they are mentally, or what their body looks like now, and not what they were born. But if we take it from the most basic difference between what makes a man or a woman, then the definition is unchangable throughout life.
I'm talking about the 23rd chromosome, the XX or XY chromosomes. This is impossible to change throughout your life. It is what forms your body into the gender it is, secretes the sex specific hormones and defines the gender of your birth.
I'm aware of accidental mutations in the 23rd chromosome such as the triplet instead of the pair which can give XXX or XXY but those too are defined.
I am just wondering what anyone would think about defining based on genetic code and not what one thinks, as then you have a strict definition of man or woman, no grey area.
I go by genes too personally, and on the internet it's a gray area (and I also disagree with banning people for it, but obviously mods disagree and it's their forum), but when I am talking to a trans person in real life, I'll always refer to them by their desired personal pronoun.
The way I see it, it's just common courtesy. Any discomfort (physical or intellectual) you are feeling is probably extremely insignificant compared to the harm you'd inflict by purposely being a dick and calling an MtF transsexual 'he' all the time, for example. I assume that's what the bans are for, although I think most people don't think or act the same way on the internet that they do in real life.
Like if someone was ugly, would you go around calling them 'that ugly person' all the time? Even if it was true, it's impolite and if they asked how they looked, chances are most people would say they look fine, pretty, average, whatever. Anything but 'ugly'. On the internet though, if you're ugly you're gonna get a lot of people calling you ugly. White lies are what make the world go 'round.
|
On April 04 2012 01:39 JOJOsc2news wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2012 01:34 Rationaleyes wrote:
I'm not sure I really understand transgender people. I am all for letting people be who the feel like they are, and therefore have no qualms about the trans community in general, but in this thread I see some people being banned or warned for saying he or him. I dont agree with banning people who choose to refer to the people by the original gender the trans person was.
I mean first you have to define what a woman or a man is, and I see people here saying that it is based on who they feel they are mentally, or what their body looks like now, and not what they were born. But if we take it from the most basic difference between what makes a man or a woman, then the definition is unchangable throughout life.
I'm talking about the 23rd chromosome, the XX or XY chromosomes. This is impossible to change throughout your life. It is what forms your body into the gender it is, secretes the sex specific hormones and defines the gender of your birth.
I'm aware of accidental mutations in the 23rd chromosome such as the triplet instead of the pair which can give XXX or XXY but those too are defined.
I am just wondering what anyone would think about defining based on genetic code and not what one thinks, as then you have a strict definition of man or woman, no grey area. Did you read this mod message at the top? Show nested quote +In order for this topic to stay open, keep in mind the following:
- Understand the difference between sex and gender
- Please be respectful to those involved, particularly the transgendered
- If you post without reason, or do not add to the discussion, you will be met with moderator action
Yes I did read it and then read the wiki entry, and was entirely unconvinced about the difference between sex and gender. It seems like a cop-out to try and legitimise a difference on a level outside of a persons own mind and feelings of who they are. I googled 'sex vs gender scientific study' and while i did not browse through a mountain of links, there were no legitimate posts citing anything along the lines of a peer review study.
I believe if someone wants to be a woman instead of a man, have at it, I am not anyone to stand in your way. But it just didn't feel right when I saw people being banned for saying him/he.
|
On April 04 2012 01:40 Iyerbeth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2012 01:23 Hinanawi wrote:
Anyway I think this thread has lost new topics of discussion, so here's one I'm genuinely curious about: Can post-op MtF trans experience any significant sexual pleasure? Also, any advances in being able to give FtM trans working penises? I understand it's impossible with today's science, but who knows in the future what could be possible. I'm going to answer that one in spoiler, because some people wouldn't want to know in this level of detail and because it's going a bit off topic...I think. I'm not sure at this point! + Show Spoiler +
There are actually a few different options available to trans women regarding genital surgery. Depending on your surgeon, your prior health and the method you'd chosen you have basically a fully sensitive sexual experience, including a clitoris and a kind of g-spot experience may be possible. Many newer surgeries also allow for the body to self lubricate and skin grafts are used and altered to replicate the correct feel for both the woman and her partner as well. Almost all trans women with more recent surgeries report being able to orgasm within 1 year, though older surgical techniques resulted in almost a complete loss of sensation.
FtM developments are actually far further along than most people realise. They can get one that is sensitive, and can be used to urinate and which can become erect for sex (though so far as I understand that still requires basically a testical that acts as a pump). I'm not so informed on the subject though, so I can't go in to as much detail without researching further.
Holy cow that's amazing. I mean I figured sensation was there cause that's just the same nerves but in different places but all that other stuff is really cool.
+ Show Spoiler +The self lubrication thing is freaking science fiction it sounds so advanced haha.
|
I dont see how anyone can call her/him beautiful, his/her face is clearly masculine.
On topic, Lol, i cant believe he/she had the balls to compete.
EDIT: Whoops, pun unintended. Left for comic effect xD
|
I would like to point out that the thread is now worthless, as the guy is now back in the competition.
Leaving the thread open to have a one sided discussion, where anyone who doesn't blindly fall into line with the predetermined acceptable stance is handed out an infraction or is banned and branded ignorant is pointless.
Just because disagreeing with something may make a group feel uncomfortable, doesn't automatically make it more valid.
|
On April 04 2012 01:59 Capped wrote:
I dont see how anyone can call her/him beautiful, his/her face is clearly masculine.
I don't get it, either... but this pageant clearly isn't about natural beauty anyway, since the contestants are slathered in facepaint and plastic surgery'd whether or not they have a Y-chromosome.
Which makes it rather silly to block him from competing, of course, and it's good that the pageant reversed the decision.
On April 04 2012 01:45 Hinanawi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2012 01:34 Rationaleyes wrote:
I'm not sure I really understand transgender people. I am all for letting people be who the feel like they are, and therefore have no qualms about the trans community in general, but in this thread I see some people being banned or warned for saying he or him. I dont agree with banning people who choose to refer to the people by the original gender the trans person was.
I mean first you have to define what a woman or a man is, and I see people here saying that it is based on who they feel they are mentally, or what their body looks like now, and not what they were born. But if we take it from the most basic difference between what makes a man or a woman, then the definition is unchangable throughout life.
I'm talking about the 23rd chromosome, the XX or XY chromosomes. This is impossible to change throughout your life. It is what forms your body into the gender it is, secretes the sex specific hormones and defines the gender of your birth.
I'm aware of accidental mutations in the 23rd chromosome such as the triplet instead of the pair which can give XXX or XXY but those too are defined.
I am just wondering what anyone would think about defining based on genetic code and not what one thinks, as then you have a strict definition of man or woman, no grey area. Like if someone was ugly, would you go around calling them 'that ugly person' all the time?
No, but if someone demanded I refer to them as handsome every time I mentioned them, I would refuse. Of course, neither of these is an accurate analogue to describing an XY individual as 'he' when that individual wishes to be described as 'she', since in that instance the language forces you to chose one identifier or the other (unless you use the person's name every single time, which sounds clunky).
|
She wants to be part of miss canada then why not, she wants to be adressed as she why not. Truth to be told im in the "society has made these gender roles" camp myself and i think men and women are actually more alike than we realise.
But still whats the harm, i cannot see the problem really. We might as well allow people choose their gender if we keep up with the strict gender roles.
|
What is there to discuss? The competition is for people who were born with the sex "female." It's a private competition. They can keep out whoever they want, and this person clearly does not meet the criteria for entrance into the competition.
|
On April 04 2012 01:57 Rationaleyes wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2012 01:39 JOJOsc2news wrote:On April 04 2012 01:34 Rationaleyes wrote:
I'm not sure I really understand transgender people. I am all for letting people be who the feel like they are, and therefore have no qualms about the trans community in general, but in this thread I see some people being banned or warned for saying he or him. I dont agree with banning people who choose to refer to the people by the original gender the trans person was.
I mean first you have to define what a woman or a man is, and I see people here saying that it is based on who they feel they are mentally, or what their body looks like now, and not what they were born. But if we take it from the most basic difference between what makes a man or a woman, then the definition is unchangable throughout life.
I'm talking about the 23rd chromosome, the XX or XY chromosomes. This is impossible to change throughout your life. It is what forms your body into the gender it is, secretes the sex specific hormones and defines the gender of your birth.
I'm aware of accidental mutations in the 23rd chromosome such as the triplet instead of the pair which can give XXX or XXY but those too are defined.
I am just wondering what anyone would think about defining based on genetic code and not what one thinks, as then you have a strict definition of man or woman, no grey area. Did you read this mod message at the top? In order for this topic to stay open, keep in mind the following:
- Understand the difference between sex and gender
- Please be respectful to those involved, particularly the transgendered
- If you post without reason, or do not add to the discussion, you will be met with moderator action Yes I did read it and then read the wiki entry, and was entirely unconvinced about the difference between sex and gender. It seems like a cop-out to try and legitimise a difference on a level outside of a persons own mind and feelings of who they are. I googled 'sex vs gender scientific study' and while i did not browse through a mountain of links, there were no legitimate posts citing anything along the lines of a peer review study. I believe if someone wants to be a woman instead of a man, have at it, I am not anyone to stand in your way. But it just didn't feel right when I saw people being banned for saying him/he.
I realize this is going off topic but here is a little tip regarding scholarly articles and studies.
go to scholar.google.com and just type in "sex and gender" or whatever you want specifically. You will be overwhelmed by the results from such a simple search. There are good and legitimate (however you define that) posts in here.
Calling someone an it or "he" when she obviously does not want to be referred to as a man is rude in any circumstance and it was done to make an offensive point in this thread. I understand that that was moderated.
I feel like I am not adding much of value to this discussion at this point so I will leave it at this.
|
United States41980 Posts
On April 04 2012 02:13 Vorgrim wrote:
I would like to point out that the thread is now worthless, as the guy is now back in the competition.
Leaving the thread open to have a one sided discussion, where anyone who doesn't blindly fall into line with the predetermined acceptable stance is handed out an infraction or is banned and branded ignorant is pointless.
Just because disagreeing with something may make a group feel uncomfortable, doesn't automatically make it more valid.
Not every topic needs to be two sides having an argument and disagreeing on every issue. That certainly isn't the case here, there are many people in this topic who understand the issues and are happy to discuss them and answer any queries people may have. There have been a great many informative posts which could educate the kind of individual and people who are interested in the subject are lucky to have the opportunity to share them.
|
On April 04 2012 02:13 Vorgrim wrote:
I would like to point out that the thread is now worthless, as the guy is now back in the competition.
Leaving the thread open to have a one sided discussion, where anyone who doesn't blindly fall into line with the predetermined acceptable stance is handed out an infraction or is banned and branded ignorant is pointless.
Just because disagreeing with something may make a group feel uncomfortable, doesn't automatically make it more valid.
Pretty much. It's just a hugbox now.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=hugbox
|
I just wanted to thank the post that is quoted in the op. Very informative and enlightening to me; someone who has been completely ignorant to this subject and viewed it with frankly, revulsion. Funny how quickly an uneducated opinion can change, thanks 
|
On April 04 2012 02:29 Hinanawi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2012 02:13 Vorgrim wrote:
I would like to point out that the thread is now worthless, as the guy is now back in the competition.
Leaving the thread open to have a one sided discussion, where anyone who doesn't blindly fall into line with the predetermined acceptable stance is handed out an infraction or is banned and branded ignorant is pointless.
Just because disagreeing with something may make a group feel uncomfortable, doesn't automatically make it more valid. Pretty much. It's just a hugbox now. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=hugbox
No it isn't. It is about being respectful and posting with a certain degree of understanding of the topic. There are lots of diverse opinions in this thread. The people who were moderated weren't moderated for their opinion but for the way they posted. It has nothing to do with a hugbox.
|
On April 04 2012 02:29 Hinanawi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2012 02:13 Vorgrim wrote:
I would like to point out that the thread is now worthless, as the guy is now back in the competition.
Leaving the thread open to have a one sided discussion, where anyone who doesn't blindly fall into line with the predetermined acceptable stance is handed out an infraction or is banned and branded ignorant is pointless.
Just because disagreeing with something may make a group feel uncomfortable, doesn't automatically make it more valid. Pretty much. It's just a hugbox now. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=hugbox
You couldn't be more wrong.
|
On April 04 2012 02:40 JOJOsc2news wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2012 02:29 Hinanawi wrote:On April 04 2012 02:13 Vorgrim wrote:
I would like to point out that the thread is now worthless, as the guy is now back in the competition.
Leaving the thread open to have a one sided discussion, where anyone who doesn't blindly fall into line with the predetermined acceptable stance is handed out an infraction or is banned and branded ignorant is pointless.
Just because disagreeing with something may make a group feel uncomfortable, doesn't automatically make it more valid. Pretty much. It's just a hugbox now. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=hugbox No it isn't. It is about being respectful and posting with a certain degree of understanding of the topic. There are lots of diverse opinions in this thread. The people who were moderated weren't moderated for their opinion but for the way they posted. It has nothing to do with a hugbox.
Some bans were for being an outright dick (see: NeThZOR), but others were for simple disagreement (see: TheRhox).
It's a hugbox, hell, it even passes the duck test for a hugbox. That's why the only interesting conversations going on right now are about things other than the Miss Universe contest (like the stuff about surgery, thanks for that info by the way, fascinating stuff).
On April 04 2012 02:45 PanN wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2012 02:29 Hinanawi wrote:On April 04 2012 02:13 Vorgrim wrote:
I would like to point out that the thread is now worthless, as the guy is now back in the competition.
Leaving the thread open to have a one sided discussion, where anyone who doesn't blindly fall into line with the predetermined acceptable stance is handed out an infraction or is banned and branded ignorant is pointless.
Just because disagreeing with something may make a group feel uncomfortable, doesn't automatically make it more valid. Pretty much. It's just a hugbox now. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=hugbox You couldn't be more wrong.
Well gee, you've convinced me.
|
United States41980 Posts
If you wish to discuss moderation of topics, take it to website feedback. If you wish to discuss why you think transgender women should be discriminated against, do so without falling back upon stupid misunderstandings regarding the meaning of sex and gender and try not to call her a "he".
|
Who cares if she was born male?
If she's competing to the standards of the contest (i.e. she looks hot) then what's the issue? It's not even like she's got some advantage over women with XX is it? Although perhaps the lack of a womb may allow her to be skinnier.
Unless it's a contest where any cosmetic surgery is banned, which I could understand, I think it's the wrong decision.
Also, I'm surprised at a lot of the comments in this thread. Thought people on this site were a little more progressive. The majority are pretty cool though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/JkTpf.png)
