EPTBut if you want a weigh-in on the topic at hand: she may feel like a woman, and she may deserve to be treated like a woman, but in the end her beauty is much more fake than just some kind of boobjob or make-up. Otherwise, yeah, what's the point if you can just walk into a surgeon's office and say "make me into the next Miss Universe"...
Transgender Miss Universe Canada Disqualified - Page 20
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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. | ||
|
Rob28
Canada705 Posts
But if you want a weigh-in on the topic at hand: she may feel like a woman, and she may deserve to be treated like a woman, but in the end her beauty is much more fake than just some kind of boobjob or make-up. Otherwise, yeah, what's the point if you can just walk into a surgeon's office and say "make me into the next Miss Universe"... | ||
|
Iyerbeth
England2410 Posts
On April 05 2012 03:47 Joedaddy wrote: My question is: How can you determine if a person truly was "born this way" as opposed to someone who just decided they wanted to be transgender? Are there some people who weren't really "born this way" and just decided over time to switch to the opposite sex and have the surgery? Would a person who wasn't "born this way" but had the operations to look more like a female be allowed to compete, or is there a burden of proof to show that you really were "born this way." Also, if a person is capable of not being "born this way" but can still chose to have sex change operations and fall under the umbrella of "acceptability", should society welcome people like this guy who wants to be known as "Cat"? If a person who is not "born this way" but chooses to take on the appearance and identity of the opposite sex is not the same and should not be allowed to compete, then there should be some kind of way to scientifically determine those who were "born this way" as opposed to those were not "born this way." However, if it doesn't matter, then technically "Cat" should be allowed to compete in "cat" competitions, right? There are a series of guidelines to assist in identifying transsexuals in the health care systems of the world. The most common of which requires 6 full months of living legally, 100% of the time as the gender you claim to be before any dr will even give you a hormone replacement prescription, and even then that's not guarenteed and is at the discretion of pyschiatrists. After that another 2 years is required, complete with regular councilling and after that, you need 2 pyschiatrists to independantly aprove you for surgery before any legitimate surgeon will give your request a second glance.* You really have to be comitted, and as a result there are really few cases of people reverting back after surgery. The two cases I can think of at all both came from the same dr who was accused of rushing patients to surgical options.* It's certainly true though that a lot of people do discover through councilling sessions that it wasn't the right course for them, but given the drastic improvement in rates of depression and suicide (as per my post in the OP) in post op trans people, it would seem that for most the surgical option does at least help. If someone however were to decide they wanted to just for the sake of it (a concept I honestly find difficult to imagine) they would need to fake their way through 2 years of pyschiatry sessions, be comitted to the idea 100% of the time for 2 years or more, in many countries find a significant amount of money in order to have what is to many people their most intimate parts cut up and reformed leaving them sterile, massively out of pocket, risk being a social outcast and ultimately (ironically?) end up with Gender Dysphoria as their gender would no longer match their sex. In short, it's just unlikely. Also as per my first post, if all this weren't enough to seperate those who need to transition from those going through a confusing and tough time (I'm not meaning to downplay these people's issues at all btw, they're very serious in their own right - just in a different way), there are ways to tell the difference scientifically in a high percentage of cases. | ||
|
Alay
United States660 Posts
Again, sense of gender and gender norms are different things--and again, not all transgender people follow stereotypes of their reassigned sex. It's not a case of "I like doing the things of <x gender> so much, that I might as well be one." It's a case of "I AM <x gender>, and my body is completely screwed up!" Of course one wouldn't be able to tell the difference between gender identity and biological sex if you haven't experienced them not aligned--just as one can sympathize with what it might be like to, say, live with no arms, they cannot truly comprehend it until they've experienced it. As for the "genderless society raising a child" experiment... Well this family that made the news a bit ago might be the closest we'll come to knowing if that's true or not. | ||
|
pirsq
Australia145 Posts
On April 05 2012 03:51 FabledIntegral wrote: Pronouns such as him/her are specific to gender, NOT sex. You can google it, I did for quite a while and no matter how you look at it, pronouns always refer to gender, not sex. And gender is different than sex. Pronouns, like all words, belong to the speakers/writers of the language. Perhaps you could argue they belong to the linguists who study them, but they definitely do not belong to the sociologists who study gender. Just because some people find a pronoun insulting does not make it grammatically incorrect, only politically so. It's pretty clear that a sizeable proportion of the English-speaking world considers "he" to be a suitable pronoun to refer to male->female transsexual, and that fact in itself makes it a linguistically correct option. Personally, I try to use the pronoun which is preferred by the person to whom I'm referring (but restricted to the set of canonical pronouns, so no artificial gender-neutral constructs like "hir"). Anyone who doesn't could be called insensitive, but they are definitely not wrong. | ||
|
Alay
United States660 Posts
On April 05 2012 04:13 DreamChaser wrote: I didn't know reconstructive surgery was this good, to be honest this scares me that a natural born man can actually look and live the life of a female. Obviously i won't be asking every girl i date if they where a male before but its like a little voice in the back of my head that just kind of scares me. Maybe i am just a bigot, but i do think they should let them compete i mean this woman has been living the life of a female for what more than 10 years? Hormone treatment plays more of an effect than surgery in many cases--even a year of (in the case of an male-to-female) testosterone suppression and estradiol/progesterone supplementation, especially in a younger individual, can have drastic effects on secondary sexual characteristics. Those that start a puberty blocker before puberty, then have a hormonal correction to have the desired puberty, tend to look amazing afterwards with no surgeries at all. | ||
|
Joedaddy
United States1948 Posts
Like I said, almost no homosexuals (at least anecdotally, although I know a ton as I live in California where it's more open/accepted) choose to be that way. And estimates suggest that roughly 10% of all males are homosexual and 5% of all females are. Numbers are far more staggering than you'd realize otherwise. It's just repressed so heavily in most areas, Let's not turn this into a religion thing, and let's definitely not limit it to Christians if you do. I don't want anyone thinking we are prejudiced against a specific group of people. @Alay: I understand that there is scientific evidence supporting the "born this way" premise (for lack of a better word). Do you think that someone should be required to prove that they were "born this way" to compete in sex specific contests? Or do you feel that because of the rarity and unlikely occurrence of someone attempting to compete in sex specific contests who had simply made a decision later in life to become transgendered, it shouldn't matter who was or was not truly "born this way?" I think that there are potential implications for people, like "Cat", who choose to identify themselves as something other than the traditionally accepted categories of Human and Male or Female. | ||
|
Iyerbeth
England2410 Posts
On April 05 2012 04:09 liberal wrote: Gender is a human construct, so it's not really possible to biologically "feel" like a gender in my opinion. It is possible to biologically feel an attraction to one sex or the other, but since gender is defined sociologically, then "gender identity" as we describe it is necessarily a sociological phenomenon, not a physical one. If I take the example in the OP and imagine transplanting my brain into a woman's body, I would consider myself a lesbian woman. I can't change my sexual orientation, but I can change the behaviors commonly associated with the opposite sex. For example, wearing a dress, wearing make up, etc. I'm not saying it would come naturally, but it is learned behavior, not biological behavior. Gender roles and identity are determined by society and so they cannot be innate. What does it even mean to "feel" like a man or a woman, except to say "I feel like behaving in the ways that society has established for men/women because I identity with them." Self-identification is ALWAYS sociological in nature, not biological. If you raised a child with asexual robots, then the child would have no gender identity and no concept of gender at all. The child would most certainly not be asexual, though I don't think that's the term you meant. Not only do you have no basis for a claim that the child would grow up without an understanding of gender, you are actually in opposition to the study in to gender in both animals and humans. If you truely believe you'd just be a lesbian if you were somehow moved in to a woman seems like you haven't considered the issue through beyond what it means sexually. There are trans children who don't even understand the concept of being one sex or another and yet still understand their gender doesn't fit it. Being a woman as a gender does not mean wanting to wear frilly dresses, use the pink crayon or be a disney princess it is identifying at your core as female. The sense that your body is absolutely wrong if it appears wrong is inescapable for anyone with gender dysphoria. The idea of never being recognised by friends or family for who you were and seeing your whole life through someone else's perspective, being spoken past and forced in to uncomfortable situations (gender specific searches, bathrooms, and yes relationship status) is crushing. The fact you don't understand that even as a concept suggests you really don't understand what it is to not have sex and gender in allignment at all. Self identification is of course heavily influenced by society, but you have no basis at all to say that every aspect of who we identify as is entirely societal with no basis in biology. | ||
|
Kurr
Canada2338 Posts
One day it will come true, one day. On April 05 2012 04:15 Rob28 wrote: Frankly I'm just surprised people even still watch beauty pageants... I thought the internet would have rendered them obsolete by now... But if you want a weigh-in on the topic at hand: she may feel like a woman, and she may deserve to be treated like a woman, but in the end her beauty is much more fake than just some kind of boobjob or make-up. Otherwise, yeah, what's the point if you can just walk into a surgeon's office and say "make me into the next Miss Universe"... I don't think many people really watch beauty pageants. People who participate and their family/friends most likely constitute the majority of their audience. Overall, it's worth it for a few of these women to participate in them just because of the job opportunities but I'm still not a fan of them at all. | ||
|
epidGoaty
United States219 Posts
Natural beauty > MW3 ... whoops this isn't IGN's comment section! | ||
|
Alay
United States660 Posts
On April 05 2012 04:23 Joedaddy wrote: @Alay: I understand that there is scientific evidence supporting the "born this way" premise (for lack of a better word). Do you think that someone should be required to prove that they were "born this way" to compete in sex specific contests? Or do you feel that because of the rarity and unlikely occurrence of someone attempting to compete in sex specific contests who had simply made a decision later in life to become transgendered, it shouldn't matter who was or was not truly "born this way?" In a sense, for most places there already is a method for "proving" it--in some places, you need a certified letter from a psychiatrist with gender specialty that states you've been living as that gender full time for a certain period of time, and eventually will seek genital reassignment. Said letter can then be used to get the gender marker on your license changed. Here in the U.S., some states even allow amendments of the birth certificate following genital reassignment surgery. Social Security will only change its marker if a GRS is performed. Some states don't either changes at all (TN, for example). Some are more relaxed--in CT, for example, you only need a legal documentation that your gender identity is a firm belief that has not changed for more than a year before you're allowed the gender identity legal protections (for housing, employment, and bathroom accommodations), and as such, in many cases a simple drivers license with a new name will suffice. In Canada, as I recall, you can change id markers and birth certificates only following reassignment surgery. If legalizing such procedures was more globally streamlined, I think that using them as evidence would suffice--IE, the woman in this pageant was legally considered female in Canada, so that should be a good standard for pageant decisions. | ||
|
liberal
1116 Posts
On April 05 2012 04:26 Iyerbeth wrote: The child would most certainly not be asexual, though I don't think that's the term you meant. Not only do you have no basis for a claim that the child would grow up without an understanding of gender, you are actually in opposition to the study in to gender in both animals and humans. If you truely believe you'd just be a lesbian if you were somehow moved in to a woman seems like you haven't considered the issue through beyond what it means sexually. There are trans children who don't even understand the concept of being one sex or another and yet still understand their gender doesn't fit it. Being a woman as a gender does not mean wanting to wear frilly dresses, use the pink crayon or be a disney princess it is identifying at your core as female. The sense that your body is absolutely wrong if it appears wrong is inescapable for anyone with gender dysphoria. The idea of never being recognised by friends or family for who you were and seeing your whole life through someone else's perspective, being spoken past and forced in to uncomfortable situations (gender specific searches, bathrooms, and yes relationship status) is crushing. The fact you don't understand that even as a concept suggests you really don't understand what it is to not have sex and gender in allignment at all. Self identification is of course heavily influenced by society, but you have no basis at all to say that every aspect of who we identify as is entirely societal with no basis in biology. Suppose a woman were to say, "I feel like a male." Let's identify what that means... First of all, how do we define a male? Someone with a penis? Someone with a Y chromosome? Obviously when she says she "feels like a male" she isn't saying "I feel like I should have a penis" or "I feel like I should have a Y chromosome." She is saying she feels like adhering to the stereotypes and customs that society associates with males (which includes having a penis). If gender is not sex, and gender is not biological masculinity/femininity, then how else can we possibly describe it except as a purely social construct? | ||
|
Joedaddy
United States1948 Posts
After reading your last post, it sounds like all a person has to do to legally take on the opposite sex classifications is to live as that sex for a specified amount of time. Is there even a need for someone to have the surgery then to compete in sex specific contests? | ||
|
AnachronisticAnarchy
United States2957 Posts
She just signed a contract in bad faith and had to face the consequences. Strictly legal matter. | ||
|
Alay
United States660 Posts
On April 05 2012 04:45 Joedaddy wrote: If it is possible to scientifically prove transgenderedness (pretty sure that isn't the right word for it but) then why is there a need to go through the 2 years of therapy before having the surgery? Is it something that can be tested for at birth? Did I misunderstand, and there isn't actually something to physically point to and say "there, that right there is the evidence that this person is transgendered"? If I did misunderstand, is the only evidence that someone was truly born this way is what they feel inside them as person and what they say they "just know"? Was there ever a time when doctors and scientists treated transgendered as a chemical, hormonal, or mental disorder? (not trying to sound rude or disrespectful, but back in the day they said people were possessed when in actuality they probably just had schizophrenia.) After reading your last post, it sounds like all a person has to do to legally take on the opposite sex classifications is to live as that sex for a specified amount of time. Is there even a need for someone to have the surgery then to compete in sex specific contests? There's scientific "clues", but nothing conclusive. Scientists at not certain what makes this or why this happens, but it appears to have happened all throughout human civilizations in history. The time buffer is there to make sure people don't jump the gun on a whim, and to make sure people don't try to transition when they're not really trans--keep in mind, while you can revert a fair bit of hormonal effects, genital surgery is more or less permanent. So, it sucks pretty hard if you absolutely are trans to have to jump through hoops, but it makes sense from an objective standpoint. And yes, it's been considered a chemical/hormonal disorder in the past, and up until somewhat recently it was considered a mental disorder (now only the Gender Identity Disorder, which is the part that causes the actual depression, is considered a disorder.) Prior treatment attempts included things such as injecting large amounts of testosterone into the individual to try and "man them up," and other similarly barbaric practices akin to those used on homosexuals. These rarely (if ever?) worked, and often lead to the suicide of the individual. As for your final paragraph--Nope, it makes no sense at all, but society is mostly genital centric so that's the way it is. In every day social interaction, your bits don't play any part of any of it, so it's silly that they're so worried about them. Unfortunately, the way things currently are screws over non-operative individuals (a fair percent of the trans community, and a majority of FTMs who have rather poor surgical options) pretty hard. | ||
|
Joedaddy
United States1948 Posts
That is pretty much the only thing we have to go on right? They just know that they are transgender and make the courageous decision to live the life they know they were meant to live. Even in the face of persecution and non believers saying terrible things to them and about them. I've never experienced or felt what a transgendered person has experienced and felt. But that doesn't mean transgender isn't real, right? I really wish everyone, especially those on TL, were so accepting of other things that they don't understand and haven't experienced for themselves personally. Like, I know that God is real because I've experienced it and felt it and know it to be true in my person. There is no scientific evidence that conclusively proves or disproves God (not talking about relgion here, religious stories, or relgious books). Other people have experienced similar things as me, and believe God is real. Throughout history, without the influence of organized religion people have believed in God(such as native americans though they had a different name for him/her). But so many people are so quick to say that is stupid, make believe nonsense. It makes me sad. I can't imagine what it would feel like to be a transgendered person and have a group of people telling me it was just a birth defect, chemical or mental disorder that made me feel that way. To be told that transgendered isn't really real and what you feel is stupid and wrong. To be told that there is no scientific evidence to prove transgender is real. Just because you think you are doesn't mean you really are. I know what it feels like though from the vantage point of a believer in God. In that regard, I guess I can relate to transgendered people a bit. + Show Spoiler + I'm thankful for this thread. I really learned a lot I think about transgendered people, and before where I had no feelings for their difficult situations, I now feel connected to them in some way. Hope everything works out for the best. | ||
|
liberal
1116 Posts
Coincidence, or does this woman have a sense of humor?  | ||
|
Severedevil
United States4830 Posts
On April 05 2012 04:22 pirsq wrote: Pronouns, like all words, belong to the speakers/writers of the language. Perhaps you could argue they belong to the linguists who study them, but they definitely do not belong to the sociologists who study gender. Just because some people find a pronoun insulting does not make it grammatically incorrect, only politically so. It's pretty clear that a sizeable proportion of the English-speaking world considers "he" to be a suitable pronoun to refer to male->female transsexual, and that fact in itself makes it a linguistically correct option. Personally, I try to use the pronoun which is preferred by the person to whom I'm referring (but restricted to the set of canonical pronouns, so no artificial gender-neutral constructs like "hir"). Anyone who doesn't could be called insensitive, but they are definitely not wrong. Yup. I'm reminded of when my brother told me 'bug' is the wrong word to use for small crawly or flappy creatures, because scientists use 'bug' to refer to a particular subset of insects (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemiptera). He was full of shit; you don't get to demand everyone else use words your way simply because you don't like the current usage. Gender is an overloaded word, and one of its accepted definitions is 'sex'. Even supposing gender could only refer to gender roles, or to some nebulous-yet-static-and-specific quality that every person has even if they think they don't, you do not get to decide that when I say "he" or "she," I'm describing the way a person identifies themselves, rather than their chromosomes and the natural manifestation of those chromosomes. Nor am I obligated to see you the way you see yourself. Nor is it rude or wrong or bad for me to describe you as I perceive you, rather than as you perceive you. | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
On April 05 2012 09:20 liberal wrote: I just realized this woman's name... Jenna Talackova. Jennatalackova. Coincidence, or does this woman have a sense of humor? It took me a few reads, but this makes me want her to win more. Maybe she's a comedic genius. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7028 Posts
On April 05 2012 09:31 Severedevil wrote: Yup. I'm reminded of when my brother told me 'bug' is the wrong word to use for small crawly or flappy creatures, because scientists use 'bug' to refer to a particular subset of insects (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemiptera). He was full of shit; you don't get to demand everyone else use words your way simply because you don't like the current usage. Gender is an overloaded word, and one of its accepted definitions is 'sex'. Even supposing gender could only refer to gender roles, or to some nebulous-yet-static-and-specific quality that every person has even if they think they don't, you do not get to decide that when I say "he" or "she," I'm describing the way a person identifies themselves, rather than their chromosomes and the natural manifestation of those chromosomes. Nor am I obligated to see you the way you see yourself. Nor is it rude or wrong or bad for me to describe you as I perceive you, rather than as you perceive you. That's not how it works. You also don't get to call black people n****** because you think it's common usage. Calling someone who believes herself to be female, who was raised as female, who looks female, a "he", solely for the arbitrary reason that it's common to do so, doesn't make it okay. | ||
|
AnachronisticAnarchy
United States2957 Posts
On April 05 2012 09:31 Defacer wrote: It took me a few reads, but this makes me want her to win more. Maybe she's a comedic genius. Don't get it. Mind explaining? | ||
| ||
