|
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. |
On April 03 2012 18:48 Spieltor wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2012 18:45 Praetorial wrote:On April 03 2012 18:42 Spieltor wrote:On April 03 2012 18:39 KwarK wrote:On April 03 2012 18:35 Spieltor wrote:On April 03 2012 18:32 Praetorial wrote:On April 03 2012 18:29 Spieltor wrote:On April 03 2012 18:25 PanN wrote:On April 03 2012 18:21 qrs wrote:On April 03 2012 18:14 PanN wrote:
[quote]
No. He was born a female mentally, and is now female completely.
You're an extremely rude and insensitive individual. I highly doubt you'd have the balls to tell this woman that shes a "man" to her face. Why wouldn't I? You and he can both claim that "female" denotes what a person thinks of himself as. That's a very recent notion, and one which many still disagree with. As far as I'm concerned, your (and his) attempt to get others to use the language and pronouns that you prefer is a bullying attempt to push your own agenda. We agree about the facts here: he (or "she", if you prefer) was born a man, thought of himself ("herself") as a woman since a young age, and has undergone procedures to make himself ("herself") phenotypically similar to a woman. The question of whether this actually makes him a woman is mainly a question of semantics/categorization. You believe that he should be placed in the same category as people who were born as women. I think that he should be placed in the same category as men. Clearly, he's got some similarities to and some differences from "typical" examples of each category, so what makes your categorization more valid than mine? "she has met the gender recognition requirements for being female in Canada." She identifies her self as a woman, has since she was a child, has had re-constructive surgery, and has gone through hormone therapy treatment. She's female. when she kills someone, the DNA evidence will have them looking for a man. What do you think of that? On April 03 2012 18:28 PanN wrote:On April 03 2012 18:24 Spieltor wrote:On April 03 2012 05:02 JOJOsc2news wrote:
[quote]
Wow... stumbling over the he/she awkwardness in this post.
She chose to be a woman, just call her her. Can I choose to be a woman too, yet not get the surgery and just go around calling myself a woman and getting female advantages like money for college and other things? How much surgery is required for you to be considered a woman? How much estrogen taken? The idea that you're a woman born in a man's body or vice versa is silly, because your body defines your gender. there's no special metaphysical component to a person that makes them male or female beyond the body. Everyone should watch Little Big Man. I have a feeling the idea of surgery to change genders is due to the sexist viewpoints of societies saying "men cant behave like X" and "women cant behave like Y", therefore, you must be a woman if you want to behave like Y, and the only way to be accepted is to have surgery. he isn't a real woman, the same way a cross dresser isn't a real woman. There's no way to measure or test a person's claim that they are "really a wo/man trapped in a wrong gendered body". How about you actually back up your claim of saying its impossible to be born the wrong gender instead of just SAYING it? I've seen countless documentaries / shows on trans-gendered people saying the EXACT opposite of what you're claiming. I think I'll believe psychologist / scientist over you until you can actually back up your claim. I actually don't believe you because that'd be a poor scientist who proves something which can't be proven. You're talking about your "soul" being male or female, and souls don't exist. That's a non-issue. Why would we take into account murder for something so obviously not? Souls exist. They are a person's mentality, personality. I call them souls. And they can be changed by the person, though not consciously. Soul is just another way of using people as scapegoats with some eternal constant that exists outside of psychological conditioning and genetic predispositions. Or can you provide documented proof that scientists have discovered souls really exist. Can she give birth to children? Does she have a period? Does she have brain mass equivalent to a female (female brains are different in size to male brains)? You and he are talking about different things when he says soul. You're arguing against the religious extra-physical concept which there is no evidence for, he's arguing for the psyche for which there is a lot of evidence. It is not unreasonable for someone's physical brain to be predisposed to identify with the female gender, despite their birth sex. The existence of transgender people pretty much confirms this. What you are doing is adding a number of biological tests based upon sex in order to qualify for gender. A lot of people born as women would fail one or more of your qualifiers. only through an error or illness. There is no evidence for the psyche, as it is as elusive a concept as the religious "soul". And I was speaking non-religiously, because people still belief that, even as an athiest, there is some part of people that's special and above animals, which when pressed we would claim as "their soul". We were talking about the same thing, but you're trying to divide it. Actually, KwarK is right. That is exactly what I meant. I'm an atheist, but is soul an exclusively religious term? Both Freud and Jung say the psyche exists. I know what you meant from the start, and I was arguing against that. the "psyche" does exist, but it's not "the soul" of a person in the way that you think. Your argument has devolved to simply claiming I'm misunderstanding you when I'm not.
I still hold the opinion that someone can be mentally female and have a female body, and thus qualify as female.
However, I get the feeling we should come to a mutual disagreement before we derail this thread into more of a psychology debate. Unless of course it's a relevant issue, which it is, but we've exhausted all avenues of discussion.
|
On April 03 2012 18:49 PanN wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2012 18:48 Spieltor wrote:On April 03 2012 18:45 Praetorial wrote:On April 03 2012 18:42 Spieltor wrote:On April 03 2012 18:39 KwarK wrote:On April 03 2012 18:35 Spieltor wrote:On April 03 2012 18:32 Praetorial wrote:On April 03 2012 18:29 Spieltor wrote:On April 03 2012 18:25 PanN wrote:On April 03 2012 18:21 qrs wrote:
[quote]Why wouldn't I?
You and he can both claim that "female" denotes what a person thinks of himself as. That's a very recent notion, and one which many still disagree with. As far as I'm concerned, your (and his) attempt to get others to use the language and pronouns that you prefer is a bullying attempt to push your own agenda.
We agree about the facts here: he (or "she", if you prefer) was born a man, thought of himself ("herself") as a woman since a young age, and has undergone procedures to make himself ("herself") phenotypically similar to a woman. The question of whether this actually makes him a woman is mainly a question of semantics/categorization. You believe that he should be placed in the same category as people who were born as women. I think that he should be placed in the same category as men. Clearly, he's got some similarities to and some differences from "typical" examples of each category, so what makes your categorization more valid than mine? "she has met the gender recognition requirements for being female in Canada." She identifies her self as a woman, has since she was a child, has had re-constructive surgery, and has gone through hormone therapy treatment. She's female. when she kills someone, the DNA evidence will have them looking for a man. What do you think of that? On April 03 2012 18:28 PanN wrote:On April 03 2012 18:24 Spieltor wrote:
[quote]
Can I choose to be a woman too, yet not get the surgery and just go around calling myself a woman and getting female advantages like money for college and other things?
How much surgery is required for you to be considered a woman? How much estrogen taken? The idea that you're a woman born in a man's body or vice versa is silly, because your body defines your gender. there's no special metaphysical component to a person that makes them male or female beyond the body.
Everyone should watch Little Big Man. I have a feeling the idea of surgery to change genders is due to the sexist viewpoints of societies saying "men cant behave like X" and "women cant behave like Y", therefore, you must be a woman if you want to behave like Y, and the only way to be accepted is to have surgery.
he isn't a real woman, the same way a cross dresser isn't a real woman. There's no way to measure or test a person's claim that they are "really a wo/man trapped in a wrong gendered body". How about you actually back up your claim of saying its impossible to be born the wrong gender instead of just SAYING it? I've seen countless documentaries / shows on trans-gendered people saying the EXACT opposite of what you're claiming. I think I'll believe psychologist / scientist over you until you can actually back up your claim. I actually don't believe you because that'd be a poor scientist who proves something which can't be proven. You're talking about your "soul" being male or female, and souls don't exist. That's a non-issue. Why would we take into account murder for something so obviously not? Souls exist. They are a person's mentality, personality. I call them souls. And they can be changed by the person, though not consciously. Soul is just another way of using people as scapegoats with some eternal constant that exists outside of psychological conditioning and genetic predispositions. Or can you provide documented proof that scientists have discovered souls really exist. Can she give birth to children? Does she have a period? Does she have brain mass equivalent to a female (female brains are different in size to male brains)? You and he are talking about different things when he says soul. You're arguing against the religious extra-physical concept which there is no evidence for, he's arguing for the psyche for which there is a lot of evidence. It is not unreasonable for someone's physical brain to be predisposed to identify with the female gender, despite their birth sex. The existence of transgender people pretty much confirms this. What you are doing is adding a number of biological tests based upon sex in order to qualify for gender. A lot of people born as women would fail one or more of your qualifiers. only through an error or illness. There is no evidence for the psyche, as it is as elusive a concept as the religious "soul". And I was speaking non-religiously, because people still belief that, even as an athiest, there is some part of people that's special and above animals, which when pressed we would claim as "their soul". We were talking about the same thing, but you're trying to divide it. Actually, KwarK is right. That is exactly what I meant. I'm an atheist, but is soul an exclusively religious term? Both Freud and Jung say the psyche exists. I know what you meant from the start, and I was arguing against that. the "psyche" does exist, but it's not "the soul" of a person in the way that you think. Your argument has devolved to simply claiming I'm misunderstanding you when I'm not. You did misunderstand him. He used soul interchangeably with conscious and you went on a rant about consciousness even though that never needed to be explained in the first place seeing as you're the only person that was confused by it in the beginning.
nope, I didn't misunderstand, people who are non-religious try to sell themselves the idea of "soul" based on observable measurable brain behavior.
Keep claiming I misunderstood him though, Im sure it'll come true if you repeat it enough.
|
United States41976 Posts
On April 03 2012 18:50 Cyber_Cheese wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2012 18:42 FuzzyJAM wrote:On April 03 2012 18:38 Spieltor wrote:On April 03 2012 18:37 Praetorial wrote:On April 03 2012 18:34 sharky246 wrote:On April 03 2012 18:16 Cyber_Cheese wrote:On April 03 2012 18:14 PanN wrote:On April 03 2012 18:12 qrs wrote:On April 03 2012 05:02 JOJOsc2news wrote:On April 03 2012 03:41 StimFesT wrote:
I seriously feel wierd when I look at the picture and know that she/he was born as a regular male. But she/he is actually beautiful Wow... stumbling over the he/she awkwardness in this post. She chose to be a woman, just call her her. He's a man who had surgery/hormone therapy; just call him him. No. He was born a female mentally, and is now female completely. You're an extremely rude and insensitive individual. I highly doubt you'd have the balls to tell this woman that shes a "man" to her face. This raises the question. Are people born male/female mentally, or is that a part of growing up? People aren't born male or female mentally. Kids before reaching puberty have no sexuality, that is, they are just boys and girls, physically only. At least that is what i learnt from a psychologist talking in a morning talk show. That's what Freud said about latency. Whether we trust Freud is another matter entirely. Given the fact Freud was "house m.d." intelligence level, and is continually being proven right as psychology progresses, he seems more trustworthy than some fanatic claiming something which isn't measurable or provable exists. Actually, Freud was entirely unscientific, freudulent*, and most of his sexual theories have been shown to be bullshit. He contributed a huge amount and should be respected in that, but he is by no means "continually being proven right". FTFY Seriously though, there are a lot of things that differ between a natural m/f and a trans one. Yes you can keep appearances up, but.. I can accept LGB, because those people don't have to commit to a permanent stance. It's different for T. I feel like we shouldn't be encouraging people to do radical things like completely change their gender. If perhaps there's some issue with society that makes people feel like they have to change gender, we should be attempting to make ourselves better by allowing for that.
LGB are sexual preferences which are completely unrelated to gender issues. This isn't a preference, perversion or a fetish. Nor are they changing their gender, that's pretty much the point of it, they're not changing their gender, they're realigning their sex to conform with their gender. You've pretty much missed the point on every possible level.
|
She is actually a dude, thats just plastic surgery. I'm sorry "she" sees herself as a woman, but I still think that she/he needs to be barred from the competition. Its a pretty easy and normal line to draw for who you allow in. It sucks for him/her, but you dont want your pageant turning into a freak show. Who's next if you allow a man in?
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On April 03 2012 18:51 Spieltor wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2012 18:49 PanN wrote:On April 03 2012 18:48 Spieltor wrote:On April 03 2012 18:45 Praetorial wrote:On April 03 2012 18:42 Spieltor wrote:On April 03 2012 18:39 KwarK wrote:On April 03 2012 18:35 Spieltor wrote:On April 03 2012 18:32 Praetorial wrote:On April 03 2012 18:29 Spieltor wrote:On April 03 2012 18:25 PanN wrote:
[quote]
"she has met the gender recognition requirements for being female in Canada."
She identifies her self as a woman, has since she was a child, has had re-constructive surgery, and has gone through hormone therapy treatment.
She's female. when she kills someone, the DNA evidence will have them looking for a man. What do you think of that? On April 03 2012 18:28 PanN wrote:
[quote]
How about you actually back up your claim of saying its impossible to be born the wrong gender instead of just SAYING it?
I've seen countless documentaries / shows on trans-gendered people saying the EXACT opposite of what you're claiming.
I think I'll believe psychologist / scientist over you until you can actually back up your claim. I actually don't believe you because that'd be a poor scientist who proves something which can't be proven. You're talking about your "soul" being male or female, and souls don't exist. That's a non-issue. Why would we take into account murder for something so obviously not? Souls exist. They are a person's mentality, personality. I call them souls. And they can be changed by the person, though not consciously. Soul is just another way of using people as scapegoats with some eternal constant that exists outside of psychological conditioning and genetic predispositions. Or can you provide documented proof that scientists have discovered souls really exist. Can she give birth to children? Does she have a period? Does she have brain mass equivalent to a female (female brains are different in size to male brains)? You and he are talking about different things when he says soul. You're arguing against the religious extra-physical concept which there is no evidence for, he's arguing for the psyche for which there is a lot of evidence. It is not unreasonable for someone's physical brain to be predisposed to identify with the female gender, despite their birth sex. The existence of transgender people pretty much confirms this. What you are doing is adding a number of biological tests based upon sex in order to qualify for gender. A lot of people born as women would fail one or more of your qualifiers. only through an error or illness. There is no evidence for the psyche, as it is as elusive a concept as the religious "soul". And I was speaking non-religiously, because people still belief that, even as an athiest, there is some part of people that's special and above animals, which when pressed we would claim as "their soul". We were talking about the same thing, but you're trying to divide it. Actually, KwarK is right. That is exactly what I meant. I'm an atheist, but is soul an exclusively religious term? Both Freud and Jung say the psyche exists. I know what you meant from the start, and I was arguing against that. the "psyche" does exist, but it's not "the soul" of a person in the way that you think. Your argument has devolved to simply claiming I'm misunderstanding you when I'm not. You did misunderstand him. He used soul interchangeably with conscious and you went on a rant about consciousness even though that never needed to be explained in the first place seeing as you're the only person that was confused by it in the beginning. nope, I didn't misunderstand, people who are non-religious try to sell themselves the idea of "soul" based on observable measurable brain behavior. Keep claiming I misunderstood him though, Im sure it'll come true if you repeat it enough.
I am not using the definition of soul as a wooshy ascending-to-heaven thing.
I am talking about what most people call psyche or subconscious mind.
|
On April 03 2012 18:50 Praetorial wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2012 18:48 Spieltor wrote:On April 03 2012 18:45 Praetorial wrote:On April 03 2012 18:42 Spieltor wrote:On April 03 2012 18:39 KwarK wrote:On April 03 2012 18:35 Spieltor wrote:On April 03 2012 18:32 Praetorial wrote:On April 03 2012 18:29 Spieltor wrote:On April 03 2012 18:25 PanN wrote:On April 03 2012 18:21 qrs wrote:
[quote]Why wouldn't I?
You and he can both claim that "female" denotes what a person thinks of himself as. That's a very recent notion, and one which many still disagree with. As far as I'm concerned, your (and his) attempt to get others to use the language and pronouns that you prefer is a bullying attempt to push your own agenda.
We agree about the facts here: he (or "she", if you prefer) was born a man, thought of himself ("herself") as a woman since a young age, and has undergone procedures to make himself ("herself") phenotypically similar to a woman. The question of whether this actually makes him a woman is mainly a question of semantics/categorization. You believe that he should be placed in the same category as people who were born as women. I think that he should be placed in the same category as men. Clearly, he's got some similarities to and some differences from "typical" examples of each category, so what makes your categorization more valid than mine? "she has met the gender recognition requirements for being female in Canada." She identifies her self as a woman, has since she was a child, has had re-constructive surgery, and has gone through hormone therapy treatment. She's female. when she kills someone, the DNA evidence will have them looking for a man. What do you think of that? On April 03 2012 18:28 PanN wrote:On April 03 2012 18:24 Spieltor wrote:
[quote]
Can I choose to be a woman too, yet not get the surgery and just go around calling myself a woman and getting female advantages like money for college and other things?
How much surgery is required for you to be considered a woman? How much estrogen taken? The idea that you're a woman born in a man's body or vice versa is silly, because your body defines your gender. there's no special metaphysical component to a person that makes them male or female beyond the body.
Everyone should watch Little Big Man. I have a feeling the idea of surgery to change genders is due to the sexist viewpoints of societies saying "men cant behave like X" and "women cant behave like Y", therefore, you must be a woman if you want to behave like Y, and the only way to be accepted is to have surgery.
he isn't a real woman, the same way a cross dresser isn't a real woman. There's no way to measure or test a person's claim that they are "really a wo/man trapped in a wrong gendered body". How about you actually back up your claim of saying its impossible to be born the wrong gender instead of just SAYING it? I've seen countless documentaries / shows on trans-gendered people saying the EXACT opposite of what you're claiming. I think I'll believe psychologist / scientist over you until you can actually back up your claim. I actually don't believe you because that'd be a poor scientist who proves something which can't be proven. You're talking about your "soul" being male or female, and souls don't exist. That's a non-issue. Why would we take into account murder for something so obviously not? Souls exist. They are a person's mentality, personality. I call them souls. And they can be changed by the person, though not consciously. Soul is just another way of using people as scapegoats with some eternal constant that exists outside of psychological conditioning and genetic predispositions. Or can you provide documented proof that scientists have discovered souls really exist. Can she give birth to children? Does she have a period? Does she have brain mass equivalent to a female (female brains are different in size to male brains)? You and he are talking about different things when he says soul. You're arguing against the religious extra-physical concept which there is no evidence for, he's arguing for the psyche for which there is a lot of evidence. It is not unreasonable for someone's physical brain to be predisposed to identify with the female gender, despite their birth sex. The existence of transgender people pretty much confirms this. What you are doing is adding a number of biological tests based upon sex in order to qualify for gender. A lot of people born as women would fail one or more of your qualifiers. only through an error or illness. There is no evidence for the psyche, as it is as elusive a concept as the religious "soul". And I was speaking non-religiously, because people still belief that, even as an athiest, there is some part of people that's special and above animals, which when pressed we would claim as "their soul". We were talking about the same thing, but you're trying to divide it. Actually, KwarK is right. That is exactly what I meant. I'm an atheist, but is soul an exclusively religious term? Both Freud and Jung say the psyche exists. I know what you meant from the start, and I was arguing against that. the "psyche" does exist, but it's not "the soul" of a person in the way that you think. Your argument has devolved to simply claiming I'm misunderstanding you when I'm not. I still hold the opinion that someone can be mentally female and have a female body, and thus qualify as female.However, I get the feeling we should come to a mutual disagreement before we derail this thread into more of a psychology debate. Unless of course it's a relevant issue, which it is, but we've exhausted all avenues of discussion.
god I hope so, otherwise all females are lies.
But this person doesn't have a female body. They have a male body, with surgery that has deformed it to appear female in some aspects, while in many aspects the body is still male. it'll never be fully female, and barring an actual full body replacement with an XX cloned version, those traces still exist.
|
On April 03 2012 18:54 Praetorial wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2012 18:51 Spieltor wrote:On April 03 2012 18:49 PanN wrote:On April 03 2012 18:48 Spieltor wrote:On April 03 2012 18:45 Praetorial wrote:On April 03 2012 18:42 Spieltor wrote:On April 03 2012 18:39 KwarK wrote:On April 03 2012 18:35 Spieltor wrote:On April 03 2012 18:32 Praetorial wrote:On April 03 2012 18:29 Spieltor wrote:
[quote]
when she kills someone, the DNA evidence will have them looking for a man. What do you think of that?
[quote]
I actually don't believe you because that'd be a poor scientist who proves something which can't be proven. You're talking about your "soul" being male or female, and souls don't exist. That's a non-issue. Why would we take into account murder for something so obviously not? Souls exist. They are a person's mentality, personality. I call them souls. And they can be changed by the person, though not consciously. Soul is just another way of using people as scapegoats with some eternal constant that exists outside of psychological conditioning and genetic predispositions. Or can you provide documented proof that scientists have discovered souls really exist. Can she give birth to children? Does she have a period? Does she have brain mass equivalent to a female (female brains are different in size to male brains)? You and he are talking about different things when he says soul. You're arguing against the religious extra-physical concept which there is no evidence for, he's arguing for the psyche for which there is a lot of evidence. It is not unreasonable for someone's physical brain to be predisposed to identify with the female gender, despite their birth sex. The existence of transgender people pretty much confirms this. What you are doing is adding a number of biological tests based upon sex in order to qualify for gender. A lot of people born as women would fail one or more of your qualifiers. only through an error or illness. There is no evidence for the psyche, as it is as elusive a concept as the religious "soul". And I was speaking non-religiously, because people still belief that, even as an athiest, there is some part of people that's special and above animals, which when pressed we would claim as "their soul". We were talking about the same thing, but you're trying to divide it. Actually, KwarK is right. That is exactly what I meant. I'm an atheist, but is soul an exclusively religious term? Both Freud and Jung say the psyche exists. I know what you meant from the start, and I was arguing against that. the "psyche" does exist, but it's not "the soul" of a person in the way that you think. Your argument has devolved to simply claiming I'm misunderstanding you when I'm not. You did misunderstand him. He used soul interchangeably with conscious and you went on a rant about consciousness even though that never needed to be explained in the first place seeing as you're the only person that was confused by it in the beginning. nope, I didn't misunderstand, people who are non-religious try to sell themselves the idea of "soul" based on observable measurable brain behavior. Keep claiming I misunderstood him though, Im sure it'll come true if you repeat it enough. I am not using the definition of soul as a wooshy ascending-to-heaven thing. I am talking about what most people call psyche or subconscious mind.
most people call the subconscious the subconscious, or the psyche the psyche. I've never heard of anyone calling the entire combination the "soul" of someone. I know what you're trying to do, and it won't work.
|
On April 03 2012 18:54 Spieltor wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2012 18:50 Praetorial wrote:On April 03 2012 18:48 Spieltor wrote:On April 03 2012 18:45 Praetorial wrote:On April 03 2012 18:42 Spieltor wrote:On April 03 2012 18:39 KwarK wrote:On April 03 2012 18:35 Spieltor wrote:On April 03 2012 18:32 Praetorial wrote:On April 03 2012 18:29 Spieltor wrote:On April 03 2012 18:25 PanN wrote:
[quote]
"she has met the gender recognition requirements for being female in Canada."
She identifies her self as a woman, has since she was a child, has had re-constructive surgery, and has gone through hormone therapy treatment.
She's female. when she kills someone, the DNA evidence will have them looking for a man. What do you think of that? On April 03 2012 18:28 PanN wrote:
[quote]
How about you actually back up your claim of saying its impossible to be born the wrong gender instead of just SAYING it?
I've seen countless documentaries / shows on trans-gendered people saying the EXACT opposite of what you're claiming.
I think I'll believe psychologist / scientist over you until you can actually back up your claim. I actually don't believe you because that'd be a poor scientist who proves something which can't be proven. You're talking about your "soul" being male or female, and souls don't exist. That's a non-issue. Why would we take into account murder for something so obviously not? Souls exist. They are a person's mentality, personality. I call them souls. And they can be changed by the person, though not consciously. Soul is just another way of using people as scapegoats with some eternal constant that exists outside of psychological conditioning and genetic predispositions. Or can you provide documented proof that scientists have discovered souls really exist. Can she give birth to children? Does she have a period? Does she have brain mass equivalent to a female (female brains are different in size to male brains)? You and he are talking about different things when he says soul. You're arguing against the religious extra-physical concept which there is no evidence for, he's arguing for the psyche for which there is a lot of evidence. It is not unreasonable for someone's physical brain to be predisposed to identify with the female gender, despite their birth sex. The existence of transgender people pretty much confirms this. What you are doing is adding a number of biological tests based upon sex in order to qualify for gender. A lot of people born as women would fail one or more of your qualifiers. only through an error or illness. There is no evidence for the psyche, as it is as elusive a concept as the religious "soul". And I was speaking non-religiously, because people still belief that, even as an athiest, there is some part of people that's special and above animals, which when pressed we would claim as "their soul". We were talking about the same thing, but you're trying to divide it. Actually, KwarK is right. That is exactly what I meant. I'm an atheist, but is soul an exclusively religious term? Both Freud and Jung say the psyche exists. I know what you meant from the start, and I was arguing against that. the "psyche" does exist, but it's not "the soul" of a person in the way that you think. Your argument has devolved to simply claiming I'm misunderstanding you when I'm not. I still hold the opinion that someone can be mentally female and have a female body, and thus qualify as female.However, I get the feeling we should come to a mutual disagreement before we derail this thread into more of a psychology debate. Unless of course it's a relevant issue, which it is, but we've exhausted all avenues of discussion. god I hope so, otherwise all females are lies. But this person doesn't have a female body. They have a male body, with surgery that has deformed it to appear female in some aspects, while in many aspects the body is still male. it'll never be fully female, and barring an actual full body replacement with an XX cloned version, those traces still exist.
Surgery-is an ancient medical specialty that uses operative manual and instrumental techniques on a patient to investigate and/or treat a pathological condition such as disease or injury, or to help improve bodily function or appearance.
(from wikipedia)
Taking hormones isn't surgery, it lets your body develop along an alternate path. What path that is is not determined by a doctor.
|
If anything she looks fucking stunning for being born a male...
|
On April 03 2012 18:57 Spieltor wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2012 18:54 Praetorial wrote:On April 03 2012 18:51 Spieltor wrote:On April 03 2012 18:49 PanN wrote:On April 03 2012 18:48 Spieltor wrote:On April 03 2012 18:45 Praetorial wrote:On April 03 2012 18:42 Spieltor wrote:On April 03 2012 18:39 KwarK wrote:On April 03 2012 18:35 Spieltor wrote:On April 03 2012 18:32 Praetorial wrote:
[quote]
That's a non-issue. Why would we take into account murder for something so obviously not?
Souls exist. They are a person's mentality, personality. I call them souls. And they can be changed by the person, though not consciously. Soul is just another way of using people as scapegoats with some eternal constant that exists outside of psychological conditioning and genetic predispositions. Or can you provide documented proof that scientists have discovered souls really exist. Can she give birth to children? Does she have a period? Does she have brain mass equivalent to a female (female brains are different in size to male brains)? You and he are talking about different things when he says soul. You're arguing against the religious extra-physical concept which there is no evidence for, he's arguing for the psyche for which there is a lot of evidence. It is not unreasonable for someone's physical brain to be predisposed to identify with the female gender, despite their birth sex. The existence of transgender people pretty much confirms this. What you are doing is adding a number of biological tests based upon sex in order to qualify for gender. A lot of people born as women would fail one or more of your qualifiers. only through an error or illness. There is no evidence for the psyche, as it is as elusive a concept as the religious "soul". And I was speaking non-religiously, because people still belief that, even as an athiest, there is some part of people that's special and above animals, which when pressed we would claim as "their soul". We were talking about the same thing, but you're trying to divide it. Actually, KwarK is right. That is exactly what I meant. I'm an atheist, but is soul an exclusively religious term? Both Freud and Jung say the psyche exists. I know what you meant from the start, and I was arguing against that. the "psyche" does exist, but it's not "the soul" of a person in the way that you think. Your argument has devolved to simply claiming I'm misunderstanding you when I'm not. You did misunderstand him. He used soul interchangeably with conscious and you went on a rant about consciousness even though that never needed to be explained in the first place seeing as you're the only person that was confused by it in the beginning. nope, I didn't misunderstand, people who are non-religious try to sell themselves the idea of "soul" based on observable measurable brain behavior. Keep claiming I misunderstood him though, Im sure it'll come true if you repeat it enough. I am not using the definition of soul as a wooshy ascending-to-heaven thing. I am talking about what most people call psyche or subconscious mind. most people call the subconscious the subconscious, or the psyche the psyche. I've never heard of anyone calling the entire combination the "soul" of someone. I know what you're trying to do, and it won't work.
Would you believe me if I said that I was being totally honest with you?
|
On April 03 2012 18:58 Praetorial wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2012 18:54 Spieltor wrote:On April 03 2012 18:50 Praetorial wrote:On April 03 2012 18:48 Spieltor wrote:On April 03 2012 18:45 Praetorial wrote:On April 03 2012 18:42 Spieltor wrote:On April 03 2012 18:39 KwarK wrote:On April 03 2012 18:35 Spieltor wrote:On April 03 2012 18:32 Praetorial wrote:On April 03 2012 18:29 Spieltor wrote:
[quote]
when she kills someone, the DNA evidence will have them looking for a man. What do you think of that?
[quote]
I actually don't believe you because that'd be a poor scientist who proves something which can't be proven. You're talking about your "soul" being male or female, and souls don't exist. That's a non-issue. Why would we take into account murder for something so obviously not? Souls exist. They are a person's mentality, personality. I call them souls. And they can be changed by the person, though not consciously. Soul is just another way of using people as scapegoats with some eternal constant that exists outside of psychological conditioning and genetic predispositions. Or can you provide documented proof that scientists have discovered souls really exist. Can she give birth to children? Does she have a period? Does she have brain mass equivalent to a female (female brains are different in size to male brains)? You and he are talking about different things when he says soul. You're arguing against the religious extra-physical concept which there is no evidence for, he's arguing for the psyche for which there is a lot of evidence. It is not unreasonable for someone's physical brain to be predisposed to identify with the female gender, despite their birth sex. The existence of transgender people pretty much confirms this. What you are doing is adding a number of biological tests based upon sex in order to qualify for gender. A lot of people born as women would fail one or more of your qualifiers. only through an error or illness. There is no evidence for the psyche, as it is as elusive a concept as the religious "soul". And I was speaking non-religiously, because people still belief that, even as an athiest, there is some part of people that's special and above animals, which when pressed we would claim as "their soul". We were talking about the same thing, but you're trying to divide it. Actually, KwarK is right. That is exactly what I meant. I'm an atheist, but is soul an exclusively religious term? Both Freud and Jung say the psyche exists. I know what you meant from the start, and I was arguing against that. the "psyche" does exist, but it's not "the soul" of a person in the way that you think. Your argument has devolved to simply claiming I'm misunderstanding you when I'm not. I still hold the opinion that someone can be mentally female and have a female body, and thus qualify as female.However, I get the feeling we should come to a mutual disagreement before we derail this thread into more of a psychology debate. Unless of course it's a relevant issue, which it is, but we've exhausted all avenues of discussion. god I hope so, otherwise all females are lies. But this person doesn't have a female body. They have a male body, with surgery that has deformed it to appear female in some aspects, while in many aspects the body is still male. it'll never be fully female, and barring an actual full body replacement with an XX cloned version, those traces still exist. Surgery-is an ancient medical specialty that uses operative manual and instrumental techniques on a patient to investigate and/or treat a pathological condition such as disease or injury, or to help improve bodily function or appearance. (from wikipedia) Taking hormones isn't surgery, it lets your body develop along an alternate path. What path that is is not determined by a doctor.
it's not hack and slash surgery, but the effect is the same.
if taking hormones to win a beauty contest is okay, then taking hormones to win sports is okay.
On April 03 2012 18:59 Praetorial wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2012 18:57 Spieltor wrote:On April 03 2012 18:54 Praetorial wrote:On April 03 2012 18:51 Spieltor wrote:On April 03 2012 18:49 PanN wrote:On April 03 2012 18:48 Spieltor wrote:On April 03 2012 18:45 Praetorial wrote:On April 03 2012 18:42 Spieltor wrote:On April 03 2012 18:39 KwarK wrote:On April 03 2012 18:35 Spieltor wrote:
[quote]
Soul is just another way of using people as scapegoats with some eternal constant that exists outside of psychological conditioning and genetic predispositions.
Or can you provide documented proof that scientists have discovered souls really exist.
Can she give birth to children? Does she have a period? Does she have brain mass equivalent to a female (female brains are different in size to male brains)? You and he are talking about different things when he says soul. You're arguing against the religious extra-physical concept which there is no evidence for, he's arguing for the psyche for which there is a lot of evidence. It is not unreasonable for someone's physical brain to be predisposed to identify with the female gender, despite their birth sex. The existence of transgender people pretty much confirms this. What you are doing is adding a number of biological tests based upon sex in order to qualify for gender. A lot of people born as women would fail one or more of your qualifiers. only through an error or illness. There is no evidence for the psyche, as it is as elusive a concept as the religious "soul". And I was speaking non-religiously, because people still belief that, even as an athiest, there is some part of people that's special and above animals, which when pressed we would claim as "their soul". We were talking about the same thing, but you're trying to divide it. Actually, KwarK is right. That is exactly what I meant. I'm an atheist, but is soul an exclusively religious term? Both Freud and Jung say the psyche exists. I know what you meant from the start, and I was arguing against that. the "psyche" does exist, but it's not "the soul" of a person in the way that you think. Your argument has devolved to simply claiming I'm misunderstanding you when I'm not. You did misunderstand him. He used soul interchangeably with conscious and you went on a rant about consciousness even though that never needed to be explained in the first place seeing as you're the only person that was confused by it in the beginning. nope, I didn't misunderstand, people who are non-religious try to sell themselves the idea of "soul" based on observable measurable brain behavior. Keep claiming I misunderstood him though, Im sure it'll come true if you repeat it enough. I am not using the definition of soul as a wooshy ascending-to-heaven thing. I am talking about what most people call psyche or subconscious mind. most people call the subconscious the subconscious, or the psyche the psyche. I've never heard of anyone calling the entire combination the "soul" of someone. I know what you're trying to do, and it won't work. Would you believe me if I said that I was being totally honest with you?
Im sure you are, you're just not being honest with yourself.
|
On April 03 2012 18:50 Cyber_Cheese wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2012 18:42 FuzzyJAM wrote:On April 03 2012 18:38 Spieltor wrote:On April 03 2012 18:37 Praetorial wrote:On April 03 2012 18:34 sharky246 wrote:On April 03 2012 18:16 Cyber_Cheese wrote:On April 03 2012 18:14 PanN wrote:On April 03 2012 18:12 qrs wrote:On April 03 2012 05:02 JOJOsc2news wrote:On April 03 2012 03:41 StimFesT wrote:
I seriously feel wierd when I look at the picture and know that she/he was born as a regular male. But she/he is actually beautiful Wow... stumbling over the he/she awkwardness in this post. She chose to be a woman, just call her her. He's a man who had surgery/hormone therapy; just call him him. No. He was born a female mentally, and is now female completely. You're an extremely rude and insensitive individual. I highly doubt you'd have the balls to tell this woman that shes a "man" to her face. This raises the question. Are people born male/female mentally, or is that a part of growing up? People aren't born male or female mentally. Kids before reaching puberty have no sexuality, that is, they are just boys and girls, physically only. At least that is what i learnt from a psychologist talking in a morning talk show. That's what Freud said about latency. Whether we trust Freud is another matter entirely. Given the fact Freud was "house m.d." intelligence level, and is continually being proven right as psychology progresses, he seems more trustworthy than some fanatic claiming something which isn't measurable or provable exists. Actually, Freud was entirely unscientific, freudulent*, and most of his sexual theories have been shown to be bullshit. He contributed a huge amount and should be respected in that, but he is by no means "continually being proven right". FTFY Seriously though, there are a lot of things that differ between a natural m/f and a trans one. Yes you can keep appearances up, but.. I can accept LGB, because those people don't have to commit to a permanent stance.
It's different for T. I feel like we shouldn't be encouraging people to do radical things like completely change their gender. If perhaps there's some issue with society that makes people feel like they have to change gender, we should be attempting to make ourselves better by allowing for that.
So really your problem is that the label is permanent?
I think you would be a great politician: "We shouldn't be encouraging people to do radical things"
|
His DNA is that of a male. If DNA gender is not required, then at what point are the cosmetic changes enough to make you a "woman"?
If it's the appearance what makes you a man/woman, isn't that discrimination?
If it's the "features" your body has that make you a man/woman, isn't that discrimination?
If having breast implants etc makes you a woman, then does removal of breasts (because of cancer for example) make you a man?
*edit after ban* I guess this last part was too much. I'm sorry.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On April 03 2012 19:02 Greentellon wrote:
His DNA is that of a male. If DNA gender is not required, then at what point are the cosmetic changes enough to make you a "woman"?
If it's the appearance what makes you a man/woman, isn't that discrimination?
If it's the "features" your body has that make you a man/woman, isn't that discrimination?
If having breast implants etc makes you a woman, then does removal of breasts (because of cancer for example) make you a man?
DNA is the only acceptable definer of gender, in my opinion. I was born a man, you were born a man/woman. I say "deal with it". Just like I couldn't choose who my parents were.
Tell that to the people that have had gender identification issues their entire lives. Go ahead. Tell them that their pain and suffering is bullshit and that they should just "deal with it".
|
On April 03 2012 19:02 Greentellon wrote:
His DNA is that of a male. If DNA gender is not required, then at what point are the cosmetic changes enough to make you a "woman"?
If it's the appearance what makes you a man/woman, isn't that discrimination?
If it's the "features" your body has that make you a man/woman, isn't that discrimination?
If having breast implants etc makes you a woman, then does removal of breasts (because of cancer for example) make you a man?
DNA is the only acceptable definer of gender, in my opinion. I was born a man, you were born a man/woman. I say "deal with it". Just like I couldn't choose who my parents were.
So if you see a person that has red hair but was born with brown hair, would you call them a brown haired person? If someone looks and defines her self as a woman, who are you to say that she isnt one?
|
On April 03 2012 19:02 Greentellon wrote:
His DNA is that of a male. If DNA gender is not required, then at what point are the cosmetic changes enough to make you a "woman"?
If it's the appearance what makes you a man/woman, isn't that discrimination?
If it's the "features" your body has that make you a man/woman, isn't that discrimination?
If having breast implants etc makes you a woman, then does removal of breasts (because of cancer for example) make you a man?
DNA is the only acceptable definer of gender, in my opinion. I was born a man, you were born a man/woman. I say "deal with it". Just like I couldn't choose who my parents were.
this. Its not really fair to the natural born women who might lose to someone who used drugs and surgery. I think its entirely fishy that the Transgender person goes through surgery and then tries to enter a beauty pageant for women, when pageants for transgenders already exist.
|
On April 03 2012 19:04 Spieltor wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2012 19:02 Greentellon wrote:
His DNA is that of a male. If DNA gender is not required, then at what point are the cosmetic changes enough to make you a "woman"?
If it's the appearance what makes you a man/woman, isn't that discrimination?
If it's the "features" your body has that make you a man/woman, isn't that discrimination?
If having breast implants etc makes you a woman, then does removal of breasts (because of cancer for example) make you a man?
DNA is the only acceptable definer of gender, in my opinion. I was born a man, you were born a man/woman. I say "deal with it". Just like I couldn't choose who my parents were. this. Its not really fair to the natural born women who might lose to someone who used drugs and surgery. I think its entirely fishy that the Transgender person goes through surgery and then tries to enter a beauty pageant for women, when pageants for transgenders already exist.
Are women that compete in beauty pagents barred from ever using plastic surgery or something? If so I could sort of understand your current point. But if not. um, yeah, they have no advantages over "naturally born women" at all.
|
On April 03 2012 19:04 PanN wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2012 19:02 Greentellon wrote:
His DNA is that of a male. If DNA gender is not required, then at what point are the cosmetic changes enough to make you a "woman"?
If it's the appearance what makes you a man/woman, isn't that discrimination?
If it's the "features" your body has that make you a man/woman, isn't that discrimination?
If having breast implants etc makes you a woman, then does removal of breasts (because of cancer for example) make you a man?
DNA is the only acceptable definer of gender, in my opinion. I was born a man, you were born a man/woman. I say "deal with it". Just like I couldn't choose who my parents were. Tell that to the people that have had gender identification issues their entire lives. Go ahead. Tell them that their pain and suffering is bullshit and that they should just "deal with it".
the reason they have gender identification issues is BECAUSE of society. Society says "men cant do X and women cant do Y, these territories are reserved for people of the opposite gender". Women don't want an emotional crying man. no matter what people say. Gender identity issues stem from people of a certain gender wanting to behave against their culture's sexual role predefined behaviors.
As an example, suppose a young man was out with friends and started to cry about something. Even if noone wants to admit it, his acceptance level with everyone around will go down, because crying about something is woman territory, and friends will tell you to "man up', and chicks won't be impressed with you and will turn you down over a more masculine type who's aggressive and dominant.
This does make it unbelievably painful for males who behave like that or females who behave manly, because they are being rejected at their most basic level. If anything, surgery is a way to finally get acceptance.
On April 03 2012 19:04 aderum wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2012 19:02 Greentellon wrote:
His DNA is that of a male. If DNA gender is not required, then at what point are the cosmetic changes enough to make you a "woman"?
If it's the appearance what makes you a man/woman, isn't that discrimination?
If it's the "features" your body has that make you a man/woman, isn't that discrimination?
If having breast implants etc makes you a woman, then does removal of breasts (because of cancer for example) make you a man?
DNA is the only acceptable definer of gender, in my opinion. I was born a man, you were born a man/woman. I say "deal with it". Just like I couldn't choose who my parents were. So if you see a person that has red hair but was born with brown hair, would you call them a brown haired person? If someone looks and defines her self as a woman, who are you to say that she isnt one?
We call people "unnatural blondes" if they dye their hair blonde. We don't call people with Pink or Green hair "natural", in fact we discriminate against these people having good jobs. You can't get good jobs with "unnatural hair colors", tattoos, or piercings. you can't have "unnatural hair color" at school, yet its someones life choice to dye their hair, yet we're okay discriminating against people that want to express themselves, yet we won't discriminate against people that want to express their sexual selves.
|
You really believe all trans-gendered people come from certain social conditions put forth by society? Laugh out loud.
|
On April 03 2012 19:11 PanN wrote:
You really believe all trans-gendered people come from certain social conditions put forth by society? Laugh out loud.
you really believe otherwise? Laugh out loud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
