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.
Via The Huffington Post: "She may look every bit the part of a beauty queen, but Jenna Talackova has lost her chance for the crown because she was born a biological male. The 23-year-old Miss Universe Canada finalist was disqualified from the competition after it was discovered she had undergone sexual reassignment surgery, reports CTV..."
On April 03 2012 19:44 Iyerbeth wrote: I promised myself I wasn't going to post in this thread, but here I am. I'm not going to address anyone particularly, but I'll just go with my unusual optimism of assuming they really mean well but just ultimately don't know what they're talking about. I'm aware that to do so I'd have to ignore the content of many of their posts, but I'm going to do so anyway. I'm sure this discussion will carry on with people seeing the length of my post and deciding that my well reasoned, and cited arguements aren't really worth reading if it'll challenge their preconceptions either way sadly.
First, and most importantly, biological sex and gender identity are completely different things. First I'll provide evidence for this statement, and then show how it immediatly invalidates many of the "he's a man" comments.
Gender identity is something that pretty much everyone has, when someone says they're male or female they don't first check their physical attributes, they know who they are. If a man was disembodied somehow his gender wouldn't suddenly become "not applicable" he'd still be a man, albeit a maybe distressed and confused one. If we were to then place that person's mind in to a naturally female body, he wouldn't suddenly be female, who he was as a core identity would still remain. If you accept this as accurate then you have to accept one of two possibilities, either there is some physical component in the brain that results in gender identity, or that gender identity is somehow inate and unchanging part of a person's identity. If you accept either of those, then unless nature were infallible, you would have to accept the possibility of transsexuals who literally were men or women, as they expressed.
First to site some studies to prove that there are in fact physical brain differences in transsexuals specifically relating to expected gender norms. The following are a few examples, which between them don't actually all agree with the causes, but all provide evidence and examples that their are physical masculine or feminine differences in the brains of trans people.
Given then that there are physical differences in the brains of trans people, who are you to decide based on what they looked like at birth that their gender identity is what you think it is? If we are to ignore the physical evidence and instead decide that gender identity is an unchanging aspect of identity that does not have a physical basis in the brain, then how can you ignore the pyschologists who have observed transseualism exists and therefore that those people are men or women? Or does the identity of the person you're talking to or about take a back seat to what you think they look like?
No matter which way you slice it, it is not simply a matter of deciding to change gender, with our current understanding of science that's impossible, but rather conforming to one's gender. For all of this to be the case, it necessarily follows that gender and sex are not the same thing.
Well ok, you might say, they're still biologically male (to use trans women as the example for a moment, since most people seem to have less issue with trans men for some reason) and are unable to reproduce and so it's my right to hold the view that I can deride them and refer to them as "he".
First to the biologically male part, as addressed in the previous section they're no biologically male, there are physical brain differences in the identity of trans people. But you of course mean genetics. There are frankly so many different pseudo scientific points made that it would be almost impossible for me to address them all so instead I'm going to make several points which refute most of them.
Many women who're also born genetically female (cis gendered) are unfortunately unable to reproduce, sometimes as the result of genetics, and other times as the result of organs not forming correctly in a fetus. There are cis women who have testicles inside them, there are some who're born without a vagina, others still who're even born with a penis. Are we to tell these women that they are infact men? There are XX women, XY women, and XXY women, are you going to argue that we should screen everyone for their genetic make up before deciding on their sex (and also deciding that their sex and gender are identical by the power vested in you)?
Along with the above, you have no idea on the genetic make up of trans women. There are studies to suggest that they have, on average, a higher reaction to androgen. This would mean that in the womb, these individuals would be far more likely to take on male sexual appearance, regardless of their genetic history. They could in fact be perfectly healthy boys, and maybe even men too but the fact remains that nature makes mistakes. Further, you also have no idea at the chromosome make up of these women either and even if they were all XY, that would only prove once again that sex and gender are different things.
Finally, even if were to grant your unfounded opinions as fact and that we should call people based on their genitals as babys, then to what end are we insulting people? What reasons are there for seperating people, talking to their genitals rather than to the person as they are? Where does this leave trans people in your society? Should we ban the surgical options? There are already a minimum of 2 years of pyschological reviews before any surgery which picks out many of those who're not in fact transsexuals, do you think 10 years would help?* Is being a specific gender in fact a mental illness? The suicide rate amongst transsexuals is already far higher than in the rest of society, and it is proven that transitioning reduces that risk dramatically.**
I ask again then, what benefit is there in you deciding, in the face of the evidence, that everyone must be as you are - with the gender identity and biological sex being in allignment? It serves no practical, health, safety, or legal benefit and insulting people should hardly be seen as a positive (and when you intentionally call any woman "he" it is insulting).
Transsexuals exist, it sucks, but it's not your place to tell them who they are what they must be. it is not your place to insult them or to decide that all women must be defined as sex objects. Your personal comfort on a matter has no bearing on the actual gender identity of other human beings.
That being said, what I'm about to say will shock many people, she should have been removed from that competition. On signing up she signed a contract saying she was "Naturally born female" and it's clear what the organisers meant by that. At that point the competition should have been challenged, but she signed the contract in bad faith and that was not the right course of action.
Yeah the last thread about this......the trolls came out in force covered in their impenetrable armor of false logic and ignorance. Don't think this one will do any better.
I guess if the rules are having to be born a woman, Jenna broke the rules. I'm just amazed that a 23-year-old could afford sexual reassignment surgery of the caliber of Miss Universe Canada hotness.
I dont see why this would be a big deal. The competition is entirely superficial anyway, why disqualify her over something like that? If its about beauty, then let it be about beauty.
This is a disgusting case of gender discrimination. One might argue that in case of sports it would have been justified (this argument flies out of the window if the event is publicly funded), but here being a "man" means nothing but disadvantage.
First of all, they had no right to investigate, publicize or even acquire evidence that she is in fact a transsexual. I am pretty sure these are not publicly available in any part of the civilized world, just like health records. Also, they are legally registered as their chosen gender.
Second, under various rules as well (including sports events and the Olympic Games), transsexuals are tolerated, since any advantage or disadvantage they might have is negated by hormone replacement therapy they get (rules are fuzzy about sex reassignment surgery).
Third, seriously, how can they disqualify people with a straight face, for just being "better"? It is a sad fact of the world that this is not only tolerated, but outright encouraged. Should not we encourage the best to perform, instead of setting arbitrary criteria and separate people according to that, trying to enforce an artificial and fragile sense of equality? To see the absurdity of this, think about a company hiring a 170cm man instead of a better performing 180cm man because his height "gave him unfair disadvantage". See the economic consequences, see the social ones?
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.
On April 03 2012 04:22 Frigo wrote: This is a disgusting case of gender discrimination. One might argue that in case of sports it would have been justified (this argument flies out of the window if the event is publicly funded), but here being a "man" means nothing but disadvantage.
First of all, they had no right to investigate, publicize or even acquire evidence that she is in fact a transsexual. I am pretty sure these are not publicly available in any part of the civilized world, just like health records. Also, they are legally registered as their chosen gender.
As I understand, it was miss Talackova herself that admitted to being transgender. Also, the pageant maintains that she had claimed otherwise (which may or may not mean that she hadn't mentioned it) in her application.
Second, under various rules as well (including sports events and the Olympic Games), transsexuals are tolerated, since any advantage or disadvantage they might have is negated by hormone replacement therapy they get (rules are fuzzy about sex reassignment surgery).
In this instance, however, the rules apparently state "natural born female". Again, I'd point out that this didn't come up in preliminary contestant selection, but in the finals. Also, I'm fairly certain that they have rules about cosmetic surgery, which she has certainly gone through.
Third, seriously, how can they disqualify people with a straight face, for just being "better"? It is a sad fact of the world that this is not only tolerated, but outright encouraged. Should not we encourage the best to perform, instead of setting arbitrary criteria and separate people according to that, trying to enforce an artificial and fragile sense of equality? To see the absurdity of this, think about a company hiring a 170cm man instead of a better performing 180cm man because his height "gave him unfair disadvantage". See the economic consequences, see the social ones?
This is hardly a case of being "better", and even if it was, I'd point out that a part of this superiority was achieved through surgery. Therefore, it is no different than disqualifying an athlete for using doping.
Jenna Talackova, the transgendered woman whose dreams were dashed last month when she was disqualified from the Miss Universe Canada pageant, is back in the running.
In a surprise reversal, the pageant, owned by business mogul Donald Trump, sent out a news release that said the 23-year-old from Vancouver would be able to compete at the 61st annual Miss Universe Canada Pageant next month after all.
Related: Miss Universe Canada yanks transgendered contestant from pageant
“The Miss Universe Organization will allow Jenna Talackova to compete in the 2012 Miss Universe Canada pageant provided she meets the legal gender recognition requirements of Canada, and the standards established by other international competitions,” the statement said.
Just last month the pageant said Talackova could not take part “because she did not meet the requirements to compete despite having stated otherwise on her entry form.”
At the time Denis Davila, national director of Miss Universe Canada, said the rules set by the Miss Universe franchise state that each contestant must be a “naturally born female.” Davila said that on Mar. 13, Talackova admitted to him that she was not.
She was pulled from the contest the same day.
It is unclear why the pageant went back on their initial decision. Calls to the Miss Universe Canada pageant were not answered Monday evening.
In a YouTube interview posted in 2010, Talackova says she knew she was a female at the age of 4. She says she began hormone therapy at 14 and surgically changed her gender a few years ago when she was 19.
The Miss Universe Canada pageant is being held at the St. Lawrence Centre for the Arts in Toronto on May 19.
Looks like Trump smartened up and realized that a transgender contestant actually renewed interest in a pageant no one really gave two shits about anymore.
Wasn't this posted a week ago and thoroughly discussed? It ended up being a debate on what really counted a person being identified as a women or a man, then closed by the admins. Anyways, please search next time OP. Thank you.
On April 03 2012 17:22 Shelke14 wrote: Wasn't this posted a week ago and thoroughly discussed? It ended up being a debate on what really counted a person being identified as a women or a man, then closed by the admins. Anyways, please search next time OP. Thank you.
If you read the thread you JUST posted in, multiple people already said what you said. Please search the post you post in next time poster. Thank you.
On April 03 2012 17:22 Shelke14 wrote: Wasn't this posted a week ago and thoroughly discussed? It ended up being a debate on what really counted a person being identified as a women or a man, then closed by the admins. Anyways, please search next time OP. Thank you.
It's called news, dude.
They're allowing her back in the competition. Good for her.
So another example of this, do you believe that transgender men should be disqualified from completing in women's Olympic events, I know there was a lot of drama over it at the last Olympics.
On April 03 2012 17:29 NotSorry wrote: So another example of this, do you believe that transgender men should be disqualified from completing in women's Olympic events, I know there was a lot of drama over it at the last Olympics.
I feel that they shouldn't be allowed into athletic competitions.
Being born a man doesn't give you any advantage over woman in a beauty contest.
Being born a man could, and likely would, give you an advantage in most athletic activities. I feel this would be unfair.
On April 03 2012 17:29 NotSorry wrote: So another example of this, do you believe that transgender men should be disqualified from completing in women's Olympic events, I know there was a lot of drama over it at the last Olympics.
Transgender man = female to male Transgender woman = male to female
He was not born a female. He lied about it on the entrance form. The rules state you must be born a female. This is an open and shut case...
I stand by the organizations ruling of disqualification 100%. It has nothing to do with being bigoted as Kwark the moderator cited as being the reason for closing the previous thread. ITS ABOUT FOLLOWING THE RULES PLAIN AND SIMPLE.
On April 03 2012 17:29 NotSorry wrote: So another example of this, do you believe that transgender men should be disqualified from completing in women's Olympic events, I know there was a lot of drama over it at the last Olympics.
Ohhhhh that's a tough question.
It's easy to support a transgender contestant in a beauty pageant, simply because (personally) I consider it a frivolous competition.
My first instinct is yes ... they should be allowed to compete in women's Olympics events, assume they're post-op transgender athletes. A guy in a wig isn't going to cut it.
However, my justification isn't that strong. My reasons for allowing post-op transgender to compete in female events would be:
1) They self-identify as women, and would almost certainly be disqualified from men's events 2) Olympic-caliber athletes of either gender are simply rare, let alone one that is also transgender. I just don't think it would have a dramatic impact on the integrity of the competition. I have a hard time believing a male olympic athlete would undergo a sex change simply to win a women's medal.
However ... if something like testosterone is considered a performance-enhancing drug for women, shouldn't any kind of hormone therapy disqualified from the Olympics?
TLDR: I have no fucking idea, have to think about it more.
On April 03 2012 17:50 scatmango2 wrote: He was not born a female. He lied about it on the entrance form. The rules state you must be born a female. This is an open and shut case...
I stand by the organizations ruling of disqualification 100%. It has nothing to do with being bigoted as Kwark the moderator cited as being the reason for closing the previous thread. ITS ABOUT FOLLOWING THE RULES PLAIN AND SIMPLE.
Blindly following rules is never a good thing in this day and age, with so much change going on. We need to adapt.
Although I dont like models cause their too skinny, I must say Im pretty impressed by her look.
On April 03 2012 17:50 scatmango2 wrote: He was not born a female. He lied about it on the entrance form. The rules state you must be born a female. This is an open and shut case...
I stand by the organizations ruling of disqualification 100%. It has nothing to do with being bigoted as Kwark the moderator cited as being the reason for closing the previous thread. ITS ABOUT FOLLOWING THE RULES PLAIN AND SIMPLE.
Hi. One of my best friends is transgender.
Not only does your referring to the competitor as "he" offend me, but that you claim that you are not a bigot is nothing short of absurd.
Transgender people identify as the other gender. They regard themselves AS that gender. If they are young, they can take hormone pills to switch gender. This is not a surgical procedure. In my friend's case, she gained all the aspects of a female body. Surgery is used to help ease the transition and correct several non-cosmetic things.
So, you're a bigot, and are blindly following a Donald Trump ruling.
On April 03 2012 17:29 NotSorry wrote: So another example of this, do you believe that transgender men should be disqualified from completing in women's Olympic events, I know there was a lot of drama over it at the last Olympics.
Ohhhhh that's a tough question.
It's easy to support a transgender contestant in a beauty pageant, simply because (personally) I consider it a frivolous competition.
My first instinct is yes ... they should be allowed to compete in women's Olympics events, assume they're post-op transgender athletes. A guy in a wig isn't going to cut it.
However, my justification isn't that strong. My reasons for allowing post-op transgender to compete in female events would be:
1) They self-identify as women, and would almost certainly be disqualified from men's events 2) Olympic-caliber athletes of either gender are simply rare, let alone one that is also transgender. I just don't think it would have a dramatic impact on the integrity of the competition. I have a hard time believe a male olympic athlete would undergo a sex change simply to win a women's medal.
However ... if something like testosterone is considered a performance-enhancing drug for women, shouldn't any kind of hormone therapy disqualified from the Olympics?
TLDR: I have no fucking idea, have to think about it more.
It's a very tough question indeed. 7 billion people and growing, there are probably lots of females with higher testosteron then men (a wild guess from my side). Humans comes in all forms and sizes, it's already unfair, and some things you just gotta let go off, and play with the cards you are dealt. In the case of olympics, I think I would vote for keep it stupidly simple. Born a girl, go with the girls. Born a man, but transition into a man in the midgame cause thats your true nature, well your lucky your born in this day and age and have lots of options to fix your physical looks. One thing I know we can do, is to not judge this girl the way she was borned. Keep an opened mind, and you will find her very attractive and view her as a girl. It is only very complicated when it comes to sport and how men and women are divided.
On April 03 2012 18:08 Cyber_Cheese wrote: Are trannies ever the other way around? I hear a lot of man into woman but... If not, I think maybe there's a cause of some sort...
Of course there is... was this a serious question?
On April 03 2012 17:50 scatmango2 wrote: He was not born a female. He lied about it on the entrance form. The rules state you must be born a female. This is an open and shut case...
I stand by the organizations ruling of disqualification 100%. It has nothing to do with being bigoted as Kwark the moderator cited as being the reason for closing the previous thread. ITS ABOUT FOLLOWING THE RULES PLAIN AND SIMPLE.
Not only is this a silly point but I would love to see the application form if this were actually the case. How likely is it that the question of gender was framed as "what sex were you when you were born"? Almost surely it was just like every other form in the world with a simple box where you check male or female. In the end it doesnt matter. She is and always has been female. All that has changed is that her body more accurately reflects her true self.
On April 03 2012 18:08 Cyber_Cheese wrote: Are trannies ever the other way around? I hear a lot of man into woman but... If not, I think maybe there's a cause of some sort...
Of course there is... was this a serious question?
Well, I'd never heard of it. It either gets a lot less attention, or is significantly less common.
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.
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.
On April 03 2012 17:50 scatmango2 wrote: He was not born a female. He lied about it on the entrance form. The rules state you must be born a female. This is an open and shut case...
I stand by the organizations ruling of disqualification 100%. It has nothing to do with being bigoted as Kwark the moderator cited as being the reason for closing the previous thread. ITS ABOUT FOLLOWING THE RULES PLAIN AND SIMPLE.
Hi. One of my best friends is transgender.
Not only does your referring to the competitor as "he" offend me, but that you claim that you are not a bigot is nothing short of absurd.
Transgender people identify as the other gender. They regard themselves AS that gender. If they are young, they can take hormone pills to switch gender. This is not a surgical procedure. In my friend's case, she gained all the aspects of a female body. Surgery is used to help ease the transition and correct several non-cosmetic things.
So, you're a bigot, and are blindly following a Donald Trump ruling.
Is this a joke? Did I say your friend and other trans gender individuals don't have the right to exist or restrict any rights from them? NO. He was born a male and nothing he ever does will say other wise. He may consider himself a female, but he is still born a male. You're just incredibly ignorant I can't even begin to comprehend it. The rules are the rules herpa derpa. If I claimed I was a female and only identified myself as such then by your definition I could partake in the event?
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.
She's a woman in all but biological birth, respect her choices. Jeez some people. I'm not sure you get this, but transgender people in general identify as the gender they became.
It not like "hurr durr I want to have boobs". If you think it is, you're wrong.
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?
On April 03 2012 17:50 scatmango2 wrote: He was not born a female. He lied about it on the entrance form. The rules state you must be born a female. This is an open and shut case...
I stand by the organizations ruling of disqualification 100%. It has nothing to do with being bigoted as Kwark the moderator cited as being the reason for closing the previous thread. ITS ABOUT FOLLOWING THE RULES PLAIN AND SIMPLE.
Hi. One of my best friends is transgender.
Not only does your referring to the competitor as "he" offend me, but that you claim that you are not a bigot is nothing short of absurd.
Transgender people identify as the other gender. They regard themselves AS that gender. If they are young, they can take hormone pills to switch gender. This is not a surgical procedure. In my friend's case, she gained all the aspects of a female body. Surgery is used to help ease the transition and correct several non-cosmetic things.
So, you're a bigot, and are blindly following a Donald Trump ruling.
Is this a joke? Did I say your friend and other trans gender individuals don't have the right to exist or restrict any rights from them? NO. He was born a male and nothing he ever does will say other wise. He may consider himself a female, but he is still born a male. You're just incredibly ignorant I can't even begin to comprehend it. The rules are the rules herpa derpa. If I claimed I was a female and only identified myself as such then by your definition I could partake in the event?
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?
I don't know about others, but my friend began to display female tendencies at about age 5. (Then, gender in the past) His parents tried to suppress it, but after high school, he began independent treatment.
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?
I'm almost positive its a mental thing. In documentaries I've seen about transgendered people, they had a hard time identifying what they were even as children.
Dunno why you guys get worked up. She was a dude, so no contest. If you want to be politically correct I suggest you talk to a very good psychologist about trans gender people and see what's up.
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.
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?
On April 03 2012 17:50 scatmango2 wrote: He was not born a female. He lied about it on the entrance form. The rules state you must be born a female. This is an open and shut case...
I stand by the organizations ruling of disqualification 100%. It has nothing to do with being bigoted as Kwark the moderator cited as being the reason for closing the previous thread. ITS ABOUT FOLLOWING THE RULES PLAIN AND SIMPLE.
Hi. One of my best friends is transgender.
Not only does your referring to the competitor as "he" offend me, but that you claim that you are not a bigot is nothing short of absurd.
Transgender people identify as the other gender. They regard themselves AS that gender. If they are young, they can take hormone pills to switch gender. This is not a surgical procedure. In my friend's case, she gained all the aspects of a female body. Surgery is used to help ease the transition and correct several non-cosmetic things.
So, you're a bigot, and are blindly following a Donald Trump ruling.
Is this a joke? Did I say your friend and other trans gender individuals don't have the right to exist or restrict any rights from them? NO. He was born a male and nothing he ever does will say other wise. He may consider himself a female, but he is still born a male. You're just incredibly ignorant I can't even begin to comprehend it. The rules are the rules herpa derpa. If I claimed I was a female and only identified myself as such then by your definition I could partake in the event?
Also, what rules are you referring to on gender. Not the tournament rules, because they hardly define whether someone is male or female.
On April 03 2012 18:08 Cyber_Cheese wrote: Are trannies ever the other way around? I hear a lot of man into woman but... If not, I think maybe there's a cause of some sort...
Of course there is... was this a serious question?
Well, I'd never heard of it. It either gets a lot less attention, or is significantly less common.
well, its kinda easy here - transmen (aka female to male, short ftm) are alot less visibly. if you see a transwoman, you can in most cases see that something looks "off", the same doesn't count for transmen. for example, transwomen most often still grow a beard, while transmen quickly start growing one. let alone that doesn't even give you the idea that the guy with the 5pm-shade could have XX-chromosomes.
also yeah, it does get alot less attention, for some reason. I'm no expert on all that, I'm learning though. my boyfriend is a ftm, means a male born as female. before him, I only ever met two transwomen (both close friends of me). so yeah, it DOES get alot more attention (while it really shouldn't :/ )
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.
erm, no, she's actually no man, she's a woman who had her body fitting her mind or soul if you wanna use that word. not her fault for being born male, is it? bet she didn't choose it.
On April 03 2012 18:20 bOneSeven wrote: Dunno why you guys get worked up. She was a dude, so no contest. If you want to be politically correct I suggest you talk to a very good psychologist about trans gender people and see what's up.
One more bigot.
Transgender people are not, ARE NOT, people who switch because it is cool or fun. It is a highly painful process, and is only done when a person truly identifies with the other gender.
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.
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".
On April 03 2012 18:20 bOneSeven wrote: Dunno why you guys get worked up. She was a dude, so no contest. If you want to be politically correct I suggest you talk to a very good psychologist about trans gender people and see what's up.
One more bigot.
Transgender people are not, ARE NOT, people who switch because it is cool or fun. It is a highly painful process, and is only done when a person truly identifies with the other gender.
Are you saying people can't put themselves through a lot of pain because of deeper underlying issues, or because of wrongful thinking? Look at people who believe in certain things since the dark ages, and have put themselves and others through harsh pains, even death, for those beliefs, that we can now look back on and say how stupid they were. How about teens who commit suicide because they are short sighted and not thinking clearly? People will willingly put themselves through a lot of pain and agony, especially if in doing so they believe they are avoiding a worse pain.
There are so many people who commit to lifestyles that are self destructive and detrimental, because they don't believe there can be any other way.
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.
She's a woman in all but biological birth, respect her choices. Jeez some people. I'm not sure you get this, but transgender people in general identify as the gender they became.
It not like "hurr durr I want to have boobs". If you think it is, you're wrong.
I respect his choice to change what he looks like, and to refer to himself as female if he likes. I have a different view on what constitutes "male" and what constitutes "female", and I think I'm as entitled to my view as you and him.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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?
Nothing because her DNA is male? This statement has no meaning what so ever.
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.
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?
Nothing because her DNA is male? This statement has no meaning what so ever.
its important brah because she looks like a female police will be all confused !
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.
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?
Nothing because her DNA is male? This statement has no meaning what so ever.
Ok, how about the lack of butt sway that accompanies female pelvises? How about the number of ribs? How about the fact that her face looks like its been stretched on (as is the case with all transgender post ops)? It's not really hard to spot a post surgery man.
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.
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.
She doesn't have a womb, has never had a period and every single cell in her body is male. C'mon, it's not 1/10th as simple as you claim. The idea of the "duck test" is ridiculous - something which looks and sounds like a duck because it didn't feel comfortable as a swan and thus had surgery is very different from a "natural" duck.
It simply comes down to whether you're willing to respect someone wanting to be called something which doesn't really make logical sense. I'll do that, but I understand why people have issues with it.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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)?
if you change your "personality/soul/whatever you want to call it" unconsciously, then you're not making that decision as a Free Willed agent, and thus you are saying people can't control their behavior.
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.
Nope. Boys and girls act differently from the moment they are able to act. This has been shown in other apes as well, and the cultural factor has been negated in studies and still differences persist.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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)?
If you bothered to actually read what he wrote you'd see he didn't make an argument for "souls".
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.
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.
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:
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.
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)?
If you bothered to actually read what he wrote you'd see he didn't make an argument for "souls".
sorry, it was the fact that he talked about something and called it a soul that threw me.
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.
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:
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.
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.
Sorry about his feelings, but working as intended. A man should not be able to qualify as Miss Universe; he may be wearing a skirt, but there's a smelly sausage under it. I'm not trying to come across as ignorant, but that's the simple truth and no amount of surgery can truly change what nature gave him. Well unless he wants to castrate himself, but that still wouldn't give him ovaries and a vagina, and his body will never naturally produce female hormones (without supplements) in the amount biological females produce it.
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.
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:
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.
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)?
if you change your "personality/soul/whatever you want to call it" unconsciously, then you're not making that decision as a Free Willed agent, and thus you are saying people can't control their behavior.
I use soul not as a mystical term, but as a representative one.
I believe that a person's personality, mentality, and mind define what I personally would call a soul, and that said conglomerate change given time.
I say that people control their behavior and are changed by it.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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)?
if you change your "personality/soul/whatever you want to call it" unconsciously, then you're not making that decision as a Free Willed agent, and thus you are saying people can't control their behavior.
I use soul not as a mystical term, but as a representative one.
I believe that a person's personality, mentality, and mind define what I personally would call a soul, and that said conglomerate change given time.
I say that people control their behavior and are changed by it.
no, you're still using it mystically. What you're describing is called the conscious. You stated that something which they have no control over (something they arent consciously aware of, thus cannot be considered to have any control over), can change who they are. If you can't keep something from changing you, you are not a Free Agent.
This person wasn't born a woman, and has all the signs of being a man. Therefore the duck scenario should prove this person being male.
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, fraudulent, 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".
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.
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:
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.
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?
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.
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:
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.
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.
People have an 'I' which they are self aware of. It doesn't exist independently of the brain but it does exist. You can test it yourself with a second of contemplation. Regarding not excluding people from a gender based upon error, being born the wrong sex seems a pretty huge error. Transgender people very much qualify for that exception.
On April 03 2012 18:40 DemigodcelpH wrote: Sorry about his feelings, but working as intended. A man should not be able to qualify as Miss Universe; he may be wearing a skirt, but there's a smelly sausage under it. I'm not trying to come across as ignorant, but that's the simple truth and no amount of surgery can truly change what nature gave him. Well unless he wants to castrate himself, but that still wouldn't give him ovaries and a vagina, and his body will never naturally produce female hormones (without supplements) in the amount biological females produce it.
The penis is cut off, but leaving the stimulatory tissue behind. This tissue is then shaped backwards by surgery to form a vagina essentially identical to that of a natural female's. This is very common, and can be easily found with a Google search.
On April 03 2012 18:12 qrs wrote: [quote]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.
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:
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.
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.
On April 03 2012 18:40 DemigodcelpH wrote: Sorry about his feelings, but working as intended. A man should not be able to qualify as Miss Universe; he may be wearing a skirt, but there's a smelly sausage under it. I'm not trying to come across as ignorant, but that's the simple truth and no amount of surgery can truly change what nature gave him. Well unless he wants to castrate himself, but that still wouldn't give him ovaries and a vagina, and his body will never naturally produce female hormones (without supplements) in the amount biological females produce it.
The penis is cut off, but leaving the stimulatory tissue behind. This tissue is then shaped backwards by surgery to form a vagina essentially identical to that of a natural female's. This is very common, and can be easily found with a Google search.
if you've seen a lot of real female vaginas, and bothered to look at a random photograph of a transgender post-op creation, you wouldn't call them "essentially identical"
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.
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.
On April 03 2012 18:20 bOneSeven wrote: Dunno why you guys get worked up. She was a dude, so no contest. If you want to be politically correct I suggest you talk to a very good psychologist about trans gender people and see what's up.
One more bigot.
Transgender people are not, ARE NOT, people who switch because it is cool or fun. It is a highly painful process, and is only done when a person truly identifies with the other gender.
Apparently you read what you want and ignore my actual post. My mother was actually the VP of Romanian greatest LGBT rights NGO( in Romanian you would say ONG - Non-governmental organization in english mb ? ), also having a degree in psychology, we talked about them, they are living a rather miserable life. It is complicated to get into but you can read 10 books about it but I'll still know better because I lived in a environment which dealt with such people.
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.
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 18:21 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.
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?
"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 18:21 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.
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.
"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.
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?
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.
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 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.
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 19:02 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 19:02 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 19:02 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.
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.
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.
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.
Wait what? First of all, i dont know where you live where people with "unnatural hair color" cant have it at school. Second, just because (some) people discriminate against unnatural hair color, you think we should do it towards people who changes their gender? What?
And when you see a brown haired girl, you will call her brown hair, even if you knew that she was blonde to start with. You wont call her a "unnatural brown haired girl". Or thats how all the people i have ever known would say it anyways.
And i dont understand what green and pink hair has to do with anything, since going from male->female is just as natural as going form blond->brown, not blond->green. If she would have gone from male->alien, i would understand your logic.
To all the "people" (yes, you deserve the quotes at this moment) in this thread who somehow think that this woman is not a woman for whatever reason, please address the following points:
1. This woman is legally female in her home country, and the country in which this event is taking place. 2. Her status as a transwoman confers no competitive advantage over her cisgendered peers. 3. Canada has laws that prohibit discrimination against transgendered people.
Also, please answer this question: If you were discovered to have internal sex organs of sex opposite to the one you express, would you change how you lived your life in the slightest?
On April 03 2012 19:09 Spieltor wrote:yet we won't discriminate against people that want to express their sexual selves.
I felt I had to draw the line here. These are not people who are sexually into BDSM expecting to show up to work in leather, this is not a sexual thing, it is a gender thing. They want to be treated as if they were any other member of their gender, without discrimination. Can you honestly not see the difference?
On April 03 2012 19:15 QUEENT wrote: To all the "people" (yes, you deserve the quotes at this moment) in this thread who somehow think that this woman is not a woman for whatever reason, please address the following points:
1. This woman is legally female in her home country, and the country in which this event is taking place. 2. Her status as a transwoman confers no competitive advantage over her cisgendered peers. 3. Canada has laws that prohibit discrimination against transgendered people.
Also, please answer this question: If you were discovered to have internal sex organs of sex opposite to the one you express, would you change how you lived your life in the slightest?
ok I'll bite. The legality of something doesn't make it honest or correct. She does have an advantage, she used hormones and plastic surgery and beat all the competition. That should be a no brainer. I bet you approve of steroid use in baseball as well. Yes, noone should discriminate against anyone, but at the same time, the contest is meant for people naturally born. he took the spot of another naturally born female by entering.
you're saying if I were to have ovaries and suddenly discover it later in life, I'd change? Probably not, seeing as doctors would've discovered this upon birth or I'd die from PMS having no outlet, as I have no vagina.
BUt lets assume we live in fairy land where someone can magically grow internal sex organs inconsistent with their body's birth gender. I'd have them removed and continue to live as I always lived.
After reading these pages, I have come to observe, that so many of you, are seperating and labeling us humans, in general. This thread is more about us, then her. It's all about how we misunderstand our views of other people. Why can't a person be a person?
If we put logic aside, and talk about our feelings, I want to ask you, how do you feel when you look at the picture of this woman? As a demonstration of an answer, it could be "I feel attracted, but I shouldn't, cause her DNA is as of a man, and .. I dont really know, I would never be with her". This is good enough answer, as long as its honest. Hopefully KwarK wont ban you for an honest answer like this.
I'll give you my straigth answer. I see this as a pretty attractive women, would look better if she had eaten a little more, but that's just me. I really do view her as a woman, a pretty interresting woman, as she has a unique experience. I would however feel a bit at unease if she was my girlfriend, and feel judged upon walking with her in the streeth. What would my friends think? I would seek professional help to deal with these feelings, cause there is a silent knowledge in me, that its nothing wrong with her.
On April 03 2012 19:26 crappen wrote: After reading these pages, I have come to observe, that so many of you, are seperating and labeling us humans, in general. This thread is more about us, then her. It's all about how we misunderstand our views of other people. Why can't a person be a person?
If we put logic aside, and talk about our feelings, I want to ask you, how do you feel when you look at the picture of this woman? As a demonstration of an answer, it could be "I feel attracted, but I shouldn't, cause her DNA is as of a man, and .. I dont really know, I would never be with her". This is good enough answer, as long as its honest. Hopefully KwarK wont ban you for an honest answer like this.
I'll give you my straigth answer. I see this as a pretty attractive women, would look better if she had eaten a little more, but that's just me. I really do view her as a woman, a pretty interresting woman, as she has a unique experience. I would however feel a bit at unease if she was my girlfriend, and feel judged upon walking with her in the streeth. What would my friends think? I would seek professional help to deal with these feelings, cause there is a silent knowledge in me, that its nothing wrong with her.
If your friends think less of you because of your choice of a sexual partner your friends are simply shitheads. Their opinion shouldn't matter what so ever.
On April 03 2012 19:25 Spieltor wrote:you're saying if I were to have ovaries and suddenly discover it later in life, I'd change? Probably not, seeing as doctors would've discovered this upon birth or I'd die from PMS having no outlet, as I have no vagina.
BUt lets assume we live in fairy land where someone can magically grow internal sex organs inconsistent with their body's birth gender. I'd have them removed and continue to live as I always lived.
the whole point is you wouldnt change because you think of yourself as a man. thats why she changed herself because she was a woman with male body parts.
On April 03 2012 19:15 QUEENT wrote: To all the "people" (yes, you deserve the quotes at this moment) in this thread who somehow think that this woman is not a woman for whatever reason, please address the following points:
1. This woman is legally female in her home country, and the country in which this event is taking place. 2. Her status as a transwoman confers no competitive advantage over her cisgendered peers. 3. Canada has laws that prohibit discrimination against transgendered people.
Also, please answer this question: If you were discovered to have internal sex organs of sex opposite to the one you express, would you change how you lived your life in the slightest?
ok I'll bite. The legality of something doesn't make it honest or correct. She does have an advantage, she used hormones and plastic surgery and beat all the competition. That should be a no brainer. I bet you approve of steroid use in baseball as well. Yes, noone should discriminate against anyone, but at the same time, the contest is meant for people naturally born. he took the spot of another naturally born female by entering.
you're saying if I were to have ovaries and suddenly discover it later in life, I'd change? Probably not, seeing as doctors would've discovered this upon birth or I'd die from PMS having no outlet, as I have no vagina.
BUt lets assume we live in fairy land where someone can magically grow internal sex organs inconsistent with their body's birth gender. I'd have them removed and continue to live as I always lived.
1.) The females in the competition don't need drugs as they already most likely have a correct hormone balance. 2.) I'm pretty sure other females in the competition have had plastic surgery. If not you might have a point about it being unfair.
On April 03 2012 19:26 crappen wrote: After reading these pages, I have come to observe, that so many of you, are seperating and labeling us humans, in general. This thread is more about us, then her. It's all about how we misunderstand our views of other people. Why can't a person be a person?
If we put logic aside, and talk about our feelings, I want to ask you, how do you feel when you look at the picture of this woman? As a demonstration of an answer, it could be "I feel attracted, but I shouldn't, cause her DNA is as of a man, and .. I dont really know, I would never be with her". This is good enough answer, as long as its honest. Hopefully KwarK wont ban you for an honest answer like this.
I'll give you my straigth answer. I see this as a pretty attractive women, would look better if she had eaten a little more, but that's just me. I really do view her as a woman, a pretty interresting woman, as she has a unique experience. I would however feel a bit at unease if she was my girlfriend, and feel judged upon walking with her in the streeth. What would my friends think? I would seek professional help to deal with these feelings, cause there is a silent knowledge in me, that its nothing wrong with her.
If your friends think less of you because of your choice of a sexual partner your friends are simply shitheads. Their opinion shouldn't matter what so ever.
Nono, dont get me wrong, this is about ME, not my friends. We have probably all had this feeling "What would my friends think?", although this has nothing to do with how my friends actually think, cause it's hard to get an honest answer sometimes. For all I know, my friends would be jealous
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 19:02 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.
I study International Relations and Psychology and have touched upon Gender and Transsexualism and all the other areas that are involved in such a decision multiple times. I was going to write a long post regarding your argument earlier but I will refrain from that now. You simply jump on every criticism of this and add random claims and opinions simply to derail this discussion in my opinion. It is not worth arguing when you are not willing to engage in a discussion with a brick wall of an argument that is neither informed nor open to the input others give.
Before you keep posting, I suggest you inform yourself and think about the fact that the things you write are not only vast generalizations but also extremely hurtful to people who have, for example, GID. I have a friend who is a MtF transsexual and she didn't undergo surgery because she wanted to play with barbies or thought that society put too much pressure on her. It was something she felt since she can remember. She is a woman, she is not a a weird freak, she is not someone we need to protect by bettering ourselves and she is not unnatural. How do you define unnatural? Is it natural to live a life you feel you cannot live? Who are you to say what is natural and unnatural? Do you think we shouldn't treat diseases because treatment affects the "natural" make-up of our bodies? Do you not strive for personal fulfillment and happiness? Things aren't as easy as you make them out to be.
The subtitles on that video is so fucked.. anyway ontopic: She should be allowed imo if she isn't you have to draw a line somewhere where how much plastic surgery is allowed? Only boobs? Well then you need to disqualify probably lots of them
On April 03 2012 19:25 Spieltor wrote:you're saying if I were to have ovaries and suddenly discover it later in life, I'd change? Probably not, seeing as doctors would've discovered this upon birth or I'd die from PMS having no outlet, as I have no vagina.
BUt lets assume we live in fairy land where someone can magically grow internal sex organs inconsistent with their body's birth gender. I'd have them removed and continue to live as I always lived.
the whole point is you wouldnt change because you think of yourself as a man. thats why she changed herself because she was a woman with male body parts.
so then it comes to the issue of why he felt like a woman despite being born a man.
On April 03 2012 19:25 Spieltor wrote:you're saying if I were to have ovaries and suddenly discover it later in life, I'd change? Probably not, seeing as doctors would've discovered this upon birth or I'd die from PMS having no outlet, as I have no vagina.
BUt lets assume we live in fairy land where someone can magically grow internal sex organs inconsistent with their body's birth gender. I'd have them removed and continue to live as I always lived.
the whole point is you wouldnt change because you think of yourself as a man. thats why she changed herself because she was a woman with male body parts.
so then it comes to the issue of why he felt like a woman despite being born a man.
According to you, its because of all the "social issues society has pressed on him". -.- There's much more logical conclusions than that my friend.
On April 03 2012 19:25 Spieltor wrote:you're saying if I were to have ovaries and suddenly discover it later in life, I'd change? Probably not, seeing as doctors would've discovered this upon birth or I'd die from PMS having no outlet, as I have no vagina.
BUt lets assume we live in fairy land where someone can magically grow internal sex organs inconsistent with their body's birth gender. I'd have them removed and continue to live as I always lived.
the whole point is you wouldnt change because you think of yourself as a man. thats why she changed herself because she was a woman with male body parts.
so then it comes to the issue of why he felt like a woman despite being born a man.
User was temp banned for this post.
i am born a man and i am attracted to males. i have no idea why and honestly wish i wasnt. but its how it is, so i live with it. care to shed some light?
On April 03 2012 19:15 QUEENT wrote: To all the "people" (yes, you deserve the quotes at this moment) in this thread who somehow think that this woman is not a woman for whatever reason, please address the following points:
1. This woman is legally female in her home country, and the country in which this event is taking place. 2. Her status as a transwoman confers no competitive advantage over her cisgendered peers. 3. Canada has laws that prohibit discrimination against transgendered people.
Also, please answer this question: If you were discovered to have internal sex organs of sex opposite to the one you express, would you change how you lived your life in the slightest?
ok I'll bite. The legality of something doesn't make it honest or correct. She does have an advantage, she used hormones and plastic surgery and beat all the competition. That should be a no brainer. I bet you approve of steroid use in baseball as well. Yes, noone should discriminate against anyone, but at the same time, the contest is meant for people naturally born. he took the spot of another naturally born female by entering.
you're saying if I were to have ovaries and suddenly discover it later in life, I'd change? Probably not, seeing as doctors would've discovered this upon birth or I'd die from PMS having no outlet, as I have no vagina.
BUt lets assume we live in fairy land where someone can magically grow internal sex organs inconsistent with their body's birth gender. I'd have them removed and continue to live as I always lived.
Your argument would actually make sense if no other Miss Universe contestants had plastic surgery done... Oh wait many of them have done it.
It has been estimated that 30 percent of Miss Universe contestants have had some sort of cosmetic work or plastic surgery done prior to the competition.
I would say that breast augmentation may be the most obvious. We can’t say for certain which contestants have had actual cosmetic work done, but the women are beautiful.
According to a Fox News article: “A source close to the Donald Trump-owned Miss Universe Organization [says] that not only is elective [plastic] surgery allowed, but it is quietly encouraged.”
On April 03 2012 19:15 QUEENT wrote: To all the "people" (yes, you deserve the quotes at this moment) in this thread who somehow think that this woman is not a woman for whatever reason, please address the following points:
1. This woman is legally female in her home country, and the country in which this event is taking place. 2. Her status as a transwoman confers no competitive advantage over her cisgendered peers. 3. Canada has laws that prohibit discrimination against transgendered people.
Also, please answer this question: If you were discovered to have internal sex organs of sex opposite to the one you express, would you change how you lived your life in the slightest?
ok I'll bite. The legality of something doesn't make it honest or correct. She does have an advantage, she used hormones and plastic surgery and beat all the competition. That should be a no brainer. I bet you approve of steroid use in baseball as well. Yes, noone should discriminate against anyone, but at the same time, the contest is meant for people naturally born. he took the spot of another naturally born female by entering.
you're saying if I were to have ovaries and suddenly discover it later in life, I'd change? Probably not, seeing as doctors would've discovered this upon birth or I'd die from PMS having no outlet, as I have no vagina.
BUt lets assume we live in fairy land where someone can magically grow internal sex organs inconsistent with their body's birth gender. I'd have them removed and continue to live as I always lived.
Your argument would actually make sense if no other Miss Universe contestants had plastic surgery done... Oh wait many of them have done it.
It has been estimated that 30 percent of Miss Universe contestants have had some sort of cosmetic work or plastic surgery done prior to the competition.
I would say that breast augmentation may be the most obvious. We can’t say for certain which contestants have had actual cosmetic work done, but the women are beautiful.
According to a Fox News article: “A source close to the Donald Trump-owned Miss Universe Organization [says] that not only is elective [plastic] surgery allowed, but it is quietly encouraged.”
I said the same thing twice and he just ignored me. I honestly think he was just a troll trying to derail the thread seeing as he ignored very valid arguments throughout.
I promised myself I wasn't going to post in this thread, but here I am. I'm not going to address anyone particularly, but I'll just go with my unusual optimism of assuming they really mean well but just ultimately don't know what they're talking about. I'm aware that to do so I'd have to ignore the content of many of their posts, but I'm going to do so anyway. I'm sure this discussion will carry on with people seeing the length of my post and deciding that my well reasoned, and cited arguements aren't really worth reading if it'll challenge their preconceptions either way sadly.
First, and most importantly, biological sex and gender identity are completely different things. First I'll provide evidence for this statement, and then show how it immediatly invalidates many of the "he's a man" comments.
Gender identity is something that pretty much everyone has, when someone says they're male or female they don't first check their physical attributes, they know who they are. If a man was disembodied somehow his gender wouldn't suddenly become "not applicable" he'd still be a man, albeit a maybe distressed and confused one. If we were to then place that person's mind in to a naturally female body, he wouldn't suddenly be female, who he was as a core identity would still remain. If you accept this as accurate then you have to accept one of two possibilities, either there is some physical component in the brain that results in gender identity, or that gender identity is somehow inate and unchanging part of a person's identity. If you accept either of those, then unless nature were infallible, you would have to accept the possibility of transsexuals who literally were men or women, as they expressed.
First to site some studies to prove that there are in fact physical brain differences in transsexuals specifically relating to expected gender norms. The following are a few examples, which between them don't actually all agree with the causes, but all provide evidence and examples that their are physical masculine or feminine differences in the brains of trans people.
Given then that there are physical differences in the brains of trans people, who are you to decide based on what they looked like at birth that their gender identity is what you think it is? If we are to ignore the physical evidence and instead decide that gender identity is an unchanging aspect of identity that does not have a physical basis in the brain, then how can you ignore the pyschologists who have observed transseualism exists and therefore that those people are men or women? Or does the identity of the person you're talking to or about take a back seat to what you think they look like?
No matter which way you slice it, it is not simply a matter of deciding to change gender, with our current understanding of science that's impossible, but rather conforming to one's gender. For all of this to be the case, it necessarily follows that gender and sex are not the same thing.
Well ok, you might say, they're still biologically male (to use trans women as the example for a moment, since most people seem to have less issue with trans men for some reason) and are unable to reproduce and so it's my right to hold the view that I can deride them and refer to them as "he".
First to the biologically male part, as addressed in the previous section they're no biologically male, there are physical brain differences in the identity of trans people. But you of course mean genetics. There are frankly so many different pseudo scientific points made that it would be almost impossible for me to address them all so instead I'm going to make several points which refute most of them.
Many women who're also born genetically female (cis gendered) are unfortunately unable to reproduce, sometimes as the result of genetics, and other times as the result of organs not forming correctly in a fetus. There are cis women who have testicles inside them, there are some who're born without a vagina, others still who're even born with a penis. Are we to tell these women that they are infact men? There are XX women, XY women, and XXY women, are you going to argue that we should screen everyone for their genetic make up before deciding on their sex (and also deciding that their sex and gender are identical by the power vested in you)?
Along with the above, you have no idea on the genetic make up of trans women. There are studies to suggest that they have, on average, a higher reaction to androgen. This would mean that in the womb, these individuals would be far more likely to take on male sexual appearance, regardless of their genetic history. They could in fact be perfectly healthy boys, and maybe even men too but the fact remains that nature makes mistakes. Further, you also have no idea at the chromosome make up of these women either and even if they were all XY, that would only prove once again that sex and gender are different things.
Finally, even if were to grant your unfounded opinions as fact and that we should call people based on their genitals as babys, then to what end are we insulting people? What reasons are there for seperating people, talking to their genitals rather than to the person as they are? Where does this leave trans people in your society? Should we ban the surgical options? There are already a minimum of 2 years of pyschological reviews before any surgery which picks out many of those who're not in fact transsexuals, do you think 10 years would help?* Is being a specific gender in fact a mental illness? The suicide rate amongst transsexuals is already far higher than in the rest of society, and it is proven that transitioning reduces that risk dramatically.**
I ask again then, what benefit is there in you deciding, in the face of the evidence, that everyone must be as you are - with the gender identity and biological sex being in allignment? It serves no practical, health, safety, or legal benefit and insulting people should hardly be seen as a positive (and when you intentionally call any woman "he" it is insulting).
Transsexuals exist, it sucks, but it's not your place to tell them who they are what they must be. it is not your place to insult them or to decide that all women must be defined as sex objects. Your personal comfort on a matter has no bearing on the actual gender identity of other human beings.
That being said, what I'm about to say will shock many people, she should have been removed from that competition. On signing up she signed a contract saying she was "Naturally born female" and it's clear what the organisers meant by that. At that point the competition should have been challenged, but she signed the contract in bad faith and that was not the right course of action.
As far as I know, the cause is still unknown, but it sounds like they are looking at chromosomes and hormones. I mean, it's not like we have control over that- I guess unless you are Spieltor and are born with 100% testosterone and no traces whatsoever of estrogen lol.
As a thought experiment, suppose technology has improved a lot. Now your body is dying. So you go to a hospital where they transplant your brain into some kind of machine, a new body, or they simply scan your brain and run it in a computer simulation. <small>I'm neglecting a few details here, such as how hormones interact with the brain, but those are just implementation details, and can be simulated by the machine</small> Is that still you? Do you keep your gender?
For me the answer is a clear "yes" to both questions. For me a body is not much more than an avatar I use to interact with this world. If my avatar doesn't fit how I identify myself, why shouldn't I modify it?
On April 03 2012 19:25 Spieltor wrote:you're saying if I were to have ovaries and suddenly discover it later in life, I'd change? Probably not, seeing as doctors would've discovered this upon birth or I'd die from PMS having no outlet, as I have no vagina.
BUt lets assume we live in fairy land where someone can magically grow internal sex organs inconsistent with their body's birth gender. I'd have them removed and continue to live as I always lived.
the whole point is you wouldnt change because you think of yourself as a man. thats why she changed herself because she was a woman with male body parts.
so then it comes to the issue of why he felt like a woman despite being born a man.
User was temp banned for this post.
i am born a man and i am attracted to males. i have no idea why and honestly wish i wasnt. but its how it is, so i live with it. care to shed some light?
Such a beautiful point, cause I alteast, dont need any reason or logic for it. It is what it is. Sometimes when discussing these things, its like discussing "Why am I here, what is my destiny, why was I born", although I like these questions, I find myself discussing these kinds of topic only with my self.
On April 03 2012 19:44 MasterOfChaos wrote: Why do people identify so much with bodies?
As a thought experiment, suppose technology has improved a lot. Now your body is dying. So you go to a hospital where they transplant your brain into some kind of machine, a new body, or they simply scan your brain and run it in a computer simulation. <small>I'm neglecting a few details here, such as how hormones interact with the brain, but those are just implementation details, and can be simulated by the machine</small> Is that still you? Do you keep your gender?
For me the answer is a clear "yes" to both questions. For me a body is not much more than an avatar I use to interact with this world. If my avatar doesn't fit how I identify myself, why shouldn't I modify it?
ok I'll bite. The legality of something doesn't make it honest or correct.
Yes, but it does make it legal. If you don't agree with something that is legal, please address that by challenging the legality of it. Do you believe that Canada should revoke the ability of transgendered individuals to change their sex? Do you believe that laws that prohibit discrimination against them should be overturned?
On April 03 2012 19:25 Spieltor wrote:
She does have an advantage, she used hormones and plastic surgery and beat all the competition. That should be a no brainer. I bet you approve of steroid use in baseball as well.
She has an advantage against people who have not used hormones or cosmetic surgery, yes. However, I'm fairly sure that cosmetic surgery is either legal for use in pageants, or is at least tacitly allowed. She does not have a competitive advantage against her peers due to her cosmetic surgery, because they could also use it (and may have). Also, what is up with you suggesting that hormones confer a competitive advantage in a beauty contest...?
On April 03 2012 19:25 Spieltor wrote:
Yes, noone should discriminate against anyone, but at the same time, the contest is meant for people naturally born. he took the spot of another naturally born female by entering.
Yes, noone should discriminate against anyone, but at the same time, we should have as many discriminatory events as we like. I'm confused. Please confirm that this is what you are saying.
On April 03 2012 19:25 Spieltor wrote:
you're saying if I were to have ovaries and suddenly discover it later in life, I'd change? Probably not, seeing as doctors would've discovered this upon birth or I'd die from PMS having no outlet, as I have no vagina. BUt lets assume we live in fairy land where someone can magically grow internal sex organs inconsistent with their body's birth gender. I'd have them removed and continue to live as I always lived.
The point of the question is that you wouldn't change. You identify as male, and you admit that if your biological makeup decided to disagree with you, you would remove the offending anatomy. How is this different than the case of this woman?
Also, it's education time: 1) Doctors have often failed to notice intersex characteristics at birth, and even later in life. Extensive testing can often be necessary in the cases where biological gender actually does matter (ie. competitive sports, look up Caster Semenya). 2) PMS stands for Pre-Menstrual Syndrome, which is not the same as menstruation, which is what you are referring to as needing a "outlet". Intersexuality does not mean you menstruate, and it really doesn't matter to the question, anyways.
So, in completely missing the point of my last question, you still managed to agree with me that, if your biology were not in order with your self-perception, you would a) use surgery to correct it, and b) life your life as though it were an unfortunate mistake that caused some trouble but has been corrected. What do you have to say to this?
It's deliberately insulting or at the very least insensitive to her life decisions.
If she feels like a woman, looks like a woman and wants to be a woman, she's one in my book.
The girl's argument in the video is pretty awesome: She shouldn't compete, not because she shouldn't be allowed to, but because beauty-pageants are horridly stupid.
On April 03 2012 19:53 kafkaesque wrote: Could we please stop calling her "he"?
It's deliberately insulting or at the very least insensitive to her life decisions.
If she feels like a woman, looks like a women and wants to be a woman, she's one in my book.
Anyone referring to her as a he is getting the exact punishment that a bigot on this site deserves. So no worries man! KwarK and others have it covered :D
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?
This is the best post in the whole thread. Its so much talk about "you were born this and that" but people have to understand that people change. I wasnt born a man either, I was born a boy and I guess it could have turned out in many different ways.
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?
This is the best post in the whole thread. Its so much talk about "you were born this and that" but people have to understand that people change. I wasnt born a man either, I was born a boy and I guess it could have turned out in many different ways.
But like, does this mean I, and other men, could walk into a bar identified as ladies (heck, I'd even put on a wig) and therefore benefit off of ladies' night? Surely this isn't fair to the bar owner who's whole business plan is to recuperate the losses from serving free drinks to women by profiting from the abundance of men who were supposed to attend. Or what about healthcare/wage benefits for women?
I see we're trying our hands at this thread again. My position is that Jenna should be allowed to compete, mainly because being born biologically male is sure as hell not an advantage in Miss Universe. If the cissexual girls can't compete, they need to step it up. It's a private contest though, so they can do what they want.
The more interesting discussion we had going on last thread before it got closed was for competitions where being born biologically male might arguably BE an advantage, such as physical sports. In that case I think we were talking about whether horomone level tests might be a requirement. A lot of people have posted the 'duck test', but not all MtF transsexuals are as lucky as Jenna, many do not 'pass' the duck test. It's unfortunate, but testosterone's effects are much harder to reverse than the other way around (for this reason FtM transsexuals, while rarer, almost all 'pass' the duck test after horomone treatment). Some MtF transsexuals will NEVER pass the duck test, so I don't think that's a good line to use.
To steal a bad catchphrase, Jenna is the 1%. What of the 99%?
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?
This is the best post in the whole thread. Its so much talk about "you were born this and that" but people have to understand that people change. I wasnt born a man either, I was born a boy and I guess it could have turned out in many different ways.
But like, does this mean I, and other men, could walk into a bar identified as ladies (heck, I'd even put on a wig) and therefore benefit off of ladies' night? Surely this isn't fair to the bar owner who's whole business plan is to recuperate the losses from serving free drinks to women by profiting from the abundance of men who were supposed to attend. Or what about healthcare/wage benefits for women?
Surely there's a line to be drawn somewhere.
If you walk around 24/7 identifying yourself as a woman I have no problem with you benefitting off ladies night. This isn't about dressing up as a woman.
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?
This is the best post in the whole thread. Its so much talk about "you were born this and that" but people have to understand that people change. I wasnt born a man either, I was born a boy and I guess it could have turned out in many different ways.
But like, does this mean I, and other men, could walk into a bar identified as ladies (heck, I'd even put on a wig) and therefore benefit off of ladies' night? Surely this isn't fair to the bar owner who's whole business plan is to recuperate the losses from serving free drinks to women by profiting from the abundance of men who were supposed to attend. Or what about healthcare/wage benefits for women?
Surely there's a line to be drawn somewhere.
Actually I see it the other way. If anything, its ladies night thats discrimination.
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?
This is the best post in the whole thread. Its so much talk about "you were born this and that" but people have to understand that people change. I wasnt born a man either, I was born a boy and I guess it could have turned out in many different ways.
But like, does this mean I, and other men, could walk into a bar identified as ladies (heck, I'd even put on a wig) and therefore benefit off of ladies' night? Surely this isn't fair to the bar owner who's whole business plan is to recuperate the losses from serving free drinks to women by profiting from the abundance of men who were supposed to attend. Or what about healthcare/wage benefits for women?
Surely there's a line to be drawn somewhere.
If you walk around 24/7 identifying yourself as a woman I have no problem with you benefitting off ladies night. This isn't about dressing up as a woman.
I think it is, at least to some extent, and you not minding doesn't mean that it wouldn't be a problem if it happened.
On April 03 2012 19:44 MasterOfChaos wrote: Why do people identify so much with bodies?
As a thought experiment, suppose technology has improved a lot. Now your body is dying. So you go to a hospital where they transplant your brain into some kind of machine, a new body, or they simply scan your brain and run it in a computer simulation. <small>I'm neglecting a few details here, such as how hormones interact with the brain, but those are just implementation details, and can be simulated by the machine</small> Is that still you? Do you keep your gender?
For me the answer is a clear "yes" to both questions. For me a body is not much more than an avatar I use to interact with this world. If my avatar doesn't fit how I identify myself, why shouldn't I modify it?
I don't think i would be the person i am now without my body. I'm pretty sure i would make completely different decisions and think different. I don't think you can just eliminate the body and the biological procedures in your body in this discussion.
I don't know why we feel as a women / men or why some are attracted to the same gender but i don't see any problem not letting them do what they want, in this case participating wont harm anyone.
On April 03 2012 19:44 MasterOfChaos wrote: Why do people identify so much with bodies?
As a thought experiment, suppose technology has improved a lot. Now your body is dying. So you go to a hospital where they transplant your brain into some kind of machine, a new body, or they simply scan your brain and run it in a computer simulation. <small>I'm neglecting a few details here, such as how hormones interact with the brain, but those are just implementation details, and can be simulated by the machine</small> Is that still you? Do you keep your gender?
For me the answer is a clear "yes" to both questions. For me a body is not much more than an avatar I use to interact with this world. If my avatar doesn't fit how I identify myself, why shouldn't I modify it?
but you simply can't ignore the experience of being a male/female due to the physical body you had throughout your life that you had before your body died
On April 03 2012 19:44 MasterOfChaos wrote: Why do people identify so much with bodies?
As a thought experiment, suppose technology has improved a lot. Now your body is dying. So you go to a hospital where they transplant your brain into some kind of machine, a new body, or they simply scan your brain and run it in a computer simulation. <small>I'm neglecting a few details here, such as how hormones interact with the brain, but those are just implementation details, and can be simulated by the machine</small> Is that still you? Do you keep your gender?
For me the answer is a clear "yes" to both questions. For me a body is not much more than an avatar I use to interact with this world. If my avatar doesn't fit how I identify myself, why shouldn't I modify it?
but you simply can't ignore the experience of being a male/female due to the physical body you had throughout your life that you had before your body died
That doesn't change the fact that gender transcends the body.
On April 03 2012 19:44 MasterOfChaos wrote: Why do people identify so much with bodies?
As a thought experiment, suppose technology has improved a lot. Now your body is dying. So you go to a hospital where they transplant your brain into some kind of machine, a new body, or they simply scan your brain and run it in a computer simulation. <small>I'm neglecting a few details here, such as how hormones interact with the brain, but those are just implementation details, and can be simulated by the machine</small> Is that still you? Do you keep your gender?
For me the answer is a clear "yes" to both questions. For me a body is not much more than an avatar I use to interact with this world. If my avatar doesn't fit how I identify myself, why shouldn't I modify it?
Didnt't you answer it by yourself?
You want to have a body to match the image of your brain so you can be indentified by other people.
On April 03 2012 19:44 MasterOfChaos wrote: Why do people identify so much with bodies?
As a thought experiment, suppose technology has improved a lot. Now your body is dying. So you go to a hospital where they transplant your brain into some kind of machine, a new body, or they simply scan your brain and run it in a computer simulation. <small>I'm neglecting a few details here, such as how hormones interact with the brain, but those are just implementation details, and can be simulated by the machine</small> Is that still you? Do you keep your gender?
For me the answer is a clear "yes" to both questions. For me a body is not much more than an avatar I use to interact with this world. If my avatar doesn't fit how I identify myself, why shouldn't I modify it?
I think in part it's due to how other people perceive your body which can shape how you see it. In the case of someone born male who feels female everyone around you is going to identify you as male. That has to be really hard on someone who doesn't identify with that image of themselves.
On April 03 2012 19:44 MasterOfChaos wrote: Why do people identify so much with bodies?
As a thought experiment, suppose technology has improved a lot. Now your body is dying. So you go to a hospital where they transplant your brain into some kind of machine, a new body, or they simply scan your brain and run it in a computer simulation. <small>I'm neglecting a few details here, such as how hormones interact with the brain, but those are just implementation details, and can be simulated by the machine</small> Is that still you? Do you keep your gender?
For me the answer is a clear "yes" to both questions. For me a body is not much more than an avatar I use to interact with this world. If my avatar doesn't fit how I identify myself, why shouldn't I modify it?
Am I wrong to think the trans community is a bit hypocritical in that way? They insist physical sex is not the 'correct' way of sex identification, that if you believe you're a woman in your head you are one. Yet they also insist on modifying their body to reflect that of a woman's. It just doesn't seem congruent to their beliefs that sex is a mental construct. There's clearly a huge connection to your physical appearance. Superficially you can change that but you can't ever scientifically change the fact that you were born one way and not the other.
It will for some reason be considered prejudice, but I think they are a third gender. A man is a man, a woman is a woman, and those who seek to alter their bodies based on what their mind tells them (should we count the ways our conscious minds lie to us?) are something else. It doesn't mean they're not worth basic human respect, it just seems too convenient for me to accept the fact that everyone is what they believe they are despite evidence to the contrary. Do we shrug our shoulders and accept the things schizophrenics see are real too?
Sex refers to the biological and physiological characteristics that define men and women, while Gender refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for men and women. (Source and more information, since apparently some people need it: http://www.who.int/gender/whatisgender/en/ )
Anyway, she wasn't born a woman, which is one of the prerequisite rules of the pageant (and as it's a private pageant, they get to make the rules, however unfair or stupid they may be). Therefore, it's appropriate to disqualify her.
That being said, I think it's a pity that that rule actually exists, as it's pretty clear that she's just as much a woman (physically, psychologically, etc.) as any of the other women who were born that way. But my opinion only goes so far as some other hypothetical pageant that I deem as more fair and encompassing to all women. That being said, I'm not actually running one, so that's pretty much where my suggestion stops. I also think that beauty pageants objectify women and point out the importance of superficial traits, and therefore do more harm than good for them anyway.
EDIT: Apparently now the decision was reversed, and I suppose the rule is being thrown out for good (for consistency)? Either way, it makes me happy to see her allowed back in the pageant ^^
On April 03 2012 19:44 Iyerbeth wrote: I promised myself I wasn't going to post in this thread, but here I am. I'm not going to address anyone particularly, but I'll just go with my unusual optimism of assuming they really mean well but just ultimately don't know what they're talking about. I'm aware that to do so I'd have to ignore the content of many of their posts, but I'm going to do so anyway. I'm sure this discussion will carry on with people seeing the length of my post and deciding that my well reasoned, and cited arguements aren't really worth reading if it'll challenge their preconceptions either way sadly.
On April 03 2012 19:44 Iyerbeth wrote: Along with the above, you have no idea on the genetic make up of trans women. There are studies to suggest that they have, on average, a higher reaction to androgen. This would mean that in the womb, these individuals would be far more likely to take on male sexual appearance, regardless of their genetic history. They could in fact be perfectly healthy boys, and maybe even men too but the fact remains that nature makes mistakes. Further, you also have no idea at the chromosome make up of these women either and even if they were all XY, that would only prove once again that sex and gender are different things.
I understood all of your arguments regarding gender identity and gender/sex being two different things and they're sound and agreeable. I don't think many people will reject the claim that her gender identity is in fact female after reading your post, or are at least skeptical at this point.
My question though is what would you say of her sexual identity?
Are you arguing that her sexual identity should be considered female as well or are you conceding that her sexual identity at this point is still male (yet irrelevant to gender identity)?
On April 03 2012 19:44 Iyerbeth wrote: Along with the above, you have no idea on the genetic make up of trans women. There are studies to suggest that they have, on average, a higher reaction to androgen. This would mean that in the womb, these individuals would be far more likely to take on male sexual appearance, regardless of their genetic history. They could in fact be perfectly healthy boys, and maybe even men too but the fact remains that nature makes mistakes. Further, you also have no idea at the chromosome make up of these women either and even if they were all XY, that would only prove once again that sex and gender are different things.
I understood all of your arguments regarding gender identity and gender/sex being two different things and they're sound and agreeable. I don't think many people will reject the claim that her gender identity is in fact female after reading your post, or are at least skeptical at this point.
My question though is what would you say of her sexual identity?
Are you arguing that her sexual identity should be considered female as well because of the fact that women with those genetic mutations(*?) (such as being born with non-normal chromosome make ups) are still considered female + she identifies her gender identity as female, or are you arguing that her sexual identity at this point is still male?
I don't think sexual identity, as opposed to gender identity, exists or is completely meaningless. It's fairly obvious that chromosomal makeup does not control your gender identity, although it does seem to favour one direction, and people don't identify with their sex, they identify with their gender.
I had a niece who's now my nephew. She always was very boyish. When she got a gf we just assumed that she was lesbian. But that wasn't the case. She had a male brain, in a female body. Finally she took the operations and now he has the male body he should have been born in. He's so happy now and his gf too. So we are too.
On April 03 2012 19:44 Iyerbeth wrote: Along with the above, you have no idea on the genetic make up of trans women. There are studies to suggest that they have, on average, a higher reaction to androgen. This would mean that in the womb, these individuals would be far more likely to take on male sexual appearance, regardless of their genetic history. They could in fact be perfectly healthy boys, and maybe even men too but the fact remains that nature makes mistakes. Further, you also have no idea at the chromosome make up of these women either and even if they were all XY, that would only prove once again that sex and gender are different things.
I understood all of your arguments regarding gender identity and gender/sex being two different things and they're sound and agreeable. I don't think many people will reject the claim that her gender identity is in fact female after reading your post, or are at least skeptical at this point.
My question though is what would you say of her sexual identity?
Are you arguing that her sexual identity should be considered female as well because of the fact that women with those genetic mutations(*?) (such as being born with non-normal chromosome make ups) are still considered female + she identifies her gender identity as female, or are you arguing that her sexual identity at this point is still male?
There are 3 different points I think I'm forced to accept by the arguements I made.
First, her sexual identity would not have changed at all. This is obviously true at the moment as there is no genetic surgery at the moment, and so whatever she started as biologically, she would finish as.
Second, without further investigation I have no way to know what any person's genetic sexual identity is but that upon investigation we could find out one way or another for everyone, and as per my first point, that would be a static fact about the person.
Finally though, and the reason for my having raised that point in my post is that it doesn't actually matter outside of strict categorisation. As we have no way to identify the literal sex of any individual we tend to go by their primary and secondary sexual characteristics, which obviously also vary on a person to person basis. As those sexual characteristics are one's we can change, I would say they're far more useful for identifying an individual than their genetics, and I'd argue that we do in fact already do that for everyone except trans people.
It is true though that I'm forced to concede that there is room to argue whether a trans person has actually changed their sex, but in doing so we'd also have to reassign many other cis gendered individuals after screening. My position therefore is gender identity should take precident over sexual identity when determining whether a person is a man or a woman.
Edit: But in saying that I should add, I don't think it's unreasonable for society to argue that proof is required before that assessment will be allowed, given the importance of gender in today's world. As such I accept the current standards of care as being a reasonable measure of gender for trans individuals, and simply declaring yourself to be of a different gender may (or should) be insufficient.
On April 03 2012 22:09 Zandar wrote: I had a niece who's now my nephew. She always was very boyish. When she got a gf we just assumed that she was lesbian. But that wasn't the case. She had a male brain, in a female body. Finally she took the operations and now he has the male body he should have been born in. He's so happy now and his gf too. So we are too.
Was there an actual scientific determination of how a male vs female brain operates? Like do they map their brain, and neurologically and/or cognitively conclude that it looks and works more like a males than a females? Or was it just more along the lines of what he/she felt more like?
On April 03 2012 22:09 Zandar wrote: I had a niece who's now my nephew. She always was very boyish. When she got a gf we just assumed that she was lesbian. But that wasn't the case. She had a male brain, in a female body. Finally she took the operations and now he has the male body he should have been born in. He's so happy now and his gf too. So we are too.
Now I look at this and think "how beautiful and wonderful to have this worked out so well" Your nephew is fucking lucky to have you and to have people supporting him. Fucking hell man.
Terrible thread. So much bigotry, ciscentrism and irrational loathing that I despair for this community. People that are referring to her as he, he/she and it? Come the fuck on.
That's not even to get onto the fact that there is no damn written rule stating that you must be born with female genitalia, just that you have to be a woman. Implying that she's any less than a 'real' women is the sole preserve of fascist religious lunatics and rabid turbo-feminists.
It is unclear to me what the term sexual identity means. I think people are using it as synonymous with sex, but from the little research I've done I'm quite sure that is not accurate or necessary.
Besides this, it should be quite obvious that there is no valid reason to automatically disqualify transgender people from a beauty pageant. Don't think there is anything else to say about this, the burden of proof is on the bigots and some posters have done a good job refuting their arguments. I'm happy the decision has been reverted.
just to throw something out against the people stating that the genetic, or born gender is always the correct one: there are, in fact, men who have xx-chromosomen and women who have xy-chromosomen. naturally born, with all the organs, even if those are often damaged or don't work properly. are those male or female in your opinion? whats more important; genes, the phenotype (aka breasts or penis), or the gender identity, aka what they say they are? why shouldn't those be "fix'd" if they still felt like the opposite gender, the one that'd be correct by their genes? would they actually BE trans then?
all in all, it doesn't really matter altogether - she says she's female, she is female. not just for a week or for fun, but forever and for good. doesn't matter what her genes say, or what her phenotype said, does it?
On April 03 2012 19:44 Iyerbeth wrote: I promised myself I wasn't going to post in this thread, but here I am. I'm not going to address anyone particularly, but I'll just go with my unusual optimism of assuming they really mean well but just ultimately don't know what they're talking about. I'm aware that to do so I'd have to ignore the content of many of their posts, but I'm going to do so anyway. I'm sure this discussion will carry on with people seeing the length of my post and deciding that my well reasoned, and cited arguements aren't really worth reading if it'll challenge their preconceptions either way sadly.
First, and most importantly, biological sex and gender identity are completely different things. First I'll provide evidence for this statement, and then show how it immediatly invalidates many of the "he's a man" comments.
Gender identity is something that pretty much everyone has, when someone says they're male or female they don't first check their physical attributes, they know who they are. If a man was disembodied somehow his gender wouldn't suddenly become "not applicable" he'd still be a man, albeit a maybe distressed and confused one. If we were to then place that person's mind in to a naturally female body, he wouldn't suddenly be female, who he was as a core identity would still remain. If you accept this as accurate then you have to accept one of two possibilities, either there is some physical component in the brain that results in gender identity, or that gender identity is somehow inate and unchanging part of a person's identity. If you accept either of those, then unless nature were infallible, you would have to accept the possibility of transsexuals who literally were men or women, as they expressed.
First to site some studies to prove that there are in fact physical brain differences in transsexuals specifically relating to expected gender norms. The following are a few examples, which between them don't actually all agree with the causes, but all provide evidence and examples that their are physical masculine or feminine differences in the brains of trans people.
Given then that there are physical differences in the brains of trans people, who are you to decide based on what they looked like at birth that their gender identity is what you think it is? If we are to ignore the physical evidence and instead decide that gender identity is an unchanging aspect of identity that does not have a physical basis in the brain, then how can you ignore the pyschologists who have observed transseualism exists and therefore that those people are men or women? Or does the identity of the person you're talking to or about take a back seat to what you think they look like?
No matter which way you slice it, it is not simply a matter of deciding to change gender, with our current understanding of science that's impossible, but rather conforming to one's gender. For all of this to be the case, it necessarily follows that gender and sex are not the same thing.
Well ok, you might say, they're still biologically male (to use trans women as the example for a moment, since most people seem to have less issue with trans men for some reason) and are unable to reproduce and so it's my right to hold the view that I can deride them and refer to them as "he".
First to the biologically male part, as addressed in the previous section they're no biologically male, there are physical brain differences in the identity of trans people. But you of course mean genetics. There are frankly so many different pseudo scientific points made that it would be almost impossible for me to address them all so instead I'm going to make several points which refute most of them.
Many women who're also born genetically female (cis gendered) are unfortunately unable to reproduce, sometimes as the result of genetics, and other times as the result of organs not forming correctly in a fetus. There are cis women who have testicles inside them, there are some who're born without a vagina, others still who're even born with a penis. Are we to tell these women that they are infact men? There are XX women, XY women, and XXY women, are you going to argue that we should screen everyone for their genetic make up before deciding on their sex (and also deciding that their sex and gender are identical by the power vested in you)?
Along with the above, you have no idea on the genetic make up of trans women. There are studies to suggest that they have, on average, a higher reaction to androgen. This would mean that in the womb, these individuals would be far more likely to take on male sexual appearance, regardless of their genetic history. They could in fact be perfectly healthy boys, and maybe even men too but the fact remains that nature makes mistakes. Further, you also have no idea at the chromosome make up of these women either and even if they were all XY, that would only prove once again that sex and gender are different things.
Finally, even if were to grant your unfounded opinions as fact and that we should call people based on their genitals as babys, then to what end are we insulting people? What reasons are there for seperating people, talking to their genitals rather than to the person as they are? Where does this leave trans people in your society? Should we ban the surgical options? There are already a minimum of 2 years of pyschological reviews before any surgery which picks out many of those who're not in fact transsexuals, do you think 10 years would help?* Is being a specific gender in fact a mental illness? The suicide rate amongst transsexuals is already far higher than in the rest of society, and it is proven that transitioning reduces that risk dramatically.**
I ask again then, what benefit is there in you deciding, in the face of the evidence, that everyone must be as you are - with the gender identity and biological sex being in allignment? It serves no practical, health, safety, or legal benefit and insulting people should hardly be seen as a positive (and when you intentionally call any woman "he" it is insulting).
Transsexuals exist, it sucks, but it's not your place to tell them who they are what they must be. it is not your place to insult them or to decide that all women must be defined as sex objects. Your personal comfort on a matter has no bearing on the actual gender identity of other human beings.
That being said, what I'm about to say will shock many people, she should have been removed from that competition. On signing up she signed a contract saying she was "Naturally born female" and it's clear what the organisers meant by that. At that point the competition should have been challenged, but she signed the contract in bad faith and that was not the right course of action.
This was a really good post, glad you managed to keep cool and address the issues whereas I just tend to get mad.
If the contestant has to belong to the sex female, which is predetermined by genetic makeup, she can not participate. If the contest is about gender, which is something you have to identify with, then she should be able to participate.
Seems like the people making this kind of events do not have explicitly stated rules.
On April 03 2012 19:44 Iyerbeth wrote: I promised myself I wasn't going to post in this thread, but here I am. I'm not going to address anyone particularly, but I'll just go with my unusual optimism of assuming they really mean well but just ultimately don't know what they're talking about. I'm aware that to do so I'd have to ignore the content of many of their posts, but I'm going to do so anyway. I'm sure this discussion will carry on with people seeing the length of my post and deciding that my well reasoned, and cited arguements aren't really worth reading if it'll challenge their preconceptions either way sadly.
First, and most importantly, biological sex and gender identity are completely different things. First I'll provide evidence for this statement, and then show how it immediatly invalidates many of the "he's a man" comments.
Gender identity is something that pretty much everyone has, when someone says they're male or female they don't first check their physical attributes, they know who they are. If a man was disembodied somehow his gender wouldn't suddenly become "not applicable" he'd still be a man, albeit a maybe distressed and confused one. If we were to then place that person's mind in to a naturally female body, he wouldn't suddenly be female, who he was as a core identity would still remain. If you accept this as accurate then you have to accept one of two possibilities, either there is some physical component in the brain that results in gender identity, or that gender identity is somehow inate and unchanging part of a person's identity. If you accept either of those, then unless nature were infallible, you would have to accept the possibility of transsexuals who literally were men or women, as they expressed.
First to site some studies to prove that there are in fact physical brain differences in transsexuals specifically relating to expected gender norms. The following are a few examples, which between them don't actually all agree with the causes, but all provide evidence and examples that their are physical masculine or feminine differences in the brains of trans people.
Given then that there are physical differences in the brains of trans people, who are you to decide based on what they looked like at birth that their gender identity is what you think it is? If we are to ignore the physical evidence and instead decide that gender identity is an unchanging aspect of identity that does not have a physical basis in the brain, then how can you ignore the pyschologists who have observed transseualism exists and therefore that those people are men or women? Or does the identity of the person you're talking to or about take a back seat to what you think they look like?
No matter which way you slice it, it is not simply a matter of deciding to change gender, with our current understanding of science that's impossible, but rather conforming to one's gender. For all of this to be the case, it necessarily follows that gender and sex are not the same thing.
Well ok, you might say, they're still biologically male (to use trans women as the example for a moment, since most people seem to have less issue with trans men for some reason) and are unable to reproduce and so it's my right to hold the view that I can deride them and refer to them as "he".
First to the biologically male part, as addressed in the previous section they're no biologically male, there are physical brain differences in the identity of trans people. But you of course mean genetics. There are frankly so many different pseudo scientific points made that it would be almost impossible for me to address them all so instead I'm going to make several points which refute most of them.
Many women who're also born genetically female (cis gendered) are unfortunately unable to reproduce, sometimes as the result of genetics, and other times as the result of organs not forming correctly in a fetus. There are cis women who have testicles inside them, there are some who're born without a vagina, others still who're even born with a penis. Are we to tell these women that they are infact men? There are XX women, XY women, and XXY women, are you going to argue that we should screen everyone for their genetic make up before deciding on their sex (and also deciding that their sex and gender are identical by the power vested in you)?
Along with the above, you have no idea on the genetic make up of trans women. There are studies to suggest that they have, on average, a higher reaction to androgen. This would mean that in the womb, these individuals would be far more likely to take on male sexual appearance, regardless of their genetic history. They could in fact be perfectly healthy boys, and maybe even men too but the fact remains that nature makes mistakes. Further, you also have no idea at the chromosome make up of these women either and even if they were all XY, that would only prove once again that sex and gender are different things.
Finally, even if were to grant your unfounded opinions as fact and that we should call people based on their genitals as babys, then to what end are we insulting people? What reasons are there for seperating people, talking to their genitals rather than to the person as they are? Where does this leave trans people in your society? Should we ban the surgical options? There are already a minimum of 2 years of pyschological reviews before any surgery which picks out many of those who're not in fact transsexuals, do you think 10 years would help?* Is being a specific gender in fact a mental illness? The suicide rate amongst transsexuals is already far higher than in the rest of society, and it is proven that transitioning reduces that risk dramatically.**
I ask again then, what benefit is there in you deciding, in the face of the evidence, that everyone must be as you are - with the gender identity and biological sex being in allignment? It serves no practical, health, safety, or legal benefit and insulting people should hardly be seen as a positive (and when you intentionally call any woman "he" it is insulting).
Transsexuals exist, it sucks, but it's not your place to tell them who they are what they must be. it is not your place to insult them or to decide that all women must be defined as sex objects. Your personal comfort on a matter has no bearing on the actual gender identity of other human beings.
That being said, what I'm about to say will shock many people, she should have been removed from that competition. On signing up she signed a contract saying she was "Naturally born female" and it's clear what the organisers meant by that. At that point the competition should have been challenged, but she signed the contract in bad faith and that was not the right course of action.
This was a really good post, glad you managed to keep cool and address the issues whereas I just tend to get mad.
While its a really good post, its important to note that the easiest way to teach people about gender is to dicuss the fact that Gender is a social construction. Being male and female is different from being masculine and feminine.
Every single person has times where they act more masculine and more feminine its just which of the two you identify with primarily that really defines whether you are a "man" or a "woman" in colloquial speech.
Just think about how you fill out paperwork at a doctors office, it asks for sex as male or female it never asks if you are a man or woman. This is because of the fact that gendered identity is fluid and not strict such as the case of biological sex.
Furthermore, but correct me if I am wrong, even as a transgendered person pre or post op if receiving medical attention you need to denote your birth sex and then further clarify what medications you are on if presenting characteristics of the opposite from birth sex. In part because sex linked diseases and characteristics (typically affecting males because of a short Y chromosome) could be important in diagnosis.
Liking that some people are being open minded in this thread though, its really quite important.
Of course some people prefer science, I think it can go over a lot of peoples heads if you don't approach it from a more simple social perspective.
As a social scientist I hate describing my field as simple but it is often easier to simplify for people who don't have a background in the studies than it is to point to psych or bio journals. I also don't believe people can be born into the wrong sex. This is simply because Gender is a socialised aspect of our lives and gender expressions differ across societies and cultures. I think its individuals upbringing and proclivity to particular activities and interests which leads them to creating their gender identity. Probably more a result of the strong sense of individualization than anything else wherein people are free to choose their gender and gender expression either explicitly or not. I'm a heterosexual male who happens to be a little more sensitive than most other guys. I don't worry about being manly or masculine at all, whereas my girlfriend is a little more masculine than other girls, not softspoken at all lol.
On April 03 2012 19:44 Iyerbeth wrote: I promised myself I wasn't going to post in this thread, but here I am. I'm not going to address anyone particularly, but I'll just go with my unusual optimism of assuming they really mean well but just ultimately don't know what they're talking about. I'm aware that to do so I'd have to ignore the content of many of their posts, but I'm going to do so anyway. I'm sure this discussion will carry on with people seeing the length of my post and deciding that my well reasoned, and cited arguements aren't really worth reading if it'll challenge their preconceptions either way sadly.
First, and most importantly, biological sex and gender identity are completely different things. First I'll provide evidence for this statement, and then show how it immediatly invalidates many of the "he's a man" comments.
Gender identity is something that pretty much everyone has, when someone says they're male or female they don't first check their physical attributes, they know who they are. If a man was disembodied somehow his gender wouldn't suddenly become "not applicable" he'd still be a man, albeit a maybe distressed and confused one. If we were to then place that person's mind in to a naturally female body, he wouldn't suddenly be female, who he was as a core identity would still remain. If you accept this as accurate then you have to accept one of two possibilities, either there is some physical component in the brain that results in gender identity, or that gender identity is somehow inate and unchanging part of a person's identity. If you accept either of those, then unless nature were infallible, you would have to accept the possibility of transsexuals who literally were men or women, as they expressed.
First to site some studies to prove that there are in fact physical brain differences in transsexuals specifically relating to expected gender norms. The following are a few examples, which between them don't actually all agree with the causes, but all provide evidence and examples that their are physical masculine or feminine differences in the brains of trans people.
Given then that there are physical differences in the brains of trans people, who are you to decide based on what they looked like at birth that their gender identity is what you think it is? If we are to ignore the physical evidence and instead decide that gender identity is an unchanging aspect of identity that does not have a physical basis in the brain, then how can you ignore the pyschologists who have observed transseualism exists and therefore that those people are men or women? Or does the identity of the person you're talking to or about take a back seat to what you think they look like?
No matter which way you slice it, it is not simply a matter of deciding to change gender, with our current understanding of science that's impossible, but rather conforming to one's gender. For all of this to be the case, it necessarily follows that gender and sex are not the same thing.
Well ok, you might say, they're still biologically male (to use trans women as the example for a moment, since most people seem to have less issue with trans men for some reason) and are unable to reproduce and so it's my right to hold the view that I can deride them and refer to them as "he".
First to the biologically male part, as addressed in the previous section they're no biologically male, there are physical brain differences in the identity of trans people. But you of course mean genetics. There are frankly so many different pseudo scientific points made that it would be almost impossible for me to address them all so instead I'm going to make several points which refute most of them.
Many women who're also born genetically female (cis gendered) are unfortunately unable to reproduce, sometimes as the result of genetics, and other times as the result of organs not forming correctly in a fetus. There are cis women who have testicles inside them, there are some who're born without a vagina, others still who're even born with a penis. Are we to tell these women that they are infact men? There are XX women, XY women, and XXY women, are you going to argue that we should screen everyone for their genetic make up before deciding on their sex (and also deciding that their sex and gender are identical by the power vested in you)?
Along with the above, you have no idea on the genetic make up of trans women. There are studies to suggest that they have, on average, a higher reaction to androgen. This would mean that in the womb, these individuals would be far more likely to take on male sexual appearance, regardless of their genetic history. They could in fact be perfectly healthy boys, and maybe even men too but the fact remains that nature makes mistakes. Further, you also have no idea at the chromosome make up of these women either and even if they were all XY, that would only prove once again that sex and gender are different things.
Finally, even if were to grant your unfounded opinions as fact and that we should call people based on their genitals as babys, then to what end are we insulting people? What reasons are there for seperating people, talking to their genitals rather than to the person as they are? Where does this leave trans people in your society? Should we ban the surgical options? There are already a minimum of 2 years of pyschological reviews before any surgery which picks out many of those who're not in fact transsexuals, do you think 10 years would help?* Is being a specific gender in fact a mental illness? The suicide rate amongst transsexuals is already far higher than in the rest of society, and it is proven that transitioning reduces that risk dramatically.**
I ask again then, what benefit is there in you deciding, in the face of the evidence, that everyone must be as you are - with the gender identity and biological sex being in allignment? It serves no practical, health, safety, or legal benefit and insulting people should hardly be seen as a positive (and when you intentionally call any woman "he" it is insulting).
Transsexuals exist, it sucks, but it's not your place to tell them who they are what they must be. it is not your place to insult them or to decide that all women must be defined as sex objects. Your personal comfort on a matter has no bearing on the actual gender identity of other human beings.
That being said, what I'm about to say will shock many people, she should have been removed from that competition. On signing up she signed a contract saying she was "Naturally born female" and it's clear what the organisers meant by that. At that point the competition should have been challenged, but she signed the contract in bad faith and that was not the right course of action.
This was a really good post, glad you managed to keep cool and address the issues whereas I just tend to get mad.
While its a really good post, its important to note that the easiest way to teach people about gender is to dicuss the fact that Gender is a social construction. Being male and female is different from being masculine and feminine.
Every single person has times where they act more masculine and more feminine its just which of the two you identify with primarily that really defines whether you are a "man" or a "woman" in colloquial speech.
Just think about how you fill out paperwork at a doctors office, it asks for sex as male or female it never asks if you are a man or woman. This is because of the fact that gendered identity is fluid and not strict such as the case of biological sex.
Furthermore, but correct me if I am wrong, even as a transgendered person pre or post op if receiving medical attention you need to denote your birth sex and then further clarify what medications you are on if presenting characteristics of the opposite from birth sex. In part because sex linked diseases and characteristics (typically affecting males because of a short Y chromosome) could be important in diagnosis.
Liking that some people are being open minded in this thread though, its really quite important.
signed - I'm male, and rather sure I'm not trans, yet I'm often more feminine than most of my female friends (okay, addmitted, most of my female friends are DAMN masculine....). also, important to add, I think; transmen can be gay, and transwomen can be lesbian.
On April 03 2012 22:36 FalahNorei wrote: just to throw something out against the people stating that the genetic, or born gender is always the correct one: there are, in fact, men who have xx-chromosomen and women who have xy-chromosomen. naturally born, with all the organs, even if those are often damaged or don't work properly. are those male or female in your opinion? whats more important; genes, the phenotype (aka breasts or penis), or the gender identity, aka what they say they are? why shouldn't those be "fix'd" if they still felt like the opposite gender, the one that'd be correct by their genes? would they actually BE trans then?
all in all, it doesn't really matter altogether - she says she's female, she is female. not just for a week or for fun, but forever and for good. doesn't matter what her genes say, or what her phenotype said, does it?
I'm not sure if being born male xx is possible because of how the y chromosome works (it modifies the expression of the x chromosome) but xy females are certainly possible if the y chromosome is not working or in specific conditions e.g. androgen insensitivity syndrome.
On April 03 2012 22:36 FalahNorei wrote: just to throw something out against the people stating that the genetic, or born gender is always the correct one: there are, in fact, men who have xx-chromosomen and women who have xy-chromosomen. naturally born, with all the organs, even if those are often damaged or don't work properly. are those male or female in your opinion? whats more important; genes, the phenotype (aka breasts or penis), or the gender identity, aka what they say they are? why shouldn't those be "fix'd" if they still felt like the opposite gender, the one that'd be correct by their genes? would they actually BE trans then?
all in all, it doesn't really matter altogether - she says she's female, she is female. not just for a week or for fun, but forever and for good. doesn't matter what her genes say, or what her phenotype said, does it?
I'm not sure if being born male xx is possible because of how the y chromosome works (it modifies the expression of the x chromosome) but xy females are certainly possible if the y chromosome is not working or in specific conditions e.g. androgen insensitivity syndrome.
On April 03 2012 19:44 MasterOfChaos wrote: Why do people identify so much with bodies?
As a thought experiment, suppose technology has improved a lot. Now your body is dying. So you go to a hospital where they transplant your brain into some kind of machine, a new body, or they simply scan your brain and run it in a computer simulation. <small>I'm neglecting a few details here, such as how hormones interact with the brain, but those are just implementation details, and can be simulated by the machine</small> Is that still you? Do you keep your gender?
For me the answer is a clear "yes" to both questions. For me a body is not much more than an avatar I use to interact with this world. If my avatar doesn't fit how I identify myself, why shouldn't I modify it?
Am I wrong to think the trans community is a bit hypocritical in that way? They insist physical sex is not the 'correct' way of sex identification, that if you believe you're a woman in your head you are one. Yet they also insist on modifying their body to reflect that of a woman's. It just doesn't seem congruent to their beliefs that sex is a mental construct. There's clearly a huge connection to your physical appearance. Superficially you can change that but you can't ever scientifically change the fact that you were born one way and not the other.
It will for some reason be considered prejudice, but I think they are a third gender. A man is a man, a woman is a woman, and those who seek to alter their bodies based on what their mind tells them (should we count the ways our conscious minds lie to us?) are something else. It doesn't mean they're not worth basic human respect, it just seems too convenient for me to accept the fact that everyone is what they believe they are despite evidence to the contrary. Do we shrug our shoulders and accept the things schizophrenics see are real too?
Not all transgender people choose to modify their body in rigorous ways. Everyone modfies their body to some degree to be more inline with what they consider to be aesthetically pleasing for their gender, and everyone chooses clothing appropriate to their gender.The desire to look like a woman, and the belief that sex is not the correct way to identify gender are not conflicting and it does not make them hypocrits in any way.
Transgender people are not a third gender. They identify themselves with either the male or female gender, not a third unnamed gender that you just made up. The human mind is probably wired (biologically) to identify with a gender, this desire is very strong and present in even very young children. Most boys who are raised as girls will spontaneously declare that they are the opposite gender (we know this because real world studies have been done).
On April 03 2012 22:36 FalahNorei wrote: just to throw something out against the people stating that the genetic, or born gender is always the correct one: there are, in fact, men who have xx-chromosomen and women who have xy-chromosomen. naturally born, with all the organs, even if those are often damaged or don't work properly. are those male or female in your opinion? whats more important; genes, the phenotype (aka breasts or penis), or the gender identity, aka what they say they are? why shouldn't those be "fix'd" if they still felt like the opposite gender, the one that'd be correct by their genes? would they actually BE trans then?
all in all, it doesn't really matter altogether - she says she's female, she is female. not just for a week or for fun, but forever and for good. doesn't matter what her genes say, or what her phenotype said, does it?
I'm not sure if being born male xx is possible because of how the y chromosome works (it modifies the expression of the x chromosome) but xy females are certainly possible if the y chromosome is not working or in specific conditions e.g. androgen insensitivity syndrome.
On April 03 2012 19:44 Iyerbeth wrote: I promised myself I wasn't going to post in this thread, but here I am. I'm not going to address anyone particularly, but I'll just go with my unusual optimism of assuming they really mean well but just ultimately don't know what they're talking about. I'm aware that to do so I'd have to ignore the content of many of their posts, but I'm going to do so anyway. I'm sure this discussion will carry on with people seeing the length of my post and deciding that my well reasoned, and cited arguements aren't really worth reading if it'll challenge their preconceptions either way sadly.
First, and most importantly, biological sex and gender identity are completely different things. First I'll provide evidence for this statement, and then show how it immediatly invalidates many of the "he's a man" comments.
Gender identity is something that pretty much everyone has, when someone says they're male or female they don't first check their physical attributes, they know who they are. If a man was disembodied somehow his gender wouldn't suddenly become "not applicable" he'd still be a man, albeit a maybe distressed and confused one. If we were to then place that person's mind in to a naturally female body, he wouldn't suddenly be female, who he was as a core identity would still remain. If you accept this as accurate then you have to accept one of two possibilities, either there is some physical component in the brain that results in gender identity, or that gender identity is somehow inate and unchanging part of a person's identity. If you accept either of those, then unless nature were infallible, you would have to accept the possibility of transsexuals who literally were men or women, as they expressed.
First to site some studies to prove that there are in fact physical brain differences in transsexuals specifically relating to expected gender norms. The following are a few examples, which between them don't actually all agree with the causes, but all provide evidence and examples that their are physical masculine or feminine differences in the brains of trans people.
Given then that there are physical differences in the brains of trans people, who are you to decide based on what they looked like at birth that their gender identity is what you think it is? If we are to ignore the physical evidence and instead decide that gender identity is an unchanging aspect of identity that does not have a physical basis in the brain, then how can you ignore the pyschologists who have observed transseualism exists and therefore that those people are men or women? Or does the identity of the person you're talking to or about take a back seat to what you think they look like?
No matter which way you slice it, it is not simply a matter of deciding to change gender, with our current understanding of science that's impossible, but rather conforming to one's gender. For all of this to be the case, it necessarily follows that gender and sex are not the same thing.
Well ok, you might say, they're still biologically male (to use trans women as the example for a moment, since most people seem to have less issue with trans men for some reason) and are unable to reproduce and so it's my right to hold the view that I can deride them and refer to them as "he".
First to the biologically male part, as addressed in the previous section they're no biologically male, there are physical brain differences in the identity of trans people. But you of course mean genetics. There are frankly so many different pseudo scientific points made that it would be almost impossible for me to address them all so instead I'm going to make several points which refute most of them.
Many women who're also born genetically female (cis gendered) are unfortunately unable to reproduce, sometimes as the result of genetics, and other times as the result of organs not forming correctly in a fetus. There are cis women who have testicles inside them, there are some who're born without a vagina, others still who're even born with a penis. Are we to tell these women that they are infact men? There are XX women, XY women, and XXY women, are you going to argue that we should screen everyone for their genetic make up before deciding on their sex (and also deciding that their sex and gender are identical by the power vested in you)?
Along with the above, you have no idea on the genetic make up of trans women. There are studies to suggest that they have, on average, a higher reaction to androgen. This would mean that in the womb, these individuals would be far more likely to take on male sexual appearance, regardless of their genetic history. They could in fact be perfectly healthy boys, and maybe even men too but the fact remains that nature makes mistakes. Further, you also have no idea at the chromosome make up of these women either and even if they were all XY, that would only prove once again that sex and gender are different things.
Finally, even if were to grant your unfounded opinions as fact and that we should call people based on their genitals as babys, then to what end are we insulting people? What reasons are there for seperating people, talking to their genitals rather than to the person as they are? Where does this leave trans people in your society? Should we ban the surgical options? There are already a minimum of 2 years of pyschological reviews before any surgery which picks out many of those who're not in fact transsexuals, do you think 10 years would help?* Is being a specific gender in fact a mental illness? The suicide rate amongst transsexuals is already far higher than in the rest of society, and it is proven that transitioning reduces that risk dramatically.**
I ask again then, what benefit is there in you deciding, in the face of the evidence, that everyone must be as you are - with the gender identity and biological sex being in allignment? It serves no practical, health, safety, or legal benefit and insulting people should hardly be seen as a positive (and when you intentionally call any woman "he" it is insulting).
Transsexuals exist, it sucks, but it's not your place to tell them who they are what they must be. it is not your place to insult them or to decide that all women must be defined as sex objects. Your personal comfort on a matter has no bearing on the actual gender identity of other human beings.
That being said, what I'm about to say will shock many people, she should have been removed from that competition. On signing up she signed a contract saying she was "Naturally born female" and it's clear what the organisers meant by that. At that point the competition should have been challenged, but she signed the contract in bad faith and that was not the right course of action.
This was a really good post, glad you managed to keep cool and address the issues whereas I just tend to get mad.
While its a really good post, its important to note that the easiest way to teach people about gender is to dicuss the fact that Gender is a social construction. Being male and female is different from being masculine and feminine.
Every single person has times where they act more masculine and more feminine its just which of the two you identify with primarily that really defines whether you are a "man" or a "woman" in colloquial speech.
Just think about how you fill out paperwork at a doctors office, it asks for sex as male or female it never asks if you are a man or woman. This is because of the fact that gendered identity is fluid and not strict such as the case of biological sex.
Furthermore, but correct me if I am wrong, even as a transgendered person pre or post op if receiving medical attention you need to denote your birth sex and then further clarify what medications you are on if presenting characteristics of the opposite from birth sex. In part because sex linked diseases and characteristics (typically affecting males because of a short Y chromosome) could be important in diagnosis.
Liking that some people are being open minded in this thread though, its really quite important.
But if it's purely a social construct what need is there for surgery to change your sex? I am just really confused where gender identity ends and sex begins. I don't understand "physicality has nothing to do with it, I will get surgery to change my physical appearance"
it just seems like you are trying to conform to those same gender roles that stop you from being what you are supposedly born as, ie a man in a woman's body or vice versa. If we sought to truly change these apparently restrictive social constructs then no one would need surgery and you can be happy in your body with your mind regardless if one is supposedly not in harmony with the other.
Am I making sense here? If society has decreed that men act masculine and women act feminine, and if one identifies as the other gender, then it's only through societal pressure that they surgically alter their body in very significant ways. It becomes as superficial as any kind of cosmetic surgery does it not?
Would anyone who is trans ever say that the ultimate goal for trans people is for them to be able to live their lives as they were born without fear of society alienating them, as in, as a man in a woman's body? Does anyone preach a philosophy about being what you are, instead of trying to change your body to match your mind based on social constructs? Or are they universally not okay with the idea of living as a woman in a man's body? And doesn't the expectation that everyone else should be okay with the alternative become a bit hypocritical?
So I've read the article and I can't seem to understand why this is an issue, he's clearly not a female. Just a man that had some surgery done to appear female. That's why he was disqualified right, because it's Miss Universe Canada?.. As far as I know you have to be biologically female to compete in this competition.
You can't change who you are just because you want to, like if you were born asian you can't just decide one day to be white and go around telling people you're native Irish, no matter how much you "feel" white inside.
On April 03 2012 19:44 Iyerbeth wrote: I promised myself I wasn't going to post in this thread, but here I am. I'm not going to address anyone particularly, but I'll just go with my unusual optimism of assuming they really mean well but just ultimately don't know what they're talking about. I'm aware that to do so I'd have to ignore the content of many of their posts, but I'm going to do so anyway. I'm sure this discussion will carry on with people seeing the length of my post and deciding that my well reasoned, and cited arguements aren't really worth reading if it'll challenge their preconceptions either way sadly.
First, and most importantly, biological sex and gender identity are completely different things. First I'll provide evidence for this statement, and then show how it immediatly invalidates many of the "he's a man" comments.
Gender identity is something that pretty much everyone has, when someone says they're male or female they don't first check their physical attributes, they know who they are. If a man was disembodied somehow his gender wouldn't suddenly become "not applicable" he'd still be a man, albeit a maybe distressed and confused one. If we were to then place that person's mind in to a naturally female body, he wouldn't suddenly be female, who he was as a core identity would still remain. If you accept this as accurate then you have to accept one of two possibilities, either there is some physical component in the brain that results in gender identity, or that gender identity is somehow inate and unchanging part of a person's identity. If you accept either of those, then unless nature were infallible, you would have to accept the possibility of transsexuals who literally were men or women, as they expressed.
First to site some studies to prove that there are in fact physical brain differences in transsexuals specifically relating to expected gender norms. The following are a few examples, which between them don't actually all agree with the causes, but all provide evidence and examples that their are physical masculine or feminine differences in the brains of trans people.
Given then that there are physical differences in the brains of trans people, who are you to decide based on what they looked like at birth that their gender identity is what you think it is? If we are to ignore the physical evidence and instead decide that gender identity is an unchanging aspect of identity that does not have a physical basis in the brain, then how can you ignore the pyschologists who have observed transseualism exists and therefore that those people are men or women? Or does the identity of the person you're talking to or about take a back seat to what you think they look like?
No matter which way you slice it, it is not simply a matter of deciding to change gender, with our current understanding of science that's impossible, but rather conforming to one's gender. For all of this to be the case, it necessarily follows that gender and sex are not the same thing.
Well ok, you might say, they're still biologically male (to use trans women as the example for a moment, since most people seem to have less issue with trans men for some reason) and are unable to reproduce and so it's my right to hold the view that I can deride them and refer to them as "he".
First to the biologically male part, as addressed in the previous section they're no biologically male, there are physical brain differences in the identity of trans people. But you of course mean genetics. There are frankly so many different pseudo scientific points made that it would be almost impossible for me to address them all so instead I'm going to make several points which refute most of them.
Many women who're also born genetically female (cis gendered) are unfortunately unable to reproduce, sometimes as the result of genetics, and other times as the result of organs not forming correctly in a fetus. There are cis women who have testicles inside them, there are some who're born without a vagina, others still who're even born with a penis. Are we to tell these women that they are infact men? There are XX women, XY women, and XXY women, are you going to argue that we should screen everyone for their genetic make up before deciding on their sex (and also deciding that their sex and gender are identical by the power vested in you)?
Along with the above, you have no idea on the genetic make up of trans women. There are studies to suggest that they have, on average, a higher reaction to androgen. This would mean that in the womb, these individuals would be far more likely to take on male sexual appearance, regardless of their genetic history. They could in fact be perfectly healthy boys, and maybe even men too but the fact remains that nature makes mistakes. Further, you also have no idea at the chromosome make up of these women either and even if they were all XY, that would only prove once again that sex and gender are different things.
Finally, even if were to grant your unfounded opinions as fact and that we should call people based on their genitals as babys, then to what end are we insulting people? What reasons are there for seperating people, talking to their genitals rather than to the person as they are? Where does this leave trans people in your society? Should we ban the surgical options? There are already a minimum of 2 years of pyschological reviews before any surgery which picks out many of those who're not in fact transsexuals, do you think 10 years would help?* Is being a specific gender in fact a mental illness? The suicide rate amongst transsexuals is already far higher than in the rest of society, and it is proven that transitioning reduces that risk dramatically.**
I ask again then, what benefit is there in you deciding, in the face of the evidence, that everyone must be as you are - with the gender identity and biological sex being in allignment? It serves no practical, health, safety, or legal benefit and insulting people should hardly be seen as a positive (and when you intentionally call any woman "he" it is insulting).
Transsexuals exist, it sucks, but it's not your place to tell them who they are what they must be. it is not your place to insult them or to decide that all women must be defined as sex objects. Your personal comfort on a matter has no bearing on the actual gender identity of other human beings.
That being said, what I'm about to say will shock many people, she should have been removed from that competition. On signing up she signed a contract saying she was "Naturally born female" and it's clear what the organisers meant by that. At that point the competition should have been challenged, but she signed the contract in bad faith and that was not the right course of action.
This was a really good post, glad you managed to keep cool and address the issues whereas I just tend to get mad.
While its a really good post, its important to note that the easiest way to teach people about gender is to dicuss the fact that Gender is a social construction. Being male and female is different from being masculine and feminine.
Every single person has times where they act more masculine and more feminine its just which of the two you identify with primarily that really defines whether you are a "man" or a "woman" in colloquial speech.
Just think about how you fill out paperwork at a doctors office, it asks for sex as male or female it never asks if you are a man or woman. This is because of the fact that gendered identity is fluid and not strict such as the case of biological sex.
Furthermore, but correct me if I am wrong, even as a transgendered person pre or post op if receiving medical attention you need to denote your birth sex and then further clarify what medications you are on if presenting characteristics of the opposite from birth sex. In part because sex linked diseases and characteristics (typically affecting males because of a short Y chromosome) could be important in diagnosis.
Liking that some people are being open minded in this thread though, its really quite important.
Of course some people prefer science, I think it can go over a lot of peoples heads if you don't approach it from a more simple social perspective.
As a social scientist I hate describing my field as simple but it is often easier to simplify for people who don't have a background in the studies than it is to point to psych or bio journals. I also don't believe people can be born into the wrong sex. This is simply because Gender is a socialised aspect of our lives and gender expressions differ across societies and cultures. I think its individuals upbringing and proclivity to particular activities and interests which leads them to creating their gender identity. Probably more a result of the strong sense of individualization than anything else wherein people are free to choose their gender and gender expression either explicitly or not. I'm a heterosexual male who happens to be a little more sensitive than most other guys. I don't worry about being manly or masculine at all, whereas my girlfriend is a little more masculine than other girls, not softspoken at all lol.
I do actually agree that a lot of what gender is (and I dare say as a social scientist you're probably better positioned to argue this point than I) comes down to a social construct but I don't think that it is entirely the case.
Hormonal differences in adults probably played or do play a part in defining gender identity sterotypes, and it is clear that the brain at least in some way has an influence on the gender of an individual so there is something more to it than a human made idea. That isn't to say that women must be feminine and men must masculine, that is of course absurd but it would be equally absurd to assume that the gender lines we see in all other animals are imaginary or that we were somehow excluded from them.
Further, it seems that if gender were nothing more than a social construct than we either shouldn't have trans people, or it should be more common with people seeing no issue with it.
As to treatment as Dr's, it would be considered as any other historical fact such as familial illness, recent surgery or cancer. A trans person going to visit a dr for any usual issue would not be asked to, or need to disclose it. For more serious issues it would be found in medical records and medication lists are given by everyone. That's not to say there can't be times when it should be disclosed but generally a patient history is only taken for more serious issues anyway, or when an underlying issue is not immediately evident.
Additionally, most places will ask gender instead of sex on forms, at least in the uk.
Edit: Also a link to a surprisingly well done american news show documentary on trans children. They don't use all the right terms, but it's difficult to argue that there isn't something more to it when you consider the responses of the children and the issue's they're facing. Going to link it as a url rather than an embeded clip:
I think it was the right decisition to disqualify her. Because it is a contest for women and 'she' is not a women, if you closely look at her without watching the obvious parts..., you realize her wrists, shoulders, ankles, legs are certainly one of a man (a skinny man), so because she's not completely a girl then she shouldn't be considered one. It's good though for herself that there are surgeries around to make her look like a girl, but things are what they are and at the end of the day she is not one.
A really interesting read. Its a friggin beauty contest though, If she is hot, and if that was a picture of her on page one i see no problem in admitting her.
My old bio teacher used to qualify whenever he was speaking of genetics. He would say well a genetically normal person (whatever that means) all the time when we discussed genetics. I think i see a littly of why here.
On April 03 2012 19:44 Iyerbeth wrote: I promised myself I wasn't going to post in this thread, but here I am. I'm not going to address anyone particularly, but I'll just go with my unusual optimism of assuming they really mean well but just ultimately don't know what they're talking about. I'm aware that to do so I'd have to ignore the content of many of their posts, but I'm going to do so anyway. I'm sure this discussion will carry on with people seeing the length of my post and deciding that my well reasoned, and cited arguements aren't really worth reading if it'll challenge their preconceptions either way sadly.
First, and most importantly, biological sex and gender identity are completely different things. First I'll provide evidence for this statement, and then show how it immediatly invalidates many of the "he's a man" comments.
Gender identity is something that pretty much everyone has, when someone says they're male or female they don't first check their physical attributes, they know who they are. If a man was disembodied somehow his gender wouldn't suddenly become "not applicable" he'd still be a man, albeit a maybe distressed and confused one. If we were to then place that person's mind in to a naturally female body, he wouldn't suddenly be female, who he was as a core identity would still remain. If you accept this as accurate then you have to accept one of two possibilities, either there is some physical component in the brain that results in gender identity, or that gender identity is somehow inate and unchanging part of a person's identity. If you accept either of those, then unless nature were infallible, you would have to accept the possibility of transsexuals who literally were men or women, as they expressed.
First to site some studies to prove that there are in fact physical brain differences in transsexuals specifically relating to expected gender norms. The following are a few examples, which between them don't actually all agree with the causes, but all provide evidence and examples that their are physical masculine or feminine differences in the brains of trans people.
Given then that there are physical differences in the brains of trans people, who are you to decide based on what they looked like at birth that their gender identity is what you think it is? If we are to ignore the physical evidence and instead decide that gender identity is an unchanging aspect of identity that does not have a physical basis in the brain, then how can you ignore the pyschologists who have observed transseualism exists and therefore that those people are men or women? Or does the identity of the person you're talking to or about take a back seat to what you think they look like?
No matter which way you slice it, it is not simply a matter of deciding to change gender, with our current understanding of science that's impossible, but rather conforming to one's gender. For all of this to be the case, it necessarily follows that gender and sex are not the same thing.
Well ok, you might say, they're still biologically male (to use trans women as the example for a moment, since most people seem to have less issue with trans men for some reason) and are unable to reproduce and so it's my right to hold the view that I can deride them and refer to them as "he".
First to the biologically male part, as addressed in the previous section they're no biologically male, there are physical brain differences in the identity of trans people. But you of course mean genetics. There are frankly so many different pseudo scientific points made that it would be almost impossible for me to address them all so instead I'm going to make several points which refute most of them.
Many women who're also born genetically female (cis gendered) are unfortunately unable to reproduce, sometimes as the result of genetics, and other times as the result of organs not forming correctly in a fetus. There are cis women who have testicles inside them, there are some who're born without a vagina, others still who're even born with a penis. Are we to tell these women that they are infact men? There are XX women, XY women, and XXY women, are you going to argue that we should screen everyone for their genetic make up before deciding on their sex (and also deciding that their sex and gender are identical by the power vested in you)?
Along with the above, you have no idea on the genetic make up of trans women. There are studies to suggest that they have, on average, a higher reaction to androgen. This would mean that in the womb, these individuals would be far more likely to take on male sexual appearance, regardless of their genetic history. They could in fact be perfectly healthy boys, and maybe even men too but the fact remains that nature makes mistakes. Further, you also have no idea at the chromosome make up of these women either and even if they were all XY, that would only prove once again that sex and gender are different things.
Finally, even if were to grant your unfounded opinions as fact and that we should call people based on their genitals as babys, then to what end are we insulting people? What reasons are there for seperating people, talking to their genitals rather than to the person as they are? Where does this leave trans people in your society? Should we ban the surgical options? There are already a minimum of 2 years of pyschological reviews before any surgery which picks out many of those who're not in fact transsexuals, do you think 10 years would help?* Is being a specific gender in fact a mental illness? The suicide rate amongst transsexuals is already far higher than in the rest of society, and it is proven that transitioning reduces that risk dramatically.**
I ask again then, what benefit is there in you deciding, in the face of the evidence, that everyone must be as you are - with the gender identity and biological sex being in allignment? It serves no practical, health, safety, or legal benefit and insulting people should hardly be seen as a positive (and when you intentionally call any woman "he" it is insulting).
Transsexuals exist, it sucks, but it's not your place to tell them who they are what they must be. it is not your place to insult them or to decide that all women must be defined as sex objects. Your personal comfort on a matter has no bearing on the actual gender identity of other human beings.
That being said, what I'm about to say will shock many people, she should have been removed from that competition. On signing up she signed a contract saying she was "Naturally born female" and it's clear what the organisers meant by that. At that point the competition should have been challenged, but she signed the contract in bad faith and that was not the right course of action.
This was a really good post, glad you managed to keep cool and address the issues whereas I just tend to get mad.
While its a really good post, its important to note that the easiest way to teach people about gender is to dicuss the fact that Gender is a social construction. Being male and female is different from being masculine and feminine.
Every single person has times where they act more masculine and more feminine its just which of the two you identify with primarily that really defines whether you are a "man" or a "woman" in colloquial speech.
Just think about how you fill out paperwork at a doctors office, it asks for sex as male or female it never asks if you are a man or woman. This is because of the fact that gendered identity is fluid and not strict such as the case of biological sex.
Furthermore, but correct me if I am wrong, even as a transgendered person pre or post op if receiving medical attention you need to denote your birth sex and then further clarify what medications you are on if presenting characteristics of the opposite from birth sex. In part because sex linked diseases and characteristics (typically affecting males because of a short Y chromosome) could be important in diagnosis.
Liking that some people are being open minded in this thread though, its really quite important.
But if it's purely a social construct what need is there for surgery to change your sex? I am just really confused where gender identity ends and sex begins. I don't understand "physicality has nothing to do with it, I will get surgery to change my physical appearance"
it just seems like you are trying to conform to those same gender roles that stop you from being what you are supposedly born as, ie a man in a woman's body or vice versa. If we sought to truly change these apparently restrictive social constructs then no one would need surgery and you can be happy in your body with your mind regardless if one is supposedly not in harmony with the other.
Am I making sense here? If society has decreed that men act masculine and women act feminine, and if one identifies as the other gender, then it's only through societal pressure that they surgically alter their body in very significant ways. It becomes as superficial as any kind of cosmetic surgery does it not?
Would anyone who is trans ever say that the ultimate goal for trans people is for them to be able to live their lives as they were born without fear of society alienating them, as in, as a man in a woman's body? Does anyone preach a philosophy about being what you are, instead of trying to change your body to match your mind based on social constructs? Or are they universally not okay with the idea of living as a woman in a man's body? And doesn't the expectation that everyone else should be okay with the alternative become a bit hypocritical?
Many transgender people do not significantly alter their body, some do indeed consider it as superficial as any cosmetic surgery. Some just draw the line at the point where they chop off your dick. Views on these matters vary from person to person, I imagine, just like with any human.
The important point you seem to be missing is that gender differences are not a social construct, but many of the ways in which these differences are expressed are. There is no biological reason why women should wear dresses but not men. But there are real biological and psychological differences between men and women that are at the basis of gender differences. Gender differences will always be part of any sane society, because the human brain is simply wired to think in terms of gender. Transgender brains are apparently wired to think they belong to the ''wrong'' one.
If there were no specific rules relating to what kind of women could enter the competition, then it's the pageant's fault. Up until this point I have not seen any reportage about this incident where it states in the Miss Universe rules that trans-women were not allowed.
If they really want to ban trans-women, they can write it into their rules next time. Until then, best-looking chick wins.
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.
ahhhhhhahahaha. No one with kids, both boy and girl, would ever agree with that statement. There is no way.
On April 03 2012 19:44 Iyerbeth wrote: I promised myself I wasn't going to post in this thread, but here I am. I'm not going to address anyone particularly, but I'll just go with my unusual optimism of assuming they really mean well but just ultimately don't know what they're talking about. I'm aware that to do so I'd have to ignore the content of many of their posts, but I'm going to do so anyway. I'm sure this discussion will carry on with people seeing the length of my post and deciding that my well reasoned, and cited arguements aren't really worth reading if it'll challenge their preconceptions either way sadly.
First, and most importantly, biological sex and gender identity are completely different things. First I'll provide evidence for this statement, and then show how it immediatly invalidates many of the "he's a man" comments.
Gender identity is something that pretty much everyone has, when someone says they're male or female they don't first check their physical attributes, they know who they are. If a man was disembodied somehow his gender wouldn't suddenly become "not applicable" he'd still be a man, albeit a maybe distressed and confused one. If we were to then place that person's mind in to a naturally female body, he wouldn't suddenly be female, who he was as a core identity would still remain. If you accept this as accurate then you have to accept one of two possibilities, either there is some physical component in the brain that results in gender identity, or that gender identity is somehow inate and unchanging part of a person's identity. If you accept either of those, then unless nature were infallible, you would have to accept the possibility of transsexuals who literally were men or women, as they expressed.
First to site some studies to prove that there are in fact physical brain differences in transsexuals specifically relating to expected gender norms. The following are a few examples, which between them don't actually all agree with the causes, but all provide evidence and examples that their are physical masculine or feminine differences in the brains of trans people.
Given then that there are physical differences in the brains of trans people, who are you to decide based on what they looked like at birth that their gender identity is what you think it is? If we are to ignore the physical evidence and instead decide that gender identity is an unchanging aspect of identity that does not have a physical basis in the brain, then how can you ignore the pyschologists who have observed transseualism exists and therefore that those people are men or women? Or does the identity of the person you're talking to or about take a back seat to what you think they look like?
No matter which way you slice it, it is not simply a matter of deciding to change gender, with our current understanding of science that's impossible, but rather conforming to one's gender. For all of this to be the case, it necessarily follows that gender and sex are not the same thing.
Well ok, you might say, they're still biologically male (to use trans women as the example for a moment, since most people seem to have less issue with trans men for some reason) and are unable to reproduce and so it's my right to hold the view that I can deride them and refer to them as "he".
First to the biologically male part, as addressed in the previous section they're no biologically male, there are physical brain differences in the identity of trans people. But you of course mean genetics. There are frankly so many different pseudo scientific points made that it would be almost impossible for me to address them all so instead I'm going to make several points which refute most of them.
Many women who're also born genetically female (cis gendered) are unfortunately unable to reproduce, sometimes as the result of genetics, and other times as the result of organs not forming correctly in a fetus. There are cis women who have testicles inside them, there are some who're born without a vagina, others still who're even born with a penis. Are we to tell these women that they are infact men? There are XX women, XY women, and XXY women, are you going to argue that we should screen everyone for their genetic make up before deciding on their sex (and also deciding that their sex and gender are identical by the power vested in you)?
Along with the above, you have no idea on the genetic make up of trans women. There are studies to suggest that they have, on average, a higher reaction to androgen. This would mean that in the womb, these individuals would be far more likely to take on male sexual appearance, regardless of their genetic history. They could in fact be perfectly healthy boys, and maybe even men too but the fact remains that nature makes mistakes. Further, you also have no idea at the chromosome make up of these women either and even if they were all XY, that would only prove once again that sex and gender are different things.
Finally, even if were to grant your unfounded opinions as fact and that we should call people based on their genitals as babys, then to what end are we insulting people? What reasons are there for seperating people, talking to their genitals rather than to the person as they are? Where does this leave trans people in your society? Should we ban the surgical options? There are already a minimum of 2 years of pyschological reviews before any surgery which picks out many of those who're not in fact transsexuals, do you think 10 years would help?* Is being a specific gender in fact a mental illness? The suicide rate amongst transsexuals is already far higher than in the rest of society, and it is proven that transitioning reduces that risk dramatically.**
I ask again then, what benefit is there in you deciding, in the face of the evidence, that everyone must be as you are - with the gender identity and biological sex being in allignment? It serves no practical, health, safety, or legal benefit and insulting people should hardly be seen as a positive (and when you intentionally call any woman "he" it is insulting).
Transsexuals exist, it sucks, but it's not your place to tell them who they are what they must be. it is not your place to insult them or to decide that all women must be defined as sex objects. Your personal comfort on a matter has no bearing on the actual gender identity of other human beings.
That being said, what I'm about to say will shock many people, she should have been removed from that competition. On signing up she signed a contract saying she was "Naturally born female" and it's clear what the organisers meant by that. At that point the competition should have been challenged, but she signed the contract in bad faith and that was not the right course of action.
This was a really good post, glad you managed to keep cool and address the issues whereas I just tend to get mad.
While its a really good post, its important to note that the easiest way to teach people about gender is to dicuss the fact that Gender is a social construction. Being male and female is different from being masculine and feminine.
Every single person has times where they act more masculine and more feminine its just which of the two you identify with primarily that really defines whether you are a "man" or a "woman" in colloquial speech.
Just think about how you fill out paperwork at a doctors office, it asks for sex as male or female it never asks if you are a man or woman. This is because of the fact that gendered identity is fluid and not strict such as the case of biological sex.
Furthermore, but correct me if I am wrong, even as a transgendered person pre or post op if receiving medical attention you need to denote your birth sex and then further clarify what medications you are on if presenting characteristics of the opposite from birth sex. In part because sex linked diseases and characteristics (typically affecting males because of a short Y chromosome) could be important in diagnosis.
Liking that some people are being open minded in this thread though, its really quite important.
But if it's purely a social construct what need is there for surgery to change your sex? I am just really confused where gender identity ends and sex begins. I don't understand "physicality has nothing to do with it, I will get surgery to change my physical appearance"
it just seems like you are trying to conform to those same gender roles that stop you from being what you are supposedly born as, ie a man in a woman's body or vice versa. If we sought to truly change these apparently restrictive social constructs then no one would need surgery and you can be happy in your body with your mind regardless if one is supposedly not in harmony with the other.
Am I making sense here? If society has decreed that men act masculine and women act feminine, and if one identifies as the other gender, then it's only through societal pressure that they surgically alter their body in very significant ways. It becomes as superficial as any kind of cosmetic surgery does it not?
Would anyone who is trans ever say that the ultimate goal for trans people is for them to be able to live their lives as they were born without fear of society alienating them, as in, as a man in a woman's body? Does anyone preach a philosophy about being what you are, instead of trying to change your body to match your mind based on social constructs? Or are they universally not okay with the idea of living as a woman in a man's body? And doesn't the expectation that everyone else should be okay with the alternative become a bit hypocritical?
it IS basically a cosmetic surgery (aside from the obvious, manhood vs womanhood), point being that a man doesn't want to be called a woman by EVERY stranger he meets every day, just because he happens to be born with breasts. or a woman doesn't wanna be called a man just cause he grows a beard if he doesn't shave like every hour and wears something to imitate breasts. its basically just very, very disrupting to them not to be recognized as the gender they actually have, just because of "bad luck"
On April 03 2012 22:09 Zandar wrote: I had a niece who's now my nephew. She always was very boyish. When she got a gf we just assumed that she was lesbian. But that wasn't the case. She had a male brain, in a female body. Finally she took the operations and now he has the male body he should have been born in. He's so happy now and his gf too. So we are too.
Was there an actual scientific determination of how a male vs female brain operates? Like do they map their brain, and neurologically and/or cognitively conclude that it looks and works more like a males than a females? Or was it just more along the lines of what he/she felt more like?
Yes you can see differences in male and female brains in brainscans etc. Check Iyerbeth's post a few posts before yours for some interesting links about that.
But I do think that how the person him/herself feels about it is more important yes. It's his/her life, not for you or me to decide or judge for.
The way you say "felt more like" makes it sound like an easy decision, be sure it isn't. It took years and years to finally make that step, probably 1 of the toughest decision in a persons life, of course that's not taken lightly. I'm pretty proud of him.
On April 03 2012 19:44 Iyerbeth wrote: I promised myself I wasn't going to post in this thread, but here I am. I'm not going to address anyone particularly, but I'll just go with my unusual optimism of assuming they really mean well but just ultimately don't know what they're talking about. I'm aware that to do so I'd have to ignore the content of many of their posts, but I'm going to do so anyway. I'm sure this discussion will carry on with people seeing the length of my post and deciding that my well reasoned, and cited arguements aren't really worth reading if it'll challenge their preconceptions either way sadly.
Dissapointed to have been correct.
Bigots will always blindly go about their business no matter how well you display evidence against their opinions. As always insightful read, and I am glad the rulin' was reversed so that she can compete. Hopefully they learn their lesson and clearly state certain rules next time. We know what they meant. She was born a female though...she just had some birth defects.
For me it's the brain. That's where your feelings, toughts and memories are. Your body is just a bag of meat water and organs to process food and provide the brain with oxygen and input via senses, with limbs to move the brain around.
To all those people who say that this person isn't a girl. Let's assume you are male, since most here are. If somehow in the future you had an accident but they'd managed to save you by putting your brain in a braindead female body, you'd still be male wouldn't you? You would really want to have a male body again?
ROFL that is the single greatest public note I have ever read. Just broadly insulting the entire userbase, hilarious lol. @CokeFreak, Great news, thanks for sharing!
What separates gay/lesbian people from transgenders? Is there some test that doctors can do to distinguish them, like something that shows up clearly in an MRI? I've seen some feminine gays and masculine lesbians. Is there a threshold that must be reached or is it some arbitrary thing that society decides?
On April 04 2012 00:38 andrewlt wrote: What separates gay/lesbian people from transgenders? Is there some test that doctors can do to distinguish them, like something that shows up clearly in an MRI? I've seen some feminine gays and masculine lesbians. Is there a threshold that must be reached or is it some arbitrary thing that society decides?
That's a fundamental misunderstand between someone's sexual orientation and their gender identity. It is impossible for a woman to be a gay man for instance. Though yes. there are brain differences that can be identified as per the sources I cited earlier in this thread.
On April 04 2012 00:38 andrewlt wrote: What separates gay/lesbian people from transgenders? Is there some test that doctors can do to distinguish them, like something that shows up clearly in an MRI? I've seen some feminine gays and masculine lesbians. Is there a threshold that must be reached or is it some arbitrary thing that society decides?
It's not a behavior thing it's an identity thing. Gay men still identify as men. A transgender woman has a male body but identifies as a woman. Science and medicine have progressed to the point where we can solve that though.
Honestly once you really start to study all of the different ways people can identify themselves it gets very complicated and confusing. I think the best approach is just to say be what makes you happy and as long as you aren't hurting anyone else you're cool.
If she says she's a woman, then she's a woman and the world should treat her as one.
On April 04 2012 00:38 andrewlt wrote: What separates gay/lesbian people from transgenders? Is there some test that doctors can do to distinguish them, like something that shows up clearly in an MRI? I've seen some feminine gays and masculine lesbians. Is there a threshold that must be reached or is it some arbitrary thing that society decides?
There are brain differences in transgendered people (see lyerbeth's post, it been added to the OP). More than that though it is an entirely personal decision. There isn't a societally approved level of femininity when men are suddenly deemed women. The whole reason people have gender reassignment surgery is because people tend not to judge any more than their looks when it comes to assuming the gender of people.
On April 04 2012 00:38 andrewlt wrote: What separates gay/lesbian people from transgenders? Is there some test that doctors can do to distinguish them, like something that shows up clearly in an MRI? I've seen some feminine gays and masculine lesbians. Is there a threshold that must be reached or is it some arbitrary thing that society decides?
That's a fundamental misunderstand between someone's sexual orientation and their gender identity. It is impossible for a woman to be a gay man for instance. Though yes. there are brain differences that can be identified as per the sources I cited earlier in this thread.
Edit: Oh cool I've been added to the OP.
erm, no, its not impossible for a woman to be a gay transman. I gotta know, my bf is a born female, and I'm male as well
edit: the following post of KwarK answers better than mine, look there
On April 04 2012 00:38 andrewlt wrote: What separates gay/lesbian people from transgenders? Is there some test that doctors can do to distinguish them, like something that shows up clearly in an MRI? I've seen some feminine gays and masculine lesbians. Is there a threshold that must be reached or is it some arbitrary thing that society decides?
A gay is a man who wants to fuck other guys. A lesbian is a woman who wants to fuck other women. A transgender man is a man who was born with a male gender identity and a female sexual identity, who he fucks is irrelevant to that. Likewise a transgender woman is a woman who was born with a female gender identity and a male sexual identity.
On April 04 2012 00:38 andrewlt wrote: What separates gay/lesbian people from transgenders? Is there some test that doctors can do to distinguish them, like something that shows up clearly in an MRI? I've seen some feminine gays and masculine lesbians. Is there a threshold that must be reached or is it some arbitrary thing that society decides?
That's a fundamental misunderstand between someone's sexual orientation and their gender identity. It is impossible for a woman to be a gay man for instance. Though yes. there are brain differences that can be identified as per the sources I cited earlier in this thread.
Edit: Oh cool I've been added to the OP.
*snip*
I wasn't meaning to say transmen couldn't be gay, I was meaning a woman couldn't be a gay man. I would argue that anyone who identifies as male was a man and so wouldn't be classified as a woman.
On April 04 2012 00:38 andrewlt wrote: What separates gay/lesbian people from transgenders? Is there some test that doctors can do to distinguish them, like something that shows up clearly in an MRI? I've seen some feminine gays and masculine lesbians. Is there a threshold that must be reached or is it some arbitrary thing that society decides?
That's a fundamental misunderstand between someone's sexual orientation and their gender identity. It is impossible for a woman to be a gay man for instance. Though yes. there are brain differences that can be identified as per the sources I cited earlier in this thread.
Edit: Oh cool I've been added to the OP.
erm, no, its not impossible for a woman to be a gay transman. I gotta know, my boyfriend is a born female, and I'm male as well
I wasn't meaning to say transmen couldn't be gay, I was meaning a woman couldn't be a gay man. I would argue that anyone who identifies as male was a man and so wouldn't be classified as a woman.
ah, okay, my bad. sorry. any mod around to deleat my post there?
On April 04 2012 00:47 dUTtrOACh wrote: So she's allowed to compete? I wonder what happens if/when she goes on to the actual Miss Universe pageant. More bullshit?
I think the whole competition is owned by Trump so I imagine this part is done. She will probably have a hard time now though with respect to judges seeing as they will probably be fairly bigoted.
We need a Kwark for outside TL to banhammer all the idiots in the world.
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.
ahhhhhhahahaha. No one with kids, both boy and girl, would ever agree with that statement. There is no way.
Children are trained from birth to obey gender norms. They're even color-coded so you don't accidentally treat a female baby like a boy or vice-versa.
On April 03 2012 23:52 Vorgrim wrote: A penis is a birth defect?
underwent sexual reassignment surgery at 19.
If you think you are female then it effectively is.
Functional, healthy body parts do not become a defect simply because you prefer something else. If there genuinely is a birth defect in transgender or transsexual people, it is not their fully-functional genitals.
On April 04 2012 00:17 PassiveAce wrote: ROFL that is the single greatest public note I have ever read. Just broadly insulting the entire userbase, hilarious lol. @CokeFreak, Great news, thanks for sharing!
And yet this thread has resulted in 4? bans already. Thank you KwarK for at least attempting to keep these types of posts open.
I dont think she should be allowed to compete under the old rules. I think they stated that you had to be born female (most likely to prevent either transgender or transvestite (Edit: thank you imallison and Klondikebar, complete derpmoment) from competing. I am sure this issue has come up before in some shape.
But I am very glad they changed the rules. There is no legitimate reason for a legally female person to not be allowed to compete in a non-physical setting. In sports there is probably an argument. But honestly I dont care. It doesnt hurt me (apart for some confusion, I will just have to live with that, preconceptions and whatnot) in any way and this is her business.
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.
ahhhhhhahahaha. No one with kids, both boy and girl, would ever agree with that statement. There is no way.
Children are trained from birth to obey gender norms. They're even color-coded so you don't accidentally treat a female baby like a boy or vice-versa.
On April 03 2012 23:52 Vorgrim wrote: A penis is a birth defect?
underwent sexual reassignment surgery at 19.
If you think you are female then it effectively is.
Functional, healthy body parts do not become a defect simply because you prefer something else. If there genuinely is a birth defect in transgender or transsexual people, it is not their fully-functional genitals.
I think you're missing the part where this is more than preference.
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.
"She" will never be a her. Rather, an it. Being unhappy with your gender to the point of undergoing surgery to change your sex is disgraceful.
On April 04 2012 00:38 andrewlt wrote: What separates gay/lesbian people from transgenders? Is there some test that doctors can do to distinguish them, like something that shows up clearly in an MRI? I've seen some feminine gays and masculine lesbians. Is there a threshold that must be reached or is it some arbitrary thing that society decides?
That's a fundamental misunderstand between someone's sexual orientation and their gender identity. It is impossible for a woman to be a gay man for instance. Though yes. there are brain differences that can be identified as per the sources I cited earlier in this thread.
Edit: Oh cool I've been added to the OP.
*snip*
I wasn't meaning to say transmen couldn't be gay, I was meaning a woman couldn't be a gay man. I would argue that anyone who identifies as male was a man and so wouldn't be classified as a woman.
ah, okay, my bad. sorry. any mod around to deleat my post there?
No you were right, I should have worded that better in the post you replied to. I said what I had meant to, but I could have said it better. At your request for a mod to delete your post I'll edit it out of my posts in case you want to edit you post out.
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.
"She" will never be a her. Rather, an it. Being unhappy with your gender to the point of undergoing surgery to change your sex is disgraceful.
It as in an object? Being unhappy is a disgrace? I assume you want to tempt me to write something aggressive. I am very close to doing that. I will instead make use of my recently earned "Report" button.
On April 04 2012 00:38 andrewlt wrote: What separates gay/lesbian people from transgenders? Is there some test that doctors can do to distinguish them, like something that shows up clearly in an MRI? I've seen some feminine gays and masculine lesbians. Is there a threshold that must be reached or is it some arbitrary thing that society decides?
That's a fundamental misunderstand between someone's sexual orientation and their gender identity. It is impossible for a woman to be a gay man for instance. Though yes. there are brain differences that can be identified as per the sources I cited earlier in this thread.
Edit: Oh cool I've been added to the OP.
*snip*
I wasn't meaning to say transmen couldn't be gay, I was meaning a woman couldn't be a gay man. I would argue that anyone who identifies as male was a man and so wouldn't be classified as a woman.
ah, okay, my bad. sorry. any mod around to deleat my post there?
No you were right, I should have worder that better in the post you replied to. I said what I had meant to, but I could have said it better. At your request for a mod to delete your post I'll edit it out of my posts in case you want to edit you post out.
nah, don't worry, I just didn't wanna flood the conversation with content-empty posts is all, not like there aren't enough of those already.... XD
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.
"She" will never be a her. Rather, an it. Being unhappy with your gender to the point of undergoing surgery to change your sex is disgraceful.
It as in an object? Being unhappy is a disgrace? I assume you want to tempt me to write something aggressive. I am very close to doing that. I will instead make use of my recently earned "Report" button.
thanks alot! that post hurt my brain :/ edit2: damn, that was fast XD eventually have to say it anyways: <3 to the mods of TL!
On April 04 2012 00:48 Vorgrim wrote: If I say I'm a tiger, then I'm a tiger and the world should treat me as one. Don't poach me, bro.
I know I shouldn't but I've seen this in a few other places.
Gender identity is a societal construction that is in people's brains. Different species of animals are not. Don't compare the two, it's idiotic.
what he means is therian ( I think thats the correct term), but thats a religion (or something like that), no personality/bodily disorder
It's basically mythology. I've seen a fair few "I feel like a dog so I'm going to enter a dog breeding pageant" type posts on various articles on this (usually from the same people who are claiming a mass delusion by all trans people) so I figured it was more of that. Either way it's stupid.
On April 04 2012 00:38 andrewlt wrote: What separates gay/lesbian people from transgenders? Is there some test that doctors can do to distinguish them, like something that shows up clearly in an MRI? I've seen some feminine gays and masculine lesbians. Is there a threshold that must be reached or is it some arbitrary thing that society decides?
That's a fundamental misunderstand between someone's sexual orientation and their gender identity. It is impossible for a woman to be a gay man for instance. Though yes. there are brain differences that can be identified as per the sources I cited earlier in this thread.
Edit: Oh cool I've been added to the OP.
Thank you for writing that, it was very insightful.
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.
You're the one missing the point, they shouldn't have to change gender to be themselves.
On April 04 2012 00:48 Vorgrim wrote: If I say I'm a tiger, then I'm a tiger and the world should treat me as one. Don't poach me, bro.
I know I shouldn't but I've seen this in a few other places.
Gender identity is a societal construction that is in people's brains. Different species of animals are not. Don't compare the two, it's idiotic.
what he means is therian ( I think thats the correct term), but thats a religion (or something like that), no personality/bodily disorder
It's basically mythology. I've seen a fair few "I feel like a dog so I'm going to enter a dog breeding pageant" type posts on various articles on this (usually from the same people who are claiming a mass delusion by all trans people) so I figured it was more of that. Either way it's stupid.
It's exactly the same thing. Or it would be, if science and medicine was researched enough to make you look like said tiger.
On April 03 2012 18:12 qrs wrote: [quote]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.
You're the one missing the point, they shouldn't have to change gender to be themselves.
I'm sorry, if you identify as a woman but nature (for whatever reason) gave you a male body, how exactly could you be yourself without changing?
On April 04 2012 00:48 Vorgrim wrote: If I say I'm a tiger, then I'm a tiger and the world should treat me as one. Don't poach me, bro.
I know I shouldn't but I've seen this in a few other places.
Gender identity is a societal construction that is in people's brains. Different species of animals are not. Don't compare the two, it's idiotic.
If gender is a societal construction and therefore should be fluid, why do you insist we describe people by gender? Sex is not a societal construction, any more than species, and is not restricted to people's brains. Sex is what the vast majority of people refer to when they describe a person as 'male' or 'female.'
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.
ahhhhhhahahaha. No one with kids, both boy and girl, would ever agree with that statement. There is no way.
Children are trained from birth to obey gender norms. They're even color-coded so you don't accidentally treat a female baby like a boy or vice-versa.
On April 03 2012 23:53 imallinson wrote:
On April 03 2012 23:52 Vorgrim wrote: A penis is a birth defect?
underwent sexual reassignment surgery at 19.
If you think you are female then it effectively is.
Functional, healthy body parts do not become a defect simply because you prefer something else. If there genuinely is a birth defect in transgender or transsexual people, it is not their fully-functional genitals.
I think you're missing the part where this is more than preference.
Clearly, people whose brain clashes with other parts of their body have a problem, but if the entire body is healthy and functional except for the brain, then the problem can't the body. The problem must lie either with the brain itself, or with the connections between the brain and the parts it doesn't mesh with.
On April 03 2012 18:12 qrs wrote: [quote]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.
You're the one missing the point, they shouldn't have to change gender to be themselves.
Nope, still missing the point. A transgender woman is born with a female gender identity and a male sexual identity. At no point does she change her gender, she corrects her sexual identity. It's misconceptions about the meaning of these terms that cause so many problems regarding these issues.
On April 03 2012 18:12 qrs wrote: [quote]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.
You're the one missing the point, they shouldn't have to change gender to be themselves.
On April 04 2012 00:48 Vorgrim wrote: If I say I'm a tiger, then I'm a tiger and the world should treat me as one. Don't poach me, bro.
I know I shouldn't but I've seen this in a few other places.
Gender identity is a societal construction that is in people's brains. Different species of animals are not. Don't compare the two, it's idiotic.
what he means is therian ( I think thats the correct term), but thats a religion (or something like that), no personality/bodily disorder
It's basically mythology. I've seen a fair few "I feel like a dog so I'm going to enter a dog breeding pageant" type posts on various articles on this (usually from the same people who are claiming a mass delusion by all trans people) so I figured it was more of that. Either way it's stupid.
It's exactly the same thing. Or it would be, if science and medicine was researched enough to make you look like said tiger.
in german, the transition-operations were called translated "sex-change". now, the correct term is "sex-adaption", or something like that. the sex isn't CHANGED, its just adjusted to the gender. to make the body fit the mind.
On April 04 2012 00:48 Vorgrim wrote: If I say I'm a tiger, then I'm a tiger and the world should treat me as one. Don't poach me, bro.
I know I shouldn't but I've seen this in a few other places.
Gender identity is a societal construction that is in people's brains. Different species of animals are not. Don't compare the two, it's idiotic.
what he means is therian ( I think thats the correct term), but thats a religion (or something like that), no personality/bodily disorder
It's basically mythology. I've seen a fair few "I feel like a dog so I'm going to enter a dog breeding pageant" type posts on various articles on this (usually from the same people who are claiming a mass delusion by all trans people) so I figured it was more of that. Either way it's stupid.
It's exactly the same thing. Or it would be, if science and medicine was researched enough to make you look like said tiger.
No it isn't. Species is a genetic thing and as has been said in this thread many times over gender is not.
On April 04 2012 00:48 Vorgrim wrote: If I say I'm a tiger, then I'm a tiger and the world should treat me as one. Don't poach me, bro.
This comparison is highly offensive and stupid. If she woke up one day and randomly decided to call herself a woman just to mess with the world, then okay, but to question her gender identity as if it's just a fancy of hers shows you have no understanding of the matter.
Are you trans or close with someone who is, Kwark? You seem to take things awfully personally.
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 know I was born a horse and I demand genitalia to match.
On April 04 2012 00:48 Vorgrim wrote: If I say I'm a tiger, then I'm a tiger and the world should treat me as one. Don't poach me, bro.
I know I shouldn't but I've seen this in a few other places.
Gender identity is a societal construction that is in people's brains. Different species of animals are not. Don't compare the two, it's idiotic.
If gender is a societal construction and therefore should be fluid, why do you insist we describe people by gender? Sex is not a societal construction, any more than species, and is not restricted to people's brains. Sex is what the vast majority of people refer to when they describe a person as 'male' or 'female.'
I'm not insisting that we do describe people by gender, in fact I'd love it if we didn't but that doesn't change that society does put a lot of stock in someone's gender. Again sex and gender are different things. Sex isn't a societal construction gender is. People using sex as the same thing as gender is what causes problems like this.
this is one of the instances where i don't care either way. you can say the rules are rules and tough luck for said girl/guy. but pageants are pretty stupid to begin with, and i support anything that shows that, its a beauty contest, and a beautiful person isn't aloud to compete. either way. i'd definitely have sex with said guy/girl however way said guy/girl is capable. she/hes smokin, we'd make it work
On April 04 2012 00:48 Vorgrim wrote: If I say I'm a tiger, then I'm a tiger and the world should treat me as one. Don't poach me, bro.
This comparison is highly offensive and stupid. If she woke up one day and randomly decided to call herself a woman just to mess with the world, then okay, but to question her gender identity as if it's just a fancy of hers shows you have no understanding of the matter.
This.. I'm guessing he was just doing a bad attempt at trolling or he might actually be quite stupid / hasn't really gotten into the discussion or read any of the more serious posts (if you haven't read the topic why post?).
this is one of the instances where i don't care either way. you can say the rules are rules and tough luck for said girl/guy. but pageants are pretty stupid to begin with, and i support anything that shows that, its a beauty contest, and a beautiful person isn't aloud to compete. either way. i'd definitely have sex with said guy/girl however way said guy/girl is capable. she/hes smokin, we'd make it work
I'm sorry but this isn't bringing the discussion further, saying that a beauty contest is stupid and that you'd do anything which proves said statement doesn't really belong in this topic I'm afraid. It doesn't really matter if you'd have sex with the person or "make it work", that's not what this is about.
On April 04 2012 01:23 Hinanawi wrote: Are you trans or close with someone who is, Kwark?
Nope, but the ignorance in these topics has been massively offensive in the past and I'd like tl to be somewhere where people feel comfortable discussing these issues.
On April 04 2012 00:38 andrewlt wrote: What separates gay/lesbian people from transgenders? Is there some test that doctors can do to distinguish them, like something that shows up clearly in an MRI? I've seen some feminine gays and masculine lesbians. Is there a threshold that must be reached or is it some arbitrary thing that society decides?
It's not a behavior thing it's an identity thing. Gay men still identify as men. A transgender woman has a male body but identifies as a woman. Science and medicine have progressed to the point where we can solve that though.
Honestly once you really start to study all of the different ways people can identify themselves it gets very complicated and confusing. I think the best approach is just to say be what makes you happy and as long as you aren't hurting anyone else you're cool.
If she says she's a woman, then she's a woman and the world should treat her as one.
A few people replied but I think I understood yours the best. I'm not very good at reading technical medical journals.
I was wondering if there's a medical way of differentiating between a, for example, gay man who acts feminine and has feminine interests versus a true FTM transgender (that's the female gender inside male body, right?). Apparently, brain scans do show the differences in one part of the brain.
That's a fundamental misunderstand between someone's sexual orientation and their gender identity. It is impossible for a woman to be a gay man for instance. Though yes. there are brain differences that can be identified as per the sources I cited earlier in this thread.
Is it possible for a person to be born as a man and genuinely possess the gender identity of a lesbian women? Seems like quite the deliemna to me xD
That's a fundamental misunderstand between someone's sexual orientation and their gender identity. It is impossible for a woman to be a gay man for instance. Though yes. there are brain differences that can be identified as per the sources I cited earlier in this thread.
Is it possible for a person to be born as a man and genuinely possess the gender identity of a lesbian women? Seems like quite the deliemna to me xD
Yes, definitely. Gender identity and sexuality are two independent things.
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.
On April 04 2012 00:38 andrewlt wrote: What separates gay/lesbian people from transgenders? Is there some test that doctors can do to distinguish them, like something that shows up clearly in an MRI? I've seen some feminine gays and masculine lesbians. Is there a threshold that must be reached or is it some arbitrary thing that society decides?
It's not a behavior thing it's an identity thing. Gay men still identify as men. A transgender woman has a male body but identifies as a woman. Science and medicine have progressed to the point where we can solve that though.
Honestly once you really start to study all of the different ways people can identify themselves it gets very complicated and confusing. I think the best approach is just to say be what makes you happy and as long as you aren't hurting anyone else you're cool.
If she says she's a woman, then she's a woman and the world should treat her as one.
A few people replied but I think I understood yours the best. I'm not very good at reading technical medical journals.
I was wondering if there's a medical way of differentiating between a, for example, gay man who acts feminine and has feminine interests versus an FTM transgender (that's the female gender inside male body, right?). Apparently, brain scans do show the differences in one part of the brain.
I'm not sure, but I don't think there's a medical way.... only psychological, I think. mostly its if the person wants to be a woman or not. some gays even find woman disgusting, so why be one yourself? (not all, of course!) also, its mtf. male-to-female (hinting at the body alteration). ftm is the other way round, female body with male gender.
That's a fundamental misunderstand between someone's sexual orientation and their gender identity. It is impossible for a woman to be a gay man for instance. Though yes. there are brain differences that can be identified as per the sources I cited earlier in this thread.
Is it possible for a person to be born as a man and genuinely possess the gender identity of a lesbian women? Seems like quite the deliemna to me xD
yes, it is possible, and yes, its alot of a dilemma. its even worse the other way round (ftm+gay). it all wouldn't be if society and people would be more open minded, and people would speak more open about such things without feeling akward :/
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.
for that, I answered before, there ARE both xy-women and xx-men (naturally born, that is). therefor, those rules don't apply. I'm leaning more towards the direktion that there's no black/white (aka male female) but only gray area. not too sure though, alot of things to be thought about there, still at the beginning of that hypothesis.
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.
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!
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.
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 01:34 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.
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 01:23 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!
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.
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 01:34 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 01:34 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.
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.
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 02:13 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.
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 02:13 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.
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.
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 02:13 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.
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".
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.
On April 04 2012 03:02 Deadeight wrote: Doesn't matter 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? Unless it's a contest where any cosmetic surgery is banned, which I could understand.
It does matter. It was stated in the rules of the competition that you must be born a female (sex, not gender) to compete, which she was not. Therefore she is ineligible.
On April 04 2012 03:02 Deadeight wrote: Unless it's a contest where any cosmetic surgery is banned, which I could understand, I think it's the wrong decision.
cosmetic surgery isn't banned in these competitions?
On April 04 2012 02:59 KwarK wrote: 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".
I don't have any interest in whining to admins about moderation policies, it's a private site and you can do what you want. Nor do I refer to Jenna as a 'he'. It's been my position from the beginning that Jenna should be able to compete because being born biologically male isn't an advantage (hell, it's a big disadvantage, so props).
I'm just agreeing with someone else who says this thread is now worthless for anything on-topic. Here's your note at the top:
- 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.
Clearly though, this is not up for debate. I feel like that should be specified so people don't walk into bans for expressing their opinion. Maybe add a line:
- This thread is not for discussion of whether transsexual women are 'real women' or not
On April 04 2012 03:02 Deadeight wrote: Unless it's a contest where any cosmetic surgery is banned, which I could understand, I think it's the wrong decision.
cosmetic surgery isn't banned in these competitions?
Gender is a social construct. Anyone can identify with any gender, and they can change their bodies to better fit into that perception of gender. Sex, on the other hand, is a biological fact. Sometimes, however, it's not as simple as a male-female dichotomy. Anne Fausto-Sterling suggested in 1993 with a cogent argument that we should consider there to be at least five biological sexes. Each case can be very unique and sometimes hard to classify. For example, people probably know about the sex chromosomal disorders, such as XXY or XXX syndrome, which affect sexual features and development; however, most people are unfamiliar with other disorders that affect downstream genetic programs influencing sexual development, without actually manifesting as obvious sex chromosomal anomalies. So you could have a female develop with aberrant level of androgen activity due to inhibited production of other hormones, which might result in a more male-like female; one that is certainly more physically akin to the pure male sex than the pure female sex. In certain cases, such as the olympics, it seems justifiable to bar participants crossing these lines. The problem is, though, that it seems discriminatory, or that it's morally wrong. Does it violate human integrity? Maybe. But on the other hand, assuming you have a "she" gender of the type that is actually a more male-like sex (but without the obvious chromosomal disorder), whereby she has aberrant androgen expression, endowing her with extra strength not possible with less androgenic hormones on development, then you have a competitor who has a clear advantage over everyone else. Do you make the others with normal female-sex development compete against her, thereby violating the level of competition among them, and perhaps the integrity of the sport? Or do you deny the individual access to the sport, based on natural causes out of their control, thereby violating the integrity of the human? I'm inclined to go with the former.
On April 04 2012 03:02 Deadeight wrote: Unless it's a contest where any cosmetic surgery is banned, which I could understand, I think it's the wrong decision.
cosmetic surgery isn't banned in these competitions?
Uh huh. You now understand the ridiculousness of pageants.
On April 04 2012 03:24 FallDownMarigold wrote: Gender is a social construct. Anyone can identify with any gender, and they can change their bodies to better fit into that perception of gender. Sex, on the other hand, is a biological fact. Sometimes, however, it's not as simple as a male-female dichotomy. Anne Fausto-Sterling suggested in 1993 with a cogent argument that we should consider there to be at least five biological sexes. Each case can be very unique and sometimes hard to classify. For example, people probably know about the sex chromosomal disorders, such as XXY or XXX syndrome, which affect sexual features and development; however, most people are unfamiliar with other disorders that affect downstream genetic programs influencing sexual development, without actually manifesting as obvious sex chromosomal anomalies. So you could have a female develop with aberrant level of androgen activity due to inhibited production of other hormones, which might result in a more male-like female; one that is certainly more physically akin to the pure male sex than the pure female sex. In certain cases, such as the olympics, it seems justifiable to bar participants crossing these lines. The problem is, though, that it seems discriminatory, or that it's morally wrong. Does it violate human integrity? Maybe. But on the other hand, assuming you have a "she" gender of the type that is actually a more male-like sex (but without the obvious chromosomal disorder), whereby she has aberrant androgen expression, endowing her with extra strength not possible with less androgenic hormones on development, then you have a competitor who has a clear advantage over everyone else. Do you make the others with normal female-sex development compete against her, thereby violating the level of competition among them, and perhaps the integrity of the sport? Or do you deny the individual access to the sport, based on natural causes out of their control, thereby violating the integrity of the human? I'm inclined to go with the former.
I think they made the wrong choice
I don't actually understand most of what you just said but I agree with your final opinion.
I remember watching a documentary piece on how early some kids begin to associate with the opposite sex, there were children who just didn't identify with their own gender at a young age and from a birds eye view the moment their household accepted the fact of who they were it really became quite difficult to find some inherent trait that made a kid one thing when everything about them belied another(especially prepubescent kids who pretty much just are generally kids with the exception of whatever behaviours they learn and their genitalia which you never really see anyways ), and while the process of crossing genders was pretty damn tedious(something like a 10 year or longer process for a kid I think) one could argue that they had swapped their role long before they had the new equipment installed because they acted and were treated as what they understood themselves to be, female male gay bi whatever, and we are the product of our behaviour and appearance(which in many cases was easily altered in the case of males or females to suit the opposite gender even when they retained their privates(I remember hearing that a considerable amount of transgendered individuals don't actually bother removing their intimates, not sure where from though) :.)
That said there are cases where parents tried to raise their children as daughters or sons(when they weren't born as such), in which case regardless of body configurations the children have been know to outright rebel against the persona thats being forced upon them. I guess a lot of this boils down to the perfect cocktail of nature and nurture.
On a side note I think it's kind of funny how society makes a consistent effort to sort of break down the boundaries between what men and woman are and what they can accomplish and tries to make them out to be equally capable of anything, but is generally dead set on making sure that men stay men and woman stay woman. Yet as long as were so eager to preserve the idea of a man and a woman I also fear we preserve the negative and positive stereotypes and associations that tag along with these two iron clad understandings of gender. And by doing so we prevent ourselves from appreciating qualities in one gender because were so used to seeing them in the other, which is sort of exactly what happened here ) : maybe they just booted the fellow because rules were rules, but they did send out an unfortunate message.
I remember hearing a funny quote once, something along the lines of "tolerance is empty, tolerance is one bad day and conspiracy theory away from becoming hatred"
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.
ahhhhhhahahaha. No one with kids, both boy and girl, would ever agree with that statement. There is no way.
Children are trained from birth to obey gender norms. They're even color-coded so you don't accidentally treat a female baby like a boy or vice-versa.
Though the poster does not make absolutely clear whether or not he thinks gender is purely a product of nurture, I feel that this misconception is common enough to adress it, and relevant enough to the topic.
The evidence that gender identity has a factor of biological predisposition, is simply overwhelming. Just an example: Studies of italian hermaphrodites who were raised as though they belonged to the 'incorrect' gender show that almost all of these children naturally gravitated to activities normally associated with the other gender, and when they got older most of them would spontaneously declare that they were, or wanted to be, the other gender.
Similarly, experiments with blurring the gender roles in children by encouraging to partake in both typically male and female activities have largely failed, because children naturally prefer to play with members of what they percieve to be the same gender.
Gender roles are very persistent. Not only do children typically have a desire to assume the gender roles of only one gender, they seem to know which one is right for them. Even if they were were raised as the other. In fact there seems to be little to no correlation between upbringing and gender identity.
The idea that gender is a pure social construct was unfortunately quite popular not very long ago, even though there was alot of evidence to the contrary. This is thanks to extreme feminist, lef-wing and right-wing activist groups ignoring all evidence and common sense by putting alot of pressure on people who did not share their opinion.
Ofcourse, society does have an influence on what the gender roles are exactly. There is no reason men should wear certain clothes but not women. But certain patterns will always exist. Men will prefer to play and work with things, while women prefer to play and work with people. Men will prefer physical activities, while women prefer social activities. Additionally, The list of gender roles that are culturally universal is quite large. Gender is evolutionary baggage that can't be erradicated no matter how hard you try.
For coverage of the nature versus nurture debate I would recommend Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature. It covers the topic of Human Nature and biological predisposition very intelligently and comprehensively, and has chapters on gender, I greatly value having read it. One of the best non-fiction works I've ever read.
On April 04 2012 04:05 Barrin wrote: If anyone cares, I want to apologize if my words in the last thread offended anyone. Perhaps I can express myself more clearly and respectfully this time (I did want to express myself before but now I just want to clear it up).
If a person truly finds it within themselves to associate their self with the gender of 'female', this is fine by me (and vice versa of course, my longest standing friend is essentially of this sort btw). That is what she is, and everyone should call her a girl/woman. She should be able to do everything a woman does, like use women's locker rooms and bathrooms and be in female divisions of sports and be in beauty pageants, etc, etc.
But if someone were to go out of their way to ask me (a mere one person) if I think there should be a vague footnote of sorts written somewhere for a beauty pageant that a certain winning contestant was in fact not born with a vagina and accompanying organs, my answer would be yes. If a girl wants to have a sexual or yes even romantic relationship with me, she'd better let me know beforehand if she wasn't naturally born with a vagina/etc; and yes this is entirely relevant to my vote on the vague footnote so don't give me that.
If that makes me a bigot etc then I am truly sorry, because I actually try very hard not to be otherwise (and at risk of being arrogant am fairly successful at ^^). Again, I have no problem at all being friends with transgendered people, they're generally uniquely interesting from my experience.
I am actually legitimately curious and I do not mean to be confrontational at all. Why does it matter if she was born with the vagina or not?
I mean, if you were in a relationship with someone and you cared deeply for them and everything you understood about them was "woman" is the fact that their vagina came from a surgeon really a deal breaker?
Her name is Jenna Talackova ...................genital lack of a..... OH SNAP it's hiding in plain sight!!
As long as she's nor breaking any rules of the competition, i don't really care if she's in or not. BTW, she's not exactly back in yet. She needs to provide "the legal gender recognition requirements of Canada, and the standards established by other international competitions.”
On April 04 2012 04:18 Squarewalker wrote: To those who think that gender is socially constructed; me and many others would transition even if we lived alone on an island, because it's not just focused on how others perceive us, but it's also very important to us not to be dysphoric about our bodies.
Imagine being trans this way: you wake up the next day as the opposite sex and stay that way for the entire rest of your life and people would see that as normal, and if you try to do anything to change back: you might lose your family, your friends, your job, your love life will be really tough, and you're put out to violence, discrimination and most people don't see you as and hate you for who you identify yourself as.
Also while it's good news that they let her back into the competition, in her place I wouldn't go back to there after that.
This is good perspective but gender is defined by plenty of authors and experts in sexology as being a social construct. If you truly lived alone on an island, having never been influenced by social whims entailed by living with other humans, you'd have no reason to think anything about your body as being male, female, or otherwise.
tl;dr maybe I'm reading you incorrectly, but this is not a sound argument against gender being a social construct.
On April 04 2012 04:18 Squarewalker wrote: To those who think that gender is socially constructed; me and many others would transition even if we lived alone on an island, because it's not just focused on how others perceive us, but it's also very important to us not to be dysphoric about our bodies.
Imagine being trans this way: you wake up the next day as the opposite sex and stay that way for the entire rest of your life and people would see that as normal, and if you try to do anything to change back: you might lose your family, your friends, your job, your love life will be really tough, and you're put out to violence, discrimination and most people don't see you as and hate you for who you identify yourself as.
Also while it's good news that they let her back into the competition, in her place I wouldn't go back to there after that.
This is good perspective but gender is defined by plenty of authors and experts in sexology as being a social construct. If you truly lived alone on an island, having never been influenced by social whims entailed by living with other humans, you'd have no reason to think anything about your body as being male, female, or otherwise.
tl;dr maybe I'm reading you incorrectly, but this is not a sound argument against gender being a social construct.
Nowadays hardly anyone respectable would argue that gender is a social construct.
On April 04 2012 04:18 Squarewalker wrote: To those who think that gender is socially constructed; me and many others would transition even if we lived alone on an island, because it's not just focused on how others perceive us, but it's also very important to us not to be dysphoric about our bodies.
Imagine being trans this way: you wake up the next day as the opposite sex and stay that way for the entire rest of your life and people would see that as normal, and if you try to do anything to change back: you might lose your family, your friends, your job, your love life will be really tough, and you're put out to violence, discrimination and most people don't see you as and hate you for who you identify yourself as.
Also while it's good news that they let her back into the competition, in her place I wouldn't go back to there after that.
This is good perspective but gender is defined by plenty of authors and experts in sexology as being a social construct. If you truly lived alone on an island, having never been influenced by social whims entailed by living with other humans, you'd have no reason to think anything about your body as being male, female, or otherwise.
I'm really not sure either way. I can certainly understand the feeling that your body doesn't fit who you think you are (there are people who have this not related to gender). But trying to separate the social influence from the overall decision is basically impossible. Sure if a trans person was shipped to a island to live on their own they would feel like wanting to change but they have obviously been shaped a fair bit by the society they belonged to before. I'm not sure it's actually possible to say how much of it is internal and how much is social because the two end up being the same thing.
On April 04 2012 04:18 Squarewalker wrote: To those who think that gender is socially constructed; me and many others would transition even if we lived alone on an island, because it's not just focused on how others perceive us, but it's also very important to us not to be dysphoric about our bodies.
Imagine being trans this way: you wake up the next day as the opposite sex and stay that way for the entire rest of your life and people would see that as normal, and if you try to do anything to change back: you might lose your family, your friends, your job, your love life will be really tough, and you're put out to violence, discrimination and most people don't see you as and hate you for who you identify yourself as.
Also while it's good news that they let her back into the competition, in her place I wouldn't go back to there after that.
This is good perspective but gender is defined by plenty of authors and experts in sexology as being a social construct. If you truly lived alone on an island, having never been influenced by social whims entailed by living with other humans, you'd have no reason to think anything about your body as being male, female, or otherwise.
tl;dr maybe I'm reading you incorrectly, but this is not a sound argument against gender being a social construct.
Nowadays hardly anyone respectable would argue that gender is a social construct.
Nor would anyone respectable argue that it is a simple biological fact. Therefore, it has to stem from our own perceptions and interactions. Nitpick about using the term "social construct" if you want (I admit I'm appropriating the term to describe the subjectivity of gender), but at least agree that it's not a simple objective, biological fact. Gender is disparate from sex.
On April 04 2012 04:18 Squarewalker wrote: To those who think that gender is socially constructed; me and many others would transition even if we lived alone on an island, because it's not just focused on how others perceive us, but it's also very important to us not to be dysphoric about our bodies.
Imagine being trans this way: you wake up the next day as the opposite sex and stay that way for the entire rest of your life and people would see that as normal, and if you try to do anything to change back: you might lose your family, your friends, your job, your love life will be really tough, and you're put out to violence, discrimination and most people don't see you as and hate you for who you identify yourself as.
Also while it's good news that they let her back into the competition, in her place I wouldn't go back to there after that.
This is good perspective but gender is defined by plenty of authors and experts in sexology as being a social construct. If you truly lived alone on an island, having never been influenced by social whims entailed by living with other humans, you'd have no reason to think anything about your body as being male, female, or otherwise.
tl;dr maybe I'm reading you incorrectly, but this is not a sound argument against gender being a social construct.
Nowadays hardly anyone respectable would argue that gender is a social construct.
Nor would anyone respectable argue that it is a simple biological fact. Therefore, it has to stem from our own perceptions and interactions. Nitpick about using the term "social construct", but that's what it is. It's not a biological fact. Gender is disparate from sex.
Actually the existence of gender roles are very much so a biological fact. It is an inescapable product of our biology as I have argued above.
On April 04 2012 04:18 Squarewalker wrote: To those who think that gender is socially constructed; me and many others would transition even if we lived alone on an island, because it's not just focused on how others perceive us, but it's also very important to us not to be dysphoric about our bodies.
Imagine being trans this way: you wake up the next day as the opposite sex and stay that way for the entire rest of your life and people would see that as normal, and if you try to do anything to change back: you might lose your family, your friends, your job, your love life will be really tough, and you're put out to violence, discrimination and most people don't see you as and hate you for who you identify yourself as.
Also while it's good news that they let her back into the competition, in her place I wouldn't go back to there after that.
This is good perspective but gender is defined by plenty of authors and experts in sexology as being a social construct. If you truly lived alone on an island, having never been influenced by social whims entailed by living with other humans, you'd have no reason to think anything about your body as being male, female, or otherwise.
tl;dr maybe I'm reading you incorrectly, but this is not a sound argument against gender being a social construct.
Nowadays hardly anyone respectable would argue that gender is a social construct.
Nor would anyone respectable argue that it is a simple biological fact. Therefore, it has to stem from our own perceptions and interactions. Nitpick about using the term "social construct", but that's what it is. It's not a biological fact. Gender is disparate from sex.
Actually the existence of gender roles are very much so a biological fact. It is an inescapable product of our biology as I have argued above.
Those are sex roles, not gender roles. Gender is obviously influenced by sex and the biological facts it entails, but it is clearly not merely a biological concept. It's also influenced by social interaction.
Perhaps you are not cognizant of the gender vs. sex distinction? Sex relates to the biological features, drives, etc, to which you refer above, but gender is not perfectly interchangeable with sex as a term.
On April 04 2012 04:05 Barrin wrote: If anyone cares, I want to apologize if my words in the last thread offended anyone. Perhaps I can express myself more clearly and respectfully this time (I did want to express myself before but now I just want to clear it up).
If a person truly finds it within themselves to associate their self with the gender of 'female', this is fine by me (and vice versa of course, my longest standing friend is essentially of this sort btw). That is what she is, and everyone should call her a girl/woman. She should be able to do everything a woman does, like use women's locker rooms and bathrooms and be in female divisions of sports and be in beauty pageants, etc, etc.
But if someone were to go out of their way to ask me (a mere one person) if I think there should be a vague footnote of sorts written somewhere for a beauty pageant that a certain winning contestant was in fact not born with a vagina and accompanying organs, my answer would be yes. If a girl wants to have a sexual or yes even romantic relationship with me, she'd better let me know beforehand if she wasn't naturally born with a vagina/etc; and yes this is entirely relevant to my vote on the vague footnote so don't give me that.
If that makes me a bigot etc then I am truly sorry, because I actually try very hard not to be otherwise (and at risk of being arrogant am fairly successful at ^^). Again, I have no problem at all being friends with transgendered people, they're generally uniquely interesting from my experience.
I am actually legitimately curious and I do not mean to be confrontational at all. Why does it matter if she was born with the vagina or not?
I mean, if you were in a relationship with someone and you cared deeply for them and everything you understood about them was "woman" is the fact that their vagina came from a surgeon really a deal breaker?
It would be sort of like if you were eating some cookies, and they taste pretty good, but then someone tells you that there's an ingredient you really hate in them. For me, that would be coconut. Now you can't stop noticing the slight hint of coconut whenever you taste it, and every time you bite into one you're thinking about coconut.
On April 04 2012 04:18 Squarewalker wrote: To those who think that gender is socially constructed; me and many others would transition even if we lived alone on an island, because it's not just focused on how others perceive us, but it's also very important to us not to be dysphoric about our bodies.
Imagine being trans this way: you wake up the next day as the opposite sex and stay that way for the entire rest of your life and people would see that as normal, and if you try to do anything to change back: you might lose your family, your friends, your job, your love life will be really tough, and you're put out to violence, discrimination and most people don't see you as and hate you for who you identify yourself as.
Also while it's good news that they let her back into the competition, in her place I wouldn't go back to there after that.
This is good perspective but gender is defined by plenty of authors and experts in sexology as being a social construct. If you truly lived alone on an island, having never been influenced by social whims entailed by living with other humans, you'd have no reason to think anything about your body as being male, female, or otherwise.
tl;dr maybe I'm reading you incorrectly, but this is not a sound argument against gender being a social construct.
Nowadays hardly anyone respectable would argue that gender is a social construct.
Nor would anyone respectable argue that it is a simple biological fact. Therefore, it has to stem from our own perceptions and interactions. Nitpick about using the term "social construct", but that's what it is. It's not a biological fact. Gender is disparate from sex.
Actually the existence of gender roles are very much so a biological fact. It is an inescapable product of our biology as I have argued above.
Those are sex roles, not gender roles. Gender is obviously influenced by sex and the biological facts it entails, but it is clearly not merely a biological concept. It's also influenced by social interaction.
Sex roles isn't even a real thing dude. I was most definitely speaking about gender roles. But yes there is ofcourse interaction between environmental inputs and the exact gender roles.
On April 04 2012 04:05 Barrin wrote: If anyone cares, I want to apologize if my words in the last thread offended anyone. Perhaps I can express myself more clearly and respectfully this time (I did want to express myself before but now I just want to clear it up).
If a person truly finds it within themselves to associate their self with the gender of 'female', this is fine by me (and vice versa of course, my longest standing friend is essentially of this sort btw). That is what she is, and everyone should call her a girl/woman. She should be able to do everything a woman does, like use women's locker rooms and bathrooms and be in female divisions of sports and be in beauty pageants, etc, etc.
But if someone were to go out of their way to ask me (a mere one person) if I think there should be a vague footnote of sorts written somewhere for a beauty pageant that a certain winning contestant was in fact not born with a vagina and accompanying organs, my answer would be yes. If a girl wants to have a sexual or yes even romantic relationship with me, she'd better let me know beforehand if she wasn't naturally born with a vagina/etc; and yes this is entirely relevant to my vote on the vague footnote so don't give me that.
If that makes me a bigot etc then I am truly sorry, because I actually try very hard not to be otherwise (and at risk of being arrogant am fairly successful at ^^). Again, I have no problem at all being friends with transgendered people, they're generally uniquely interesting from my experience.
I don't really understand this much; if you couldn't tell in the first place why does it matter? I could understand if it was an issue over having children or something, but otherwise I just don't really understand why.
With that being said, her disqualification is completely justified, the rules CLEARLY state that you have to be born a female, which isn't the case for her. She was born a male and thus should be disqualified.
However, the rule itself is pretty stupid. She doesn't have any advantage over any other woman, and thus really shouldn't be banned in the first place. It's nothing like letting men into women's sports; a natural born male doesn't possess any inherent feminine qualities that trump that of an natural born female as far as I know.
On April 04 2012 04:05 Barrin wrote: If anyone cares, I want to apologize if my words in the last thread offended anyone. Perhaps I can express myself more clearly and respectfully this time (I did want to express myself before but now I just want to clear it up).
If a person truly finds it within themselves to associate their self with the gender of 'female', this is fine by me (and vice versa of course, my longest standing friend is essentially of this sort btw). That is what she is, and everyone should call her a girl/woman. She should be able to do everything a woman does, like use women's locker rooms and bathrooms and be in female divisions of sports and be in beauty pageants, etc, etc.
But if someone were to go out of their way to ask me (a mere one person) if I think there should be a vague footnote of sorts written somewhere for a beauty pageant that a certain winning contestant was in fact not born with a vagina and accompanying organs, my answer would be yes. If a girl wants to have a sexual or yes even romantic relationship with me, she'd better let me know beforehand if she wasn't naturally born with a vagina/etc; and yes this is entirely relevant to my vote on the vague footnote so don't give me that.
If that makes me a bigot etc then I am truly sorry, because I actually try very hard not to be otherwise (and at risk of being arrogant am fairly successful at ^^). Again, I have no problem at all being friends with transgendered people, they're generally uniquely interesting from my experience.
I am actually legitimately curious and I do not mean to be confrontational at all. Why does it matter if she was born with the vagina or not?
I mean, if you were in a relationship with someone and you cared deeply for them and everything you understood about them was "woman" is the fact that their vagina came from a surgeon really a deal breaker?
It would be sort of like if you were eating some cookies, and they taste pretty good, but then someone tells you that there's an ingredient you really hate in them. For me, that would be coconut. Now you can't stop noticing the slight hint of coconut whenever you taste it, and every time you bite into one you're thinking about coconut.
Except that's 99% psychological and you're TRYING to taste the coconut. Hell, 90% of the time I could tell you coconut is there and you'd believe it, even if it isn't true.
On April 04 2012 04:18 Squarewalker wrote: To those who think that gender is socially constructed; me and many others would transition even if we lived alone on an island, because it's not just focused on how others perceive us, but it's also very important to us not to be dysphoric about our bodies.
Imagine being trans this way: you wake up the next day as the opposite sex and stay that way for the entire rest of your life and people would see that as normal, and if you try to do anything to change back: you might lose your family, your friends, your job, your love life will be really tough, and you're put out to violence, discrimination and most people don't see you as and hate you for who you identify yourself as.
Also while it's good news that they let her back into the competition, in her place I wouldn't go back to there after that.
This is good perspective but gender is defined by plenty of authors and experts in sexology as being a social construct. If you truly lived alone on an island, having never been influenced by social whims entailed by living with other humans, you'd have no reason to think anything about your body as being male, female, or otherwise.
tl;dr maybe I'm reading you incorrectly, but this is not a sound argument against gender being a social construct.
Nowadays hardly anyone respectable would argue that gender is a social construct.
Nor would anyone respectable argue that it is a simple biological fact. Therefore, it has to stem from our own perceptions and interactions. Nitpick about using the term "social construct", but that's what it is. It's not a biological fact. Gender is disparate from sex.
Actually the existence of gender roles are very much so a biological fact. It is an inescapable product of our biology as I have argued above.
Those are sex roles, not gender roles. Gender is obviously influenced by sex and the biological facts it entails, but it is clearly not merely a biological concept. It's also influenced by social interaction.
Sex roles isn't even a real thing dude. I was most definitely speaking about gender roles. But yes there is ofcourse interaction between environmental inputs and the exact gender roles.
Hormonal homeostasis driving male / female sexual dimorphism confers "sex role". Social influence and interaction, combined with innate biological drives and sex features, constitute gender.
Here, maybe I'll try an analogy. Does genetic dysregulation cause an effect, or is it the environment? In many cases it is both. With regard to gender, I think it makes the most sense to consider it as a result of both social environment in addition to innate "hardware" and emotional circuitry at the brain, to which I refer as "sex" or "sex roles" in response to your use of gender roles.
Transgender people absolutely don't have to justify the way they are, but I don't see why anyone should have to justify not wanting to have sex with them.
Social influence and interaction, combined with innate biological drives and sex features, constitute gender.
The real questions are which has more influence than the other, and how much "innate biological drives" or genetics if you will influences social construction.
You'll find plenty of zealots willing to boost social construct or innate drives into supremacy and cast the other into irrelevancy in this very thread. It's a classic chicken or egg type question that is impossible to answer.
On April 04 2012 04:18 Squarewalker wrote: To those who think that gender is socially constructed; me and many others would transition even if we lived alone on an island, because it's not just focused on how others perceive us, but it's also very important to us not to be dysphoric about our bodies.
Imagine being trans this way: you wake up the next day as the opposite sex and stay that way for the entire rest of your life and people would see that as normal, and if you try to do anything to change back: you might lose your family, your friends, your job, your love life will be really tough, and you're put out to violence, discrimination and most people don't see you as and hate you for who you identify yourself as.
Also while it's good news that they let her back into the competition, in her place I wouldn't go back to there after that.
This is good perspective but gender is defined by plenty of authors and experts in sexology as being a social construct. If you truly lived alone on an island, having never been influenced by social whims entailed by living with other humans, you'd have no reason to think anything about your body as being male, female, or otherwise.
tl;dr maybe I'm reading you incorrectly, but this is not a sound argument against gender being a social construct.
Nowadays hardly anyone respectable would argue that gender is a social construct.
Nor would anyone respectable argue that it is a simple biological fact. Therefore, it has to stem from our own perceptions and interactions. Nitpick about using the term "social construct", but that's what it is. It's not a biological fact. Gender is disparate from sex.
Actually the existence of gender roles are very much so a biological fact. It is an inescapable product of our biology as I have argued above.
Those are sex roles, not gender roles. Gender is obviously influenced by sex and the biological facts it entails, but it is clearly not merely a biological concept. It's also influenced by social interaction.
Sex roles isn't even a real thing dude. I was most definitely speaking about gender roles. But yes there is ofcourse interaction between environmental inputs and the exact gender roles.
Hormonal homeostasis driving male / female sexual dimorphism confers "sex role". Social influence and interaction, combined with innate biological drives and sex features, constitute gender.
Here, maybe I'll try an analogy. Does genetic dysregulation cause an effect, or is it the environment? In many cases it is both. With regard to gender, I think it makes the most sense to consider it as a result of both social environment in addition to innate "hardware" and emotional circuitry at the brain.
Yes, you are absolutely right. But that is a long way off being a social construct. So yeah, I geuss we were actually just arguing about the term social construct.
Edit: Also I am quite familiar with the distinction between gender and sex, if you got that from my post you have misinterpreted it.
I think it is safe to say that the Miss Universe pageant is mainly concerned with the female shell, and not the female gender. What I mean by this is they do not care about the contents of a person, it ultimately boils down to whether you have been born with a vagina and whether you develop a nice set of breasts while keeping in shape. That is all that matters, and the same goes for the Mr. Universe pageant of course. If you want to compete in these things you have to realize this, and if you believe your identity, or gender, is more than how you look then there are better places to look for recognition.
On April 04 2012 04:05 Barrin wrote: If anyone cares, I want to apologize if my words in the last thread offended anyone. Perhaps I can express myself more clearly and respectfully this time (I did want to express myself before but now I just want to clear it up).
If a person truly finds it within themselves to associate their self with the gender of 'female', this is fine by me (and vice versa of course, my longest standing friend is essentially of this sort btw). That is what she is, and everyone should call her a girl/woman. She should be able to do everything a woman does, like use women's locker rooms and bathrooms and be in female divisions of sports and be in beauty pageants, etc, etc.
But if someone were to go out of their way to ask me (a mere one person) if I think there should be a vague footnote of sorts written somewhere for a beauty pageant that a certain winning contestant was in fact not born with a vagina and accompanying organs, my answer would be yes. If a girl wants to have a sexual or yes even romantic relationship with me, she'd better let me know beforehand if she wasn't naturally born with a vagina/etc; and yes this is entirely relevant to my vote on the vague footnote so don't give me that.
If that makes me a bigot etc then I am truly sorry, because I actually try very hard not to be otherwise (and at risk of being arrogant am fairly successful at ^^). Again, I have no problem at all being friends with transgendered people, they're generally uniquely interesting from my experience.
I am actually legitimately curious and I do not mean to be confrontational at all. Why does it matter if she was born with the vagina or not?
I mean, if you were in a relationship with someone and you cared deeply for them and everything you understood about them was "woman" is the fact that their vagina came from a surgeon really a deal breaker?
It would be sort of like if you were eating some cookies, and they taste pretty good, but then someone tells you that there's an ingredient you really hate in them. For me, that would be coconut. Now you can't stop noticing the slight hint of coconut whenever you taste it, and every time you bite into one you're thinking about coconut.
Except that's 99% psychological and you're TRYING to taste the coconut. Hell, 90% of the time I could tell you coconut is there and you'd believe it, even if it isn't true.
That's the point, though. For some people, the fact that a person was once male is a psychological deal-breaker. I don't want to hear about how 'that shouldn't matter' or that they should just 'get over it', they're selecting a life partner, not someone they shake hands with at work.
LGBT, since before the T was added (what is it now, LGBTIQ2SA or something?) has always been about not having to feel bad about your sexual preferences. You're a man and you're sexually attracted to other men? Great, don't let anyone make you feel like you shouldn't. The same courtesy should be extended to people who are not attracted to transsexuals when they find out.
I'm gonna go ahead and coin a new term: Cissexual, possessing sexual attraction only to cisgendered persons. It's time for LGBTIQ2SAC.
Thanks to everyone who has in this thread or elsewhere been supportive with kind words regarding my post in to the OP. It's been really awesome.
On April 04 2012 04:05 Barrin wrote: But if someone were to go out of their way to ask me (a mere one person) if I think there should be a vague footnote of sorts written somewhere for a beauty pageant that a certain winning contestant was in fact not born with a vagina and accompanying organs, my answer would be yes. If a girl wants to have a sexual or yes even romantic relationship with me, she'd better let me know beforehand if she wasn't naturally born with a vagina/etc; and yes this is entirely relevant to my vote on the vague footnote so don't give me that.
If that makes me a bigot etc then I am truly sorry, because I actually try very hard not to be otherwise (and at risk of being arrogant am fairly successful at ^^). Again, I have no problem at all being friends with transgendered people, they're generally uniquely interesting from my experience.
I didn't see your comments in the last thread (I avoided the whole thing) but I wanted to address these two paragraphs quickly.
For the first part of your statement I absolutely disagree, because as per my previous posts that would have to exclude more than just trans women were it to be properly implemented as you've said. Further, it doesn't actually affect anyone else and although you could argue that you wouldn't want to accidentally vote for a trans woman, that is your issue, not one being forced on you.
It'd be like complaining at a feminine looking guy in a pub for catching your eye for a moment from behind, that's not their fault, they were going about their business in the same way that you acknowledged trans people should be allowed to. I just don't see why anyone who wants to live their life in such a way should be forced to out themselves to everyone, for something where they realisitically are causing no harm, or infringing on anyone else's privacy or rights. You're not being forced to find them attractive, or to vote for them or whatever else and that is not their fault.
As to having a romantic or sexual relationship with you personally I actually agree with you that you have a right to know at that point. That is involved in your privacy and your rights, and I don't think it'd be fair to force my or anyone else's beliefs about what is important regarding gender on to you, especially not in such an intimate way. You said that this point is relevant to needing a footnote in the voting system though, but I don't see how the two are comparible.
Regardless of your answer to that though, I don't think you're a bigot. Being honest about being involountarily uncomfortable with something isn't the same as using the belief to support bigotry, in my opinion at least.
Glad to see her get to compete She has female parts, etc so why not? Obviously if you are born mentally a female and physically a male, IMO you are a female because it is your mind that is and not your parts. That said I would not bring home a female with man parts.Shes really pretty.
On April 04 2012 04:18 Squarewalker wrote: To those who think that gender is socially constructed; me and many others would transition even if we lived alone on an island, because it's not just focused on how others perceive us, but it's also very important to us not to be dysphoric about our bodies.
Imagine being trans this way: you wake up the next day as the opposite sex and stay that way for the entire rest of your life and people would see that as normal, and if you try to do anything to change back: you might lose your family, your friends, your job, your love life will be really tough, and you're put out to violence, discrimination and most people don't see you as and hate you for who you identify yourself as.
Also while it's good news that they let her back into the competition, in her place I wouldn't go back to there after that.
This is good perspective but gender is defined by plenty of authors and experts in sexology as being a social construct. If you truly lived alone on an island, having never been influenced by social whims entailed by living with other humans, you'd have no reason to think anything about your body as being male, female, or otherwise.
tl;dr maybe I'm reading you incorrectly, but this is not a sound argument against gender being a social construct.
Nowadays hardly anyone respectable would argue that gender is a social construct.
Nor would anyone respectable argue that it is a simple biological fact. Therefore, it has to stem from our own perceptions and interactions. Nitpick about using the term "social construct", but that's what it is. It's not a biological fact. Gender is disparate from sex.
Actually the existence of gender roles are very much so a biological fact. It is an inescapable product of our biology as I have argued above.
Those are sex roles, not gender roles. Gender is obviously influenced by sex and the biological facts it entails, but it is clearly not merely a biological concept. It's also influenced by social interaction.
Sex roles isn't even a real thing dude. I was most definitely speaking about gender roles. But yes there is ofcourse interaction between environmental inputs and the exact gender roles.
Hormonal homeostasis driving male / female sexual dimorphism confers "sex role". Social influence and interaction, combined with innate biological drives and sex features, constitute gender.
Here, maybe I'll try an analogy. Does genetic dysregulation cause an effect, or is it the environment? In many cases it is both. With regard to gender, I think it makes the most sense to consider it as a result of both social environment in addition to innate "hardware" and emotional circuitry at the brain.
Yes, you are absolutely right. But that is a long way off being a social construct. So yeah, I geuss we were actually just arguing about the term social construct.
Edit: Also I am quite familiar with the distinction between gender and sex, if you got that from my post you have misinterpreted it.
Yeah I see now that the real issue here is that I appropriated "social construct" due to ignorance, without knowing it's a special term with (I think?) very specific meaning in feminist circles or whatever. I totally didn't mean to say "social construct" in that particular way. I just wanted to appeal to the subjectivity involved in forming gender, versus "sex" which is just the hard science observed in the body
Sorry if this has already been asked, and in the past 14 pages I'm sure it has, but how do we reconcile the notion of gender with things like segregated restrooms, locker rooms, showers, etc. Is it ok to discriminate against transgenders in those instances, or must we allow anyone who claims to be man/woman in the opposite area?
This topic is still very confusing to me. I understand what it means to feel an attraction to a person, but what does it mean to "feel" like a gender? I can't really identify any feeling, to "feel like a man" apart from sexual attraction, I simply recognize the stereotypes and the social norms associated with my gender and adhere to them.
I mean it just doesn't make sense to suggest there could be any inherent biological mechanism to feel the desire to wear a dress for example, it must be sociological rather than biological.
On April 04 2012 05:20 liberal wrote: Sorry if this has already been asked, and in the past 14 pages I'm sure it has, but how do we reconcile the notion of gender with things like segregated restrooms, locker rooms, showers, etc. Is it ok to discriminate against transgenders in those instances, or must we allow anyone who claims to be man/woman in the opposite area?
This topic is still very confusing to me. I understand what it means to feel an attraction to a person, but what does it mean to "feel" like a gender? I can't really identify any feeling, to "feel like a man" apart from sexual attraction, I simply recognize the stereotypes and the social norms associated with my gender and adhere to them.
I mean it just doesn't make sense to suggest there could be any inherent biological mechanism to feel the desire to wear a dress for example, it must be sociological rather than biological.
Read the spoiler post on the first page and you'll have the majority of your questions answered.
On April 04 2012 05:00 Iyerbeth wrote: As to having a romantic or sexual relationship with you personally I actually agree with you that you have a right to know at that point. That is involved in your privacy and your rights, and I don't think it'd be fair to force my or anyone else's beliefs about what is important regarding gender on to you, especially not in such an intimate way. You said that this point is relevant to needing a footnote in the voting system though, but I don't see how the two are comparible.
I always figured most trans people would tell someone they were involved with. The trans friends I've had were all fairly open about it. Obviously noone is going to go around telling everyone they meet they are trans that would be fairly strange but I imagine if you were even friends with someone it would end up coming up in conversation.
edit: it's possible I have met an odd selection in this respect. We were all very accepting of their transness. I could understand not wanting to be open about it if you had had a lot of discrimination previously.
On April 04 2012 02:59 KwarK wrote: If you wish to discuss why you think transgender women should be discriminated against
Treating a person as male does not constitute discrimination.
On April 04 2012 04:18 Squarewalker wrote: Imagine being trans this way: you wake up the next day as the opposite sex and stay that way for the entire rest of your life
I don't understand why that's a problem, provided I don't have to re-learn my new body. Why should I object to becoming female, or desire that other people consider me male when I can look down and see I'm not?
On April 04 2012 05:20 liberal wrote: This topic is still very confusing to me. I understand what it means to feel an attraction to a person, but what does it mean to "feel" like a gender? I can't really identify any feeling, to "feel like a man" apart from sexual attraction, I simply recognize the stereotypes and the social norms associated with my gender
On April 04 2012 04:05 Barrin wrote: If anyone cares, I want to apologize if my words in the last thread offended anyone. Perhaps I can express myself more clearly and respectfully this time (I did want to express myself before but now I just want to clear it up).
If a person truly finds it within themselves to associate their self with the gender of 'female', this is fine by me (and vice versa of course, my longest standing friend is essentially of this sort btw). That is what she is, and everyone should call her a girl/woman. She should be able to do everything a woman does, like use women's locker rooms and bathrooms and be in female divisions of sports and be in beauty pageants, etc, etc.
But if someone were to go out of their way to ask me (a mere one person) if I think there should be a vague footnote of sorts written somewhere for a beauty pageant that a certain winning contestant was in fact not born with a vagina and accompanying organs, my answer would be yes. If a girl wants to have a sexual or yes even romantic relationship with me, she'd better let me know beforehand if she wasn't naturally born with a vagina/etc; and yes this is entirely relevant to my vote on the vague footnote so don't give me that.
If that makes me a bigot etc then I am truly sorry, because I actually try very hard not to be otherwise (and at risk of being arrogant am fairly successful at ^^). Again, I have no problem at all being friends with transgendered people, they're generally uniquely interesting from my experience.
I am actually legitimately curious and I do not mean to be confrontational at all. Why does it matter if she was born with the vagina or not?
I mean, if you were in a relationship with someone and you cared deeply for them and everything you understood about them was "woman" is the fact that their vagina came from a surgeon really a deal breaker?
It would be sort of like if you were eating some cookies, and they taste pretty good, but then someone tells you that there's an ingredient you really hate in them. For me, that would be coconut. Now you can't stop noticing the slight hint of coconut whenever you taste it, and every time you bite into one you're thinking about coconut.
Except that's 99% psychological and you're TRYING to taste the coconut. Hell, 90% of the time I could tell you coconut is there and you'd believe it, even if it isn't true.
That's the point, though. For some people, the fact that a person was once male is a psychological deal-breaker. I don't want to hear about how 'that shouldn't matter' or that they should just 'get over it', they're selecting a life partner, not someone they shake hands with at work.
LGBT, since before the T was added (what is it now, LGBTIQ2SA or something?) has always been about not having to feel bad about your sexual preferences. You're a man and you're sexually attracted to other men? Great, don't let anyone make you feel like you shouldn't. The same courtesy should be extended to people who are not attracted to transsexuals when they find out.
I'm gonna go ahead and coin a new term: Cissexual, possessing sexual attraction only to cisgendered persons. It's time for LGBTIQ2SAC.
Of course he doesn't have to be attracted to them, but my point is that it doesn't make any sense really. That's why I asked why it would matter, because I can't see any logical reasoning behind it.
On April 04 2012 04:18 Squarewalker wrote: Imagine being trans this way: you wake up the next day as the opposite sex and stay that way for the entire rest of your life
I don't understand why that's a problem, provided I don't have to re-learn my new body. Why should I object to becoming female, or desire that other people consider me male when I can look down and see I'm not?
On April 04 2012 05:20 liberal wrote: This topic is still very confusing to me. I understand what it means to feel an attraction to a person, but what does it mean to "feel" like a gender? I can't really identify any feeling, to "feel like a man" apart from sexual attraction, I simply recognize the stereotypes and the social norms associated with my gender
This.
Once again, like I just said moments ago, read the spoiler post on the first page and you'll have liberals question answered.
On April 04 2012 05:20 liberal wrote: Sorry if this has already been asked, and in the past 14 pages I'm sure it has, but how do we reconcile the notion of gender with things like segregated restrooms, locker rooms, showers, etc. Is it ok to discriminate against transgenders in those instances, or must we allow anyone who claims to be man/woman in the opposite area?
This topic is still very confusing to me. I understand what it means to feel an attraction to a person, but what does it mean to "feel" like a gender? I can't really identify any feeling, to "feel like a man" apart from sexual attraction, I simply recognize the stereotypes and the social norms associated with my gender and adhere to them.
I mean it just doesn't make sense to suggest there could be any inherent biological mechanism to feel the desire to wear a dress for example, it must be sociological rather than biological.
Read the spoiler post on the first page and you'll have the majority of your questions answered.
I started to read that post but I admit I stopped taking it seriously as soon as the poster committed a blatant either-or fallacy. "either there is some physical component in the brain that results in gender identity, or that gender identity is somehow inate and unchanging part of a person's identity."
How can gender identity be biological when the definition of gender is defined sociologically?
On April 04 2012 05:20 liberal wrote: Sorry if this has already been asked, and in the past 14 pages I'm sure it has, but how do we reconcile the notion of gender with things like segregated restrooms, locker rooms, showers, etc. Is it ok to discriminate against transgenders in those instances, or must we allow anyone who claims to be man/woman in the opposite area?
This topic is still very confusing to me. I understand what it means to feel an attraction to a person, but what does it mean to "feel" like a gender? I can't really identify any feeling, to "feel like a man" apart from sexual attraction, I simply recognize the stereotypes and the social norms associated with my gender and adhere to them.
I mean it just doesn't make sense to suggest there could be any inherent biological mechanism to feel the desire to wear a dress for example, it must be sociological rather than biological.
Read the spoiler post on the first page and you'll have the majority of your questions answered.
I started to read that post but I admit I stopped taking it seriously as soon as the poster committed a blatant either-or fallacy. "either there is some physical component in the brain that results in gender identity, or that gender identity is somehow inate and unchanging part of a person's identity."
How can gender identity be biological when the definition of gender is defined sociologically?
If you don't want to read the spoiler post then you probably won't get your answer.
That post answered the exact question you keep asking. Try reading the rest of it =)
On April 04 2012 05:20 liberal wrote: Sorry if this has already been asked, and in the past 14 pages I'm sure it has, but how do we reconcile the notion of gender with things like segregated restrooms, locker rooms, showers, etc. Is it ok to discriminate against transgenders in those instances, or must we allow anyone who claims to be man/woman in the opposite area?
This topic is still very confusing to me. I understand what it means to feel an attraction to a person, but what does it mean to "feel" like a gender? I can't really identify any feeling, to "feel like a man" apart from sexual attraction, I simply recognize the stereotypes and the social norms associated with my gender and adhere to them.
I mean it just doesn't make sense to suggest there could be any inherent biological mechanism to feel the desire to wear a dress for example, it must be sociological rather than biological.
Read the spoiler post on the first page and you'll have the majority of your questions answered.
I started to read that post but I admit I stopped taking it seriously as soon as the poster committed a blatant either-or fallacy. "either there is some physical component in the brain that results in gender identity, or that gender identity is somehow inate and unchanging part of a person's identity."
How can gender identity be biological when the definition of gender is defined sociologically?
If you don't want to read the spoiler post then you probably won't get your answer.
That post answered the exact question you keep asking. Try reading the rest of it =)
Ok I've read it 3 times now and I still don't have my question answered. Since you are repeating yourself I guess you can't articulate the answer either.
On April 04 2012 05:20 liberal wrote: Sorry if this has already been asked, and in the past 14 pages I'm sure it has, but how do we reconcile the notion of gender with things like segregated restrooms, locker rooms, showers, etc. Is it ok to discriminate against transgenders in those instances, or must we allow anyone who claims to be man/woman in the opposite area?
This topic is still very confusing to me. I understand what it means to feel an attraction to a person, but what does it mean to "feel" like a gender? I can't really identify any feeling, to "feel like a man" apart from sexual attraction, I simply recognize the stereotypes and the social norms associated with my gender and adhere to them.
I mean it just doesn't make sense to suggest there could be any inherent biological mechanism to feel the desire to wear a dress for example, it must be sociological rather than biological.
Read the spoiler post on the first page and you'll have the majority of your questions answered.
I started to read that post but I admit I stopped taking it seriously as soon as the poster committed a blatant either-or fallacy. "either there is some physical component in the brain that results in gender identity, or that gender identity is somehow inate and unchanging part of a person's identity."
How can gender identity be biological when the definition of gender is defined sociologically?
If you don't want to read the spoiler post then you probably won't get your answer.
That post answered the exact question you keep asking. Try reading the rest of it =)
Ok I've read it 3 times now and I still don't have my question answered. Since you are repeating yourself I guess you can't articulate the answer either.
"How can gender identity be biological when the definition of gender is defined sociologically?"
"First to site some studies to prove that there are in fact physical brain differences in transsexuals specifically relating to expected gender norms...."
On April 04 2012 05:20 liberal wrote: Sorry if this has already been asked, and in the past 14 pages I'm sure it has, but how do we reconcile the notion of gender with things like segregated restrooms, locker rooms, showers, etc. Is it ok to discriminate against transgenders in those instances, or must we allow anyone who claims to be man/woman in the opposite area?
This topic is still very confusing to me. I understand what it means to feel an attraction to a person, but what does it mean to "feel" like a gender? I can't really identify any feeling, to "feel like a man" apart from sexual attraction, I simply recognize the stereotypes and the social norms associated with my gender and adhere to them.
I mean it just doesn't make sense to suggest there could be any inherent biological mechanism to feel the desire to wear a dress for example, it must be sociological rather than biological.
Read the spoiler post on the first page and you'll have the majority of your questions answered.
I started to read that post but I admit I stopped taking it seriously as soon as the poster committed a blatant either-or fallacy. "either there is some physical component in the brain that results in gender identity, or that gender identity is somehow inate and unchanging part of a person's identity."
How can gender identity be biological when the definition of gender is defined sociologically?
First, thank you PanN.
Second, Liberal is in fact correct to an extent in that I didn't address that point quite as thoroughly as I should have the first time through and I did go back and add a little bit of extra information in two subsequent posts, which I shall add here. I would contest that it is not an either-or fallacy, within the confines of what I was discussing then given my other posts, though it's true that by itself that is a hole that was pointed out by another couple of users. Therefore I think that (as the post says) if you accept my understanding of gender, than it must be either or, which is then not a logical fallacy as so far as I am aware there would be no other option that could even be considered? I would still hope that the points made could be evaluated in light of that, rather than ignored because of it either way though.
It's true that these expansion posts wouldn't be sufficient as stand alone posts either, I should add, nor would I submit them as being absolutely acceptable in debate without more work.
On April 03 2012 19:44 Iyerbeth wrote: I promised myself I wasn't going to post in this thread, but here I am. I'm not going to address anyone particularly, but I'll just go with my unusual optimism of assuming they really mean well but just ultimately don't know what they're talking about. I'm aware that to do so I'd have to ignore the content of many of their posts, but I'm going to do so anyway. I'm sure this discussion will carry on with people seeing the length of my post and deciding that my well reasoned, and cited arguements aren't really worth reading if it'll challenge their preconceptions either way sadly.
First, and most importantly, biological sex and gender identity are completely different things. First I'll provide evidence for this statement, and then show how it immediatly invalidates many of the "he's a man" comments.
Gender identity is something that pretty much everyone has, when someone says they're male or female they don't first check their physical attributes, they know who they are. If a man was disembodied somehow his gender wouldn't suddenly become "not applicable" he'd still be a man, albeit a maybe distressed and confused one. If we were to then place that person's mind in to a naturally female body, he wouldn't suddenly be female, who he was as a core identity would still remain. If you accept this as accurate then you have to accept one of two possibilities, either there is some physical component in the brain that results in gender identity, or that gender identity is somehow inate and unchanging part of a person's identity. If you accept either of those, then unless nature were infallible, you would have to accept the possibility of transsexuals who literally were men or women, as they expressed.
First to site some studies to prove that there are in fact physical brain differences in transsexuals specifically relating to expected gender norms. The following are a few examples, which between them don't actually all agree with the causes, but all provide evidence and examples that their are physical masculine or feminine differences in the brains of trans people.
Given then that there are physical differences in the brains of trans people, who are you to decide based on what they looked like at birth that their gender identity is what you think it is? If we are to ignore the physical evidence and instead decide that gender identity is an unchanging aspect of identity that does not have a physical basis in the brain, then how can you ignore the pyschologists who have observed transseualism exists and therefore that those people are men or women? Or does the identity of the person you're talking to or about take a back seat to what you think they look like?
No matter which way you slice it, it is not simply a matter of deciding to change gender, with our current understanding of science that's impossible, but rather conforming to one's gender. For all of this to be the case, it necessarily follows that gender and sex are not the same thing.
Well ok, you might say, they're still biologically male (to use trans women as the example for a moment, since most people seem to have less issue with trans men for some reason) and are unable to reproduce and so it's my right to hold the view that I can deride them and refer to them as "he".
First to the biologically male part, as addressed in the previous section they're no biologically male, there are physical brain differences in the identity of trans people. But you of course mean genetics. There are frankly so many different pseudo scientific points made that it would be almost impossible for me to address them all so instead I'm going to make several points which refute most of them.
Many women who're also born genetically female (cis gendered) are unfortunately unable to reproduce, sometimes as the result of genetics, and other times as the result of organs not forming correctly in a fetus. There are cis women who have testicles inside them, there are some who're born without a vagina, others still who're even born with a penis. Are we to tell these women that they are infact men? There are XX women, XY women, and XXY women, are you going to argue that we should screen everyone for their genetic make up before deciding on their sex (and also deciding that their sex and gender are identical by the power vested in you)?
Along with the above, you have no idea on the genetic make up of trans women. There are studies to suggest that they have, on average, a higher reaction to androgen. This would mean that in the womb, these individuals would be far more likely to take on male sexual appearance, regardless of their genetic history. They could in fact be perfectly healthy boys, and maybe even men too but the fact remains that nature makes mistakes. Further, you also have no idea at the chromosome make up of these women either and even if they were all XY, that would only prove once again that sex and gender are different things.
Finally, even if were to grant your unfounded opinions as fact and that we should call people based on their genitals as babys, then to what end are we insulting people? What reasons are there for seperating people, talking to their genitals rather than to the person as they are? Where does this leave trans people in your society? Should we ban the surgical options? There are already a minimum of 2 years of pyschological reviews before any surgery which picks out many of those who're not in fact transsexuals, do you think 10 years would help?* Is being a specific gender in fact a mental illness? The suicide rate amongst transsexuals is already far higher than in the rest of society, and it is proven that transitioning reduces that risk dramatically.**
I ask again then, what benefit is there in you deciding, in the face of the evidence, that everyone must be as you are - with the gender identity and biological sex being in allignment? It serves no practical, health, safety, or legal benefit and insulting people should hardly be seen as a positive (and when you intentionally call any woman "he" it is insulting).
Transsexuals exist, it sucks, but it's not your place to tell them who they are what they must be. it is not your place to insult them or to decide that all women must be defined as sex objects. Your personal comfort on a matter has no bearing on the actual gender identity of other human beings.
That being said, what I'm about to say will shock many people, she should have been removed from that competition. On signing up she signed a contract saying she was "Naturally born female" and it's clear what the organisers meant by that. At that point the competition should have been challenged, but she signed the contract in bad faith and that was not the right course of action.
This was a really good post, glad you managed to keep cool and address the issues whereas I just tend to get mad.
While its a really good post, its important to note that the easiest way to teach people about gender is to dicuss the fact that Gender is a social construction. Being male and female is different from being masculine and feminine.
Every single person has times where they act more masculine and more feminine its just which of the two you identify with primarily that really defines whether you are a "man" or a "woman" in colloquial speech.
Just think about how you fill out paperwork at a doctors office, it asks for sex as male or female it never asks if you are a man or woman. This is because of the fact that gendered identity is fluid and not strict such as the case of biological sex.
Furthermore, but correct me if I am wrong, even as a transgendered person pre or post op if receiving medical attention you need to denote your birth sex and then further clarify what medications you are on if presenting characteristics of the opposite from birth sex. In part because sex linked diseases and characteristics (typically affecting males because of a short Y chromosome) could be important in diagnosis.
Liking that some people are being open minded in this thread though, its really quite important.
Of course some people prefer science, I think it can go over a lot of peoples heads if you don't approach it from a more simple social perspective.
As a social scientist I hate describing my field as simple but it is often easier to simplify for people who don't have a background in the studies than it is to point to psych or bio journals. I also don't believe people can be born into the wrong sex. This is simply because Gender is a socialised aspect of our lives and gender expressions differ across societies and cultures. I think its individuals upbringing and proclivity to particular activities and interests which leads them to creating their gender identity. Probably more a result of the strong sense of individualization than anything else wherein people are free to choose their gender and gender expression either explicitly or not. I'm a heterosexual male who happens to be a little more sensitive than most other guys. I don't worry about being manly or masculine at all, whereas my girlfriend is a little more masculine than other girls, not softspoken at all lol.
I do actually agree that a lot of what gender is (and I dare say as a social scientist you're probably better positioned to argue this point than I) comes down to a social construct but I don't think that it is entirely the case.
Hormonal differences in adults probably played or do play a part in defining gender identity sterotypes, and it is clear that the brain at least in some way has an influence on the gender of an individual so there is something more to it than a human made idea. That isn't to say that women must be feminine and men must masculine, that is of course absurd but it would be equally absurd to assume that the gender lines we see in all other animals are imaginary or that we were somehow excluded from them.
Further, it seems that if gender were nothing more than a social construct than we either shouldn't have trans people, or it should be more common with people seeing no issue with it.
As to treatment as Dr's, it would be considered as any other historical fact such as familial illness, recent surgery or cancer. A trans person going to visit a dr for any usual issue would not be asked to, or need to disclose it. For more serious issues it would be found in medical records and medication lists are given by everyone. That's not to say there can't be times when it should be disclosed but generally a patient history is only taken for more serious issues anyway, or when an underlying issue is not immediately evident.
Additionally, most places will ask gender instead of sex on forms, at least in the uk.
Edit: Also a link to a surprisingly well done american news show documentary on trans children. They don't use all the right terms, but it's difficult to argue that there isn't something more to it when you consider the responses of the children and the issue's they're facing. Going to link it as a url rather than an embeded clip:
On April 03 2012 19:44 Iyerbeth wrote: Along with the above, you have no idea on the genetic make up of trans women. There are studies to suggest that they have, on average, a higher reaction to androgen. This would mean that in the womb, these individuals would be far more likely to take on male sexual appearance, regardless of their genetic history. They could in fact be perfectly healthy boys, and maybe even men too but the fact remains that nature makes mistakes. Further, you also have no idea at the chromosome make up of these women either and even if they were all XY, that would only prove once again that sex and gender are different things.
I understood all of your arguments regarding gender identity and gender/sex being two different things and they're sound and agreeable. I don't think many people will reject the claim that her gender identity is in fact female after reading your post, or are at least skeptical at this point.
My question though is what would you say of her sexual identity?
Are you arguing that her sexual identity should be considered female as well because of the fact that women with those genetic mutations(*?) (such as being born with non-normal chromosome make ups) are still considered female + she identifies her gender identity as female, or are you arguing that her sexual identity at this point is still male?
There are 3 different points I think I'm forced to accept by the arguements I made.
First, her sexual identity would not have changed at all. This is obviously true at the moment as there is no genetic surgery at the moment, and so whatever she started as biologically, she would finish as.
Second, without further investigation I have no way to know what any person's genetic sexual identity is but that upon investigation we could find out one way or another for everyone, and as per my first point, that would be a static fact about the person.
Finally though, and the reason for my having raised that point in my post is that it doesn't actually matter outside of strict categorisation. As we have no way to identify the literal sex of any individual we tend to go by their primary and secondary sexual characteristics, which obviously also vary on a person to person basis. As those sexual characteristics are one's we can change, I would say they're far more useful for identifying an individual than their genetics, and I'd argue that we do in fact already do that for everyone except trans people.
It is true though that I'm forced to concede that there is room to argue whether a trans person has actually changed their sex, but in doing so we'd also have to reassign many other cis gendered individuals after screening. My position therefore is gender identity should take precident over sexual identity when determining whether a person is a man or a woman.
Edit: But in saying that I should add, I don't think it's unreasonable for society to argue that proof is required before that assessment will be allowed, given the importance of gender in today's world. As such I accept the current standards of care as being a reasonable measure of gender for trans individuals, and simply declaring yourself to be of a different gender may (or should) be insufficient.
On April 04 2012 05:20 liberal wrote: Sorry if this has already been asked, and in the past 14 pages I'm sure it has, but how do we reconcile the notion of gender with things like segregated restrooms, locker rooms, showers, etc. Is it ok to discriminate against transgenders in those instances, or must we allow anyone who claims to be man/woman in the opposite area?
This topic is still very confusing to me. I understand what it means to feel an attraction to a person, but what does it mean to "feel" like a gender? I can't really identify any feeling, to "feel like a man" apart from sexual attraction, I simply recognize the stereotypes and the social norms associated with my gender and adhere to them.
I mean it just doesn't make sense to suggest there could be any inherent biological mechanism to feel the desire to wear a dress for example, it must be sociological rather than biological.
Read the spoiler post on the first page and you'll have the majority of your questions answered.
I started to read that post but I admit I stopped taking it seriously as soon as the poster committed a blatant either-or fallacy. "either there is some physical component in the brain that results in gender identity, or that gender identity is somehow inate and unchanging part of a person's identity."
How can gender identity be biological when the definition of gender is defined sociologically?
The way our brains operate has a lot to do with our sociological situation. Our brains are constantly rewiring so any sociological effect is basically etched into our brains. Also the way our brain operates on a moment to moment basis is heavily dependant on the stimuli it receives. So in effect the biological and sociological parts of gender identity are the same thing.
On April 04 2012 05:20 liberal wrote: Sorry if this has already been asked, and in the past 14 pages I'm sure it has, but how do we reconcile the notion of gender with things like segregated restrooms, locker rooms, showers, etc. Is it ok to discriminate against transgenders in those instances, or must we allow anyone who claims to be man/woman in the opposite area?
This topic is still very confusing to me. I understand what it means to feel an attraction to a person, but what does it mean to "feel" like a gender? I can't really identify any feeling, to "feel like a man" apart from sexual attraction, I simply recognize the stereotypes and the social norms associated with my gender and adhere to them.
I mean it just doesn't make sense to suggest there could be any inherent biological mechanism to feel the desire to wear a dress for example, it must be sociological rather than biological.
Read the spoiler post on the first page and you'll have the majority of your questions answered.
I started to read that post but I admit I stopped taking it seriously as soon as the poster committed a blatant either-or fallacy. "either there is some physical component in the brain that results in gender identity, or that gender identity is somehow inate and unchanging part of a person's identity."
How can gender identity be biological when the definition of gender is defined sociologically?
If you don't want to read the spoiler post then you probably won't get your answer.
That post answered the exact question you keep asking. Try reading the rest of it =)
Ok I've read it 3 times now and I still don't have my question answered. Since you are repeating yourself I guess you can't articulate the answer either.
What roles are attributed to men and women are determined by society. Societal demands on genders themselves have a biological component as the result of evolution. They are not completely arbitrary.
There is strong evidence that a person's gender, much like sex, is at the very least partly determined at birth. I go over some of the evidence a page or 2 back. You will also find a post about the abnormalities in the brain found in transgender people and a hypothesis about the role of androgyn in the OP.
On April 04 2012 05:20 liberal wrote: Sorry if this has already been asked, and in the past 14 pages I'm sure it has, but how do we reconcile the notion of gender with things like segregated restrooms, locker rooms, showers, etc. Is it ok to discriminate against transgenders in those instances, or must we allow anyone who claims to be man/woman in the opposite area?
This topic is still very confusing to me. I understand what it means to feel an attraction to a person, but what does it mean to "feel" like a gender? I can't really identify any feeling, to "feel like a man" apart from sexual attraction, I simply recognize the stereotypes and the social norms associated with my gender and adhere to them.
I mean it just doesn't make sense to suggest there could be any inherent biological mechanism to feel the desire to wear a dress for example, it must be sociological rather than biological.
Read the spoiler post on the first page and you'll have the majority of your questions answered.
I started to read that post but I admit I stopped taking it seriously as soon as the poster committed a blatant either-or fallacy. "either there is some physical component in the brain that results in gender identity, or that gender identity is somehow inate and unchanging part of a person's identity."
How can gender identity be biological when the definition of gender is defined sociologically?
If you don't want to read the spoiler post then you probably won't get your answer.
That post answered the exact question you keep asking. Try reading the rest of it =)
Ok I've read it 3 times now and I still don't have my question answered. Since you are repeating yourself I guess you can't articulate the answer either.
I don't think we have an expert in the house who can give you a definitive answer. If you are truly interested, I think there are a plethora of resources on the internet/local library/LGTB groups. But I'll do what I can with my limited knowledge.
"Feel like a man" is more than sexual attraction. When you pick the colour of your clothes, for example, a lot of men tend to choose colours that are 'manly'. They aren't thinking of sex at that point, atleast not directly. This could be sociological, but the point is to show that gender idenity goes beyong mere 'sexual attraction'. In my own case, when I was a very very small child, my mother used to tie my hair in ponytails and dress me up like a girl. I was around age 6-7, but definitely before I grew into sexual maturity (teenages). One day, an old lady talking to my mother said, "What a cute girl". I never allowed pony tails into my hair since then. I knew, even before knowing 'sex', that I was a boy.
I am not fully clear on the actual science behind it. I would imagine a lot of it is rather new and 'cutting-edge'. The quoted post on the OP states that masculine and feminine differences in the brain have been observed. There were links provided for your own reading pleasure.
On April 04 2012 06:05 Blasterion wrote: Well in this case rules are pre-existing, and let's be real, she was born male. Thus DQing her from an all-female competition.
Except she was accepted back in. Thus not DQing her from an all-female competition. This isn't as simple as you think.
Ok, so I've recognized the central problem here is that there is in fact no definition for gender. Some people define it according to what the individual expresses, some people define it according to social norms and roles, some people define it according to biological differences in masculinity/femininity.
On April 04 2012 06:05 Blasterion wrote: Well in this case rules are pre-existing, and let's be real, she was born male. Thus DQing her from an all-female competition.
It's a bad rule - and always subject to revision and ammendments.
On April 04 2012 06:05 Blasterion wrote: Well in this case rules are pre-existing, and let's be real, she was born male. Thus DQing her from an all-female competition.
Except she was accepted back in. Thus not DQing her from an all-female competition. This isn't as simple as you think.
Well, that's just the committee caving into public pressure. I think it's simple enough to say, She's a woman now, but she wasn't always a woman, and thus cannot be judged along with people who have always been woman on the same platform in a all-women competition, but hell. She's hot so what do I care. She looks hotter than half the competition I guess go for it if she gets back in.
On April 04 2012 06:05 Blasterion wrote: Well in this case rules are pre-existing, and let's be real, she was born male. Thus DQing her from an all-female competition.
It's a bad rule - and always subject to revision and ammendments.
How is a rule that limits the competitors to female in a female competition a bad rule?
On April 04 2012 06:05 Blasterion wrote: Well in this case rules are pre-existing, and let's be real, she was born male. Thus DQing her from an all-female competition.
It's a bad rule - and always subject to revision and ammendments.
How is a rule that limits the competitors to female in a female competition a bad rule?
It is bad when 'female' and 'woman' is ill-defined at the detriment of transgendered participants.
I'll echo the quote in the OP, physical attributes alone don't make a 'man' or a 'woman'. There are women born with mal-formed genitals, like hidden testicles for example. If you look at it mentally, this person has a female mind. Knowing yourself to be a female at age 4 is something we're born with.
On April 04 2012 06:05 Blasterion wrote: Well in this case rules are pre-existing, and let's be real, she was born male. Thus DQing her from an all-female competition.
It's a bad rule - and always subject to revision and ammendments.
How is a rule that limits the competitors to female in a female competition a bad rule?
It would be like Hotbid being nominated for Americas best Maxim Gamer Girl of the Year.
On April 04 2012 06:05 Blasterion wrote: Well in this case rules are pre-existing, and let's be real, she was born male. Thus DQing her from an all-female competition.
Except she was accepted back in. Thus not DQing her from an all-female competition. This isn't as simple as you think.
Well, that's just the committee caving into public pressure. I think it's simple enough to say, She's a woman now, but she wasn't always a woman, and thus cannot be judged along with people who have always been woman on the same platform in a all-women competition, but hell. She's hot so what do I care. She looks hotter than half the competition I guess go for it if she gets back in.
Why can she not be judged as a woman? The competition judges people for pleasing feminine aesthetics. She looks feminine enough to me.
I see no reason to exclude actual men at all for any other reason than practicality, they would have no chance to get far. This woman does.Those that are born as men have a disadvantage, not an advantage.
On April 04 2012 06:05 Blasterion wrote: Well in this case rules are pre-existing, and let's be real, she was born male. Thus DQing her from an all-female competition.
It's a bad rule - and always subject to revision and ammendments.
How is a rule that limits the competitors to female in a female competition a bad rule?
It is bad when 'female' and 'woman' is ill-defined at the detriment of transgendered participants.
I'll echo the quote in the OP, physical attributes alone don't make a 'man' or a 'woman'. There are women born with mal-formed genitals, like hidden testicles for example. If you look at it mentally, this person has a female mind. Knowing yourself to be a female at age 4 is something we're born with.
If you completely isolated an infant at birth and raised them with asexual robots, do you think the child would "know" they are male or female?
On April 04 2012 06:05 Blasterion wrote: Well in this case rules are pre-existing, and let's be real, she was born male. Thus DQing her from an all-female competition.
It's a bad rule - and always subject to revision and ammendments.
How is a rule that limits the competitors to female in a female competition a bad rule?
It is bad when 'female' and 'woman' is ill-defined at the detriment of transgendered participants.
I'll echo the quote in the OP, physical attributes alone don't make a 'man' or a 'woman'. There are women born with mal-formed genitals, like hidden testicles for example. If you look at it mentally, this person has a female mind. Knowing yourself to be a female at age 4 is something we're born with.
If you completely isolated an infant at birth and raised them with asexual robots, do you think the child would "know" they are male or female?
Ofcourse he doesn't. But just because biological components use environmental inputs it does not disqualify them from being biological.
On April 04 2012 06:05 Blasterion wrote: Well in this case rules are pre-existing, and let's be real, she was born male. Thus DQing her from an all-female competition.
It's a bad rule - and always subject to revision and ammendments.
How is a rule that limits the competitors to female in a female competition a bad rule?
It is bad when 'female' and 'woman' is ill-defined at the detriment of transgendered participants.
I'll echo the quote in the OP, physical attributes alone don't make a 'man' or a 'woman'. There are women born with mal-formed genitals, like hidden testicles for example. If you look at it mentally, this person has a female mind. Knowing yourself to be a female at age 4 is something we're born with.
If you completely isolated an infant at birth and raised them with asexual robots, do you think the child would "know" they are male or female?
Ofcourse he doesn't. But just because biological components use environmental inputs it does not disqualify them from being biological.
Well technically everything about an individual is biological, including their thoughts... But people here are making a distinction between biological sex and psychological identity. Distinctions in self-identification are necessarily determined in a social context.
Look at all the people in here trying to tell me I don't exist or should have lived on in agony, how cute and blissfully ignorant.
Lets give this a run down, shall we?
Gender identity is part of your personality. It's a part of what makes your mind "you." One part of this is the minds determination of your gender, in the broadest terms a binary of "male" and "female" though there's more of a spectrum of gender identities (consider people who identify as women as anywhere from very butch to very feminine, and the same with people who identify as men.) This gender identity portion of your personality is largely (possibly entirely) built during natal growth. You cannot change your gender identity. All attempts to alter them have ended up very bad. In most cases, humans are born with a congruence between their gender identity and their biological sex.
Dissonance between gender identity and biological sex causes a wave of depression in individuals, known as Gender Dysphoria. It's the kind of extreme deep pain that you wouldn't wish on the most evil person in the world. If you've never experienced it, you probably can't comprehend it--and that's okay, you're pretty damn lucky to not. Just recognize it exists.
This Gender Dysphoria inhibits day to day life as the "birth assigned" gender, the condition is called Gender Identity Disorder.
Transgender (transsexual, specifically) individuals are those who feel they have an incongruence between their innate gender identity, and their biological sex.
Transsexual individuals feel their biological sex is opposite what their gender identity is, and thus feel the need to permanently live as the opposite sex, in order to feel congruence between their gender identity and their biological sex. After this 'transition' which can involve things such as hormone replacement (testosterone suppression and estrogen supplement in male-to-females, testosterone injections in female-to-males), hair removal (facial hair, for example), breast binding/removal, in some cases facial surgeries, and in some cases Sexual Reassignment Surgery (penile inversion or phalloplasty are common, though other techniques exist.)
That's just the fine detail stuff. The truth is, society really really hates people that go outside what they consider the norms. I can't begin to explain the number of laughs and vile stares I used to get at that horrible "in between" phase, the teachers and peers that would intentionally try to talk me down or belittle me, or the times my parents would tell me they love me no matter what in one sentence, then try to punch my face in the next (my father on a few occasion, literally.) It's a horribly difficult undertaking, and it's one that someone would only do if they have no other choice but transitioning or suicide--and believe me, far too high of a percent take the later route. This is hardly some whim decision people do for the laughs. Afterwards (oh, and by afterwards I mean after genital surgery. Before that in most states you're still considered your birth sex, get a nice old school letter marker on your license/ID that lets police arrest you for suspected prostitution, and if you apply for a job Social Security calls up your employer and outs you--hope you enjoy lower wages or being outright fired!) you get the fun of being treated as your birth sex in most states regarding marriage--thus, any who doesn't have gay marriage legalized bars a man and a woman from getting married, and often times bars you from even getting married to someone of the same gender, so you at that point cannot actually wed. You get the fun of dealing with people throughout your life (such as the many in this thread already) who scream at the top of their lungs that you are the sex you're born as, your identity doesn't actually exist (and thus you don't exist) while being so far from the world of dealing with GID that they cannot comprehend the basics. You get the amazing fun of disclosure to future partners--in some cases it is backlashed with violence. And of course you get experienced of public humiliation and 'outting' and 'other'ing such as the topic of the OP.
Fun, isn't it?
So please, piss off you ignorant twat, because I exist, and I've gone through more crap to be who I am and have a chance to grasp a TINY PART of the normalness that you get to have for free.
/rantoff
Regardless, onto the actual story: She shouldn't have lied (if she did, I've also heard from other places they kicked her they added the "women born women!" clause after) because that was stupid. They shouldn't have made such a stupid and senseless rule to begin with. I'm literally stunned that Trump turned this around. It makes me proud to see that there's at least some sensible people in this thread. TL you've made me proud.
On April 04 2012 06:52 Alay wrote: Look at all the people in here trying to tell me I don't exist or should have lived on in agony, how cute and blissfully ignorant.
Lets give this a run down, shall we?
Gender identity is part of your personality. It's a part of what makes your mind "you." One part of this is the minds determination of your gender, in the broadest terms a binary of "male" and "female" though there's more of a spectrum of gender identities (consider people who identify as women as anywhere from very butch to very feminine, and the same with people who identify as men.) This gender identity portion of your personality is largely (possibly entirely) built during natal growth. You cannot change your gender identity. All attempts to alter them have ended up very bad. In most cases, humans are born with a congruence between their gender identity and their biological sex.
Dissonance between gender identity and biological sex causes a wave of depression in individuals, known as Gender Dysphoria. It's the kind of extreme deep pain that you wouldn't wish on the most evil person in the world. If you've never experienced it, you probably can't comprehend it--and that's okay, you're pretty damn lucky to not. Just recognize it exists.
This Gender Dysphoria inhibits day to day life as the "birth assigned" gender, the condition is called Gender Identity Disorder.
Transgender (transsexual, specifically) individuals are those who feel they have an incongruence between their innate gender identity, and their biological sex.
Transsexual individuals feel their biological sex is opposite what their gender identity is, and thus feel the need to permanently live as the opposite sex, in order to feel congruence between their gender identity and their biological sex. After this 'transition' which can involve things such as hormone replacement (testosterone suppression and estrogen supplement in male-to-females, testosterone injections in female-to-males), hair removal (facial hair, for example), breast binding/removal, in some cases facial surgeries, and in some cases Sexual Reassignment Surgery (penile inversion or phalloplasty are common, though other techniques exist.)
That's just the fine detail stuff. The truth is, society really really hates people that go outside what they consider the norms. I can't begin to explain the number of laughs and vile stares I used to get at that horrible "in between" phase, the teachers and peers that would intentionally try to talk me down or belittle me, or the times my parents would tell me they love me no matter what in one sentence, then try to punch my face in the next (my father on a few occasion, literally.) It's a horribly difficult undertaking, and it's one that someone would only do if they have no other choice but transitioning or suicide--and believe me, far too high of a percent take the later route. This is hardly some whim decision people do for the laughs. Afterwards (oh, and by afterwards I mean after genital surgery. Before that in most states you're still considered your birth sex, get a nice old school letter marker on your license/ID that lets police arrest you for suspected prostitution, and if you apply for a job Social Security calls up your employer and outs you--hope you enjoy lower wages or being outright fired!) you get the fun of being treated as your birth sex in most states regarding marriage--thus, any who doesn't have gay marriage legalized bars a man and a woman from getting married, and often times bars you from even getting married to someone of the same gender, so you at that point cannot actually wed. You get the fun of dealing with people throughout your life (such as the many in this thread already) who scream at the top of their lungs that you are the sex you're born as, your identity doesn't actually exist (and thus you don't exist) while being so far from the world of dealing with GID that they cannot comprehend the basics. You get the amazing fun of disclosure to future partners--in some cases it is backlashed with violence. And of course you get experienced of public humiliation and 'outting' and 'other'ing such as the topic of the OP.
Fun, isn't it?
So please, piss off you ignorant twat, because I exist, and I've gone through more crap to be who I am and have a chance to grasp a TINY PART of the normalness that you get to have for free.
/rantoff
Regardless, onto the actual story: She shouldn't have lied (if she did, I've also heard from other places they kicked her they added the "women born women!" clause after) because that was stupid. They shouldn't have made such a stupid and senseless rule to begin with. I'm literally stunned that Trump turned this around. It makes me proud to see that there's at least some sensible people in this thread. TL you've made me proud.
As you give off the impression that you know quite a bit about this, would you happen to know of any papers / resources that attend to the epistemic issues associated with transgenderism (e.g. how warranted is the belief that one was born the wrong sex, when one has never been anything other than the sex they were born)?
I'm glad they overturned this. Fundamentally, the Miss Universe pageant is basically a competition to determine how well contestants conform to various metrics associated with the female gender.
Without debating whether that's a good premise for a competition, opening it to transgendered people (or hell even transvestites) doesn't seem to break the purpose of the competition in any way. And if it helps raise awareness and understanding of the transgendered community, that must surely be a good thing..
On April 04 2012 06:52 Alay wrote: Look at all the people in here trying to tell me I don't exist or should have lived on in agony, how cute and blissfully ignorant.
Lets give this a run down, shall we?
Gender identity is part of your personality. It's a part of what makes your mind "you." One part of this is the minds determination of your gender, in the broadest terms a binary of "male" and "female" though there's more of a spectrum of gender identities (consider people who identify as women as anywhere from very butch to very feminine, and the same with people who identify as men.) This gender identity portion of your personality is largely (possibly entirely) built during natal growth. You cannot change your gender identity. All attempts to alter them have ended up very bad. In most cases, humans are born with a congruence between their gender identity and their biological sex.
Dissonance between gender identity and biological sex causes a wave of depression in individuals, known as Gender Dysphoria. It's the kind of extreme deep pain that you wouldn't wish on the most evil person in the world. If you've never experienced it, you probably can't comprehend it--and that's okay, you're pretty damn lucky to not. Just recognize it exists.
This Gender Dysphoria inhibits day to day life as the "birth assigned" gender, the condition is called Gender Identity Disorder.
Transgender (transsexual, specifically) individuals are those who feel they have an incongruence between their innate gender identity, and their biological sex.
Transsexual individuals feel their biological sex is opposite what their gender identity is, and thus feel the need to permanently live as the opposite sex, in order to feel congruence between their gender identity and their biological sex. After this 'transition' which can involve things such as hormone replacement (testosterone suppression and estrogen supplement in male-to-females, testosterone injections in female-to-males), hair removal (facial hair, for example), breast binding/removal, in some cases facial surgeries, and in some cases Sexual Reassignment Surgery (penile inversion or phalloplasty are common, though other techniques exist.)
That's just the fine detail stuff. The truth is, society really really hates people that go outside what they consider the norms. I can't begin to explain the number of laughs and vile stares I used to get at that horrible "in between" phase, the teachers and peers that would intentionally try to talk me down or belittle me, or the times my parents would tell me they love me no matter what in one sentence, then try to punch my face in the next (my father on a few occasion, literally.) It's a horribly difficult undertaking, and it's one that someone would only do if they have no other choice but transitioning or suicide--and believe me, far too high of a percent take the later route. This is hardly some whim decision people do for the laughs. Afterwards (oh, and by afterwards I mean after genital surgery. Before that in most states you're still considered your birth sex, get a nice old school letter marker on your license/ID that lets police arrest you for suspected prostitution, and if you apply for a job Social Security calls up your employer and outs you--hope you enjoy lower wages or being outright fired!) you get the fun of being treated as your birth sex in most states regarding marriage--thus, any who doesn't have gay marriage legalized bars a man and a woman from getting married, and often times bars you from even getting married to someone of the same gender, so you at that point cannot actually wed. You get the fun of dealing with people throughout your life (such as the many in this thread already) who scream at the top of their lungs that you are the sex you're born as, your identity doesn't actually exist (and thus you don't exist) while being so far from the world of dealing with GID that they cannot comprehend the basics. You get the amazing fun of disclosure to future partners--in some cases it is backlashed with violence. And of course you get experienced of public humiliation and 'outting' and 'other'ing such as the topic of the OP.
Fun, isn't it?
So please, piss off you ignorant twat, because I exist, and I've gone through more crap to be who I am and have a chance to grasp a TINY PART of the normalness that you get to have for free.
/rantoff
Regardless, onto the actual story: She shouldn't have lied (if she did, I've also heard from other places they kicked her they added the "women born women!" clause after) because that was stupid. They shouldn't have made such a stupid and senseless rule to begin with. I'm literally stunned that Trump turned this around. It makes me proud to see that there's at least some sensible people in this thread. TL you've made me proud.
can't help but smile at the post, bet alot of..... erm. alot of... how to word it..... lets just say people will shut up now. at least I hope so. glad people like you have the balls to make posts like this (pun intended, not sure if you're ftm or mtf, wasn't to offend you ) carry on and good luck, actually hope we have more contact on other topics here, from the only post I read from ya now, I think I like you so far.
having you say that people make you proud actually makes ME feel proud (cause I think I was included in the "more sensible people"-part). thank you alot for that, means more to me than you'd expect. thought the whole discussion in this thread was without any outcome, turns out I was wrong, I feel good now. thanks again!
On April 04 2012 06:52 Alay wrote: Look at all the people in here trying to tell me I don't exist or should have lived on in agony, how cute and blissfully ignorant.
Lets give this a run down, shall we?
Gender identity is part of your personality. It's a part of what makes your mind "you." One part of this is the minds determination of your gender, in the broadest terms a binary of "male" and "female" though there's more of a spectrum of gender identities (consider people who identify as women as anywhere from very butch to very feminine, and the same with people who identify as men.) This gender identity portion of your personality is largely (possibly entirely) built during natal growth. You cannot change your gender identity. All attempts to alter them have ended up very bad. In most cases, humans are born with a congruence between their gender identity and their biological sex.
Dissonance between gender identity and biological sex causes a wave of depression in individuals, known as Gender Dysphoria. It's the kind of extreme deep pain that you wouldn't wish on the most evil person in the world. If you've never experienced it, you probably can't comprehend it--and that's okay, you're pretty damn lucky to not. Just recognize it exists.
This Gender Dysphoria inhibits day to day life as the "birth assigned" gender, the condition is called Gender Identity Disorder.
Transgender (transsexual, specifically) individuals are those who feel they have an incongruence between their innate gender identity, and their biological sex.
Transsexual individuals feel their biological sex is opposite what their gender identity is, and thus feel the need to permanently live as the opposite sex, in order to feel congruence between their gender identity and their biological sex. After this 'transition' which can involve things such as hormone replacement (testosterone suppression and estrogen supplement in male-to-females, testosterone injections in female-to-males), hair removal (facial hair, for example), breast binding/removal, in some cases facial surgeries, and in some cases Sexual Reassignment Surgery (penile inversion or phalloplasty are common, though other techniques exist.)
That's just the fine detail stuff. The truth is, society really really hates people that go outside what they consider the norms. I can't begin to explain the number of laughs and vile stares I used to get at that horrible "in between" phase, the teachers and peers that would intentionally try to talk me down or belittle me, or the times my parents would tell me they love me no matter what in one sentence, then try to punch my face in the next (my father on a few occasion, literally.) It's a horribly difficult undertaking, and it's one that someone would only do if they have no other choice but transitioning or suicide--and believe me, far too high of a percent take the later route. This is hardly some whim decision people do for the laughs. Afterwards (oh, and by afterwards I mean after genital surgery. Before that in most states you're still considered your birth sex, get a nice old school letter marker on your license/ID that lets police arrest you for suspected prostitution, and if you apply for a job Social Security calls up your employer and outs you--hope you enjoy lower wages or being outright fired!) you get the fun of being treated as your birth sex in most states regarding marriage--thus, any who doesn't have gay marriage legalized bars a man and a woman from getting married, and often times bars you from even getting married to someone of the same gender, so you at that point cannot actually wed. You get the fun of dealing with people throughout your life (such as the many in this thread already) who scream at the top of their lungs that you are the sex you're born as, your identity doesn't actually exist (and thus you don't exist) while being so far from the world of dealing with GID that they cannot comprehend the basics. You get the amazing fun of disclosure to future partners--in some cases it is backlashed with violence. And of course you get experienced of public humiliation and 'outting' and 'other'ing such as the topic of the OP.
Fun, isn't it?
So please, piss off you ignorant twat, because I exist, and I've gone through more crap to be who I am and have a chance to grasp a TINY PART of the normalness that you get to have for free.
/rantoff
Regardless, onto the actual story: She shouldn't have lied (if she did, I've also heard from other places they kicked her they added the "women born women!" clause after) because that was stupid. They shouldn't have made such a stupid and senseless rule to begin with. I'm literally stunned that Trump turned this around. It makes me proud to see that there's at least some sensible people in this thread. TL you've made me proud.
As you give off the impression that you know quite a bit about this, would you happen to know of any papers / resources that attend to the epistemic issues associated with transgenderism (e.g. how warranted is the belief that one was born the wrong sex, when one has never been anything other than the sex they were born)?
Not quite sure what you mean? No one, sans those that have transitioned, have experienced what it's like to be both sexes--and even then it's accuracy against being biologically born and raised as the opposite sex aren't really possible to compare. Basically, my point is, how would those that are cisgendered (same birth sex as their gender identity, aka 'not-trans') know that they're actually <whatever gender they are> if they've never tried being <opposite gender>?
Personal experience wise: I knew I wasn't my birth sex, and I suffered GID and Gender Dysphoria because I continued trying to live as my birth sex. I was somewhat sure my gender identity was the opposite sex, and after transitioning (and slowly alleviating gender dysphoria) I found out I was correct.
Not all transgendered feel they're in a binary either, it should be noted. Some identify as genderqueer (neither male nor female accurately describes their gender.) Dunno what that's like though, so I can't provide much information on that.
Competing in a female beauty pageant when there are male, female and transgender beauty pageants is actually sort of insulting, when you think about it.
"You lot are transgenders, but I'm actually a woman so I'm going to compete with the rest of the natural born females, where I belong, unlike you, who belong in a transgender beauty pageant."
That's basically the statement this individual is making, intentionally or otherwise.
Edit: To avoid confusion, I don't really believe this. I'm trying to make the point that this is the statement society is making by the very creation of a transgender pageant. I'm sure this is further from the way this individual feels than we are from the centre of the universe.
This raises the question as to whether transgender beauty pageants should really be acceptable, and given the arguments in this thread I think it seems wrong to segregate transgender people into their own special category, there should really just be male and female beauty pageants, after all there is no third gender, is there?
Sports is another issue, in fact it's the only possible place this type of distinction has any merit, because otherwise males and females are equal and allowed to compete freely. This is however completely irrelevant in considering the proper pronoun to be used and whether it's right or wrong to create a seperate category for individuals who have not always held the same sexual and/or gender identity they currently possess.
The very existence of a transgender beauty pageant and associated though processes completely explains the difference of opinion between people in this thread. Making this distinction that they are not male or female but something else causes the pronoun issue because we don't have a third pronoun for transgenders, you are he or she, him or her.
The only alternative would be refer to this individual as "it", which I think has negative connotations.
The fact of the matter is if you take a DNA test or whatever - he's a he - but if you consider gender identity to be the basis of distinction then - she's a she - and it's been conclusively proven in my opinion which is the correct way, most succinctly in the following quote:
On April 03 2012 19:44 Iyerbeth wrote: ...I ask again then, what benefit is there in you deciding, in the face of the evidence, that everyone must be as you are - with the gender identity and biological sex being in allignment? It serves no practical, health, safety, or legal benefit and insulting people should hardly be seen as a positive (and when you intentionally call any woman "he" it is insulting).
Transsexuals exist, it sucks, but it's not your place to tell them who they are what they must be. it is not your place to insult them or to decide that all women must be defined as sex objects. Your personal comfort on a matter has no bearing on the actual gender identity of other human beings.
Look at all the people in here trying to tell me I don't exist or should have lived on in agony, how cute and blissfully ignorant.
Lets give this a run down, shall we?
Gender identity is part of your personality. It's a part of what makes your mind "you." One part of this is the minds determination of your gender, in the broadest terms a binary of "male" and "female" though there's more of a spectrum of gender identities (consider people who identify as women as anywhere from very butch to very feminine, and the same with people who identify as men.) This gender identity portion of your personality is largely (possibly entirely) built during natal growth. You cannot change your gender identity. All attempts to alter them have ended up very bad. In most cases, humans are born with a congruence between their gender identity and their biological sex.
Dissonance between gender identity and biological sex causes a wave of depression in individuals, known as Gender Dysphoria. It's the kind of extreme deep pain that you wouldn't wish on the most evil person in the world. If you've never experienced it, you probably can't comprehend it--and that's okay, you're pretty damn lucky to not. Just recognize it exists.
This Gender Dysphoria inhibits day to day life as the "birth assigned" gender, the condition is called Gender Identity Disorder.
Transgender (transsexual, specifically) individuals are those who feel they have an incongruence between their innate gender identity, and their biological sex.
Transsexual individuals feel their biological sex is opposite what their gender identity is, and thus feel the need to permanently live as the opposite sex, in order to feel congruence between their gender identity and their biological sex. After this 'transition' which can involve things such as hormone replacement (testosterone suppression and estrogen supplement in male-to-females, testosterone injections in female-to-males), hair removal (facial hair, for example), breast binding/removal, in some cases facial surgeries, and in some cases Sexual Reassignment Surgery (penile inversion or phalloplasty are common, though other techniques exist.)
That's just the fine detail stuff. The truth is, society really really hates people that go outside what they consider the norms. I can't begin to explain the number of laughs and vile stares I used to get at that horrible "in between" phase, the teachers and peers that would intentionally try to talk me down or belittle me, or the times my parents would tell me they love me no matter what in one sentence, then try to punch my face in the next (my father on a few occasion, literally.) It's a horribly difficult undertaking, and it's one that someone would only do if they have no other choice but transitioning or suicide--and believe me, far too high of a percent take the later route. This is hardly some whim decision people do for the laughs. Afterwards (oh, and by afterwards I mean after genital surgery. Before that in most states you're still considered your birth sex, get a nice old school letter marker on your license/ID that lets police arrest you for suspected prostitution, and if you apply for a job Social Security calls up your employer and outs you--hope you enjoy lower wages or being outright fired!) you get the fun of being treated as your birth sex in most states regarding marriage--thus, any who doesn't have gay marriage legalized bars a man and a woman from getting married, and often times bars you from even getting married to someone of the same gender, so you at that point cannot actually wed. You get the fun of dealing with people throughout your life (such as the many in this thread already) who scream at the top of their lungs that you are the sex you're born as, your identity doesn't actually exist (and thus you don't exist) while being so far from the world of dealing with GID that they cannot comprehend the basics. You get the amazing fun of disclosure to future partners--in some cases it is backlashed with violence. And of course you get experienced of public humiliation and 'outting' and 'other'ing such as the topic of the OP.
Fun, isn't it?
So please, piss off you ignorant twat, because I exist, and I've gone through more crap to be who I am and have a chance to grasp a TINY PART of the normalness that you get to have for free.
/rantoff
Regardless, onto the actual story: She shouldn't have lied (if she did, I've also heard from other places they kicked her they added the "women born women!" clause after) because that was stupid. They shouldn't have made such a stupid and senseless rule to begin with. I'm literally stunned that Trump turned this around. It makes me proud to see that there's at least some sensible people in this thread. TL you've made me proud.
I know this phrase is overused and derailed in so many ways but thank you for sharing! I am glad you chose to post in this topic. What you say is honest and deeply personal which adds so much perspective and reality to what most of the time in this thread was discussed on an abstract academic (or not) level.
I'm hoping someone in this thread can clarify a point about gender that I've never heard clarified.
Does, say, 'the female gender' designate those social and psychological characteristics that happen to be associated with the female sex in modern western societies, or does it designate whatever social and psychological characteristics happen to be associated with the female sex in the culture you are in?
To differentiate between the two, imagine a society wherein the sex-roles are reversed. Biological males are expected to do things that biological females here are expected to do and vice versa. In such a society, would a "butch" biological female also have the female gender, or the masculine gender?
If you're familiar with linguistics and philosophy of language, you can rephrase my question as being about whether or not 'the female gender' designates a property rigidly.
On April 04 2012 06:52 Alay wrote: Look at all the people in here trying to tell me I don't exist or should have lived on in agony, how cute and blissfully ignorant.
Lets give this a run down, shall we?
Gender identity is part of your personality. It's a part of what makes your mind "you." One part of this is the minds determination of your gender, in the broadest terms a binary of "male" and "female" though there's more of a spectrum of gender identities (consider people who identify as women as anywhere from very butch to very feminine, and the same with people who identify as men.) This gender identity portion of your personality is largely (possibly entirely) built during natal growth. You cannot change your gender identity. All attempts to alter them have ended up very bad. In most cases, humans are born with a congruence between their gender identity and their biological sex.
Dissonance between gender identity and biological sex causes a wave of depression in individuals, known as Gender Dysphoria. It's the kind of extreme deep pain that you wouldn't wish on the most evil person in the world. If you've never experienced it, you probably can't comprehend it--and that's okay, you're pretty damn lucky to not. Just recognize it exists.
This Gender Dysphoria inhibits day to day life as the "birth assigned" gender, the condition is called Gender Identity Disorder.
Transgender (transsexual, specifically) individuals are those who feel they have an incongruence between their innate gender identity, and their biological sex.
Transsexual individuals feel their biological sex is opposite what their gender identity is, and thus feel the need to permanently live as the opposite sex, in order to feel congruence between their gender identity and their biological sex. After this 'transition' which can involve things such as hormone replacement (testosterone suppression and estrogen supplement in male-to-females, testosterone injections in female-to-males), hair removal (facial hair, for example), breast binding/removal, in some cases facial surgeries, and in some cases Sexual Reassignment Surgery (penile inversion or phalloplasty are common, though other techniques exist.)
That's just the fine detail stuff. The truth is, society really really hates people that go outside what they consider the norms. I can't begin to explain the number of laughs and vile stares I used to get at that horrible "in between" phase, the teachers and peers that would intentionally try to talk me down or belittle me, or the times my parents would tell me they love me no matter what in one sentence, then try to punch my face in the next (my father on a few occasion, literally.) It's a horribly difficult undertaking, and it's one that someone would only do if they have no other choice but transitioning or suicide--and believe me, far too high of a percent take the later route. This is hardly some whim decision people do for the laughs. Afterwards (oh, and by afterwards I mean after genital surgery. Before that in most states you're still considered your birth sex, get a nice old school letter marker on your license/ID that lets police arrest you for suspected prostitution, and if you apply for a job Social Security calls up your employer and outs you--hope you enjoy lower wages or being outright fired!) you get the fun of being treated as your birth sex in most states regarding marriage--thus, any who doesn't have gay marriage legalized bars a man and a woman from getting married, and often times bars you from even getting married to someone of the same gender, so you at that point cannot actually wed. You get the fun of dealing with people throughout your life (such as the many in this thread already) who scream at the top of their lungs that you are the sex you're born as, your identity doesn't actually exist (and thus you don't exist) while being so far from the world of dealing with GID that they cannot comprehend the basics. You get the amazing fun of disclosure to future partners--in some cases it is backlashed with violence. And of course you get experienced of public humiliation and 'outting' and 'other'ing such as the topic of the OP.
Fun, isn't it?
So please, piss off you ignorant twat, because I exist, and I've gone through more crap to be who I am and have a chance to grasp a TINY PART of the normalness that you get to have for free.
/rantoff
Regardless, onto the actual story: She shouldn't have lied (if she did, I've also heard from other places they kicked her they added the "women born women!" clause after) because that was stupid. They shouldn't have made such a stupid and senseless rule to begin with. I'm literally stunned that Trump turned this around. It makes me proud to see that there's at least some sensible people in this thread. TL you've made me proud.
As you give off the impression that you know quite a bit about this, would you happen to know of any papers / resources that attend to the epistemic issues associated with transgenderism (e.g. how warranted is the belief that one was born the wrong sex, when one has never been anything other than the sex they were born)?
Not quite sure what you mean? No one, sans those that have transitioned, have experienced what it's like to be both sexes--and even then it's accuracy against being biologically born and raised as the opposite sex aren't really possible to compare. Basically, my point is, how would those that are cisgendered (same birth sex as their gender identity, aka 'not-trans') know that they're actually <whatever gender they are> if they've never tried being <opposite gender>?
Personal experience wise: I knew I wasn't my birth sex, and I suffered GID and Gender Dysphoria because I continued trying to live as my birth sex. I was somewhat sure my gender identity was the opposite sex, and after transitioning (and slowly alleviating gender dysphoria) I found out I was correct.
Not all transgendered feel they're in a binary either, it should be noted. Some identify as genderqueer (neither male nor female accurately describes their gender.) Dunno what that's like though, so I can't provide much information on that.
I'm sorry, I don't really understand what you're saying. Can you explain to me the difference between sex and gender? What does it even mean to think you're a gender that you're not? You prefer the social roles assigned to that gender? You don't like the way he or her sounds when ascribed to you?
I don't understand how the entire notion of transgendered isn't just a psychological problem...>_>
Transsexuals should be allowed to compete in something like a beauty pagent.. I can understand with the olympic committee having to ban atheletes because of advantages testosterone gives, but a beauty pagent?
It's unfortunate that society still can't accept that not everything is black and white, hopefully the attention on this subject will give more recongition that everything isn't male or female/masculine or feminine, and our sex/gender don't always match up.
On April 04 2012 06:52 Alay wrote: Look at all the people in here trying to tell me I don't exist or should have lived on in agony, how cute and blissfully ignorant.
Lets give this a run down, shall we?
Gender identity is part of your personality. It's a part of what makes your mind "you." One part of this is the minds determination of your gender, in the broadest terms a binary of "male" and "female" though there's more of a spectrum of gender identities (consider people who identify as women as anywhere from very butch to very feminine, and the same with people who identify as men.) This gender identity portion of your personality is largely (possibly entirely) built during natal growth. You cannot change your gender identity. All attempts to alter them have ended up very bad. In most cases, humans are born with a congruence between their gender identity and their biological sex.
Dissonance between gender identity and biological sex causes a wave of depression in individuals, known as Gender Dysphoria. It's the kind of extreme deep pain that you wouldn't wish on the most evil person in the world. If you've never experienced it, you probably can't comprehend it--and that's okay, you're pretty damn lucky to not. Just recognize it exists.
This Gender Dysphoria inhibits day to day life as the "birth assigned" gender, the condition is called Gender Identity Disorder.
Transgender (transsexual, specifically) individuals are those who feel they have an incongruence between their innate gender identity, and their biological sex.
Transsexual individuals feel their biological sex is opposite what their gender identity is, and thus feel the need to permanently live as the opposite sex, in order to feel congruence between their gender identity and their biological sex. After this 'transition' which can involve things such as hormone replacement (testosterone suppression and estrogen supplement in male-to-females, testosterone injections in female-to-males), hair removal (facial hair, for example), breast binding/removal, in some cases facial surgeries, and in some cases Sexual Reassignment Surgery (penile inversion or phalloplasty are common, though other techniques exist.)
That's just the fine detail stuff. The truth is, society really really hates people that go outside what they consider the norms. I can't begin to explain the number of laughs and vile stares I used to get at that horrible "in between" phase, the teachers and peers that would intentionally try to talk me down or belittle me, or the times my parents would tell me they love me no matter what in one sentence, then try to punch my face in the next (my father on a few occasion, literally.) It's a horribly difficult undertaking, and it's one that someone would only do if they have no other choice but transitioning or suicide--and believe me, far too high of a percent take the later route. This is hardly some whim decision people do for the laughs. Afterwards (oh, and by afterwards I mean after genital surgery. Before that in most states you're still considered your birth sex, get a nice old school letter marker on your license/ID that lets police arrest you for suspected prostitution, and if you apply for a job Social Security calls up your employer and outs you--hope you enjoy lower wages or being outright fired!) you get the fun of being treated as your birth sex in most states regarding marriage--thus, any who doesn't have gay marriage legalized bars a man and a woman from getting married, and often times bars you from even getting married to someone of the same gender, so you at that point cannot actually wed. You get the fun of dealing with people throughout your life (such as the many in this thread already) who scream at the top of their lungs that you are the sex you're born as, your identity doesn't actually exist (and thus you don't exist) while being so far from the world of dealing with GID that they cannot comprehend the basics. You get the amazing fun of disclosure to future partners--in some cases it is backlashed with violence. And of course you get experienced of public humiliation and 'outting' and 'other'ing such as the topic of the OP.
Fun, isn't it?
So please, piss off you ignorant twat, because I exist, and I've gone through more crap to be who I am and have a chance to grasp a TINY PART of the normalness that you get to have for free.
/rantoff
Regardless, onto the actual story: She shouldn't have lied (if she did, I've also heard from other places they kicked her they added the "women born women!" clause after) because that was stupid. They shouldn't have made such a stupid and senseless rule to begin with. I'm literally stunned that Trump turned this around. It makes me proud to see that there's at least some sensible people in this thread. TL you've made me proud.
As you give off the impression that you know quite a bit about this, would you happen to know of any papers / resources that attend to the epistemic issues associated with transgenderism (e.g. how warranted is the belief that one was born the wrong sex, when one has never been anything other than the sex they were born)?
Not quite sure what you mean? No one, sans those that have transitioned, have experienced what it's like to be both sexes--and even then it's accuracy against being biologically born and raised as the opposite sex aren't really possible to compare. Basically, my point is, how would those that are cisgendered (same birth sex as their gender identity, aka 'not-trans') know that they're actually <whatever gender they are> if they've never tried being <opposite gender>?
Personal experience wise: I knew I wasn't my birth sex, and I suffered GID and Gender Dysphoria because I continued trying to live as my birth sex. I was somewhat sure my gender identity was the opposite sex, and after transitioning (and slowly alleviating gender dysphoria) I found out I was correct.
Not all transgendered feel they're in a binary either, it should be noted. Some identify as genderqueer (neither male nor female accurately describes their gender.) Dunno what that's like though, so I can't provide much information on that.
I'm sorry, I don't really understand what you're saying. Can you explain to me the difference between sex and gender? What does it even mean to think you're a gender that you're not? You prefer the social roles assigned to that gender? You don't like the way he or her sounds when ascribed to you?
I don't understand how the entire notion of transgendered isn't just a psychological problem...>_>
I don't have any personal experience with this, but as far as I understand, people born physically as males feel psychologically like females, and vice versa. Essentially, they simply feel like they're in a body that is not "theirs", so to speak.
It extends far beyond social roles; though, if it was just that, then your transgenderism would probably fall more to the lines of cross-dressing.
An off-hand point I made earlier just actually made me think a bit.
If someone is born without a womb, would that make them appear visibly slimmer? I don't really know the size of a womb, but I imagine it would. You can fit a baby in that thing.
On April 04 2012 07:36 Deadeight wrote: An off-hand point I made earlier just actually made me think a bit.
If someone is born without a womb, would that make them appear visibly slimmer? I don't really know the size of a womb, but I imagine it would. You can fit a baby in that thing.
Have you ever seen a pregnant woman? If so I don't understand your reasoning.
On April 04 2012 07:17 frogrubdown wrote: I'm hoping someone in this thread can clarify a point about gender that I've never heard clarified.
Does, say, 'the female gender' designate those social and psychological characteristics that happen to be associated with the female sex in modern western societies, or does it designate whatever social and psychological characteristics happen to be associated with the female sex in the culture you are in?
To differentiate between the two, imagine a society wherein the sex-roles are reversed. Biological males are expected to do things that biological females here are expected to do and vice versa. In such a society, would a "butch" biological female also have the female gender, or the masculine gender?
If you're familiar with linguistics and philosophy of language, you can rephrase my question as being about whether or not 'the female gender' designates a property rigidly.
I think the need to identify a woman as "butch" stems from normal female social practices. Since women taking on male roles are not accepted in society, they are labelled as such. In your reverse world, if women are not accepted taking female roles, the "butch" women would be females with female roles. I'm not entirely sure, but this seems like why terms are developed to categorize those who are not accepted.
The context of gender is mostly psychological. I don't believe having tendencies of the opposite sex role is a cause for surgery. I don't know whether or not biological women with male tendencies consider their gender male or female, which opens up a lot of possibilities in regards to sex, gender and psychological acceptance. If they consider their gender female, they accept a female psychology within a female body, acting out male roles. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, because I'd like to know more about it.
I think that gender is an idea that has outlived it's usefulness. As I see it, the issue is that the connection between biological sex (males have a penis, females have breasts and a vagina) and gender (males behave a certain way, and females behave another way) is too strong in human culture. I think that the reason someone born a male feels that they need to undergo surgery to physically become a female to become their true self is because their gender, or the characteristics they have, are culturally associated with biological females, and so this person believes that because their gender is female, their sex should be female. I think that the idea that characteristics or behavior are indicitive of, or are in any way related to a person's sex is incorrect in modern times, but so ingrained in society that a male who has 'female' characteristics feels the need to alter their body to match a biological female. And I believe that the mind is a 'blank slate' at birth and that the way people think, and therefore behave, is shaped largely by what they experience through their life, and so a biological male with traits considered 'female' could definitely deeply believe that they should truely be a biological female.
On April 04 2012 07:17 frogrubdown wrote: I'm hoping someone in this thread can clarify a point about gender that I've never heard clarified.
Does, say, 'the female gender' designate those social and psychological characteristics that happen to be associated with the female sex in modern western societies, or does it designate whatever social and psychological characteristics happen to be associated with the female sex in the culture you are in?
To differentiate between the two, imagine a society wherein the sex-roles are reversed. Biological males are expected to do things that biological females here are expected to do and vice versa. In such a society, would a "butch" biological female also have the female gender, or the masculine gender?
If you're familiar with linguistics and philosophy of language, you can rephrase my question as being about whether or not 'the female gender' designates a property rigidly.
I think I understand what you're asking, and I'd just say that "butch" women identify as women, whilst trans men (birth-assigned female, transitioned to male) identify as male.
Question: anyone knows if born females are accepted at transgender beauty pageants if they wish to compete? I tried with Google but couldn't find the answer.
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.
Completely agree, I don't understand people's apprehension when it comes to this.
i honestly dont know the answer to this so i would appreciate if anyone has read more into it could answer. is she 'medically' female? i mean i support her choosing to be a female, and she sure looks like a woman and stuff. im just curious if theres anything medically male about her anymore? or if she is over 50% female etc? basically is there any possible rule they could of had previously that would eliminate her? because if she is more female than male in every sense then this whole thing just confuses me greatly.
On April 04 2012 07:17 frogrubdown wrote: I'm hoping someone in this thread can clarify a point about gender that I've never heard clarified.
Does, say, 'the female gender' designate those social and psychological characteristics that happen to be associated with the female sex in modern western societies, or does it designate whatever social and psychological characteristics happen to be associated with the female sex in the culture you are in?
To differentiate between the two, imagine a society wherein the sex-roles are reversed. Biological males are expected to do things that biological females here are expected to do and vice versa. In such a society, would a "butch" biological female also have the female gender, or the masculine gender?
If you're familiar with linguistics and philosophy of language, you can rephrase my question as being about whether or not 'the female gender' designates a property rigidly.
I think I understand what you're asking, and I'd just say that "butch" women identify as women, whilst trans men (birth-assigned female, transitioned to male) identify as male.
By "butch biological female" I meant someone born biologically female who in our society has the male gender. Does this person have the same gender in every society, or would the gender depend on which sex was associated with the psychological and social states the person exhibits in the society in question?
I am so disappointed. When will especially the heavily christian influenced american society get over their "right" way to be? It was her decision, she is what she is and by that beautiful what is the point?
Actually is there an official statement refering to rules which is actually reasonable? I still believe it is not but that's another story.
I thought this rather tragic story was pretty relevent to the thread, and the current discussion on gender identification. For the tldr the story, it basically comes down to a baby boy under going a botched circumcision has to have his penis removed. The parents decide to raise him as a girl, because of 'theory of Gender Neutrality'; that gender identity developed primarily as a result of social learning from early childhood and could be changed with the appropriate behavioral interventions. Later in life the boy identified as a boy despite being brought up as a girl and went through a lot of trauma and confusion and eventually killed himself.
Gender identity is seperate from how society treats you I think. It really doesn't matter how you are brought up. I think it is a completely seperate and more complex thing than "well if society just excepted that boys can do things more feminine and girls can do things more masculine then there would be no need for gender reassignment surgury, these people would just be happy"
I know I would feel pretty weird if I looked like the opposite sex to what I felt myself as being, It would just be plain wrong...
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.
Completely agree, I don't understand people's apprehension when it comes to this.
Maybe it's because 99% of people don't "choose" their sex. And half the thread is saying you can choose "gender" and the other half is saying you can't.
This thread is going nowhere because no one has succeeded in actually defining what gender even means in a way anyone can agree on. Either it's psychological, sociological, or biological. It can't be all three at the same time.
Can't help but feel bad for the girl, all judgements aside this must be absolutely crushing for her... It probably meant a whole lot to her you know, like if she won and all wouldn't that mean she's a good female? However she did take a rather extreme risk in joining a competition like this.
On April 04 2012 06:52 Alay wrote: Look at all the people in here trying to tell me I don't exist or should have lived on in agony, how cute and blissfully ignorant.
Lets give this a run down, shall we?
Gender identity is part of your personality. It's a part of what makes your mind "you." One part of this is the minds determination of your gender, in the broadest terms a binary of "male" and "female" though there's more of a spectrum of gender identities (consider people who identify as women as anywhere from very butch to very feminine, and the same with people who identify as men.) This gender identity portion of your personality is largely (possibly entirely) built during natal growth. You cannot change your gender identity. All attempts to alter them have ended up very bad. In most cases, humans are born with a congruence between their gender identity and their biological sex.
Dissonance between gender identity and biological sex causes a wave of depression in individuals, known as Gender Dysphoria. It's the kind of extreme deep pain that you wouldn't wish on the most evil person in the world. If you've never experienced it, you probably can't comprehend it--and that's okay, you're pretty damn lucky to not. Just recognize it exists.
This Gender Dysphoria inhibits day to day life as the "birth assigned" gender, the condition is called Gender Identity Disorder.
Transgender (transsexual, specifically) individuals are those who feel they have an incongruence between their innate gender identity, and their biological sex.
Transsexual individuals feel their biological sex is opposite what their gender identity is, and thus feel the need to permanently live as the opposite sex, in order to feel congruence between their gender identity and their biological sex. After this 'transition' which can involve things such as hormone replacement (testosterone suppression and estrogen supplement in male-to-females, testosterone injections in female-to-males), hair removal (facial hair, for example), breast binding/removal, in some cases facial surgeries, and in some cases Sexual Reassignment Surgery (penile inversion or phalloplasty are common, though other techniques exist.)
That's just the fine detail stuff. The truth is, society really really hates people that go outside what they consider the norms. I can't begin to explain the number of laughs and vile stares I used to get at that horrible "in between" phase, the teachers and peers that would intentionally try to talk me down or belittle me, or the times my parents would tell me they love me no matter what in one sentence, then try to punch my face in the next (my father on a few occasion, literally.) It's a horribly difficult undertaking, and it's one that someone would only do if they have no other choice but transitioning or suicide--and believe me, far too high of a percent take the later route. This is hardly some whim decision people do for the laughs. Afterwards (oh, and by afterwards I mean after genital surgery. Before that in most states you're still considered your birth sex, get a nice old school letter marker on your license/ID that lets police arrest you for suspected prostitution, and if you apply for a job Social Security calls up your employer and outs you--hope you enjoy lower wages or being outright fired!) you get the fun of being treated as your birth sex in most states regarding marriage--thus, any who doesn't have gay marriage legalized bars a man and a woman from getting married, and often times bars you from even getting married to someone of the same gender, so you at that point cannot actually wed. You get the fun of dealing with people throughout your life (such as the many in this thread already) who scream at the top of their lungs that you are the sex you're born as, your identity doesn't actually exist (and thus you don't exist) while being so far from the world of dealing with GID that they cannot comprehend the basics. You get the amazing fun of disclosure to future partners--in some cases it is backlashed with violence. And of course you get experienced of public humiliation and 'outting' and 'other'ing such as the topic of the OP.
Fun, isn't it?
So please, piss off you ignorant twat, because I exist, and I've gone through more crap to be who I am and have a chance to grasp a TINY PART of the normalness that you get to have for free.
/rantoff
Regardless, onto the actual story: She shouldn't have lied (if she did, I've also heard from other places they kicked her they added the "women born women!" clause after) because that was stupid. They shouldn't have made such a stupid and senseless rule to begin with. I'm literally stunned that Trump turned this around. It makes me proud to see that there's at least some sensible people in this thread. TL you've made me proud.
As you give off the impression that you know quite a bit about this, would you happen to know of any papers / resources that attend to the epistemic issues associated with transgenderism (e.g. how warranted is the belief that one was born the wrong sex, when one has never been anything other than the sex they were born)?
Not quite sure what you mean? No one, sans those that have transitioned, have experienced what it's like to be both sexes--and even then it's accuracy against being biologically born and raised as the opposite sex aren't really possible to compare. Basically, my point is, how would those that are cisgendered (same birth sex as their gender identity, aka 'not-trans') know that they're actually <whatever gender they are> if they've never tried being <opposite gender>?
Personal experience wise: I knew I wasn't my birth sex, and I suffered GID and Gender Dysphoria because I continued trying to live as my birth sex. I was somewhat sure my gender identity was the opposite sex, and after transitioning (and slowly alleviating gender dysphoria) I found out I was correct.
Not all transgendered feel they're in a binary either, it should be noted. Some identify as genderqueer (neither male nor female accurately describes their gender.) Dunno what that's like though, so I can't provide much information on that.
What I am asking is, is there a sound epistemological justification for someone of a particular sex to say, "I'm actually the other gender, I desire for my physical appearance to reflect that". Obviously there are people who make the claim, and strongly (I believe you're one such person), that they were born the wrong sex, but how do they know? Is the psychological disconnect a genuine instance of "the universe got it wrong", and if not, then what? Cisgendered people are not quite the point: they aren't challenging their birth sex (although I get what you're saying).
On April 04 2012 07:36 Deadeight wrote: An off-hand point I made earlier just actually made me think a bit.
If someone is born without a womb, would that make them appear visibly slimmer? I don't really know the size of a womb, but I imagine it would. You can fit a baby in that thing.
Have you ever seen a pregnant woman? If so I don't understand your reasoning.
No I haven't. Just saw one on google images and that solves the issue, thanks very much for the great post. Fucking brilliant.
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.
Completely agree, I don't understand people's apprehension when it comes to this.
Maybe it's because 99% of people don't "choose" their sex. And half the thread is saying you can choose "gender" and the other half is saying you can't.
This thread is going nowhere because no one has succeeded in actually defining what gender even means in a way anyone can agree on. Either it's psychological, sociological, or biological. It can't be all three at the same time.
I disagree. I think it's clearly influenced by all three.
Hormones certainly play a role in how we act and feel, and just as importantly, how we develop. I don't think I need to explain the influence testosterone has and how it influences male development. Social norms defines the exact boundaries of how males and females act, which are based upon biological behavior, but are somewhat arbitrary. For example, boys roughhousing is considered 'normal' and is also due to biology. Clothing options are entirely societal. And a person's psychology is a catch 22 of nature/nurture debate which kind of sums up this whole debate.
And the difference between a butch lesbian and a transgendar male is how they see themselves. You can't choose that just like you can't choose if you're homosexual or not.
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.
Completely agree, I don't understand people's apprehension when it comes to this.
Maybe it's because 99% of people don't "choose" their sex. And half the thread is saying you can choose "gender" and the other half is saying you can't.
This thread is going nowhere because no one has succeeded in actually defining what gender even means in a way anyone can agree on. Either it's psychological, sociological, or biological. It can't be all three at the same time.
Of course it’s all three. Since when is any complex aspect of being human not connected to all three of those to one degree or another?
Our minds are born in one way, with some different limitations and capacity and traits unique to us. But minds don’t remain static from that point, and they change from chemicals, internal processes of thought as well as responses to external sociological factors.
The only thing in question on the subject of gender, in all the complicated forms that arguments tend to take, is the proportions of the three. Which, undeniably, are not identical from person to person. So in that sense, yes, since you seem to be seeking some black and white answer that doesn’t exist, stop looking, or start exploring the shades of gray that you've seemingly been completely dismissing.
On April 04 2012 06:52 Alay wrote: Look at all the people in here trying to tell me I don't exist or should have lived on in agony, how cute and blissfully ignorant.
Lets give this a run down, shall we?
Gender identity is part of your personality. It's a part of what makes your mind "you." One part of this is the minds determination of your gender, in the broadest terms a binary of "male" and "female" though there's more of a spectrum of gender identities (consider people who identify as women as anywhere from very butch to very feminine, and the same with people who identify as men.) This gender identity portion of your personality is largely (possibly entirely) built during natal growth. You cannot change your gender identity. All attempts to alter them have ended up very bad. In most cases, humans are born with a congruence between their gender identity and their biological sex.
Dissonance between gender identity and biological sex causes a wave of depression in individuals, known as Gender Dysphoria. It's the kind of extreme deep pain that you wouldn't wish on the most evil person in the world. If you've never experienced it, you probably can't comprehend it--and that's okay, you're pretty damn lucky to not. Just recognize it exists.
This Gender Dysphoria inhibits day to day life as the "birth assigned" gender, the condition is called Gender Identity Disorder.
Transgender (transsexual, specifically) individuals are those who feel they have an incongruence between their innate gender identity, and their biological sex.
Transsexual individuals feel their biological sex is opposite what their gender identity is, and thus feel the need to permanently live as the opposite sex, in order to feel congruence between their gender identity and their biological sex. After this 'transition' which can involve things such as hormone replacement (testosterone suppression and estrogen supplement in male-to-females, testosterone injections in female-to-males), hair removal (facial hair, for example), breast binding/removal, in some cases facial surgeries, and in some cases Sexual Reassignment Surgery (penile inversion or phalloplasty are common, though other techniques exist.)
That's just the fine detail stuff. The truth is, society really really hates people that go outside what they consider the norms. I can't begin to explain the number of laughs and vile stares I used to get at that horrible "in between" phase, the teachers and peers that would intentionally try to talk me down or belittle me, or the times my parents would tell me they love me no matter what in one sentence, then try to punch my face in the next (my father on a few occasion, literally.) It's a horribly difficult undertaking, and it's one that someone would only do if they have no other choice but transitioning or suicide--and believe me, far too high of a percent take the later route. This is hardly some whim decision people do for the laughs. Afterwards (oh, and by afterwards I mean after genital surgery. Before that in most states you're still considered your birth sex, get a nice old school letter marker on your license/ID that lets police arrest you for suspected prostitution, and if you apply for a job Social Security calls up your employer and outs you--hope you enjoy lower wages or being outright fired!) you get the fun of being treated as your birth sex in most states regarding marriage--thus, any who doesn't have gay marriage legalized bars a man and a woman from getting married, and often times bars you from even getting married to someone of the same gender, so you at that point cannot actually wed. You get the fun of dealing with people throughout your life (such as the many in this thread already) who scream at the top of their lungs that you are the sex you're born as, your identity doesn't actually exist (and thus you don't exist) while being so far from the world of dealing with GID that they cannot comprehend the basics. You get the amazing fun of disclosure to future partners--in some cases it is backlashed with violence. And of course you get experienced of public humiliation and 'outting' and 'other'ing such as the topic of the OP.
Fun, isn't it?
So please, piss off you ignorant twat, because I exist, and I've gone through more crap to be who I am and have a chance to grasp a TINY PART of the normalness that you get to have for free.
/rantoff
Regardless, onto the actual story: She shouldn't have lied (if she did, I've also heard from other places they kicked her they added the "women born women!" clause after) because that was stupid. They shouldn't have made such a stupid and senseless rule to begin with. I'm literally stunned that Trump turned this around. It makes me proud to see that there's at least some sensible people in this thread. TL you've made me proud.
As you give off the impression that you know quite a bit about this, would you happen to know of any papers / resources that attend to the epistemic issues associated with transgenderism (e.g. how warranted is the belief that one was born the wrong sex, when one has never been anything other than the sex they were born)?
Not quite sure what you mean? No one, sans those that have transitioned, have experienced what it's like to be both sexes--and even then it's accuracy against being biologically born and raised as the opposite sex aren't really possible to compare. Basically, my point is, how would those that are cisgendered (same birth sex as their gender identity, aka 'not-trans') know that they're actually <whatever gender they are> if they've never tried being <opposite gender>?
Personal experience wise: I knew I wasn't my birth sex, and I suffered GID and Gender Dysphoria because I continued trying to live as my birth sex. I was somewhat sure my gender identity was the opposite sex, and after transitioning (and slowly alleviating gender dysphoria) I found out I was correct.
Not all transgendered feel they're in a binary either, it should be noted. Some identify as genderqueer (neither male nor female accurately describes their gender.) Dunno what that's like though, so I can't provide much information on that.
What I am asking is, is there a sound epistemological justification for someone of a particular sex to say, "I'm actually the other gender, I desire for my physical appearance to reflect that". Obviously there are people who make the claim, and strongly (I believe you're one such person), that they were born the wrong sex, but how do they know? Is the psychological disconnect a genuine instance of "the universe got it wrong", and if not, then what? Cisgendered people are not quite the point: they aren't challenging their birth sex (although I get what you're saying).
The best answer I can give is that you kind of just "know". It'd probably be next to impossible to describe with words (and cisgendered people can experience this too, when posed the question "without using physical attributes as evidence, how are you sure you're male/female?") however evidence that it actually exists comes in the form of extreme depression revolving around feeling gender incongruent (gender dysphoria) to the extent that it has extreme interference with daily life (gender identity disorder.) It's only after an individual has expressed these for a long period of time under the supervision of a gender specialist that basic hormonal treatment will be prescribed--and only after two years in most cases of living full time as the 'target' gender will genital surgeries be permitted for those that seek it (which required in most cases two letters of recommendation from different gender specialists) so it's hardly something that can be done on a whim.
Further, I think someone that wasn't very serious would realize very quickly that there's only pain in being trans, and thus pretending to be trans (and actually transitioning) would be a pretty stupid idea. Again, most people only transition because the alternative is suicide from the intensity of their depression.
Finally, I don't so much think it's a case of the universe getting it wrong, so much as it's just a physiological phenomenon, brought on by a roll on the biological dice.
Did I understand properly what you were trying to ask?
On April 04 2012 03:02 Deadeight wrote: Unless it's a contest where any cosmetic surgery is banned, which I could understand, I think it's the wrong decision.
cosmetic surgery isn't banned in these competitions?
It isn't banned.
so wtf is the point of it all if you can just manufacture yourself to be 'as beautiful as possible', perhaps especially in the case of transgendered individuals?
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.
Completely agree, I don't understand people's apprehension when it comes to this.
Maybe it's because 99% of people don't "choose" their sex. And half the thread is saying you can choose "gender" and the other half is saying you can't.
This thread is going nowhere because no one has succeeded in actually defining what gender even means in a way anyone can agree on. Either it's psychological, sociological, or biological. It can't be all three at the same time.
I disagree. I think it's clearly influenced by all three.
Hormones certainly play a role in how we act and feel, and just as importantly, how we develop. I don't think I need to explain the influence testosterone has and how it influences male development. Social norms defines the exact boundaries of how males and females act, which are based upon biological behavior, but are somewhat arbitrary. For example, boys roughhousing is considered 'normal' and is also due to biology. Clothing options are entirely societal. And a person's psychology is a catch 22 of nature/nurture debate which kind of sums up this whole debate.
And the difference between a butch lesbian and a transgendar male is how they see themselves. You can't choose that just like you can't choose if you're homosexual or not.
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.
Completely agree, I don't understand people's apprehension when it comes to this.
Maybe it's because 99% of people don't "choose" their sex. And half the thread is saying you can choose "gender" and the other half is saying you can't.
This thread is going nowhere because no one has succeeded in actually defining what gender even means in a way anyone can agree on. Either it's psychological, sociological, or biological. It can't be all three at the same time.
Of course it’s all three. Since when is any complex aspect of being human not connected to all three of those to one degree or another?
Our minds are born in one way, with some different limitations and capacity and traits unique to us. But minds don’t remain static from that point, and they change from chemicals, internal processes of thought as well as responses to external sociological factors.
The only thing in question on the subject of gender, in all the complicated forms that arguments tend to take, is the proportions of the three. Which, undeniably, are not identical from person to person. So in that sense, yes, since you seem to be seeking some black and white answer that doesn’t exist, stop looking, or start exploring the shades of gray that you've seemingly been completely dismissing.
At the end of the day, gender is just a word. It's not some objective concept that is independent of language. Like all words, it's meaning depends entirely on how we choose to define it.
It makes no sense to define it in a way that can make the gender distinction contradictory. In other words, there needs to be a defining characteristic or distinction in order for the word to have any meaning at all.
And so the defining characteristic either has to be determined according to what the person says, or what society says, or what an empirical/scientific observation says. You can't have all three contradicting each other in a single concept or it's not even a meaningful concept.
On April 04 2012 08:27 Gnosis wrote: What I am asking is, is there a sound epistemological justification for someone of a particular sex to say, "I'm actually the other gender, I desire for my physical appearance to reflect that". Obviously there are people who make the claim, and strongly (I believe you're one such person), that they were born the wrong sex, but how do they know? Is the psychological disconnect a genuine instance of "the universe got it wrong", and if not, then what? Cisgendered people are not quite the point: they aren't challenging their birth sex (although I get what you're saying).
I wonder the same thing.
I also wonder if anyone would seek to change their sex through surgery if there were no stereotypically male or female traits or preferences. If sex was completely dissociated from any cultural expectations of personality or behavior, I don't think that anyone would feel a need to change their sex.
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.
Completely agree, I don't understand people's apprehension when it comes to this.
Maybe it's because 99% of people don't "choose" their sex. And half the thread is saying you can choose "gender" and the other half is saying you can't.
This thread is going nowhere because no one has succeeded in actually defining what gender even means in a way anyone can agree on. Either it's psychological, sociological, or biological. It can't be all three at the same time.
I disagree. I think it's clearly influenced by all three.
Hormones certainly play a role in how we act and feel, and just as importantly, how we develop. I don't think I need to explain the influence testosterone has and how it influences male development. Social norms defines the exact boundaries of how males and females act, which are based upon biological behavior, but are somewhat arbitrary. For example, boys roughhousing is considered 'normal' and is also due to biology. Clothing options are entirely societal. And a person's psychology is a catch 22 of nature/nurture debate which kind of sums up this whole debate.
And the difference between a butch lesbian and a transgendar male is how they see themselves. You can't choose that just like you can't choose if you're homosexual or not.
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.
Completely agree, I don't understand people's apprehension when it comes to this.
Maybe it's because 99% of people don't "choose" their sex. And half the thread is saying you can choose "gender" and the other half is saying you can't.
This thread is going nowhere because no one has succeeded in actually defining what gender even means in a way anyone can agree on. Either it's psychological, sociological, or biological. It can't be all three at the same time.
Of course it’s all three. Since when is any complex aspect of being human not connected to all three of those to one degree or another?
Our minds are born in one way, with some different limitations and capacity and traits unique to us. But minds don’t remain static from that point, and they change from chemicals, internal processes of thought as well as responses to external sociological factors.
The only thing in question on the subject of gender, in all the complicated forms that arguments tend to take, is the proportions of the three. Which, undeniably, are not identical from person to person. So in that sense, yes, since you seem to be seeking some black and white answer that doesn’t exist, stop looking, or start exploring the shades of gray that you've seemingly been completely dismissing.
At the end of the day, gender is just a word. It's not some objective concept that is independent of language. Like all words, it's meaning depends entirely on how we choose to define it.
It makes no sense to define it in a way that can make the gender distinction contradictory. In other words, there needs to be a defining characteristic or distinction in order for the word to have any meaning at all.
And so the defining characteristic either has to be determined according to what the person says, or what society says, or what an empirical/scientific observation says. You can't have all three contradicting each other in a single concept or it's not even a meaningful concept.
I would say you're looking at it too simplistically. You can't just sort of claim that those concepts are all "contradictory". This makes no sense. In any case, you need to read up on neurobiology, then appreciate how interdigitated your "biology" is with your "psychology" and how these influence your "social" interactions, which produces feedback that in turn influences your psychology/biology, and so on. Gender transcends sex in that it depends on the social context. If you were in a vacuum, then you could characterize yourself only on your own observation of your biological characteristics -- your "sex".
Suppose there is some sort of "amazonian society" where woman were dominant and acted almost completely different from girls in societies we were used to... Does a transgender girl identify as a girl in this society in the same way as transgender girl in our normal society does? I feel like they're completely different and society actually does have something to do with it.
Basically they did it to keep their sponsors and not alienate their viewers, with most of each group probably being uncomfortable waxing their carrot to someone that was formerly male, for whatever reason.
This is another one of those hot media stories where all the most opinionated people can yell at each other in some public forum or another, an excuse to flaunt either our "progressiveness," or our focus on "values."
Well, my 2 cents is as follows: Miss Universe/USA/AngolaWhatever/Whomever competitions are awful events where phony women gather to enable the more absurd gender stereotypes in Western culture. It's a shame this person transformed herself into a women just to imitate one of their more pathetic subcultures.
On April 04 2012 09:28 MountainDewJunkie wrote: It's a shame this person transformed herself into a women just to imitate one of their more pathetic subcultures.
Since she made her decision as a young child, I doubt that's "just" why she did it. In fact I doubt that factored into her choice at all.
Transgendered people may or may not conform to any given stereotype of the gender they identify with. It's the same as the fact that not every guy falls into a category of either "overmasculine frat boy" or "effeminate metrosexual".
People identify with a gender, and then they get on with their lives. They're not (usually) trying to make some grand social commentary. This one happens to like beauty pageants. So what.
On April 04 2012 09:21 PhoenixLight wrote: Suppose there is some sort of "amazonian society" where woman were dominant and acted almost completely different from girls in societies we were used to... Does a transgender girl identify as a girl in this society in the same way as transgender girl in our normal society does? I feel like they're completely different and society actually does have something to do with it.
From what I know the Transgendered person would still feel the desire to be of the other sex than the one they appear to be. The issue of being transgender is about the body and not about the society; if you are not comfortable in your body that will not change even if you are asked to do something you are comfortable with.
I believe people, not just in this thread but, in all walks of life misunderstand what it is to be transgendered. The transgendered person is not (necessarily) uncomfortable with the gender role provided by society; they are uncomfortable in their body. There are transgendered women who are also lesbians, transgendered men who identify as gay. The sex role is not the same as the gender of the person.
Another point I would make is in regards to the pronoun being particularly gendered. If you are unsure of which pronoun is appropriate and don't wish to offend you could also chose to use the genderless pronoun which is popular withing the LGBTQ community, instead of he or she the singular is ze and the particular (him or her) is zer.
As to the idea that these people chose to be transgendered; there is no choice in the gender you identify as. It is the same as your sexual orientation, from birth (or from early youth) you will Identify as a particular gender, a particular sexual orientation. I don't really know how to explain that knowledge to someone who hasn't experienced it; I'll do my best though.
Sorry for all of the assumptions in this, I'm not sure how else to do it. This explanation assumes you are a cis heterosexual male who has interacted sexually with a cis heterosexual female. If you are male and have been since birth you can remember your own comfortably with your sexual organs, since you were young you could look at your own sexual organs and think: that is part of me, part of my body. When you first interacted sexually with a girl you experienced a female sexual organ for the first time in your memory. At that time you (or at least I) couldn't understand what it would be like to have a female sexual organ. That would be a weird thought for you, to have a vagina where there 'should be' a penis. Hopefully that makes sense up until now. If you are a transgendered (MtF) person instead you would feel that you have a penis where there 'should be' a vagina; it would be as odd for you to have that penis as it would for me to have a vagina and you would be as uncomfortable in that body with that sexual organ (and everything that comes with it) as I would be in a female body.
On April 04 2012 06:52 Alay wrote: Look at all the people in here trying to tell me I don't exist or should have lived on in agony, how cute and blissfully ignorant.
Lets give this a run down, shall we?
Gender identity is part of your personality. It's a part of what makes your mind "you." One part of this is the minds determination of your gender, in the broadest terms a binary of "male" and "female" though there's more of a spectrum of gender identities (consider people who identify as women as anywhere from very butch to very feminine, and the same with people who identify as men.) This gender identity portion of your personality is largely (possibly entirely) built during natal growth. You cannot change your gender identity. All attempts to alter them have ended up very bad. In most cases, humans are born with a congruence between their gender identity and their biological sex.
Dissonance between gender identity and biological sex causes a wave of depression in individuals, known as Gender Dysphoria. It's the kind of extreme deep pain that you wouldn't wish on the most evil person in the world. If you've never experienced it, you probably can't comprehend it--and that's okay, you're pretty damn lucky to not. Just recognize it exists.
This Gender Dysphoria inhibits day to day life as the "birth assigned" gender, the condition is called Gender Identity Disorder.
Transgender (transsexual, specifically) individuals are those who feel they have an incongruence between their innate gender identity, and their biological sex.
Transsexual individuals feel their biological sex is opposite what their gender identity is, and thus feel the need to permanently live as the opposite sex, in order to feel congruence between their gender identity and their biological sex. After this 'transition' which can involve things such as hormone replacement (testosterone suppression and estrogen supplement in male-to-females, testosterone injections in female-to-males), hair removal (facial hair, for example), breast binding/removal, in some cases facial surgeries, and in some cases Sexual Reassignment Surgery (penile inversion or phalloplasty are common, though other techniques exist.)
That's just the fine detail stuff. The truth is, society really really hates people that go outside what they consider the norms. I can't begin to explain the number of laughs and vile stares I used to get at that horrible "in between" phase, the teachers and peers that would intentionally try to talk me down or belittle me, or the times my parents would tell me they love me no matter what in one sentence, then try to punch my face in the next (my father on a few occasion, literally.) It's a horribly difficult undertaking, and it's one that someone would only do if they have no other choice but transitioning or suicide--and believe me, far too high of a percent take the later route. This is hardly some whim decision people do for the laughs. Afterwards (oh, and by afterwards I mean after genital surgery. Before that in most states you're still considered your birth sex, get a nice old school letter marker on your license/ID that lets police arrest you for suspected prostitution, and if you apply for a job Social Security calls up your employer and outs you--hope you enjoy lower wages or being outright fired!) you get the fun of being treated as your birth sex in most states regarding marriage--thus, any who doesn't have gay marriage legalized bars a man and a woman from getting married, and often times bars you from even getting married to someone of the same gender, so you at that point cannot actually wed. You get the fun of dealing with people throughout your life (such as the many in this thread already) who scream at the top of their lungs that you are the sex you're born as, your identity doesn't actually exist (and thus you don't exist) while being so far from the world of dealing with GID that they cannot comprehend the basics. You get the amazing fun of disclosure to future partners--in some cases it is backlashed with violence. And of course you get experienced of public humiliation and 'outting' and 'other'ing such as the topic of the OP.
Fun, isn't it?
So please, piss off you ignorant twat, because I exist, and I've gone through more crap to be who I am and have a chance to grasp a TINY PART of the normalness that you get to have for free.
/rantoff
Regardless, onto the actual story: She shouldn't have lied (if she did, I've also heard from other places they kicked her they added the "women born women!" clause after) because that was stupid. They shouldn't have made such a stupid and senseless rule to begin with. I'm literally stunned that Trump turned this around. It makes me proud to see that there's at least some sensible people in this thread. TL you've made me proud.
As you give off the impression that you know quite a bit about this, would you happen to know of any papers / resources that attend to the epistemic issues associated with transgenderism (e.g. how warranted is the belief that one was born the wrong sex, when one has never been anything other than the sex they were born)?
Not quite sure what you mean? No one, sans those that have transitioned, have experienced what it's like to be both sexes--and even then it's accuracy against being biologically born and raised as the opposite sex aren't really possible to compare. Basically, my point is, how would those that are cisgendered (same birth sex as their gender identity, aka 'not-trans') know that they're actually <whatever gender they are> if they've never tried being <opposite gender>?
Personal experience wise: I knew I wasn't my birth sex, and I suffered GID and Gender Dysphoria because I continued trying to live as my birth sex. I was somewhat sure my gender identity was the opposite sex, and after transitioning (and slowly alleviating gender dysphoria) I found out I was correct.
Not all transgendered feel they're in a binary either, it should be noted. Some identify as genderqueer (neither male nor female accurately describes their gender.) Dunno what that's like though, so I can't provide much information on that.
I'm sorry, I don't really understand what you're saying. Can you explain to me the difference between sex and gender? What does it even mean to think you're a gender that you're not? You prefer the social roles assigned to that gender? You don't like the way he or her sounds when ascribed to you?
I don't understand how the entire notion of transgendered isn't just a psychological problem...>_>
I don't have any personal experience with this, but as far as I understand, people born physically as males feel psychologically like females, and vice versa. Essentially, they simply feel like they're in a body that is not "theirs", so to speak.
It extends far beyond social roles; though, if it was just that, then your transgenderism would probably fall more to the lines of cross-dressing.
I don't understand how that makes sense. How can you feel like you're psychologically female or male, what does that even mean?
On April 04 2012 06:52 Alay wrote: Look at all the people in here trying to tell me I don't exist or should have lived on in agony, how cute and blissfully ignorant.
Lets give this a run down, shall we?
Gender identity is part of your personality. It's a part of what makes your mind "you." One part of this is the minds determination of your gender, in the broadest terms a binary of "male" and "female" though there's more of a spectrum of gender identities (consider people who identify as women as anywhere from very butch to very feminine, and the same with people who identify as men.) This gender identity portion of your personality is largely (possibly entirely) built during natal growth. You cannot change your gender identity. All attempts to alter them have ended up very bad. In most cases, humans are born with a congruence between their gender identity and their biological sex.
Dissonance between gender identity and biological sex causes a wave of depression in individuals, known as Gender Dysphoria. It's the kind of extreme deep pain that you wouldn't wish on the most evil person in the world. If you've never experienced it, you probably can't comprehend it--and that's okay, you're pretty damn lucky to not. Just recognize it exists.
This Gender Dysphoria inhibits day to day life as the "birth assigned" gender, the condition is called Gender Identity Disorder.
Transgender (transsexual, specifically) individuals are those who feel they have an incongruence between their innate gender identity, and their biological sex.
Transsexual individuals feel their biological sex is opposite what their gender identity is, and thus feel the need to permanently live as the opposite sex, in order to feel congruence between their gender identity and their biological sex. After this 'transition' which can involve things such as hormone replacement (testosterone suppression and estrogen supplement in male-to-females, testosterone injections in female-to-males), hair removal (facial hair, for example), breast binding/removal, in some cases facial surgeries, and in some cases Sexual Reassignment Surgery (penile inversion or phalloplasty are common, though other techniques exist.)
That's just the fine detail stuff. The truth is, society really really hates people that go outside what they consider the norms. I can't begin to explain the number of laughs and vile stares I used to get at that horrible "in between" phase, the teachers and peers that would intentionally try to talk me down or belittle me, or the times my parents would tell me they love me no matter what in one sentence, then try to punch my face in the next (my father on a few occasion, literally.) It's a horribly difficult undertaking, and it's one that someone would only do if they have no other choice but transitioning or suicide--and believe me, far too high of a percent take the later route. This is hardly some whim decision people do for the laughs. Afterwards (oh, and by afterwards I mean after genital surgery. Before that in most states you're still considered your birth sex, get a nice old school letter marker on your license/ID that lets police arrest you for suspected prostitution, and if you apply for a job Social Security calls up your employer and outs you--hope you enjoy lower wages or being outright fired!) you get the fun of being treated as your birth sex in most states regarding marriage--thus, any who doesn't have gay marriage legalized bars a man and a woman from getting married, and often times bars you from even getting married to someone of the same gender, so you at that point cannot actually wed. You get the fun of dealing with people throughout your life (such as the many in this thread already) who scream at the top of their lungs that you are the sex you're born as, your identity doesn't actually exist (and thus you don't exist) while being so far from the world of dealing with GID that they cannot comprehend the basics. You get the amazing fun of disclosure to future partners--in some cases it is backlashed with violence. And of course you get experienced of public humiliation and 'outting' and 'other'ing such as the topic of the OP.
Fun, isn't it?
So please, piss off you ignorant twat, because I exist, and I've gone through more crap to be who I am and have a chance to grasp a TINY PART of the normalness that you get to have for free.
/rantoff
Regardless, onto the actual story: She shouldn't have lied (if she did, I've also heard from other places they kicked her they added the "women born women!" clause after) because that was stupid. They shouldn't have made such a stupid and senseless rule to begin with. I'm literally stunned that Trump turned this around. It makes me proud to see that there's at least some sensible people in this thread. TL you've made me proud.
As you give off the impression that you know quite a bit about this, would you happen to know of any papers / resources that attend to the epistemic issues associated with transgenderism (e.g. how warranted is the belief that one was born the wrong sex, when one has never been anything other than the sex they were born)?
Not quite sure what you mean? No one, sans those that have transitioned, have experienced what it's like to be both sexes--and even then it's accuracy against being biologically born and raised as the opposite sex aren't really possible to compare. Basically, my point is, how would those that are cisgendered (same birth sex as their gender identity, aka 'not-trans') know that they're actually <whatever gender they are> if they've never tried being <opposite gender>?
Personal experience wise: I knew I wasn't my birth sex, and I suffered GID and Gender Dysphoria because I continued trying to live as my birth sex. I was somewhat sure my gender identity was the opposite sex, and after transitioning (and slowly alleviating gender dysphoria) I found out I was correct.
Not all transgendered feel they're in a binary either, it should be noted. Some identify as genderqueer (neither male nor female accurately describes their gender.) Dunno what that's like though, so I can't provide much information on that.
I'm sorry, I don't really understand what you're saying. Can you explain to me the difference between sex and gender? What does it even mean to think you're a gender that you're not? You prefer the social roles assigned to that gender? You don't like the way he or her sounds when ascribed to you?
I don't understand how the entire notion of transgendered isn't just a psychological problem...>_>
I don't have any personal experience with this, but as far as I understand, people born physically as males feel psychologically like females, and vice versa. Essentially, they simply feel like they're in a body that is not "theirs", so to speak.
It extends far beyond social roles; though, if it was just that, then your transgenderism would probably fall more to the lines of cross-dressing.
I don't understand how that makes sense. How can you feel like you're psychologically female or male, what does that even mean?
Generally it means you feel like you belong better to the social norms surrounding the gender identity that you associate with. For example, in the United States, you may feel like you prefer to play with dolls and play house as a child, or you may feel 'motherly'. This isn't to say everyone experiences it this way (or even that a majority does, I lack the numbers), but the basic idea is that you don't feel like the norms that are applied to your biological sex should apply to you: it feels wrong.
On April 04 2012 06:52 Alay wrote: Look at all the people in here trying to tell me I don't exist or should have lived on in agony, how cute and blissfully ignorant.
Lets give this a run down, shall we?
Gender identity is part of your personality. It's a part of what makes your mind "you." One part of this is the minds determination of your gender, in the broadest terms a binary of "male" and "female" though there's more of a spectrum of gender identities (consider people who identify as women as anywhere from very butch to very feminine, and the same with people who identify as men.) This gender identity portion of your personality is largely (possibly entirely) built during natal growth. You cannot change your gender identity. All attempts to alter them have ended up very bad. In most cases, humans are born with a congruence between their gender identity and their biological sex.
Dissonance between gender identity and biological sex causes a wave of depression in individuals, known as Gender Dysphoria. It's the kind of extreme deep pain that you wouldn't wish on the most evil person in the world. If you've never experienced it, you probably can't comprehend it--and that's okay, you're pretty damn lucky to not. Just recognize it exists.
This Gender Dysphoria inhibits day to day life as the "birth assigned" gender, the condition is called Gender Identity Disorder.
Transgender (transsexual, specifically) individuals are those who feel they have an incongruence between their innate gender identity, and their biological sex.
Transsexual individuals feel their biological sex is opposite what their gender identity is, and thus feel the need to permanently live as the opposite sex, in order to feel congruence between their gender identity and their biological sex. After this 'transition' which can involve things such as hormone replacement (testosterone suppression and estrogen supplement in male-to-females, testosterone injections in female-to-males), hair removal (facial hair, for example), breast binding/removal, in some cases facial surgeries, and in some cases Sexual Reassignment Surgery (penile inversion or phalloplasty are common, though other techniques exist.)
That's just the fine detail stuff. The truth is, society really really hates people that go outside what they consider the norms. I can't begin to explain the number of laughs and vile stares I used to get at that horrible "in between" phase, the teachers and peers that would intentionally try to talk me down or belittle me, or the times my parents would tell me they love me no matter what in one sentence, then try to punch my face in the next (my father on a few occasion, literally.) It's a horribly difficult undertaking, and it's one that someone would only do if they have no other choice but transitioning or suicide--and believe me, far too high of a percent take the later route. This is hardly some whim decision people do for the laughs. Afterwards (oh, and by afterwards I mean after genital surgery. Before that in most states you're still considered your birth sex, get a nice old school letter marker on your license/ID that lets police arrest you for suspected prostitution, and if you apply for a job Social Security calls up your employer and outs you--hope you enjoy lower wages or being outright fired!) you get the fun of being treated as your birth sex in most states regarding marriage--thus, any who doesn't have gay marriage legalized bars a man and a woman from getting married, and often times bars you from even getting married to someone of the same gender, so you at that point cannot actually wed. You get the fun of dealing with people throughout your life (such as the many in this thread already) who scream at the top of their lungs that you are the sex you're born as, your identity doesn't actually exist (and thus you don't exist) while being so far from the world of dealing with GID that they cannot comprehend the basics. You get the amazing fun of disclosure to future partners--in some cases it is backlashed with violence. And of course you get experienced of public humiliation and 'outting' and 'other'ing such as the topic of the OP.
Fun, isn't it?
So please, piss off you ignorant twat, because I exist, and I've gone through more crap to be who I am and have a chance to grasp a TINY PART of the normalness that you get to have for free.
/rantoff
Regardless, onto the actual story: She shouldn't have lied (if she did, I've also heard from other places they kicked her they added the "women born women!" clause after) because that was stupid. They shouldn't have made such a stupid and senseless rule to begin with. I'm literally stunned that Trump turned this around. It makes me proud to see that there's at least some sensible people in this thread. TL you've made me proud.
As you give off the impression that you know quite a bit about this, would you happen to know of any papers / resources that attend to the epistemic issues associated with transgenderism (e.g. how warranted is the belief that one was born the wrong sex, when one has never been anything other than the sex they were born)?
Not quite sure what you mean? No one, sans those that have transitioned, have experienced what it's like to be both sexes--and even then it's accuracy against being biologically born and raised as the opposite sex aren't really possible to compare. Basically, my point is, how would those that are cisgendered (same birth sex as their gender identity, aka 'not-trans') know that they're actually <whatever gender they are> if they've never tried being <opposite gender>?
Personal experience wise: I knew I wasn't my birth sex, and I suffered GID and Gender Dysphoria because I continued trying to live as my birth sex. I was somewhat sure my gender identity was the opposite sex, and after transitioning (and slowly alleviating gender dysphoria) I found out I was correct.
Not all transgendered feel they're in a binary either, it should be noted. Some identify as genderqueer (neither male nor female accurately describes their gender.) Dunno what that's like though, so I can't provide much information on that.
I'm sorry, I don't really understand what you're saying. Can you explain to me the difference between sex and gender? What does it even mean to think you're a gender that you're not? You prefer the social roles assigned to that gender? You don't like the way he or her sounds when ascribed to you?
I don't understand how the entire notion of transgendered isn't just a psychological problem...>_>
I don't have any personal experience with this, but as far as I understand, people born physically as males feel psychologically like females, and vice versa. Essentially, they simply feel like they're in a body that is not "theirs", so to speak.
It extends far beyond social roles; though, if it was just that, then your transgenderism would probably fall more to the lines of cross-dressing.
I don't understand how that makes sense. How can you feel like you're psychologically female or male, what does that even mean?
Made as simple as possible: Are you male? Are you comfortable in the outward sexuality of your body? if the answer to both of those questions is yes than you are psychologically male. Obviously there is more to it than this but, hopefully that helps. Psychologically you identify as (I'm assuming, if I'm wrong correct me and I'll change this) a heterosexual male. That means that you feel that your sex is male and in terms of sexual orientation attracted to females. If you were attracted to men instead you would not be heterosexual even though that is what people would assume when looking at you. You would know that inside you felt differently than other people felt and that you were not what people assume you are. With gender it is the same thing, people see your sex (that is the physical properties with which we define the outward sexual appearance of a person) and assume that is the same as your gender; in many cases that is the case. In the case of a transgendered person those two are not the same and it is the goal of gender reassignment surgery to match the sex of a person to their gender. I hope that made things clearer, re-reading it I'm not sure if it will. If there is anything I can clarify I will do my best.
Edited in because I think this matters a lot:
On April 04 2012 11:30 Whitewing wrote: Generally it means you feel like you belong better to the social norms surrounding the gender identity that you associate with. For example, in the United States, you may feel like you prefer to play with dolls and play house as a child, or you may feel 'motherly'. This isn't to say everyone experiences it this way (or even that a majority does, I lack the numbers), but the basic idea is that you don't feel like the norms that are applied to your biological sex should apply to you: it feels wrong.
It is not just the norms which you don't feel fit you but also (and I think this is a key issue which is generally ignored in this thread) the body you live in. One is not simply uncomfortable with the assumptions which people would make on seeing your body, you are uncomfortable with that body itself.
On April 04 2012 11:23 Megabuster123 wrote: I don't understand how that makes sense. How can you feel like you're psychologically female or male, what does that even mean?
It's extremely hard to describe psychological issues to people who have never experienced it themselves. It's why people think depression is just someone being sad a lot.
Essentially, the body you're in just feels wrong.
On April 04 2012 11:30 Whitewing wrote: Generally it means you feel like you belong better to the social norms surrounding the gender identity that you associate with. For example, in the United States, you may feel like you prefer to play with dolls and play house as a child, or you may feel 'motherly'. This isn't to say everyone experiences it this way (or even that a majority does, I lack the numbers), but the basic idea is that you don't feel like the norms that are applied to your biological sex should apply to you: it feels wrong.
This is fairly incorrect. If all you felt was social norms not applying to you, no doctor would ever agree to allow you to have gender reassignment surgery. I'm almost certain you need a psych evaluation before they'd consider it - though that may differ depending on where you live.
I don't think the transgender issues should affect her eligibility, but I am bothered by the idea of the pageant promoting individuals who have undergone major appearance-altering surgery as a standard of beauty. I'd feel the same way about a biological female who had breast enhancement surgery / etc.
On April 04 2012 09:21 PhoenixLight wrote: Suppose there is some sort of "amazonian society" where woman were dominant and acted almost completely different from girls in societies we were used to... Does a transgender girl identify as a girl in this society in the same way as transgender girl in our normal society does? I feel like they're completely different and society actually does have something to do with it.
From what I know the Transgendered person would still feel the desire to be of the other sex than the one they appear to be. The issue of being transgender is about the body and not about the society; if you are not comfortable in your body that will not change even if you are asked to do something you are comfortable with.
I believe people, not just in this thread but, in all walks of life misunderstand what it is to be transgendered. The transgendered person is not (necessarily) uncomfortable with the gender role provided by society; they are uncomfortable in their body. There are transgendered women who are also lesbians, transgendered men who identify as gay. The sex role is not the same as the gender of the person. Another point I would make is in regards to the pronoun being particularly gendered. If you are unsure of which pronoun is appropriate and don't wish to offend you could also chose to use the genderless pronoun which is popular withing the LGBTQ community, instead of he or she the singular is ze and the particular (him or her) is zer.
As to the idea that these people chose to be transgendered; there is no choice in the gender you identify as. It is the same as your sexual orientation, from birth (or from early youth) you will Identify as a particular gender, a particular sexual orientation. I don't really know how to explain that knowledge to someone who hasn't experienced it; I'll do my best though.
Sorry for all of the assumptions in this, I'm not sure how else to do it. This explanation assumes you are a cis heterosexual male who has interacted sexually with a cis heterosexual female. If you are male and have been since birth you can remember your own comfortably with your sexual organs, since you were young you could look at your own sexual organs and think: that is part of me, part of my body. When you first interacted sexually with a girl you experienced a female sexual organ for the first time in your memory. At that time you (or at least I) couldn't understand what it would be like to have a female sexual organ. That would be a weird thought for you, to have a vagina where there 'should be' a penis. Hopefully that makes sense up until now. If you are a transgendered (MtF) person instead you would feel that you have a penis where there 'should be' a vagina; it would be as odd for you to have that penis as it would for me to have a vagina and you would be as uncomfortable in that body with that sexual organ (and everything that comes with it) as I would be in a female body.
Good post, and accurate. @the bolded--you can always just ask them which they prefer
On April 04 2012 06:52 Alay wrote: Look at all the people in here trying to tell me I don't exist or should have lived on in agony, how cute and blissfully ignorant.
Lets give this a run down, shall we?
Gender identity is part of your personality. It's a part of what makes your mind "you." One part of this is the minds determination of your gender, in the broadest terms a binary of "male" and "female" though there's more of a spectrum of gender identities (consider people who identify as women as anywhere from very butch to very feminine, and the same with people who identify as men.) This gender identity portion of your personality is largely (possibly entirely) built during natal growth. You cannot change your gender identity. All attempts to alter them have ended up very bad. In most cases, humans are born with a congruence between their gender identity and their biological sex.
Dissonance between gender identity and biological sex causes a wave of depression in individuals, known as Gender Dysphoria. It's the kind of extreme deep pain that you wouldn't wish on the most evil person in the world. If you've never experienced it, you probably can't comprehend it--and that's okay, you're pretty damn lucky to not. Just recognize it exists.
This Gender Dysphoria inhibits day to day life as the "birth assigned" gender, the condition is called Gender Identity Disorder.
Transgender (transsexual, specifically) individuals are those who feel they have an incongruence between their innate gender identity, and their biological sex.
Transsexual individuals feel their biological sex is opposite what their gender identity is, and thus feel the need to permanently live as the opposite sex, in order to feel congruence between their gender identity and their biological sex. After this 'transition' which can involve things such as hormone replacement (testosterone suppression and estrogen supplement in male-to-females, testosterone injections in female-to-males), hair removal (facial hair, for example), breast binding/removal, in some cases facial surgeries, and in some cases Sexual Reassignment Surgery (penile inversion or phalloplasty are common, though other techniques exist.)
That's just the fine detail stuff. The truth is, society really really hates people that go outside what they consider the norms. I can't begin to explain the number of laughs and vile stares I used to get at that horrible "in between" phase, the teachers and peers that would intentionally try to talk me down or belittle me, or the times my parents would tell me they love me no matter what in one sentence, then try to punch my face in the next (my father on a few occasion, literally.) It's a horribly difficult undertaking, and it's one that someone would only do if they have no other choice but transitioning or suicide--and believe me, far too high of a percent take the later route. This is hardly some whim decision people do for the laughs. Afterwards (oh, and by afterwards I mean after genital surgery. Before that in most states you're still considered your birth sex, get a nice old school letter marker on your license/ID that lets police arrest you for suspected prostitution, and if you apply for a job Social Security calls up your employer and outs you--hope you enjoy lower wages or being outright fired!) you get the fun of being treated as your birth sex in most states regarding marriage--thus, any who doesn't have gay marriage legalized bars a man and a woman from getting married, and often times bars you from even getting married to someone of the same gender, so you at that point cannot actually wed. You get the fun of dealing with people throughout your life (such as the many in this thread already) who scream at the top of their lungs that you are the sex you're born as, your identity doesn't actually exist (and thus you don't exist) while being so far from the world of dealing with GID that they cannot comprehend the basics. You get the amazing fun of disclosure to future partners--in some cases it is backlashed with violence. And of course you get experienced of public humiliation and 'outting' and 'other'ing such as the topic of the OP.
Fun, isn't it?
So please, piss off you ignorant twat, because I exist, and I've gone through more crap to be who I am and have a chance to grasp a TINY PART of the normalness that you get to have for free.
/rantoff
Regardless, onto the actual story: She shouldn't have lied (if she did, I've also heard from other places they kicked her they added the "women born women!" clause after) because that was stupid. They shouldn't have made such a stupid and senseless rule to begin with. I'm literally stunned that Trump turned this around. It makes me proud to see that there's at least some sensible people in this thread. TL you've made me proud.
As you give off the impression that you know quite a bit about this, would you happen to know of any papers / resources that attend to the epistemic issues associated with transgenderism (e.g. how warranted is the belief that one was born the wrong sex, when one has never been anything other than the sex they were born)?
Not quite sure what you mean? No one, sans those that have transitioned, have experienced what it's like to be both sexes--and even then it's accuracy against being biologically born and raised as the opposite sex aren't really possible to compare. Basically, my point is, how would those that are cisgendered (same birth sex as their gender identity, aka 'not-trans') know that they're actually <whatever gender they are> if they've never tried being <opposite gender>?
Personal experience wise: I knew I wasn't my birth sex, and I suffered GID and Gender Dysphoria because I continued trying to live as my birth sex. I was somewhat sure my gender identity was the opposite sex, and after transitioning (and slowly alleviating gender dysphoria) I found out I was correct.
Not all transgendered feel they're in a binary either, it should be noted. Some identify as genderqueer (neither male nor female accurately describes their gender.) Dunno what that's like though, so I can't provide much information on that.
I'm sorry, I don't really understand what you're saying. Can you explain to me the difference between sex and gender? What does it even mean to think you're a gender that you're not? You prefer the social roles assigned to that gender? You don't like the way he or her sounds when ascribed to you?
I don't understand how the entire notion of transgendered isn't just a psychological problem...>_>
I don't have any personal experience with this, but as far as I understand, people born physically as males feel psychologically like females, and vice versa. Essentially, they simply feel like they're in a body that is not "theirs", so to speak.
It extends far beyond social roles; though, if it was just that, then your transgenderism would probably fall more to the lines of cross-dressing.
I don't understand how that makes sense. How can you feel like you're psychologically female or male, what does that even mean?
Generally it means you feel like you belong better to the social norms surrounding the gender identity that you associate with. For example, in the United States, you may feel like you prefer to play with dolls and play house as a child, or you may feel 'motherly'. This isn't to say everyone experiences it this way (or even that a majority does, I lack the numbers), but the basic idea is that you don't feel like the norms that are applied to your biological sex should apply to you: it feels wrong.
Remember that gender is a social construct.
That's very untrue. Gender expectations don't have much at all to do with being transgendered. Trans people don't feel they act/enjoy things so much like a certain gender (ie; a guy who enjoys dressing femmy, playing with dolls, etc other 'female' social activites) that they just decide they 'might as well be that gender.' That's just not how it works at all. There's trans people who are hyper-feminine/masculine after transition, and there's some that are the exact opposite (trans women that are very butch, trans men who are femmy, and everywhere in between.)
Gender norms are a social construct, gender is not.
On April 04 2012 09:21 PhoenixLight wrote: Suppose there is some sort of "amazonian society" where woman were dominant and acted almost completely different from girls in societies we were used to... Does a transgender girl identify as a girl in this society in the same way as transgender girl in our normal society does? I feel like they're completely different and society actually does have something to do with it.
From what I know the Transgendered person would still feel the desire to be of the other sex than the one they appear to be. The issue of being transgender is about the body and not about the society; if you are not comfortable in your body that will not change even if you are asked to do something you are comfortable with.
I believe people, not just in this thread but, in all walks of life misunderstand what it is to be transgendered. The transgendered person is not (necessarily) uncomfortable with the gender role provided by society; they are uncomfortable in their body. There are transgendered women who are also lesbians, transgendered men who identify as gay. The sex role is not the same as the gender of the person. Another point I would make is in regards to the pronoun being particularly gendered. If you are unsure of which pronoun is appropriate and don't wish to offend you could also chose to use the genderless pronoun which is popular withing the LGBTQ community, instead of he or she the singular is ze and the particular (him or her) is zer.
As to the idea that these people chose to be transgendered; there is no choice in the gender you identify as. It is the same as your sexual orientation, from birth (or from early youth) you will Identify as a particular gender, a particular sexual orientation. I don't really know how to explain that knowledge to someone who hasn't experienced it; I'll do my best though.
Sorry for all of the assumptions in this, I'm not sure how else to do it. This explanation assumes you are a cis heterosexual male who has interacted sexually with a cis heterosexual female. If you are male and have been since birth you can remember your own comfortably with your sexual organs, since you were young you could look at your own sexual organs and think: that is part of me, part of my body. When you first interacted sexually with a girl you experienced a female sexual organ for the first time in your memory. At that time you (or at least I) couldn't understand what it would be like to have a female sexual organ. That would be a weird thought for you, to have a vagina where there 'should be' a penis. Hopefully that makes sense up until now. If you are a transgendered (MtF) person instead you would feel that you have a penis where there 'should be' a vagina; it would be as odd for you to have that penis as it would for me to have a vagina and you would be as uncomfortable in that body with that sexual organ (and everything that comes with it) as I would be in a female body.
Good post, and accurate. @the bolded--you can always just ask them which they prefer
On April 04 2012 06:52 Alay wrote: Look at all the people in here trying to tell me I don't exist or should have lived on in agony, how cute and blissfully ignorant.
Lets give this a run down, shall we?
Gender identity is part of your personality. It's a part of what makes your mind "you." One part of this is the minds determination of your gender, in the broadest terms a binary of "male" and "female" though there's more of a spectrum of gender identities (consider people who identify as women as anywhere from very butch to very feminine, and the same with people who identify as men.) This gender identity portion of your personality is largely (possibly entirely) built during natal growth. You cannot change your gender identity. All attempts to alter them have ended up very bad. In most cases, humans are born with a congruence between their gender identity and their biological sex.
Dissonance between gender identity and biological sex causes a wave of depression in individuals, known as Gender Dysphoria. It's the kind of extreme deep pain that you wouldn't wish on the most evil person in the world. If you've never experienced it, you probably can't comprehend it--and that's okay, you're pretty damn lucky to not. Just recognize it exists.
This Gender Dysphoria inhibits day to day life as the "birth assigned" gender, the condition is called Gender Identity Disorder.
Transgender (transsexual, specifically) individuals are those who feel they have an incongruence between their innate gender identity, and their biological sex.
Transsexual individuals feel their biological sex is opposite what their gender identity is, and thus feel the need to permanently live as the opposite sex, in order to feel congruence between their gender identity and their biological sex. After this 'transition' which can involve things such as hormone replacement (testosterone suppression and estrogen supplement in male-to-females, testosterone injections in female-to-males), hair removal (facial hair, for example), breast binding/removal, in some cases facial surgeries, and in some cases Sexual Reassignment Surgery (penile inversion or phalloplasty are common, though other techniques exist.)
That's just the fine detail stuff. The truth is, society really really hates people that go outside what they consider the norms. I can't begin to explain the number of laughs and vile stares I used to get at that horrible "in between" phase, the teachers and peers that would intentionally try to talk me down or belittle me, or the times my parents would tell me they love me no matter what in one sentence, then try to punch my face in the next (my father on a few occasion, literally.) It's a horribly difficult undertaking, and it's one that someone would only do if they have no other choice but transitioning or suicide--and believe me, far too high of a percent take the later route. This is hardly some whim decision people do for the laughs. Afterwards (oh, and by afterwards I mean after genital surgery. Before that in most states you're still considered your birth sex, get a nice old school letter marker on your license/ID that lets police arrest you for suspected prostitution, and if you apply for a job Social Security calls up your employer and outs you--hope you enjoy lower wages or being outright fired!) you get the fun of being treated as your birth sex in most states regarding marriage--thus, any who doesn't have gay marriage legalized bars a man and a woman from getting married, and often times bars you from even getting married to someone of the same gender, so you at that point cannot actually wed. You get the fun of dealing with people throughout your life (such as the many in this thread already) who scream at the top of their lungs that you are the sex you're born as, your identity doesn't actually exist (and thus you don't exist) while being so far from the world of dealing with GID that they cannot comprehend the basics. You get the amazing fun of disclosure to future partners--in some cases it is backlashed with violence. And of course you get experienced of public humiliation and 'outting' and 'other'ing such as the topic of the OP.
Fun, isn't it?
So please, piss off you ignorant twat, because I exist, and I've gone through more crap to be who I am and have a chance to grasp a TINY PART of the normalness that you get to have for free.
/rantoff
Regardless, onto the actual story: She shouldn't have lied (if she did, I've also heard from other places they kicked her they added the "women born women!" clause after) because that was stupid. They shouldn't have made such a stupid and senseless rule to begin with. I'm literally stunned that Trump turned this around. It makes me proud to see that there's at least some sensible people in this thread. TL you've made me proud.
As you give off the impression that you know quite a bit about this, would you happen to know of any papers / resources that attend to the epistemic issues associated with transgenderism (e.g. how warranted is the belief that one was born the wrong sex, when one has never been anything other than the sex they were born)?
Not quite sure what you mean? No one, sans those that have transitioned, have experienced what it's like to be both sexes--and even then it's accuracy against being biologically born and raised as the opposite sex aren't really possible to compare. Basically, my point is, how would those that are cisgendered (same birth sex as their gender identity, aka 'not-trans') know that they're actually <whatever gender they are> if they've never tried being <opposite gender>?
Personal experience wise: I knew I wasn't my birth sex, and I suffered GID and Gender Dysphoria because I continued trying to live as my birth sex. I was somewhat sure my gender identity was the opposite sex, and after transitioning (and slowly alleviating gender dysphoria) I found out I was correct.
Not all transgendered feel they're in a binary either, it should be noted. Some identify as genderqueer (neither male nor female accurately describes their gender.) Dunno what that's like though, so I can't provide much information on that.
I'm sorry, I don't really understand what you're saying. Can you explain to me the difference between sex and gender? What does it even mean to think you're a gender that you're not? You prefer the social roles assigned to that gender? You don't like the way he or her sounds when ascribed to you?
I don't understand how the entire notion of transgendered isn't just a psychological problem...>_>
I don't have any personal experience with this, but as far as I understand, people born physically as males feel psychologically like females, and vice versa. Essentially, they simply feel like they're in a body that is not "theirs", so to speak.
It extends far beyond social roles; though, if it was just that, then your transgenderism would probably fall more to the lines of cross-dressing.
I don't understand how that makes sense. How can you feel like you're psychologically female or male, what does that even mean?
Generally it means you feel like you belong better to the social norms surrounding the gender identity that you associate with. For example, in the United States, you may feel like you prefer to play with dolls and play house as a child, or you may feel 'motherly'. This isn't to say everyone experiences it this way (or even that a majority does, I lack the numbers), but the basic idea is that you don't feel like the norms that are applied to your biological sex should apply to you: it feels wrong.
Remember that gender is a social construct.
That's very untrue. Gender expectations don't have much at all to do with being transgendered. Trans people don't feel they act/enjoy things so much like a certain gender (ie; a guy who enjoys dressing femmy, playing with dolls, etc other 'female' social activites) that they just decide they 'might as well be that gender.' That's just not how it works at all. There's trans people who are hyper-feminine/masculine after transition, and there's some that are the exact opposite (trans women that are very butch, trans men who are femmy, and everywhere in between.)
Gender norms are a social construct, gender is not.
Yes, that would be the simplest way to resolve that issue. I was hoping people could ease themselves into treating transgendered people as people by moving away from the references to this woman as 'he' or 'he/she' if they want to get their point across and not be total asses they could use the gender neutral pronoun and be comfortable with that since it doesn't specify that she is female. Of course if someone is uncomfortable calling a MtF female 'she' they probably won't be comfortable using the gender neutral pronoun.
On April 04 2012 09:21 PhoenixLight wrote: Suppose there is some sort of "amazonian society" where woman were dominant and acted almost completely different from girls in societies we were used to... Does a transgender girl identify as a girl in this society in the same way as transgender girl in our normal society does? I feel like they're completely different and society actually does have something to do with it.
From what I know the Transgendered person would still feel the desire to be of the other sex than the one they appear to be. The issue of being transgender is about the body and not about the society; if you are not comfortable in your body that will not change even if you are asked to do something you are comfortable with.
I believe people, not just in this thread but, in all walks of life misunderstand what it is to be transgendered. The transgendered person is not (necessarily) uncomfortable with the gender role provided by society; they are uncomfortable in their body. There are transgendered women who are also lesbians, transgendered men who identify as gay. The sex role is not the same as the gender of the person. Another point I would make is in regards to the pronoun being particularly gendered. If you are unsure of which pronoun is appropriate and don't wish to offend you could also chose to use the genderless pronoun which is popular withing the LGBTQ community, instead of he or she the singular is ze and the particular (him or her) is zer.
As to the idea that these people chose to be transgendered; there is no choice in the gender you identify as. It is the same as your sexual orientation, from birth (or from early youth) you will Identify as a particular gender, a particular sexual orientation. I don't really know how to explain that knowledge to someone who hasn't experienced it; I'll do my best though.
Sorry for all of the assumptions in this, I'm not sure how else to do it. This explanation assumes you are a cis heterosexual male who has interacted sexually with a cis heterosexual female. If you are male and have been since birth you can remember your own comfortably with your sexual organs, since you were young you could look at your own sexual organs and think: that is part of me, part of my body. When you first interacted sexually with a girl you experienced a female sexual organ for the first time in your memory. At that time you (or at least I) couldn't understand what it would be like to have a female sexual organ. That would be a weird thought for you, to have a vagina where there 'should be' a penis. Hopefully that makes sense up until now. If you are a transgendered (MtF) person instead you would feel that you have a penis where there 'should be' a vagina; it would be as odd for you to have that penis as it would for me to have a vagina and you would be as uncomfortable in that body with that sexual organ (and everything that comes with it) as I would be in a female body.
Good post, and accurate. @the bolded--you can always just ask them which they prefer
On April 04 2012 06:52 Alay wrote: Look at all the people in here trying to tell me I don't exist or should have lived on in agony, how cute and blissfully ignorant.
Lets give this a run down, shall we?
Gender identity is part of your personality. It's a part of what makes your mind "you." One part of this is the minds determination of your gender, in the broadest terms a binary of "male" and "female" though there's more of a spectrum of gender identities (consider people who identify as women as anywhere from very butch to very feminine, and the same with people who identify as men.) This gender identity portion of your personality is largely (possibly entirely) built during natal growth. You cannot change your gender identity. All attempts to alter them have ended up very bad. In most cases, humans are born with a congruence between their gender identity and their biological sex.
Dissonance between gender identity and biological sex causes a wave of depression in individuals, known as Gender Dysphoria. It's the kind of extreme deep pain that you wouldn't wish on the most evil person in the world. If you've never experienced it, you probably can't comprehend it--and that's okay, you're pretty damn lucky to not. Just recognize it exists.
This Gender Dysphoria inhibits day to day life as the "birth assigned" gender, the condition is called Gender Identity Disorder.
Transgender (transsexual, specifically) individuals are those who feel they have an incongruence between their innate gender identity, and their biological sex.
Transsexual individuals feel their biological sex is opposite what their gender identity is, and thus feel the need to permanently live as the opposite sex, in order to feel congruence between their gender identity and their biological sex. After this 'transition' which can involve things such as hormone replacement (testosterone suppression and estrogen supplement in male-to-females, testosterone injections in female-to-males), hair removal (facial hair, for example), breast binding/removal, in some cases facial surgeries, and in some cases Sexual Reassignment Surgery (penile inversion or phalloplasty are common, though other techniques exist.)
That's just the fine detail stuff. The truth is, society really really hates people that go outside what they consider the norms. I can't begin to explain the number of laughs and vile stares I used to get at that horrible "in between" phase, the teachers and peers that would intentionally try to talk me down or belittle me, or the times my parents would tell me they love me no matter what in one sentence, then try to punch my face in the next (my father on a few occasion, literally.) It's a horribly difficult undertaking, and it's one that someone would only do if they have no other choice but transitioning or suicide--and believe me, far too high of a percent take the later route. This is hardly some whim decision people do for the laughs. Afterwards (oh, and by afterwards I mean after genital surgery. Before that in most states you're still considered your birth sex, get a nice old school letter marker on your license/ID that lets police arrest you for suspected prostitution, and if you apply for a job Social Security calls up your employer and outs you--hope you enjoy lower wages or being outright fired!) you get the fun of being treated as your birth sex in most states regarding marriage--thus, any who doesn't have gay marriage legalized bars a man and a woman from getting married, and often times bars you from even getting married to someone of the same gender, so you at that point cannot actually wed. You get the fun of dealing with people throughout your life (such as the many in this thread already) who scream at the top of their lungs that you are the sex you're born as, your identity doesn't actually exist (and thus you don't exist) while being so far from the world of dealing with GID that they cannot comprehend the basics. You get the amazing fun of disclosure to future partners--in some cases it is backlashed with violence. And of course you get experienced of public humiliation and 'outting' and 'other'ing such as the topic of the OP.
Fun, isn't it?
So please, piss off you ignorant twat, because I exist, and I've gone through more crap to be who I am and have a chance to grasp a TINY PART of the normalness that you get to have for free.
/rantoff
Regardless, onto the actual story: She shouldn't have lied (if she did, I've also heard from other places they kicked her they added the "women born women!" clause after) because that was stupid. They shouldn't have made such a stupid and senseless rule to begin with. I'm literally stunned that Trump turned this around. It makes me proud to see that there's at least some sensible people in this thread. TL you've made me proud.
As you give off the impression that you know quite a bit about this, would you happen to know of any papers / resources that attend to the epistemic issues associated with transgenderism (e.g. how warranted is the belief that one was born the wrong sex, when one has never been anything other than the sex they were born)?
Not quite sure what you mean? No one, sans those that have transitioned, have experienced what it's like to be both sexes--and even then it's accuracy against being biologically born and raised as the opposite sex aren't really possible to compare. Basically, my point is, how would those that are cisgendered (same birth sex as their gender identity, aka 'not-trans') know that they're actually <whatever gender they are> if they've never tried being <opposite gender>?
Personal experience wise: I knew I wasn't my birth sex, and I suffered GID and Gender Dysphoria because I continued trying to live as my birth sex. I was somewhat sure my gender identity was the opposite sex, and after transitioning (and slowly alleviating gender dysphoria) I found out I was correct.
Not all transgendered feel they're in a binary either, it should be noted. Some identify as genderqueer (neither male nor female accurately describes their gender.) Dunno what that's like though, so I can't provide much information on that.
I'm sorry, I don't really understand what you're saying. Can you explain to me the difference between sex and gender? What does it even mean to think you're a gender that you're not? You prefer the social roles assigned to that gender? You don't like the way he or her sounds when ascribed to you?
I don't understand how the entire notion of transgendered isn't just a psychological problem...>_>
I don't have any personal experience with this, but as far as I understand, people born physically as males feel psychologically like females, and vice versa. Essentially, they simply feel like they're in a body that is not "theirs", so to speak.
It extends far beyond social roles; though, if it was just that, then your transgenderism would probably fall more to the lines of cross-dressing.
I don't understand how that makes sense. How can you feel like you're psychologically female or male, what does that even mean?
Generally it means you feel like you belong better to the social norms surrounding the gender identity that you associate with. For example, in the United States, you may feel like you prefer to play with dolls and play house as a child, or you may feel 'motherly'. This isn't to say everyone experiences it this way (or even that a majority does, I lack the numbers), but the basic idea is that you don't feel like the norms that are applied to your biological sex should apply to you: it feels wrong.
Remember that gender is a social construct.
That's very untrue. Gender expectations don't have much at all to do with being transgendered. Trans people don't feel they act/enjoy things so much like a certain gender (ie; a guy who enjoys dressing femmy, playing with dolls, etc other 'female' social activites) that they just decide they 'might as well be that gender.' That's just not how it works at all. There's trans people who are hyper-feminine/masculine after transition, and there's some that are the exact opposite (trans women that are very butch, trans men who are femmy, and everywhere in between.)
Gender norms are a social construct, gender is not.
I mean, it's certainly useful to have a term for whatever feature of a person tends to cause the dysphoria often experienced by transgendered people, and 'gender' might as well serve this purpose. But this is not how the sex-gender distinction is always, or even typically used. Especially in the context of feminism, 'gender' frequently relates to gender norm type of things, as the wikipedia post in the mod note attests to. It was for this use of the term that I was asking my earlier rigid designation question.
The uglier side of people on TL is showing. Every 3rd or 4th post is "Oh, these pageants are stupid anyways," or "They allow people who have had cosmetic surgery in? Disgusting." Some people think starcraft is stupid and a bad thing that shouldn't exist. We don't like it when they shit on what we enjoy, so how about we show some goddamn common decency and respect what these girls enjoy.
In addition, for a group of people who labels themselves as "open minded" or "progressive" y'all sure are intolerant of other people's views. A guy earlier got banned just for saying "he." Is it that difficult to think that one might think that someone who was born male is a male, and should be identified as "he?" It's not blatantly offensive, and it is not intended to be.
I think that it is kind of silly to demand that society addresses you a certain way if you are would clearly not normally be addressed that way. Saying that you are the other sex when you do not appear to be or are not actually is just not true, and you can't blame people for seeing what's there. It's like if someone was 5'4" (163cm for the rest of the world) and they demanded that you call them 6' tall (183cm) all of the time. No matter what they believe, it is simply a lot to ask of others to overlook what is there to accommodate your beliefs. It's not wrong that you have these beliefs, but you must understand that you can't take offense to those who don't quite understand what is going on. You have to think of everyone here, not only the transgendered.
It's also quite silly to enter a contest which clearly states that it is only for naturally born females (sex not gender) when you yourself are not one and then have people complain about why you were disqualified. It is fine, however, to discuss the merits of the rule in the first place and possibly get it overturned (as has been done). But when this first happened, people were saying that the pageant had no right to do this when it clearly did. Private companies can choose whoever they want to compete in their events or receive their charities or whatever. Ugh. Just a few thoughts on the situation.
On April 04 2012 14:38 dAPhREAk wrote: so, i just saw a news article on this, and the first thing i thought was that she kind of looks like trump's daughter.
I wish i could remember this documentary on gender reassignment but the scientist in it say that their is a cell/node/gland what have you that tells you what gender you are, regardless of your sexual organs, social environment and what people tell you. In the documentary there was a case of a boy who was raised as a girl in the 70's, they were home school upto the age of 4, limited media access etc .guess what it didnt work. That person always felt like they was something wrong.
They also had a look at the dissected brains of some transgendered people. They found that the gland that tells you what you are, was of the opposite sex than what they were originally born. Meaning it is actually a biological anomaly than a choice of preference. Its like if you were born with 2 less fingers, if no one told you and you had nothing to compare , you would still know something is wrong, even if they were spaced evenly.
My knowledge on this subject or lack thereof is embarrassing but it is a fascinating topic and some real hard science behind it rather than a psychological mindset that is present since birth .
In my opinion, she should not be allowed to compete. If you are born a male, you're male. Now, if I were to meet him face-to-face, I would respect him and refer to him as a "she", but in my eyes, he's still a man. And that is why, since the beauty pageant is female-only, I would not let him compete.
On a side note of a similar topic, something I thought of... If in the future, there was a way to turn humans into other animals like dogs, and there were still dog pageants/contests, I don't think letting that human-into-dog person should be allowed to compete.
P.S. This is my opinion, don't get mad if you disagree please... I'm not looking for an argument or discussion...
On April 04 2012 16:50 Ewic wrote: P.S. This is my opinion, don't get mad if you disagree please... I'm not looking for an argument or discussion...
This is the internet after all
On April 04 2012 16:50 Ewic wrote: Now, if I were to meet him face-to-face, I would respect him and refer to him as a "she", but in my eyes, he's still a man
That is your choice of course, but I would like you to expand on why you do not recognize the difference between sex and gender? Without doing that you sound like you have an idea on how things should be and are not adjusting to how things really are.
Personally I think that the scientifically established facts are what should matter and not peoples opinions on what or who someone is or isn't.
On April 04 2012 16:50 Ewic wrote: In my opinion, she should not be allowed to compete. If you are born a male, you're male. Now, if I were to meet him face-to-face, I would respect him and refer to him as a "she", but in my eyes, he's still a man. And that is why, since the beauty pageant is female-only, I would not let him compete.
On a side note of a similar topic, something I thought of... If in the future, there was a way to turn humans into other animals like dogs, and there were still dog pageants/contests, I don't think letting that human-into-dog person should be allowed to compete.
P.S. This is my opinion, don't get mad if you disagree please... I'm not looking for an argument or discussion...
I'm not gonna rip your face off or something, but what do you base your opinion on? personally I don't think every opinion should be tolerated or accepted, the more an opinion is based on logical facts, the more I think it should matter - and the more an opinion is just an idea of somebody, or lead by emotions, the harder I find it to even value it. would make it kinda pointless to put efford in an opinion or theory if I can as well just make something up 'cause I feel like it.
also, if you don't wanna argue or discuss, why do you post in a discussion thread filled with arguments?
On April 04 2012 14:38 dAPhREAk wrote: so, i just saw a news article on this, and the first thing i thought was that she kind of looks like trump's daughter.
her
trump's daughter
am i just out there with this comparison?
they both have the same nose
Same surgeon?
I love that you must be a "naturally born woman" to enter, but major plastic surgery is not a reason for disqualification.
Anyway I'm glad that she was able to compete, unfortunately I don't think she has any chance of winning now that people know that she is a transgender person. It would have been better if you won, or came second or something and then told everyone.
On April 04 2012 06:52 Alay wrote: Look at all the people in here trying to tell me I don't exist or should have lived on in agony, how cute and blissfully ignorant.
Lets give this a run down, shall we?
Gender identity is part of your personality. It's a part of what makes your mind "you." One part of this is the minds determination of your gender, in the broadest terms a binary of "male" and "female" though there's more of a spectrum of gender identities (consider people who identify as women as anywhere from very butch to very feminine, and the same with people who identify as men.) This gender identity portion of your personality is largely (possibly entirely) built during natal growth. You cannot change your gender identity. All attempts to alter them have ended up very bad. In most cases, humans are born with a congruence between their gender identity and their biological sex.
Dissonance between gender identity and biological sex causes a wave of depression in individuals, known as Gender Dysphoria. It's the kind of extreme deep pain that you wouldn't wish on the most evil person in the world. If you've never experienced it, you probably can't comprehend it--and that's okay, you're pretty damn lucky to not. Just recognize it exists.
This Gender Dysphoria inhibits day to day life as the "birth assigned" gender, the condition is called Gender Identity Disorder.
Transgender (transsexual, specifically) individuals are those who feel they have an incongruence between their innate gender identity, and their biological sex.
Transsexual individuals feel their biological sex is opposite what their gender identity is, and thus feel the need to permanently live as the opposite sex, in order to feel congruence between their gender identity and their biological sex. After this 'transition' which can involve things such as hormone replacement (testosterone suppression and estrogen supplement in male-to-females, testosterone injections in female-to-males), hair removal (facial hair, for example), breast binding/removal, in some cases facial surgeries, and in some cases Sexual Reassignment Surgery (penile inversion or phalloplasty are common, though other techniques exist.)
That's just the fine detail stuff. The truth is, society really really hates people that go outside what they consider the norms. I can't begin to explain the number of laughs and vile stares I used to get at that horrible "in between" phase, the teachers and peers that would intentionally try to talk me down or belittle me, or the times my parents would tell me they love me no matter what in one sentence, then try to punch my face in the next (my father on a few occasion, literally.) It's a horribly difficult undertaking, and it's one that someone would only do if they have no other choice but transitioning or suicide--and believe me, far too high of a percent take the later route. This is hardly some whim decision people do for the laughs. Afterwards (oh, and by afterwards I mean after genital surgery. Before that in most states you're still considered your birth sex, get a nice old school letter marker on your license/ID that lets police arrest you for suspected prostitution, and if you apply for a job Social Security calls up your employer and outs you--hope you enjoy lower wages or being outright fired!) you get the fun of being treated as your birth sex in most states regarding marriage--thus, any who doesn't have gay marriage legalized bars a man and a woman from getting married, and often times bars you from even getting married to someone of the same gender, so you at that point cannot actually wed. You get the fun of dealing with people throughout your life (such as the many in this thread already) who scream at the top of their lungs that you are the sex you're born as, your identity doesn't actually exist (and thus you don't exist) while being so far from the world of dealing with GID that they cannot comprehend the basics. You get the amazing fun of disclosure to future partners--in some cases it is backlashed with violence. And of course you get experienced of public humiliation and 'outting' and 'other'ing such as the topic of the OP.
Fun, isn't it?
So please, piss off you ignorant twat, because I exist, and I've gone through more crap to be who I am and have a chance to grasp a TINY PART of the normalness that you get to have for free.
/rantoff
Regardless, onto the actual story: She shouldn't have lied (if she did, I've also heard from other places they kicked her they added the "women born women!" clause after) because that was stupid. They shouldn't have made such a stupid and senseless rule to begin with. I'm literally stunned that Trump turned this around. It makes me proud to see that there's at least some sensible people in this thread. TL you've made me proud.
As you give off the impression that you know quite a bit about this, would you happen to know of any papers / resources that attend to the epistemic issues associated with transgenderism (e.g. how warranted is the belief that one was born the wrong sex, when one has never been anything other than the sex they were born)?
Not quite sure what you mean? No one, sans those that have transitioned, have experienced what it's like to be both sexes--and even then it's accuracy against being biologically born and raised as the opposite sex aren't really possible to compare. Basically, my point is, how would those that are cisgendered (same birth sex as their gender identity, aka 'not-trans') know that they're actually <whatever gender they are> if they've never tried being <opposite gender>?
Personal experience wise: I knew I wasn't my birth sex, and I suffered GID and Gender Dysphoria because I continued trying to live as my birth sex. I was somewhat sure my gender identity was the opposite sex, and after transitioning (and slowly alleviating gender dysphoria) I found out I was correct.
Not all transgendered feel they're in a binary either, it should be noted. Some identify as genderqueer (neither male nor female accurately describes their gender.) Dunno what that's like though, so I can't provide much information on that.
What I am asking is, is there a sound epistemological justification for someone of a particular sex to say, "I'm actually the other gender, I desire for my physical appearance to reflect that". Obviously there are people who make the claim, and strongly (I believe you're one such person), that they were born the wrong sex, but how do they know? Is the psychological disconnect a genuine instance of "the universe got it wrong", and if not, then what? Cisgendered people are not quite the point: they aren't challenging their birth sex (although I get what you're saying).
The best answer I can give is that you kind of just "know". It'd probably be next to impossible to describe with words (and cisgendered people can experience this too, when posed the question "without using physical attributes as evidence, how are you sure you're male/female?") however evidence that it actually exists comes in the form of extreme depression revolving around feeling gender incongruent (gender dysphoria) to the extent that it has extreme interference with daily life (gender identity disorder.) It's only after an individual has expressed these for a long period of time under the supervision of a gender specialist that basic hormonal treatment will be prescribed--and only after two years in most cases of living full time as the 'target' gender will genital surgeries be permitted for those that seek it (which required in most cases two letters of recommendation from different gender specialists) so it's hardly something that can be done on a whim.
Further, I think someone that wasn't very serious would realize very quickly that there's only pain in being trans, and thus pretending to be trans (and actually transitioning) would be a pretty stupid idea. Again, most people only transition because the alternative is suicide from the intensity of their depression.
Finally, I don't so much think it's a case of the universe getting it wrong, so much as it's just a physiological phenomenon, brought on by a roll on the biological dice.
Did I understand properly what you were trying to ask?
Thank you for the answers, and yes I'm well aware of what I'm asking.
On April 04 2012 03:02 Deadeight wrote: Unless it's a contest where any cosmetic surgery is banned, which I could understand, I think it's the wrong decision.
cosmetic surgery isn't banned in these competitions?
It isn't banned.
so wtf is the point of it all if you can just manufacture yourself to be 'as beautiful as possible', perhaps especially in the case of transgendered individuals?
That's one of the reasons why pageants are kinda a load of crap.
On April 04 2012 03:02 Deadeight wrote: Unless it's a contest where any cosmetic surgery is banned, which I could understand, I think it's the wrong decision.
cosmetic surgery isn't banned in these competitions?
It isn't banned.
so wtf is the point of it all if you can just manufacture yourself to be 'as beautiful as possible', perhaps especially in the case of transgendered individuals?
That's one of the reasons why pageants are kinda a load of crap.
I don't know. Why can't a pageant be a positive thing? I think the problem is mostly that they're generally traditional events about what sort of girl most represents traditional feminine qualities, organized by people like Donald Trump. But what if they were way more inclusive, accepting all sorts of types of fashion, genders, gave the participants more freedom to be genuine etc.
I mean, I think it could be nice. Although not something I would watch ever.
I think people can be kinda thoughtless about this sometimes, acting as if looks and beauty should be repressed because of how it makes no rational sense and it only leads to discrimination etc. I know that's more of a strawman and nobody would seriously defend that, but I think it's implied sometimes.
On April 04 2012 03:02 Deadeight wrote: Unless it's a contest where any cosmetic surgery is banned, which I could understand, I think it's the wrong decision.
cosmetic surgery isn't banned in these competitions?
It isn't banned.
so wtf is the point of it all if you can just manufacture yourself to be 'as beautiful as possible', perhaps especially in the case of transgendered individuals?
That's one of the reasons why pageants are kinda a load of crap.
That's one reason why I don't like the idea of beauty pageants in general. Along with that goes my opinion that, since there's always been this uproar in society about how we're turning girls into sex objects by how we depict them in the media, shouldn't girls be the ones to stop... you know, dressing scantily and then having a bunch of guys vote on which one makes them drool the most? :p And if they go to lengths to continue making themselves look as barbie-like as possible, isn't that just making it worse?
As far as the transgendered stuff goes, I just had a lesson in my Anthropology class yesterday that went over the differences in biological sex and gender and all the issues that go along with people who don't have those in alignment, and I'd never really thought about that/taken it into consideration before. I blame society for that, but now that I've had my eyes opened a bit to it (not to all of it, obviously - I'm sure I'm still clueless) I feel for people who deal with those issues. It's gotta be so hard. I've never been that sympathetic with transgendered people in the past, but... I think I should change that, it's not their fault.
But on topic, it's probably fair that this person was not allowed to compete. For the record though, she looks good
On April 04 2012 16:50 Ewic wrote: In my opinion, she should not be allowed to compete. If you are born a male, you're male. Now, if I were to meet him face-to-face, I would respect him and refer to him as a "she", but in my eyes, he's still a man. And that is why, since the beauty pageant is female-only, I would not let him compete.
On a side note of a similar topic, something I thought of... If in the future, there was a way to turn humans into other animals like dogs, and there were still dog pageants/contests, I don't think letting that human-into-dog person should be allowed to compete.
P.S. This is my opinion, don't get mad if you disagree please... I'm not looking for an argument or discussion...
Great way to expand your knowledge! Throw your opinion out then say you don't want it challenged. I'm sure everyone can learn a lot with this method.
This week, Miss Universe revoked Jenna Talackova's disqualification from Canada's pageant for being transgender. Talackova is not only hot, but also evidently has the sort of charisma and inner drive for which pageant contestants are supposed to be most celebrated: with Gloria Allred's help, she's fighting for a rule that would allow transgender contestants in any country to compete in the pageant, not just those who are naturally born women, as the rule states. This morning Donald Trump, who owns the organization, called Katie Couric to talk about Talackova on "Good Morning America." He gloated about the worldwide attention the story has brought to his pageant, took a dig at Gloria Allred, and said that while pageant officials were leaning toward opening the competition up to people who weren't naturally born women "we haven’t made that decision yet." And he added another (arguably condescending) remark about how Talackova should focus on winning the pageant rather than her campaign to get the rule changed. Well at this point, plenty of people not including him are surely more of a fan of her fancy pageant talking than her fancy pageant walking.
On April 04 2012 15:54 ampson wrote: The uglier side of people on TL is showing. Every 3rd or 4th post is "Oh, these pageants are stupid anyways," or "They allow people who have had cosmetic surgery in? Disgusting." Some people think starcraft is stupid and a bad thing that shouldn't exist. We don't like it when they shit on what we enjoy, so how about we show some goddamn common decency and respect what these girls enjoy.
^ Agreed
On April 04 2012 15:54 ampson wrote: In addition, for a group of people who labels themselves as "open minded" or "progressive" y'all sure are intolerant of other people's views. A guy earlier got banned just for saying "he." Is it that difficult to think that one might think that someone who was born male is a male, and should be identified as "he?"
Because the views are often knee jerk reactions, and are not drawn out to their logical ends. If someone looks like a gender commonly looks (in this case, lets say male), feels they are a male, lives their daily life as a male, and socially interacts as a male, why on earth would you insist on calling them female? Because of their genitals? Do you examine the genitals of everyone you meet TO MAKE SURE they're actually what they say they are? What if they've had surgery? Do you ask everyone you talk to for a birth certificate to prove they were born the gender they live as? What about those that have an intersexed condition, deformed genitals, or some other condition? Do you call them "it"? At what point do you go from blindly calling someone something based exclusively on their birth genitals and nothing but that, to actually accepting that the person you're discussing is actually a person, and not a specific pair of genitals at birth?
It's not difficult to think that some people still swear by this ideology--because they're a dime a dozen. These people never really think through their "opinionated beliefs" to the practical ends, nor do they often realize that they're accomplishing nothing more than being an asshole.
On April 04 2012 15:54 ampson wrote: It's not blatantly offensive, and it is not intended to be.
To you it's not--or, maybe it is? Would you be offended if everywhere you went, people called you by the wrong gender pronoun? What if everyone INSISTED you were that gender? What if anytime you tried to say "but I'm clearly not!" they gave you a whole bunch of shit to try and push you down and make you the way they "believe" you are? Wouldn't that suck?
Maybe you say it wouldn't phase you. Try doing it for 5 years, then let me know if it still doesn't bug you at all.
On April 04 2012 15:54 ampson wrote: I think that it is kind of silly to demand that society addresses you a certain way if you are would clearly not normally be addressed that way. Saying that you are the other sex when you do not appear to be or are not actually is just not true, and you can't blame people for seeing what's there. It's like if someone was 5'4" (163cm for the rest of the world) and they demanded that you call them 6' tall (183cm) all of the time. No matter what they believe, it is simply a lot to ask of others to overlook what is there to accommodate your beliefs. It's not wrong that you have these beliefs, but you must understand that you can't take offense to those who don't quite understand what is going on. You have to think of everyone here, not only the transgendered.
Why wouldn't you normally be addressed that way? If the girl from this pageant went to the grocery store, the cashier would most call her ma'am when asking if it'll be credit or cash. If this woman was walking down the street, and dropped something, you most certainly would pick it up and say "Miss, I think you dropped this." She looks so unmistakably female that it's insanity to believe that she doesn't pass flawlessly. News flash, there's extremely masculine "female born" women out there, and they still get the common respect of correct pronouns.
No, I do blame people that look as this woman and say "But she's a man! She was born a man, and even though she doesn't look like one, I MUST call her 'he' because that is what she was BORN and that's ALL that counts!" They're being irrational with their beliefs and doing it simply to hurt.
It's not even accommodating beliefs, it's simple practicality. People think transsexual and they think some hideous inbetween person, or the old "man in a dress" stereotype--while yes, some trans people are visible when they're at a rough stage in between, the majority of them blend in just fine, and no one is the wiser. For example: The woman in this pageant--if she didn't say she was trans, no one would have a clue.
So yeah, people still try to be assholes and insist that they use the wrong pronouns, but then you have the intelligent, rational, and/or compassionate people that get informed that it's extremely offensive, and they respect the identity of other people. There's a great post right in the start of the thread that explains in detail the difference between gender and sex, and why one should respect another person--if people choose to overlook that and still try to insist their closed minded knee jerk beliefs, then fuck them, they haven't walked half a foot in my shoes.
On April 04 2012 15:54 ampson wrote: It's also quite silly to enter a contest which clearly states that it is only for naturally born females (sex not gender) when you yourself are not one and then have people complain about why you were disqualified. It is fine, however, to discuss the merits of the rule in the first place and possibly get it overturned (as has been done). But when this first happened, people were saying that the pageant had no right to do this when it clearly did. Private companies can choose whoever they want to compete in their events or receive their charities or whatever. Ugh. Just a few thoughts on the situation.
To that, I can agree though. While I think it's a dick move specifically trying to alienate trans people, it's their pageant, their rules, and she lied. Lying under a contract is a really really stupid move, and she deserved to get kicked from it. They apparently let her back in, but I sincerely hope that they removed the rule first, and didn't just make an exception for her.
sex = the male or female specific organs you were born with gender= how you identify yourself regardless of sexual organs?
Transgender people are "born this way" where they may have a male or female body, but in their minds they truly are the opposite sex so they have surgeries so they can look more like the sex they identify with?
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?
On April 04 2012 16:50 Ewic wrote: In my opinion, she should not be allowed to compete. If you are born a male, you're male. Now, if I were to meet him face-to-face, I would respect him and refer to him as a "she", but in my eyes, he's still a man. And that is why, since the beauty pageant is female-only, I would not let him compete.
On a side note of a similar topic, something I thought of... If in the future, there was a way to turn humans into other animals like dogs, and there were still dog pageants/contests, I don't think letting that human-into-dog person should be allowed to compete.
P.S. This is my opinion, don't get mad if you disagree please... I'm not looking for an argument or discussion...
It's not an opinion, however. You're wrong (I'm pretty sure at least) factually.
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.
To everyone that's saying "respect my opinion" I just flat out disagree. There's no reason to respect a wrong opinion. Just like if you have an opinion that the world is flat.... that's just me.
If I'm wrong about pronouns not being gender specific, than forgive me, but I'm pretty sure that's how it is.
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."
I bet you couldn't find a single person if you tried that "decided" to want to be transgender. Just as I would bet you wouldn't be able to find a single person that "decided" to be homosexual. I think out of every homosexual person I know (and I know this is only "related" in the sense that it has to do with lifestyles not of the norm and not generally accepted in society, as homosexuals are usually fine with their actual sex and gender), every single one has said they would not have chosen to be gay. That doesn't mean they aren't proud or what not, but to actually want or decide to be something that is so despised by society is an absolutely preposterous notion.
I bet you couldn't find a single person if you tried that "decided" to want to be transgender. Just as I would bet you wouldn't be able to find a single person that "decided" to be homosexual. I think out of every homosexual person I know (and I know this is only "related" in the sense that it has to do with lifestyles not of the norm and not generally accepted in society, as homosexuals are usually fine with their actual sex and gender), every single one has said they would not have chosen to be gay. That doesn't mean they aren't proud or what not, but to actually want or decide to be something that is so despised by society is an absolutely preposterous notion.
I'm not suggesting that someone wanting to be transgendered is a common occurrence. Transgender people are already quite rare relative to the world population, right? However, I certainly don't feel that it is out of the realm of possibility, and I don't think its fair to wave a hand of dismissal at the questions it raises.
I think she's just an attention seeker, trying to make a fuss to get some extra publicity.
The very definition of a beauty pageant is a judgement of individuals based on essentially arbitrary criteria. What is the societal significance of one's ability to strut in a swimsuit? How does one's ability to answer judges' questions relate to beauty in any way? Which skills count as talent and which don't?
If you don't want to be judged on the arbitrary rule of whether or not you were born with a penis, then why are you fighting for the right to be judged on a whole host of other arbitrary rules?
On April 05 2012 03:47 Joedaddy wrote: So from what I've read this is my understanding~
sex = the male or female specific organs you were born with gender= how you identify yourself regardless of sexual organs?
Transgender people are "born this way" where they may have a male or female body, but in their minds they truly are the opposite sex so they have surgeries so they can look more like the sex they identify with?
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?
I expanded on this here, is response to another poster:
On April 04 2012 06:52 Alay wrote: Look at all the people in here trying to tell me I don't exist or should have lived on in agony, how cute and blissfully ignorant.
Lets give this a run down, shall we?
Gender identity is part of your personality. It's a part of what makes your mind "you." One part of this is the minds determination of your gender, in the broadest terms a binary of "male" and "female" though there's more of a spectrum of gender identities (consider people who identify as women as anywhere from very butch to very feminine, and the same with people who identify as men.) This gender identity portion of your personality is largely (possibly entirely) built during natal growth. You cannot change your gender identity. All attempts to alter them have ended up very bad. In most cases, humans are born with a congruence between their gender identity and their biological sex.
Dissonance between gender identity and biological sex causes a wave of depression in individuals, known as Gender Dysphoria. It's the kind of extreme deep pain that you wouldn't wish on the most evil person in the world. If you've never experienced it, you probably can't comprehend it--and that's okay, you're pretty damn lucky to not. Just recognize it exists.
This Gender Dysphoria inhibits day to day life as the "birth assigned" gender, the condition is called Gender Identity Disorder.
Transgender (transsexual, specifically) individuals are those who feel they have an incongruence between their innate gender identity, and their biological sex.
Transsexual individuals feel their biological sex is opposite what their gender identity is, and thus feel the need to permanently live as the opposite sex, in order to feel congruence between their gender identity and their biological sex. After this 'transition' which can involve things such as hormone replacement (testosterone suppression and estrogen supplement in male-to-females, testosterone injections in female-to-males), hair removal (facial hair, for example), breast binding/removal, in some cases facial surgeries, and in some cases Sexual Reassignment Surgery (penile inversion or phalloplasty are common, though other techniques exist.)
That's just the fine detail stuff. The truth is, society really really hates people that go outside what they consider the norms. I can't begin to explain the number of laughs and vile stares I used to get at that horrible "in between" phase, the teachers and peers that would intentionally try to talk me down or belittle me, or the times my parents would tell me they love me no matter what in one sentence, then try to punch my face in the next (my father on a few occasion, literally.) It's a horribly difficult undertaking, and it's one that someone would only do if they have no other choice but transitioning or suicide--and believe me, far too high of a percent take the later route. This is hardly some whim decision people do for the laughs. Afterwards (oh, and by afterwards I mean after genital surgery. Before that in most states you're still considered your birth sex, get a nice old school letter marker on your license/ID that lets police arrest you for suspected prostitution, and if you apply for a job Social Security calls up your employer and outs you--hope you enjoy lower wages or being outright fired!) you get the fun of being treated as your birth sex in most states regarding marriage--thus, any who doesn't have gay marriage legalized bars a man and a woman from getting married, and often times bars you from even getting married to someone of the same gender, so you at that point cannot actually wed. You get the fun of dealing with people throughout your life (such as the many in this thread already) who scream at the top of their lungs that you are the sex you're born as, your identity doesn't actually exist (and thus you don't exist) while being so far from the world of dealing with GID that they cannot comprehend the basics. You get the amazing fun of disclosure to future partners--in some cases it is backlashed with violence. And of course you get experienced of public humiliation and 'outting' and 'other'ing such as the topic of the OP.
Fun, isn't it?
So please, piss off you ignorant twat, because I exist, and I've gone through more crap to be who I am and have a chance to grasp a TINY PART of the normalness that you get to have for free.
/rantoff
Regardless, onto the actual story: She shouldn't have lied (if she did, I've also heard from other places they kicked her they added the "women born women!" clause after) because that was stupid. They shouldn't have made such a stupid and senseless rule to begin with. I'm literally stunned that Trump turned this around. It makes me proud to see that there's at least some sensible people in this thread. TL you've made me proud.
As you give off the impression that you know quite a bit about this, would you happen to know of any papers / resources that attend to the epistemic issues associated with transgenderism (e.g. how warranted is the belief that one was born the wrong sex, when one has never been anything other than the sex they were born)?
Not quite sure what you mean? No one, sans those that have transitioned, have experienced what it's like to be both sexes--and even then it's accuracy against being biologically born and raised as the opposite sex aren't really possible to compare. Basically, my point is, how would those that are cisgendered (same birth sex as their gender identity, aka 'not-trans') know that they're actually <whatever gender they are> if they've never tried being <opposite gender>?
Personal experience wise: I knew I wasn't my birth sex, and I suffered GID and Gender Dysphoria because I continued trying to live as my birth sex. I was somewhat sure my gender identity was the opposite sex, and after transitioning (and slowly alleviating gender dysphoria) I found out I was correct.
Not all transgendered feel they're in a binary either, it should be noted. Some identify as genderqueer (neither male nor female accurately describes their gender.) Dunno what that's like though, so I can't provide much information on that.
What I am asking is, is there a sound epistemological justification for someone of a particular sex to say, "I'm actually the other gender, I desire for my physical appearance to reflect that". Obviously there are people who make the claim, and strongly (I believe you're one such person), that they were born the wrong sex, but how do they know? Is the psychological disconnect a genuine instance of "the universe got it wrong", and if not, then what? Cisgendered people are not quite the point: they aren't challenging their birth sex (although I get what you're saying).
The best answer I can give is that you kind of just "know". It'd probably be next to impossible to describe with words (and cisgendered people can experience this too, when posed the question "without using physical attributes as evidence, how are you sure you're male/female?") however evidence that it actually exists comes in the form of extreme depression revolving around feeling gender incongruent (gender dysphoria) to the extent that it has extreme interference with daily life (gender identity disorder.) It's only after an individual has expressed these for a long period of time under the supervision of a gender specialist that basic hormonal treatment will be prescribed--and only after two years in most cases of living full time as the 'target' gender will genital surgeries be permitted for those that seek it (which required in most cases two letters of recommendation from different gender specialists) so it's hardly something that can be done on a whim.
Further, I think someone that wasn't very serious would realize very quickly that there's only pain in being trans, and thus pretending to be trans (and actually transitioning) would be a pretty stupid idea. Again, most people only transition because the alternative is suicide from the intensity of their depression.
Finally, I don't so much think it's a case of the universe getting it wrong, so much as it's just a physiological phenomenon, brought on by a roll on the biological dice.
Did I understand properly what you were trying to ask?
tl;dr: It sucks huge horse nuts to be trans, if someone was faking it, they wouldn't fake it for long. If they actually DID go the whole nine yards while they weren't actually trans, they'd end up with Gender Identity Disorder (in the body of the reassigned sex, but still having the same gender that was congruent with their original sex)... so in a sense, they'd "become trans" at that point.
Generally, people that go through the standardized process as per WPATH are more or less guaranteed to not be faking. The few "regretters" that I know of used wealth to circumvent those standards on a whim (ie: directly after a divorce, etc.) The irony is that they usually end up being the loudest, wanting to say that because they made a bad decision, that all trans people are faking.
I bet you couldn't find a single person if you tried that "decided" to want to be transgender. Just as I would bet you wouldn't be able to find a single person that "decided" to be homosexual. I think out of every homosexual person I know (and I know this is only "related" in the sense that it has to do with lifestyles not of the norm and not generally accepted in society, as homosexuals are usually fine with their actual sex and gender), every single one has said they would not have chosen to be gay. That doesn't mean they aren't proud or what not, but to actually want or decide to be something that is so despised by society is an absolutely preposterous notion.
I'm not suggesting that someone wanting to be transgendered is a common occurrence. Transgender people are already quite rare relative to the world population, right? However, I certainly don't feel that it is out of the realm of possibility, and I don't think its fair to wave a hand of dismissal at the questions it raises.
It may not be out of the realm of possibility, but when you're talking maybe 1/1,000 of the existing transgenders, you're gonna reach a pretty small number.
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, namely Christian areas.
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.
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?
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.
I completely 100% agree. You associate with a set of behaviours commonly used by a particular biological sex but I understand this because of my understanding of gender. Its a difficult construct to explain to lay people so expressing it such as "feeling" like a gender can be an easier way of getting the same concept across for someone who isn't well versed in gender studies.
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?
This scariness you feel is just you learning about the world and having your cognitive schema being confronted. In the end just date who you want, get to know them and if you care for them nothing else matters. If my gf somehow magically was trans I wouldn't care. I really wouldn't because I know what she's like and I care for her. Its really that simple. Do what makes you happy.
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"...
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.
@Liberal: And that's why cases where people have tried to raise children as the opposite gender from their birth have ended up horrible, aye? ie: David Reimer.
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.
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.
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.
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, namely Christian 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.
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.
Everytime I see this thread in the sidebar I read it as Transformer Miss Universe... and get excited for a moment before I remember that this has happened dozens of times in the past week and fall back into disappointement that it's just this thread again.
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.
Beauty pageants should infer "natural" beauty imo. As someone said above, being able to be plasticized into the next miss universe kinda brings it down to "who can afford the most surgery". Plenty of gorgeous women who work for what they look like naturally are better candidates than some of these walking silicon dolls in hollywood.
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.
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.
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?
If it is possible to scientifically prove transgenderedness (pretty sure that isn't the right word for it but)? If yes, 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 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?
I don't understand why this is such a big deal. There are lots of pretty transgenders out there, so that isn't it. She wasn't really insulted on her way out or sued for good measure, so bigotry is not likely the issue. She just signed a contract in bad faith and had to face the consequences. Strictly legal matter.
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.
Kind of stinks that there is no conclusive evidence to scientifically prove transgenderedness. I guess its a good thing though that people are so accepting of transgenders based off of what they know to be true inside themselves.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Don't get it. Mind explaining?
On April 04 2012 04:14 ilikeredheads wrote: I just realized something....
Her name is Jenna Talackova ...................genital lack of a..... OH SNAP it's hiding in plain sight!!
As long as she's nor breaking any rules of the competition, i don't really care if she's in or not. BTW, she's not exactly back in yet. She needs to provide "the legal gender recognition requirements of Canada, and the standards established by other international competitions.”
On April 04 2012 04:14 ilikeredheads wrote: I just realized something....
Her name is Jenna Talackova ...................genital lack of a..... OH SNAP it's hiding in plain sight!!
As long as she's nor breaking any rules of the competition, i don't really care if she's in or not. BTW, she's not exactly back in yet. She needs to provide "the legal gender recognition requirements of Canada, and the standards established by other international competitions.”
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.
Could you please explain exactly what gender is, then? Because as I understand it now, it is either: 1. The grammatical form used to decline adjectives, pronouns, and nouns so that they are in agreement. 2. The social roles fulfilled by people in a form correlated in most societies with their sex. 3. How someone feels that they should be. or 4. Some loose definition with no real meaning at all. By my understanding of the word gender (limited usually to the first 2 definitions), no SRS is necessary, or any of the other treatments usually associated with Transgender or transsexual people (at this point, both of these terms are so often conflated and used interchangeably that I, at least fail to see the difference between the two). Now if we're talking about transgender people in the light of someone who wishes to adopt the societal roles associated with the other sex, then I really see no reason why that would necessitate any of the drastic actions taken by these people, generally. Societal roles really have no direct bearing in the use of the words male or female or man or woman or he or she.
At the same time, however, transgender is also used in the same way transsexual was, that is, someone who feels desperately that they ought to be the other sex. The way you describe this (and I'll stipulate to you on this one, since I'm not impossibly well read on the subject), it sounds to me like this can only be a case of some mental, hormonal, or other psychological type disorder (meant in the most inoffensive way possible) - certainly not a case of someone who simply doesn't like the role that people of their chromosomal makeup have filled in society. But in this case, still, why the obsession with language? If I approached a woman not conversant in english and referred to her as 'he' throughout the conversation, would she notice? Would she care? Of course not. The words themselves have no meaning apart from those we assign to them. So why do we go through the trouble of letting a rather select group of people define the use of the English language according to some ambiguous demands? I understand the argument of being sensitive and all, but wouldn't it be better, for all concerned (and for the reasons you listed earlier (if I remember correctly) as well) if instead of using these pronouns, with their grammatical gender differences, to refer to the social role of the person, if instead they referred to something concrete (say chromosomal makeup). At this point, then, they become useless anyways as identifiers except in specific contexts, which, as far as I'm concerned, is better than the current situation and the ambiguous mess of the feminist/LGBTQ/Postmodern terminology pox.
@refmac_cys.cys: Transgender is an umbrella term that constitutes transsexuals, cross dressers, fetishistic cross dressing/transvestism, gender fluid, gender queer, bigender, polygendered, and a few other groups.
A lot of transsexuals identify as transgendered because of the negative connotations from stereotyping on the word transsexual.
Actually transitioning has little if anything to do with adopting different social roles--here on the U.S. east coast especially, gender role norms are pretty lenient, and no one seems to really give a shit. It's something much deeper than that. My own transition as a viewpoint, nothing about me really changed (I'm not horrifically depressed and dysfunctional anymore though) and I still like/enjoy/do the same things as I did before transitioning.
On to pronoun usage: would YOU be offended if EVERYONE intentionally misgendered you, all the time? Maybe not at first, but after say, five years, would it bug you? I've already made about three really long posts on the subject of pronouns, and why insisting birth genitals/chromosome makeup as the basis for gendered pronouns is both unrealistic and goes out of its way to be an asshole for the sake of self-righteousness and closemindedness, so I'll be short to the point here: Look at the OP, the pageant contestant. If you saw her on the street, would you call her by male pronouns in conversation? Do you really think someone who lives, acts, and blends as their "new" social gender should make it a point to be called by their birth gender pronouns--something they have no attachment to at all, feel disdainful towards even considering connected with themselves?
Seriously, just call her "her." It's so much easier and it makes so much more sense.
On April 04 2012 04:14 ilikeredheads wrote: I just realized something....
Her name is Jenna Talackova ...................genital lack of a..... OH SNAP it's hiding in plain sight!!
As long as she's nor breaking any rules of the competition, i don't really care if she's in or not. BTW, she's not exactly back in yet. She needs to provide "the legal gender recognition requirements of Canada, and the standards established by other international competitions.”
I read it as "genital lack ova" -- as in female sex cells
I don't even know how I ended up reading this thread, but probably it's because it has a mod note and such threads tend to be interesting. Let me ignore for a while how absurd the whole thing is (as in the "beauty competitions" as a whole completely defy any reason, so how can you reason about what should their rules be?) and what do I really think (that people, particularly the more sutpid ones, tend to give an absurd amount focus to anything related to sex in any way and that in fact it is not a big deal at all) let me focus on the mod note.
I think it is a sign of a continuing very bad trend on TL. It promotes political correctness at its worst. It aruges that it is a "sensitive topic for many people" the worst weasel phrase ever invented (why couldn't we have a law that requires every keyboard maker to detect typing of such a phrase and to send an electric shock to the user's hands in such a case?). And it presents the politically correct opinion as a fact. People are even being banned for "not understanding the sex/gender disticntion" - but the mere existence of that is just an opinion of some people (that they like to present as a "scientific truth" to strenghten their case, completely ignoring how relative any human studies are).
Don't get me wrong, I fully understand the "this is our house" argument, but that doesn't take away your guilt for spreading the plague of political correctness further, paticularly given the volume current of the traffic at the site.
Squarewalker, your post was really well written, and I have to say I like the breathing/suffocating point, I had never considered it like that but it's really quite fitting. I also don't know the answer to your first question, sorry.
On April 05 2012 19:03 opisska wrote: I don't even know how I ended up reading this thread, but probably it's because it has a mod note and such threads tend to be interesting. Let me ignore for a while how absurd the whole thing is (as in the "beauty competitions" as a whole completely defy any reason, so how can you reason about what should their rules be?) and what do I really think (that people, particularly the more sutpid ones, tend to give an absurd amount focus to anything related to sex in any way and that in fact it is not a big deal at all) let me focus on the mod note.
I think it is a sign of a continuing very bad trend on TL. It promotes political correctness at its worst. It aruges that it is a "sensitive topic for many people" the worst weasel phrase ever invented (why couldn't we have a law that requires every keyboard maker to detect typing of such a phrase and to send an electric shock to the user's hands in such a case?). And it presents the politically correct opinion as a fact. People are even being banned for "not understanding the sex/gender disticntion" - but the mere existence of that is just an opinion of some people (that they like to present as a "scientific truth" to strenghten their case, completely ignoring how relative any human studies are).
Don't get me wrong, I fully understand the "this is our house" argument, but that doesn't take away your guilt for spreading the plague of political correctness further, paticularly given the volume current of the traffic at the site.
I disagree. TL is filled with an immature rebel-without-a-cause mentality that goes directly against what it deems as "political correctness." I'd provide some links, but as you could just argue that individual posts or threads (like this or this or this) aren't indicative of the community as a whole (in which case I would fail to see where you're drawing any of this opinion from, but hey, you do you). Just think critically for a second - do you really believe the English-speaking communities of the internet, filled with mostly privileged white males who one could argue do not benefit from a more racially and sexually open community, are the ones pushing for what you call "political correctness"? Seriously? Does that really make logical sense to you?
On-topic: What the guys from TheYoungTurks said were spot-on, but I'm not entirely sure if Jenna T should be able to compete. This is kind of an iffy subject, because a "Miss Universe" pageant-type event is in of itself "sexist," because it allows only those who the event organizers deem to be a woman to compete. Is that necessarily a bad thing? I don't know. Pageants reward those who have very specific qualities - namely, good (womanly) looks and charisma. A self-defined man would obviously lose this competition, due to the fact that he does not have womanly looks, but that's just the nature of the competition - it's inherently unfair. That said, in my mind, that man should still be able to compete - but of course a typical man wouldn't bother. Because it'd be silly and futile.
You can't really claim that this unfairness is "bad" and shouldn't happen, since that has its own rather idiotic implications - the idea that we shouldn't have competitions because the competitions favor those who are better are competing.
I think it's pretty clear. I don't think the event organizers have no responsibility to keep things "fair." If they don't want a contestant to compete, no matter what the reason, they have the right to disqualify that contestant. In my opinion, Jenna T is for all intents and purposes a woman, but my opinion doesn't matter. If they don't want her, they shouldn't be forced to take her. It would just give me (and apparently many others) a more negative opinion of the pageant, which I otherwise would care very little about.
It sucks that some people aren't open-minded enough to recognize the futility of social constructs like gender or race, but the administrators have no responsibility to be open-minded.
So can someone help me here, the way I understand it gender is what is determined by your experience, social environment, etc. And sex is the biological side, simply put if you have a penis you are a male. So if someone is transgender they changed only their gender? Meaning they still have their "original" genitals? And a transexual would be someone that underwent chirurgy to change their biological sex? But on the op it says she is transgender, and had chirurgy. I did read the link provided but it confirms what I originaly though to be true.
On April 05 2012 19:58 NeonFox wrote: So can someone help me here, the way I understand it gender is what is determined by your experience, social environment, etc. And sex is the biological side, simply put if you have a penis you are a male. So if someone is transgender they changed only their gender? Meaning they still have their "original" genitals? And a transexual would be someone that underwent chirurgy to change their biological sex? But on the op it says she is transgender, and had chirurgy. I did read the link provided but it confirms what I originaly though to be true.
You're basically correct, though for various reasons not all transsexuals can get surgery. People often, especially in the media, use the wrong terms, but then so do people who would belong to one or the other. Here's some descriptions I used in a blog a while ago. If you're just interested in those two it's the top and bottom ones.
Transsexual – Someone born with characteristics of a sex that does not conform with their gender identity.
That is the complete definition, it has nothing to do with any medical treatment (surgical, psychological or pharmaceutical [Ed: though in the blog I do explain these are common amongst transsexuals]), sexual preferences or fetishes, personality or even conforming with gender stereotypes. It is not a weekend hobby, it is a core identity. As much as you are male or female and couldn't change that, the same is true for a trans person. If you woke up tomorrow biological the opposite sex, you would still be the same person you are now. Gender is an identity, not a body type (or more crudely but more often worded as “it's what's between your head, not your legs”).
Transvestite – Someone who engages in cross-dressing, which is to say dressing in clothes typically reserved for people belonging to the opposite sex.
Transvestite is a term used to describe people who cross-dress. Whilst it is common that this is for sexual gratification, that isn't always the case but the important distinction is that the individual still identifies with their biological sex. A male transvestite dressed as a woman is still a man, and unlike a transsexual would not be offended by being classed as such, though often it's is proper to refer to them as the gender they're displaying this is a case by case thing. Referring to a transsexual as a transvestite is to literally say “You're not a woman, you're a man dressed as a woman” and that is extremely hurtful.
Cis-gendered: Someone for who biological and psychological sex and gender align. Basically a non transgendered person.
Androgynous: A person who exhibits both male and female typical sexual markers.
Androgynous people cover a large group. Colloquially it refers to someone who in appearance appears unidentifiable on the scale of man to woman. The literal meaning is someone though who expresses both masculine and feminine biological traits, sometimes to the extent that determining a gender identify from them without their input is not possible. Hermaphrodites (those born with sex organs of both sexes) are often put in to this category.
Genderqueer: A person who identifies as neither male or female.
Whilst for practical purposes a pronoun is usually apparent, those who identify as genderqueer could not be identified on a binary scale of male or female, but rather find comfort somewhere in the middle. Because of just how wide this definition is I can't really give a more in depth description than that, they come as a case by case basis. I don't know anyone who identifies as Genderqueer personally so I'm hoping someone else might be able to help here.
Transgender: This is an umbrella term for anyone who's expression of gender doesn't match that typically assigned at birth. This can literally cover everyone from transsexuals to transvestites to androgynous people and genderqueer individuals.
On April 05 2012 19:58 NeonFox wrote: So can someone help me here, the way I understand it gender is what is determined by your experience, social environment, etc. And sex is the biological side, simply put if you have a penis you are a male. So if someone is transgender they changed only their gender? Meaning they still have their "original" genitals? And a transexual would be someone that underwent chirurgy to change their biological sex? But on the op it says she is transgender, and had chirurgy. I did read the link provided but it confirms what I originaly though to be true.
You're basically correct, though for various reasons not all transsexuals can get surgery. People often, especially in the media, use the wrong terms, but then so do people who would belong to one or the other. Here's some descriptions I used in a blog a while ago. If you're just interested in those two it's the top and bottom ones.
That is the complete definition, it has nothing to do with any medical treatment (surgical, psychological or pharmaceutical [Ed: though in the blog I do explain these are common amongst transsexuals]), sexual preferences or fetishes, personality or even conforming with gender stereotypes. It is not a weekend hobby, it is a core identity. As much as you are male or female and couldn't change that, the same is true for a trans person. If you woke up tomorrow biological the opposite sex, you would still be the same person you are now. Gender is an identity, not a body type (or more crudely but more often worded as “it's what's between your head, not your legs”).
Transvestite – Someone who engages in cross-dressing, which is to say dressing in clothes typically reserved for people belonging to the opposite sex.
Transvestite is a term used to describe people who cross-dress. Whilst it is common that this is for sexual gratification, that isn't always the case but the important distinction is that the individual still identifies with their biological sex. A male transvestite dressed as a woman is still a man, and unlike a transsexual would not be offended by being classed as such, though often it's is proper to refer to them as the gender they're displaying this is a case by case thing. Referring to a transsexual as a transvestite is to literally say “You're not a woman, you're a man dressed as a woman” and that is extremely hurtful.
Cis-gendered: Someone for who biological and psychological sex and gender align. Basically a non transgendered person.
Androgynous: A person who exhibits both male and female typical sexual markers.
Androgynous people cover a large group. Colloquially it refers to someone who in appearance appears unidentifiable on the scale of man to woman. The literal meaning is someone though who expresses both masculine and feminine biological traits, sometimes to the extent that determining a gender identify from them without their input is not possible. Hermaphrodites (those born with sex organs of both sexes) are often put in to this category.
Genderqueer: A person who identifies as neither male or female.
Whilst for practical purposes a pronoun is usually apparent, those who identify as genderqueer could not be identified on a binary scale of male or female, but rather find comfort somewhere in the middle. Because of just how wide this definition is I can't really give a more in depth description than that, they come as a case by case basis. I don't know anyone who identifies as Genderqueer personally so I'm hoping someone else might be able to help here.
Transgender: This is an umbrella term for anyone who's expression of gender doesn't match that typically assigned at birth. This can literally cover everyone from transsexuals to transvestites to androgynous people and genderqueer individuals.
Thank you for your thorough explanation, it's clearer now.
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.
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?
World is not black and white and your distinction between purely biological and purely social is black and white fallacy. Gender is not a purely social construct and self-identification is deeply rooted in biology. The social gender roles and customs are just implementations of baser biological drives by different societies.
Square, that was one of the best posts I've ever read on this forum. I'm glad you felt that you could share this with us.
Keep us crazies over in #tlponies in your thoughts. We like you, and we like having you around. We're your friends through all of this, and we wish you the best, hoping that you can one day feel genuinely good about yourself. You deserve to. /) Cheers, girl.
On April 05 2012 19:58 NeonFox wrote: So can someone help me here, the way I understand it gender is what is determined by your experience, social environment, etc. And sex is the biological side, simply put if you have a penis you are a male. So if someone is transgender they changed only their gender? Meaning they still have their "original" genitals? And a transexual would be someone that underwent chirurgy to change their biological sex? But on the op it says she is transgender, and had chirurgy. I did read the link provided but it confirms what I originaly though to be true.
Transgender is an umbrella term, read the prefix "Trans" as "Not gender typical of birth assigned sex."
Transsexual is an individual who wants to change biological sex to match gender identity. Read the prefix "Trans" here as "Moving from one to another."
One of the reasons I hate the term transgender, common language usage of prefix trans means to change... and to the unfamiliar it makes people think I'm changing my gender... that's the only thing that remains constant.
@Square, beautiful post. Chin up and focus on being happy, and do whatever it takes--sacrificing yourself for others in the end isn't worth it.
Square, I'm glad you were able to write that post It must feel a lot better finally getting some of your feelings on paper and it takes a lot of courage to not only do that, but to post it in a public forum. Great job.
Remember, I'm always a query away in #tlponies and I'll always try to offer you as much encouragement as I can. Personally, I don't care if someone decides to be transgender. I've known someone that was making the switch, so I've learned a bit about the process. It's a very scary, expensive, and risky procedure, so someone willing to commit to that due to true feelings that strong has nothing but my deepest respect.
Anyway, best of luck with this whole thing. I know it can't be easy, but I'll do what I can to help from my end. <3
There's nothing worse than not being able to be yourself, or be comfortable with who you are (let alone proud of it). Can't imagine how difficult it would be to be transgender.
Another, somewhat, useful resource for the people confused by the idea of transgendered people could do well to listen to the This American Life piece on testosterone. The introductory story is about a FtM transgender, he has some pretty great insights on the differences between being cis male and t male. If you want to give it a listen you can find it, free, here: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/220/testosterone I hope that helps someone.
MISS UNIVERSE CHANGES RULES TO INCLUDE TRANSGENDER CONTESTANTS
Previously, Miss Universe Canada confirmed they would allow Jenna to compete, but now if she wins it she'll be able to participate in the international competition.
The Miss Universe pageant is changing its rules and will allow transgender women to take part in all of its competitions starting in 2013, the organization and gay rights group GLAAD said on Tuesday.
Tuesday's decision follows a media outcry over the disqualification of Canadian contestant Jenna Talackova from the upcoming Miss Universe Canada contest because she was not a "naturally born female."
Talackova 23, who underwent gender reassignment surgery when she was 19, was reinstated to the Canadian competition last week by businessman Donald Trump, who owns the Miss Universe organization. Talackova has a Canadian passport, driver's license and other documents that identify her as a woman
Following consultations with the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), Miss Universe "discussed a policy change that includes transgender women in time for the start of this fall's 2013 pageant season; a time when most of the competitions around the world begin to take place," the two groups said in a joint statement.
The change brings Miss Universe into line with other groups that have taken a stand against discrimination of transgender women, including the Olympics, the Girl Scouts of America and TV show "America's Next Top Model," GLAAD said.
"We have a long history of supporting equality for all women and this was something we took very seriously," said Paula Shugart, president of the Miss Universe Organization.
The exact language, which will abolish the long-standing rule that contestants must be "naturally born females," is still being worked out, officials said.
National beauty pageants are currently being held around the world to choose contestants to compete in the 2012 Miss Universe contest, to be held later this year.
We teach people that distorted self body image is bad.
We recognize that people can believe that their body is too fat or too thin, incorrectly, and that they are a teapot or jesus or their arm is missing when it really isn't, or that they have different "personalities" inside themselves, when really it's just the single person inside.
These distortions in self body image, and a healthy acceptance of the self, are considered sad states and people try to help them.
People with these body distortions also tend to feel like they can't fit, because they will never live up to their own image, so they cry, cut themselves, and sometimes even commit suicide over it.
Transgenders do the same thing, except when they get a sex change, it's completely objectionable and rude to say that they mutilated themselves to look the way they believe they should be, when people throw up and starve themselves to look "pretty", and these are considered diseases.
The issue is one of body image not living up to the self perceived ideal. It's sad and painful. But noone can come out and say that transgenders are mentally ill because it's unpopular and receives a lot of hate, due to the gay rights movement, even though it factually is an issue of someone wanting to cut their own body up to look like how they should be. The proof of this is how it's the gay rights movements that had an outcry over him being DQ'd before.
When cutters do that, they go to a mental hospital. When transgenders do it, they get applauded for bravery of being who they are "inside".
It's sad that so many people are willing to falsely approve of the behavior. buddhism teaches us that lying is never the answer.
On April 16 2012 03:42 Tranniekiller wrote: Here's the problem though.
We teach people that distorted self body image is bad.
We recognize that people can believe that their body is too fat or too thin, incorrectly, and that they are a teapot or jesus or their arm is missing when it really isn't, or that they have different "personalities" inside themselves, when really it's just the single person inside.
These distortions in self body image, and a healthy acceptance of the self, are considered sad states and people try to help them.
People with these body distortions also tend to feel like they can't fit, because they will never live up to their own image, so they cry, cut themselves, and sometimes even commit suicide over it.
Transgenders do the same thing, except when they get a sex change, it's completely objectionable and rude to say that they mutilated themselves to look the way they believe they should be, when people throw up and starve themselves to look "pretty", and these are considered diseases.
The issue is one of body image not living up to the self perceived ideal. It's sad and painful. But noone can come out and say that transgenders are mentally ill because it's unpopular and receives a lot of hate, due to the gay rights movement, even though it factually is an issue of someone wanting to cut their own body up to look like how they should be. The proof of this is how it's the gay rights movements that had an outcry over him being DQ'd before.
When cutters do that, they go to a mental hospital. When transgenders do it, they get applauded for bravery of being who they are "inside".
It's sad that so many people are willing to falsely approve of the behavior. buddhism teaches us that lying is never the answer.
You realize that what you are saying is that we should be more accepting of people with distorted body image issues, not that we should be less accepting of transgendered people?
No one should come out and say that people who think they are too fat or too thin or feel unloved or do not fit in within the construct of the society are mentally ill. Do they need help? Yes. But they should not be shunned because they don't fit our preconceived notions of right and wrong.
Like with SRS there is a process to go through for body modification. People who judge those with plastic surgeries are in reality no less bigoted compared to people who judge those with reassignment surgeries.
Also you are mistaken that when transgenders do it they are lauded. Many many many transgendered people live their entire life in misery because they are not given the help and support to change biological sex to match gender. In some countries transgendered people are killed. Not so long ago they were outcasts even in the US, not to mention that every few years we hear of some other horror murder story where a "straight" man was so offended by a trans that he goes ahead and kills her, something that you seem to admire as evidenced by your really gross username.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/JkTpf.png)
![[image loading]](http://arihanttraders.com/images/Wood.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-im2F-ziV0sk/T1UDzWJ3XKI/AAAAAAAAA0E/RgJC0VBqQCc/s1600/ive-made-a-huge-mistake.gif)
![[image loading]](http://images.eonline.com/eol_images/Entire_Site/201233//300.jennatalackova.mh.040312.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://topnews.in/light/files/ivanka_trump_07.jpg)
