|
Keep discussion objective and civil.
Blindly spewing uninformed non-sense will lead to moderation action. |
On December 05 2012 07:29 KwarK wrote:
You said that at the end of a post comparing the two. I addressed what you said. The point I believed you were trying to make is that if someone is suicidal you don't look at the physical problem they claim to have but instead try to address a mental problem to make them feel differently about the physical side while leaving it unchanged. You were calling attention to the difference between that approach and the approach to being transgender. I challenged it on the basis that overall health can never be improved by surgically fixing the physical issue of being alive, that the difference in approach was the result of an externality called dying which prevents a physical fix to being suicidal.
I think the more important point to make is that there ISN'T a way to make trans people "feel better" about having the wrong body. Transitioning (through treatments such as hormone replacement therapy and sex reassignment surgery) is the only proven method of treating transgender patients.
|
On December 05 2012 07:29 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 07:22 jdseemoreglass wrote:On December 05 2012 07:21 KwarK wrote:
The argument fails because there can be no medical case made for someone being better off dead, suicide cannot ever be viewed as a medical procedure because the health of the patient is always worse following a successful suicide attempt (this is ignoring quality of life issues etc, purely health). If health could be improved by suicide then a doctor could certainly turn around and say "yes, I see the problem, it's life, we can surgically remove your life and then you'll be able to carry on as you should". But there isn't a carry on bit with death, by its nature things just kind of stop happening at that point, and therefore the argument is not comparable. That's why I specifically said that I wasn't comparing suicide to surgery... Are you just skimming my posts? You said that at the end of a post comparing the two. I addressed what you said. The point I believed you were trying to make is that if someone is suicidal you don't look at the physical problem they claim to have but instead try to address a mental problem to make them feel differently about the physical side while leaving it unchanged. You were calling attention to the difference between that approach and the approach to being transgender. I challenged it on the basis that overall health can never be improved by surgically fixing the physical issue of being alive, that the difference in approach was the result of an externality called dying which prevents a physical fix to being suicidal.
So because transgenders can fix their problem via a physical surgery, we should ignore the possibility it could simply be a mental disorder? Surgery may be able to make them feel better, but there's nothing to say other forms of therapy (pills and what naught), to attempt to fix the mental side of things (to make them feel like they should feel), couldn't do the same.
|
On December 05 2012 07:18 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 07:13 starfries wrote:
I haven't gotten an answer to some of my questions so I'll repost while there's still people around:
Is there a difference between a trans female and a man with the delusion of being female? The brain structure of a trans female has identifiably female characteristics, but is it that way from birth or is it an effect of seeing yourself as a woman?
And I'd still like an answer to the cat issue if anyone wants to take a crack at it.
edit: the way I see it, it's only a psychological issue if the best way of treating it is psychological. Once physical treatments are viable and commonplace, then it's no longer a mental disorder. Yes, there is. The difference is that the trans female will be happy once she undergoes treatment, whereas such a treatment would have no such effect on a man with the delusion of being female. In fact, upon undergoing treatment, the man with the delusion would likely become extremely depressed (as has been documented in cases where people mistakenly underwent treatment.) This would not be much unlike your average person seeing a list of symptoms in a psychology journal for a particular disease, and since they are so vague, he says, aha! I have "borderline personality disorder." Is there a difference between someone who has borderline personality disorder and someone who feels that he has borderline personality disorder? Yes: In one case treatment will work, in the other it won't. We can always be mistaken about our identities or mental health. That's why we have mental health professionals and very strict procedures to prevent permanent irreversible mistakes from occurring.
Thanks, that's a good explanation.
|
I had no idea it was classified as a Mental Disorder before this o_0
But I'm truly glad to hear that it no longer is.
|
On December 05 2012 07:13 drshdwpuppet wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 07:05 Vivax wrote:
It's interesting how former diseases become normatized sexualities over time. Starting from homosexualitys so called emancipation, new forms of gender now get accepted as something not pathological.
What I gain from these decisions:
Essentially, as long as you don't piss off your environment with weird sexualities/paraphilias, you are considered sane, but if the public doesn't like you, you're ill.
For sciences sake, psychiatric illnesses need to be defined more strictly and with disregard to public opinion.
The vagueness with the definitions has more to do with our lack of understanding how the brain does, and in some cases, does not work. As we discover more about neurochemisty and learn to describe neural process more accurately and having a foundation in physical phenomenon, this issue will become less.
I disagree. The definition of an illness will always depend on the environment an individual with said illness is placed into. Just discovering how an illness looks on the biological level won't be enough to define it. Same as for the physical level.
According to evolutionary theories, the earth of today is the result of deviances which have been proven successful in their respective environments.
You have white skin in a place where the sun burns you easily?You're ill (cause due to selection, the majority of the so called healthy population has dark skin, since those with your trait have died of skin cancer before reproducing, and so will you - hypothetically).
You have dark skin in a village of whites and get killed by them? You're ill (according the APA definition of illness based on social consequences).
Maybe racism has even some sort of biological explanation when you think about this stuff. But it wouldn't be politically correct to go further.
|
On December 05 2012 07:33 killa_robot wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 07:29 KwarK wrote:On December 05 2012 07:22 jdseemoreglass wrote:On December 05 2012 07:21 KwarK wrote:
The argument fails because there can be no medical case made for someone being better off dead, suicide cannot ever be viewed as a medical procedure because the health of the patient is always worse following a successful suicide attempt (this is ignoring quality of life issues etc, purely health). If health could be improved by suicide then a doctor could certainly turn around and say "yes, I see the problem, it's life, we can surgically remove your life and then you'll be able to carry on as you should". But there isn't a carry on bit with death, by its nature things just kind of stop happening at that point, and therefore the argument is not comparable. That's why I specifically said that I wasn't comparing suicide to surgery... Are you just skimming my posts? You said that at the end of a post comparing the two. I addressed what you said. The point I believed you were trying to make is that if someone is suicidal you don't look at the physical problem they claim to have but instead try to address a mental problem to make them feel differently about the physical side while leaving it unchanged. You were calling attention to the difference between that approach and the approach to being transgender. I challenged it on the basis that overall health can never be improved by surgically fixing the physical issue of being alive, that the difference in approach was the result of an externality called dying which prevents a physical fix to being suicidal. So because transgenders can fix their problem via a physical surgery, we should ignore the possibility it could simply be a mental disorder? Surgery may be able to make them feel better, but there's nothing to say other forms of therapy (pills and what naught), to attempt to fix the mental side of things (to make them feel like they should feel), couldn't do the same.
There hasn't been one found, and often when asked if they would rather have the emotional pain gone or become their identified sex, trans patients usually say the latter. It's not just about depression, it's also desperately wanting to live as themselves, being true to their own identity.. the depression being the result of that.
Even if you could make someone feel better about something that they so desperately need that they're suicidally miserable about it, they'd still have a need for it. But getting rid of that emotional pain hasn't even been a possible option. Anti-depressants haven't stopped it, receiving large amounts of testosterone didn't solve it either, forcing them to accept their "fate" of living as their assigned sex for the rest of their life usually led to committing suicide.
|
On December 05 2012 07:33 killa_robot wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 07:29 KwarK wrote:On December 05 2012 07:22 jdseemoreglass wrote:On December 05 2012 07:21 KwarK wrote:
The argument fails because there can be no medical case made for someone being better off dead, suicide cannot ever be viewed as a medical procedure because the health of the patient is always worse following a successful suicide attempt (this is ignoring quality of life issues etc, purely health). If health could be improved by suicide then a doctor could certainly turn around and say "yes, I see the problem, it's life, we can surgically remove your life and then you'll be able to carry on as you should". But there isn't a carry on bit with death, by its nature things just kind of stop happening at that point, and therefore the argument is not comparable. That's why I specifically said that I wasn't comparing suicide to surgery... Are you just skimming my posts? You said that at the end of a post comparing the two. I addressed what you said. The point I believed you were trying to make is that if someone is suicidal you don't look at the physical problem they claim to have but instead try to address a mental problem to make them feel differently about the physical side while leaving it unchanged. You were calling attention to the difference between that approach and the approach to being transgender. I challenged it on the basis that overall health can never be improved by surgically fixing the physical issue of being alive, that the difference in approach was the result of an externality called dying which prevents a physical fix to being suicidal. So because transgenders can fix their problem via a physical surgery, we should ignore the possibility it could simply be a mental disorder? Surgery may be able to make them feel better, but there's nothing to say other forms of therapy (pills and what naught), to attempt to fix the mental side of things (to make them feel like they should feel), couldn't do the same.
Problem is that a lot of us don't want to fix our "brain problem." My brain is functioning just fine, thanks. In fact, I'm not even sure what a mental disorder is. Can you tell me objectively what it means for someone to be mentally orderly? Don't look to psychology for help - they don't even know what most of the drugs they prescribe even do (other than the fact that they seem to help)
Why do you assume that b/c a person is born with a penis they "should" feel like a man? This underlying presupposition is simply that: A presupposition. We all have them, admittedly.
Now, I'm not opposed to research into other forms of therapy if trans people wanted that therapy. But many of us do not feel like there is anything wrong with the way that our minds operate - in fact, we feel empowered by it. But to me it seems like the purpose of posts like this isn't to help trans people with their "mental disorder" but rather to confirm your feelings about what people ought to be like and how they ought to behave.
It seems to me that rarely is there ever a trans person that wants to be the cissexual person (ie a trans female receiving therapy in order to identify as a man). Rather, it is the cissexual that wants transsexuals to be like them. In other words: The treatment is for you, not for us. Labeling it a mental disorder is to benefit you, not the trans person.
|
On December 05 2012 07:33 killa_robot wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 07:29 KwarK wrote:On December 05 2012 07:22 jdseemoreglass wrote:On December 05 2012 07:21 KwarK wrote:
The argument fails because there can be no medical case made for someone being better off dead, suicide cannot ever be viewed as a medical procedure because the health of the patient is always worse following a successful suicide attempt (this is ignoring quality of life issues etc, purely health). If health could be improved by suicide then a doctor could certainly turn around and say "yes, I see the problem, it's life, we can surgically remove your life and then you'll be able to carry on as you should". But there isn't a carry on bit with death, by its nature things just kind of stop happening at that point, and therefore the argument is not comparable. That's why I specifically said that I wasn't comparing suicide to surgery... Are you just skimming my posts? You said that at the end of a post comparing the two. I addressed what you said. The point I believed you were trying to make is that if someone is suicidal you don't look at the physical problem they claim to have but instead try to address a mental problem to make them feel differently about the physical side while leaving it unchanged. You were calling attention to the difference between that approach and the approach to being transgender. I challenged it on the basis that overall health can never be improved by surgically fixing the physical issue of being alive, that the difference in approach was the result of an externality called dying which prevents a physical fix to being suicidal. So because transgenders can fix their problem via a physical surgery, we should ignore the possibility it could simply be a mental disorder? Surgery may be able to make them feel better, but there's nothing to say other forms of therapy (pills and what naught), to attempt to fix the mental side of things (to make them feel like they should feel), couldn't do the same.
Firstly, I'm incredibly in favor of further rights for transgenders and am glad for the declassification.
However (and this may be more in the realm of philosophy than reality), you are right that *potentially someday* there could be a 'treatment' that did not involve transitioning to another gender (though I can't imagine many transgenders would choose it, and forcing it brings up an entirely different debate). But the issue is that gender is now considered a core construct - an integral part of a person's psyche. If (when) we eventually develop the ability to alter something that deep scientifically, then I think transgenders will probably be the least of our concerns at that point (mind control will be a far bigger issue).
But as gender is considered a core part of a person, it is no longer fair to consider it a mental disorder when it is (philosophically speaking) a physical one.
Edit: The whole reason I'm talking about the future is that there is no known modern treatment for GID besides transitioning, and people have tried (especially in the 20th century - they tried extensively). Some things had partial effectiveness to a limited degree, but nothing (not even continuing down the path of partial successes) could 'solve' it except transitioning.
There are also a lot of somewhat interesting philosophical "what-ifs" that occur if you continue along the lines I mentioned earlier. For example, what if they narrow down the cause (current theory is unbalanced maternal hormones during brain development in utero) and can "correct the issue" before birth? Are they not making a choice for the unborn child?
|
On December 05 2012 07:13 starfries wrote:
I haven't gotten an answer to some of my questions so I'll repost while there's still people around:
Is there a difference between a trans female and a man with the delusion of being female? The brain structure of a trans female has identifiably female characteristics, but is it that way from birth or is it an effect of seeing yourself as a woman?
And I'd still like an answer to the cat issue if anyone wants to take a crack at it.
edit: the way I see it, it's only a psychological issue if the best way of treating it is psychological. Once physical treatments are viable and commonplace, then it's no longer a mental disorder.
I'll take a stab at the cat anecdote, but I'm no expert so if anyone would like to correct me feel free. When used with respect to trans issues, "gender" is defined as the way a person feels, independent from his or her physical characteristics. This is why it is proper to refer to a person that feels like a female as "she" or "her", even if she has masculine physical characteristics such a penis, deep voice, etc. Support for the correctness of this definition has been provided by previous posters who have cited studies and personal experiences, so I don't feel the need to go into that.
Thinking you are a cat is obviously different because we don't define "cat" as a person that thinks he or she is a cat. A person who feels female IS female, and should not be considered a person with a mental disorder. She can be treated for depression and other negative side affects that arise because her gender does not match her sex, but treatment should not be aimed at convincing her to feel like a male (that's been tried, and failed horribly). However, a person that thinks he or she is a cat, by definition, IS NOT a cat.
|
On December 05 2012 07:45 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 07:33 killa_robot wrote:On December 05 2012 07:29 KwarK wrote:On December 05 2012 07:22 jdseemoreglass wrote:On December 05 2012 07:21 KwarK wrote:
The argument fails because there can be no medical case made for someone being better off dead, suicide cannot ever be viewed as a medical procedure because the health of the patient is always worse following a successful suicide attempt (this is ignoring quality of life issues etc, purely health). If health could be improved by suicide then a doctor could certainly turn around and say "yes, I see the problem, it's life, we can surgically remove your life and then you'll be able to carry on as you should". But there isn't a carry on bit with death, by its nature things just kind of stop happening at that point, and therefore the argument is not comparable. That's why I specifically said that I wasn't comparing suicide to surgery... Are you just skimming my posts? You said that at the end of a post comparing the two. I addressed what you said. The point I believed you were trying to make is that if someone is suicidal you don't look at the physical problem they claim to have but instead try to address a mental problem to make them feel differently about the physical side while leaving it unchanged. You were calling attention to the difference between that approach and the approach to being transgender. I challenged it on the basis that overall health can never be improved by surgically fixing the physical issue of being alive, that the difference in approach was the result of an externality called dying which prevents a physical fix to being suicidal. So because transgenders can fix their problem via a physical surgery, we should ignore the possibility it could simply be a mental disorder? Surgery may be able to make them feel better, but there's nothing to say other forms of therapy (pills and what naught), to attempt to fix the mental side of things (to make them feel like they should feel), couldn't do the same. Problem is that a lot of us don't want to fix our "brain problem." My brain is functioning just fine, thanks. In fact, I'm not even sure what a mental disorder is. Can you tell me objectively what it means for someone to be mentally orderly? Don't look to psychology for help - they don't even know what most of the drugs they prescribe even do (other than the fact that they seem to help) Why do you assume that b/c a person is born with a penis they "should" feel like a man? This underlying presupposition is simply that: A presupposition. We all have them, admittedly. Now, I'm not opposed to research into other forms of therapy if trans people wanted that therapy. But many of us do not feel like there is anything wrong with the way that our minds operate - in fact, we feel empowered by it. But to me it seems like the purpose of posts like this isn't to help trans people with their "mental disorder" but rather to confirm your feelings about what people ought to be like and how they ought to behave. It seems to me that rarely is there ever a trans person that wants to be the cissexual person (ie a trans female receiving therapy in order to identify as a man). Rather, it is the cissexual that wants transsexuals to be like them. In other words: The treatment is for you, not for us. Labeling it a mental disorder is to benefit you, not the trans person.
What is it like to feel like a man? All men are different. I doubt that I feel like most other men that I know (I certainly do not seem to think like them). There are some things that identify me as a man, such as my penis or by body size and shape, but men have different hormonal levels (is that a suitable term?) than other men.
I think trans sexuality is very difficult to understand unless you are trans sexual, because a person only knows what it is like to feel like themself.
|
On December 04 2012 16:53 corpuscle wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2012 16:46 sc2superfan101 wrote:
can't say that I agree with their conclusion. I don't think people should be discriminated against, obviously, but that shouldn't have any bearing on whether or not it is considered a disorder. and it is somewhat tiresome, as someone who has family who suffer from mental disorders, to listen to people talk about how it's offensive to be told they have a mental disorder. there is nothing wrong with having a disorder, and putting a negative stigma on it (while that may not be their intent) is really bad, imo. I agree that mental disorders shouldn't be stigmatized unfairly, but calling transgenderism (I don't know what else to call it) a mental disorder is still disingenuous, just like homosexuality. People who are depressed or suffer from ADD have a disorder (I have both), but someone who is trans is only "sick" in the respect that society doesn't accept them. Saying that someone who has transitioned and is happy with who they are still has an underlying mental disorder is degrading and unfair.
I have Aspergers syndrome and other learnig disorders but unless i tell someone its hard for them to notice , when i do tell them lots of people seem immediately uncomfortable that i am not normal . Lots of people dont realize that not everything is visible .
|
On December 05 2012 07:37 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 07:13 drshdwpuppet wrote:On December 05 2012 07:05 Vivax wrote:
It's interesting how former diseases become normatized sexualities over time. Starting from homosexualitys so called emancipation, new forms of gender now get accepted as something not pathological.
What I gain from these decisions:
Essentially, as long as you don't piss off your environment with weird sexualities/paraphilias, you are considered sane, but if the public doesn't like you, you're ill.
For sciences sake, psychiatric illnesses need to be defined more strictly and with disregard to public opinion.
The vagueness with the definitions has more to do with our lack of understanding how the brain does, and in some cases, does not work. As we discover more about neurochemisty and learn to describe neural process more accurately and having a foundation in physical phenomenon, this issue will become less. I disagree. The definition of an illness will always depend on the environment an individual with said illness is placed into. Just discovering how an illness looks on the biological level won't be enough to define it. Same as for the physical level. According to evolutionary theories, the earth of today is the result of deviances which have been proven successful in their respective environments. You have white skin in a place where the sun burns you easily?You're ill (cause due to selection, the majority of the so called healthy population has dark skin, since those with your trait have died of skin cancer before reproducing, and so will you - hypothetically). You have dark skin in a village of whites and get killed by them? You're ill (according the APA definition of illness based on social consequences).
Um... what? One of these is a purely environmental factor. The other of these is people being dicks. One of these can be solved by stopping people from being dicks; the other cannot.
And no; generally speaking, psychological disorders are defined by social consequences.
On December 05 2012 07:37 Vivax wrote:
Maybe racism has even some sort of biological explanation when you think about this stuff. But it wouldn't be politically correct to go further.
In general, when someone says that what they're about to say won't be "politically correct", I find that such statements are no less true if you drop "politically" from that sentence.
The "biological explanation" for racism is nothing more than the basic human instinct towards "us vs. them"; nothing more. Race is simply another way of classifying "us" and "them", much like religion, nationality, sports team, etc.
|
On December 05 2012 08:03 hzflank wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 07:45 shinosai wrote:On December 05 2012 07:33 killa_robot wrote:On December 05 2012 07:29 KwarK wrote:On December 05 2012 07:22 jdseemoreglass wrote:On December 05 2012 07:21 KwarK wrote:
The argument fails because there can be no medical case made for someone being better off dead, suicide cannot ever be viewed as a medical procedure because the health of the patient is always worse following a successful suicide attempt (this is ignoring quality of life issues etc, purely health). If health could be improved by suicide then a doctor could certainly turn around and say "yes, I see the problem, it's life, we can surgically remove your life and then you'll be able to carry on as you should". But there isn't a carry on bit with death, by its nature things just kind of stop happening at that point, and therefore the argument is not comparable. That's why I specifically said that I wasn't comparing suicide to surgery... Are you just skimming my posts? You said that at the end of a post comparing the two. I addressed what you said. The point I believed you were trying to make is that if someone is suicidal you don't look at the physical problem they claim to have but instead try to address a mental problem to make them feel differently about the physical side while leaving it unchanged. You were calling attention to the difference between that approach and the approach to being transgender. I challenged it on the basis that overall health can never be improved by surgically fixing the physical issue of being alive, that the difference in approach was the result of an externality called dying which prevents a physical fix to being suicidal. So because transgenders can fix their problem via a physical surgery, we should ignore the possibility it could simply be a mental disorder? Surgery may be able to make them feel better, but there's nothing to say other forms of therapy (pills and what naught), to attempt to fix the mental side of things (to make them feel like they should feel), couldn't do the same. Problem is that a lot of us don't want to fix our "brain problem." My brain is functioning just fine, thanks. In fact, I'm not even sure what a mental disorder is. Can you tell me objectively what it means for someone to be mentally orderly? Don't look to psychology for help - they don't even know what most of the drugs they prescribe even do (other than the fact that they seem to help) Why do you assume that b/c a person is born with a penis they "should" feel like a man? This underlying presupposition is simply that: A presupposition. We all have them, admittedly. Now, I'm not opposed to research into other forms of therapy if trans people wanted that therapy. But many of us do not feel like there is anything wrong with the way that our minds operate - in fact, we feel empowered by it. But to me it seems like the purpose of posts like this isn't to help trans people with their "mental disorder" but rather to confirm your feelings about what people ought to be like and how they ought to behave. It seems to me that rarely is there ever a trans person that wants to be the cissexual person (ie a trans female receiving therapy in order to identify as a man). Rather, it is the cissexual that wants transsexuals to be like them. In other words: The treatment is for you, not for us. Labeling it a mental disorder is to benefit you, not the trans person. What is it like to feel like a man? All men are different. I doubt that I feel like most other men that I know (I certainly do not seem to think like them). There are some things that identify me as a man, such as my penis or by body size and shape, but men have different hormonal levels (is that a suitable term?) than other men. I think trans sexuality is very difficult to understand unless you are trans sexual, because a person only knows what it is like to feel like themself.
Yea, that's a difficult question. Even though I identify as trans I could not explain in words what it means to feel like a woman. It's sort of ineffable, in the same way that I can't describe the color red (it's just red!) And yes, you are also correct, you can't understand what it's like unless you have the condition. All I can say on what it feels like to be a man or a woman is: You just know that you are who you are.
But I think people can understand the sorts of problems we face, by imagining what it would be like if they did not have their privilege. If people did not take for granted that you were a man, for example, but rather asked you to prove it when doing gender specific activities. And perhaps accused you of being a "fake man" - not real.... You can imagine that would be rather upsetting, wouldn't it?
And hey, maybe you don't even CARE if they identify you as a man or not. Maybe you have the "I don't give a fuck what people think of me" kind of attitude. But for some reason people keep coming up to you and demanding proof that your gender is what you say it is. Distressing? Indeed.
|
On December 05 2012 04:17 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 04:11 farvacola wrote:On December 05 2012 04:10 Klondikebar wrote:On December 05 2012 04:05 farvacola wrote:On December 05 2012 03:59 xM(Z wrote:
evolutionary speaking there is no way society was here before the sex; so sex/hormones dictates the gender ID which creates a social behavior.
the society is not the deterministic factor here. it never was. Where in human history did Nature write out the words "male" and "female"? You are correct in suggesting that sex/hormones play into gender ID, but who is uttering the ID, who is the one passing out these labels? The labels aren't the same as the gender. When we say gender we're referring to a way you identify yourself. We could call that identification anything (and many cultures do call them different things). The gender would still be there regardless of what we called it. The gender with no name actually has one: sex. Once we use the physical indicators of sex to dole out an ID, we've performed a gender construction. That is all I'm suggesting. Sex has always been there, gender not so much. Gender and sex are different. Sex is your genitals. Gender is how you identify. There are three categories of identification. Sex: your genitals Orientation: the genitals that make you tingly Gender: a category of self identification
You lost me. When it comes to myself, my sex is male, and my orientation is towards females, although I'm not really that turned on by the female sexual organ, but more so by their other physical characteristics, like feminine faces, boobs and the overall shape of the typical female body. I believe this is how most men feel.
Anyway, those two concepts I can understand. You lost me though when you said that gender is a category of self identification.
I'm trying to ask myself what gender I see myself as, and why, and I just can't come to a conclusion that fits into your idea of gender. The closest thing I can get is that gender is the stereotype that I classify with, and I can relate to both. I prefer pants over dresses, and the music I like tend to be more stereotypical male. On the other hand I have long hair and I prefer romantic comedies over action movies. I think I can relate to both male and female stereotypes.
The other theory is that gender and sex are the same, which is self-explanatory, and this is what I personally believe in.
On December 05 2012 05:53 shinosai wrote:
Try this example: Suppose you (a cissexual male) wake up tomorrow in the same mind and body that you are in right now. You feel exactly as you always have. You drive to the store to do some shopping. While in the men's clothing section, someone says: "Excuse me, madam, you are in the wrong section." You use the restroom, they say: "It's against the law to use the wrong restroom. Please leave." You walk around in your male clothes, and people say things like: "You're not REALLY a man. Stop pretending you sick fuck."
This is not a logical comparison, because if your sex changed overnight, we have to assume that your memory of being a man would be erased, and your brain would change too, plus your hormones would be way different than you're used to.
Either way, I personally actually don't think it would be that traumatizing for me, and I think I would be ok with having a female body. I am male, but I don't really identify to a gender in a mental sense, so to me, my body defines what gender I am. I can't imagine being attracted to men though, and I don't think I would drastically change my wardrobe. So I don't think I would really change, or act different. The major difference would be in how I was treated by others, but that's irrelevant, because this is about my gender, not about how I want to be treated. If you want to be treated like the other gender, then become involved in politics and try to bring forth more equality in the world.
Here's an open question to everybody who sees themselves as trans.
You're saying that you feel like a woman/man, and that it has nothing to do with stereotypes. But if that's the case, what is it about you that makes you feel like you're female/male? I mean, can you tell me the points that your mind is making, to prove that you're a specific gender? I honestly did try asking myself that question, and I haven't been able to convince myself that I'm either gender. That's why I reject that gender and sex would be different. Please show me your line of thinking, or I will never be able to understand you. So far, noone in this thread have been able to convince me that there is such a thing as a mental gender, that isn't defined by your sex.
I believe that the majority of us don't like their own body, but that doesn't mean that there's something wrong with it. If a woman doesn't like her tiny boobs, even to the point that it leads to depressions, does it mean that there's something wrong with them? No, it just means that they were made that way. Now, if she wants to enlarge them, then she can go ahead if it will make her happy, but this concept that there's something wrong with your body if you don't like it, or even hate it, is pure BS. The issue is in the head, not the body.
|
This is not a logical comparison, because if your sex changed overnight, we have to assume that your memory of being a man would be erased, and your brain would change too, plus your hormones would be way different than you're used to.
I feel like I'm repeating myself, but that's okay - I know that everyone can't be expected to read every post. The point of the comparison is not to teach you what it's like to be transsexual. You can't know, you will never know. The point is to make you aware of the fact that no one ever questions the fact that you are who you say you are. And this is a privilege that not everyone has.
|
On December 05 2012 08:12 ninini wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 04:17 Klondikebar wrote:On December 05 2012 04:11 farvacola wrote:On December 05 2012 04:10 Klondikebar wrote:On December 05 2012 04:05 farvacola wrote:On December 05 2012 03:59 xM(Z wrote:
evolutionary speaking there is no way society was here before the sex; so sex/hormones dictates the gender ID which creates a social behavior.
the society is not the deterministic factor here. it never was. Where in human history did Nature write out the words "male" and "female"? You are correct in suggesting that sex/hormones play into gender ID, but who is uttering the ID, who is the one passing out these labels? The labels aren't the same as the gender. When we say gender we're referring to a way you identify yourself. We could call that identification anything (and many cultures do call them different things). The gender would still be there regardless of what we called it. The gender with no name actually has one: sex. Once we use the physical indicators of sex to dole out an ID, we've performed a gender construction. That is all I'm suggesting. Sex has always been there, gender not so much. Gender and sex are different. Sex is your genitals. Gender is how you identify. There are three categories of identification. Sex: your genitals Orientation: the genitals that make you tingly Gender: a category of self identification You lost me. When it comes to myself, my sex is male, and my orientation is towards females, although I'm not really that turned on by the female sexual organ, but more so by their other physical characteristics, like feminine faces, boobs and the overall shape of the typical female body. I believe this is how most men feel. Anyway, those two concepts I can understand. You lost me though when you said that gender is a category of self identification. I'm trying to ask myself what gender I see myself as, and why, and I just can't come to a conclusion that fits into your idea of gender. The closest thing I can get is that gender is the stereotype that I classify with, and I can relate to both. I prefer pants over dresses, and the music I like tend to be more stereotypical male. On the other hand I have long hair and I prefer romantic comedies over action movies. I think I can relate to both male and female stereotypes. The other theory is that gender and sex are the same, which is self-explanatory, and this is what I personally believe in.
This is classic cissexual thinking. You can't tell the difference between sex and gender because yours are in alignment.
Calling that lack of understanding a "theory" (it hasn't been for a long time) is basically like saying you don't believe in transgender people because you can't feel the gender dissonance that they feel.
|
It's always kind of funny to see people flip out MASSIVELLY about any sex and gender related issue. Why do you think homosexuals/transgender people are the way they are? Do you think one day they woke up and decided to change their lives, "mutilate their bodies" like some people in this thread claim, be hated, discriminated and ostracised just for kicks and giggles?
People often carry their gender "badge" as some sort of pride "Oh look, I'm a man, look at these faggots" without considering the idea that they could have easily been in that person's shoes because, you know, no one actually chooses their sexuality or gender. It's just an interesting phenomenon in our species in general, basically EVERY SINGLE discrimination issue throughout our history has been about something a person cannot choose like the color of their skin, gender, sexual orientation or nationality.
However, sex and gender related issues take a lot longer to be accepted because at a fundamental biological level we notice and care about sex a lot more than most other things. So anything "unnatural" about it automatically makes us feel this repulsion. It makes sense except that we as human beings have this brain which can make rational logical decisions instead of following our instinctual tendencies.
As an example, this is why we don't support bullying even though technically it's a perfectly normal mechanism in nature to "filter out the weak".
The line between which gender you're born with is extremely thin, your dad's sperm was flipping a coin, so to speak (god damn that sounds weird, I apologize). In some people, something "messed up" and now there's a mismatch between their mind and their body. Unless you have evidence that it's possible to "fix them" so they would be "normal" again, you have no fucking right to discriminate them upon that criteria.
|
Blazinghand
United States25551 Posts
As a note on privilege: privilege is like wearing orange sun-goggles constantly. There are some things you can't see, some shades you can't tell apart, but you can't know this because you have privilege. You can have someone explain it to you, and you can get these shades are different, but that does not mean you can see them yourself. The reason transsexuality is so foreign to cisgendered people is that if your gender and sex align you aren't constantly aware of it. Just like how when you wear orange goggles long enough everything looks normal.
|
On December 05 2012 07:01 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 06:58 Crawdad wrote:On December 05 2012 06:49 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Yes, that is certainly how they feel. But people will get caught up on the fact that problems with vision are something physical, while problems with gender are psychological or perhaps neurological. You could argue that neurological is also simply physical... but the average person sees a dichotomy there.
We classify some thoughts as disorders and some thoughts as not disorders, and people are looking for the distinguishing characteristics here. In my mind, the distinguishing characteristic is primarily whether we have any power to change it or not. Once we decide something is too innate and can't be resolved, we intend to conform society into minimizing the harm caused by ignorance, assuming there is sufficient social acceptance already to do so. Well, we have to ask ourselves... Are trans people dysphoric because of an aberrant neurological structure or because of their incongruent sex characteristics? There is no concrete answer as of yet, and the bigger problem is that there is an incongruency in the first place. That's why the term "gender dysphoria" is probably more accurate. Well, it's interesting that you bring that up, because the question is often asked to trans patients whether or not they'd be happy if there was some sort of magical pill they could take that would make their brains match their gender (ie a trans female could take testosterone supplements and fully realize a male identity, no longer being trans). The answer is actually often no, because altering the brain to match their gender would change who they are. I feel like I wouldn't be "me" anymore for example. Although some people say yes, so it's actually a rather fluid sort of thing that has no definitive answer, and I kind of doubt there can be a definitive answer.
Yeah, no. I'd rather transition 5 times over again than switch my brain out.
Being trans sucks, but I'm happy being me.
|
On December 05 2012 07:51 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 07:13 starfries wrote:
I haven't gotten an answer to some of my questions so I'll repost while there's still people around:
Is there a difference between a trans female and a man with the delusion of being female? The brain structure of a trans female has identifiably female characteristics, but is it that way from birth or is it an effect of seeing yourself as a woman?
And I'd still like an answer to the cat issue if anyone wants to take a crack at it.
edit: the way I see it, it's only a psychological issue if the best way of treating it is psychological. Once physical treatments are viable and commonplace, then it's no longer a mental disorder. I'll take a stab at the cat anecdote, but I'm no expert so if anyone would like to correct me feel free. When used with respect to trans issues, "gender" is defined as the way a person feels, independent from his or her physical characteristics. This is why it is proper to refer to a person that feels like a female as "she" or "her", even if she has masculine physical characteristics such a penis, deep voice, etc. Support for the correctness of this definition has been provided by previous posters who have cited studies and personal experiences, so I don't feel the need to go into that. Thinking you are a cat is obviously different because we don't define "cat" as a person that thinks he or she is a cat. A person who feels female IS female, and should not be considered a person with a mental disorder. She can be treated for depression and other negative side affects that arise because her gender does not match her sex, but treatment should not be aimed at convincing her to feel like a male (that's been tried, and failed horribly). However, a person that thinks he or she is a cat, by definition, IS NOT a cat.
I understand what you're saying with regards to the definition of the words, but I think there's another issue here to think about. The reason for seeking treatment is the dysphoria from being in a body of the wrong sex. So if someone experiences dysphoria because they consider their human body to be the "wrong" body and that their shape should be different (whatever it may be, chimpanzee or cat or human with a tail), and we have the technology to give them that, should we try to convince them to feel human or just let them have what they want?
I can buy (an extension of) shinosai's argument that if modifying their body won't fix these issues then it's a mental disorder, and if it will, then it isn't. I'm no psychologist so I have no idea whether it's possible to distinguish the two beforehand or whether the second type of person (who will be happy as a cat) even exists, but practical issues aside it seems reasonable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
