|
Keep discussion objective and civil.
Blindly spewing uninformed non-sense will lead to moderation action. |
On December 05 2012 13:25 nolook wrote:
Can someone explain how wanting to be someone (something) else is not a mental disorder by definition?
I can understand softening the adjectives to let that group of people feel better about their condition, but this can't be seriously considered "normal" in any scientific community, am I wrong? If this isn't a mental disorder, than what is? We'd have to lay off a good 2/3rds of psychologists/psychiatrists in the field.
They claim that they don't actually want to be something else, rather their bodies were constructed the wrong way and they want to be their real self. To them, the physical and mental gender can be different, and they believe that when the mind disagrees with the structure of the body, it means that the body is wrong, and needs to be changed.
I've tried really hard looking for explanations, but I still don't get it. To me it's pretty obvious that if the mind doesn't like the body, it's in the mind that the problem lies, but well that's just what I think.
|
The world is not black and white. There is a grey. People need to get out of this binary way of thinkin'. There is an in between and some of you need to open your eyes to this.
Gender is the binary or nonbinary you align with, whether you are male, female, genderqueer, genderfluid etc. Sex is the physical body you were born with, whether it be male or female. Its also separate from sexuality. You have homosexual, heterosexual, asexual, bisexual. All of these differ from person to person and pretendin' that a binary exists, that you are either a straight male or a straight female, is really moronic. Look at the world around you, its not black and white like you want it. Scary I know, but we are friendly, trust me.
On December 05 2012 13:20 sam!zdat wrote:
Why do people for whom this is not a personal issue feel the need to argue over definitions of a thing? That's what I can't understand.
What I don't get, is why people feel a need to tell me what I'm doin' to be happy is wrong. I guess me knowin' what makes me happy must make others so miserable that they just can't stand their life? I think its kind of silly this debate is goin' on honestly.
On December 05 2012 13:37 ninini wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 13:25 nolook wrote:
Can someone explain how wanting to be someone (something) else is not a mental disorder by definition?
I can understand softening the adjectives to let that group of people feel better about their condition, but this can't be seriously considered "normal" in any scientific community, am I wrong? If this isn't a mental disorder, than what is? We'd have to lay off a good 2/3rds of psychologists/psychiatrists in the field. They claim that they don't actually want to be something else, rather their bodies were constructed the wrong way and they want to be their real self. To them, the physical and mental gender can be different, and they believe that when the mind disagrees with the structure of the body, it means that the body is wrong, and needs to be changed. I've tried really hard looking for explanations, but I still don't get it. To me it's pretty obvious that if the mind doesn't like the body, it's in the mind that the problem lies, but well that's just what I think.
There is no "cure" for the mind though. No amount of therapy makes the feelin's go away. There are studies out there that show the difference in the size of the brain in men and women where hormones are accepted and it causes the issues in the brain. I think it was done by someone like Zhou in '55? The best and easiest "cure" is just to give estrogen and surgeries and the problem is fixed. Even if we were deemed mentally ill, what would you have done? Depression is a mental illness, guess what the cure is? Therapy and medicine! Guess what the cure for bein' trans is? Therapy and medicine! Guess what isn't a requirement for "curin'" trans though? Therapy! At one time homosexuality was thought to be a mental disease, now its down to a gene theory. Couldn't transgender be a gene theory also? Or just a difference in receptors in the brain and the body creatin' the wrong chemical hormone in the prenatal state?
|
On December 05 2012 13:37 ninini wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 13:25 nolook wrote:
Can someone explain how wanting to be someone (something) else is not a mental disorder by definition?
I can understand softening the adjectives to let that group of people feel better about their condition, but this can't be seriously considered "normal" in any scientific community, am I wrong? If this isn't a mental disorder, than what is? We'd have to lay off a good 2/3rds of psychologists/psychiatrists in the field. They claim that they don't actually want to be something else, rather their bodies were constructed the wrong way and they want to be their real self. To them, the physical and mental gender can be different, and they believe that when the mind disagrees with the structure of the body, it means that the body is wrong, and needs to be changed. I've tried really hard looking for explanations, but I still don't get it. To me it's pretty obvious that if the mind doesn't like the body, it's in the mind that the problem lies, but well that's just what I think.
While I personally don't have a horse in this race... the idea is that people are born with birth defects fairly often. There are some babies born who don't have a dominant sex (forget the name), some with extra toes or missing toes, etc etc etc... So, while the baby was growing something went awry. It's hardly inconceivable to believe that a body could be wrong but the mind correct. It's just that we, as a society, are so visually oriented we have a hard time processing the idea that what we see is wrong and the "real" person is what is inside their head.
On December 05 2012 13:41 Troxle wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 13:20 sam!zdat wrote:
Why do people for whom this is not a personal issue feel the need to argue over definitions of a thing? That's what I can't understand. What I don't get, is why people feel a need to tell me what I'm doin' to be happy is wrong. I guess me knowin' what makes me happy must make others so miserable that they just can't stand their life? I think its kind of silly this debate is goin' on honestly.
Careful where you go with that kind of reasoning... The reason some people take issue is with the idea that this was changed based upon political correctness rather than actual science. Some see that what transgendered people are doing is trying to treat a symptom and not the disease, so to speak. And nobody should be for society meddling in science.
|
On December 05 2012 13:37 ninini wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 13:25 nolook wrote:
Can someone explain how wanting to be someone (something) else is not a mental disorder by definition?
I can understand softening the adjectives to let that group of people feel better about their condition, but this can't be seriously considered "normal" in any scientific community, am I wrong? If this isn't a mental disorder, than what is? We'd have to lay off a good 2/3rds of psychologists/psychiatrists in the field. They claim that they don't actually want to be something else, rather their bodies were constructed the wrong way and they want to be their real self. To them, the physical and mental gender can be different, and they believe that when the mind disagrees with the structure of the body, it means that the body is wrong, and needs to be changed. I've tried really hard looking for explanations, but I still don't get it. To me it's pretty obvious that if the mind doesn't like the body, it's in the mind that the problem lies, but well that's just what I think.
Are you basing this view on anything in particular, besides your personal experience? "They" have been citing studies which demonstrate that there are measurable differences between male and female brain activity.
Changing a person's gender identification has been tried in past, with often tragic results. Do some research on what often happened to kids with ambiguous genitals that were arbitrarily assigned a specific gender, it is very sad.
It is scientifically accepted that gender =/= sex. If you want to claim something different please back it up with more than irrelevant personal anecdotes.
|
On December 05 2012 13:37 ninini wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 13:25 nolook wrote:
Can someone explain how wanting to be someone (something) else is not a mental disorder by definition?
I can understand softening the adjectives to let that group of people feel better about their condition, but this can't be seriously considered "normal" in any scientific community, am I wrong? If this isn't a mental disorder, than what is? We'd have to lay off a good 2/3rds of psychologists/psychiatrists in the field. They claim that they don't actually want to be something else, rather their bodies were constructed the wrong way and they want to be their real self. To them, the physical and mental gender can be different, and they believe that when the mind disagrees with the structure of the body, it means that the body is wrong, and needs to be changed. I've tried really hard looking for explanations, but I still don't get it. To me it's pretty obvious that if the mind doesn't like the body, it's in the mind that the problem lies, but well that's just what I think.
And I try really hard to see what makes it obvious that the mind is the problem, but I don't see it. In fact, the only evidence you really have to go on is the transgenders subjective report, and that report doesn't support your conclusion. But in any case, and by the way I know you're going to reject any analogy I make prima facie because "it's not the same", it's fairly clear that the mind can disagree about aspects of one's body without their being an underlying mental disorder. The main difference is that usually one is more socially acceptable or considered to be more "natural".
If someone is overweight (fatty), one might really want to exercise. Looking healthier has all sorts of beneficial affects on one's mental health (much like transitioning does). But, hey, why bother prescribing exercise when what you really need is a good old dose of psychotherapy, because there's nothing unnatural or even necessarily unhealthy about being a little bit overweight. It's clearly not a physical problem, it's a mental problem. People who are overweight sometimes even have lower mortality rates than their skinnier counterparts. There's nothing wrong with being overweight, so why are these people so upset? Why do they want to change?
The objection should be obvious. "But Shinosai, that's a natural change! This is different! Transsexuals are mutilating their bodies with artificial technology!" But that's besides the point. The point is, just because there is an incongruity between body and mind, does not provide immediate and obvious evidence that the problem is only in the mind. One cannot use that as a logical axiom to get the answer that they desire - not without appearing rather ad hoc. You always have to add a special explanation for why something is a mental problem, besides the fact that there is an incongruity. You need to appeal to some sort of thing that makes the mind problem ontologically prior to the body problem. In the fat case, you'll probably appeal to some sort of naturalistic explanation. In the transgender case, well, I don't think you have a valid explanation, but, I guess that's why we're here, to argue about whether or not your explanation is valid.
|
On December 05 2012 13:42 I_Love_Bacon wrote:
Careful where you go with that kind of reasoning... The reason some people take issue is with the idea that this was changed based upon political correctness rather than actual science. Some see that what transgendered people are doing is trying to treat a symptom and not the disease, so to speak. And nobody should be for society meddling in science.
I don't think that's what happened. I actually took more issue with the medical DEFINITION of gender identity disorder than the fact it was CALLED a disorder.
Check it: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0002495/
|
On December 05 2012 13:30 Blazinghand wrote:
nolook, I'd recommend you read the additional parts of the OP to get a better understanding of what this means legally for trans people and to get an understanding of what it means to be marginalized for who you are.
It's probably terrible when you get marginalized for your inherent needs and wants. But I feel like there are many other people that would easily fall in this category and they never received any similar privilege. You get marginalized for peeing in women's bathroom if you're physically a guy only because it is a normal reaction that is justified and expected from hundreds of years of social interaction.
DO they really need to feel "normal", just like everybody else? Are there any transgenders out there that honestly think they are completely "normal"? Even mild asperger syndrome will make a person feel different, yet they live with this mental disorder fully realizing they certainly aren't "normal". But in their case you can at least make a logical argument that doesn't sound like early XXth century sci-fi writings (wrong type of mind stuck in a foreign body etc)
I don't mind expansion of rights and equal treatment, but science should stay unbiased. This presumably will be taught at a university level which is just absurd.
|
On December 05 2012 12:33 packrat386 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 12:27 thisisstupid1 wrote:On December 05 2012 12:13 NicolBolas wrote:On December 05 2012 12:05 thisisstupid1 wrote:On December 05 2012 12:03 Shakattak wrote:On December 05 2012 12:01 iamahydralisk wrote:On December 05 2012 11:58 Crawdad wrote:On December 05 2012 11:53 Shakattak wrote:
Your argument also doesnt explain hermaphrodites are they strictly one or the other ? Intersex people usually identify as a specific gender, but they are born with both male and female sex characteristics, and I'm sure there are intersex people who identify as non-binary. To throw my hat into the ring... I consider myself to be intersex, at least mentally. When I was younger, I had transsexual feelings that intensified to the point that I nearly transitioned from M to F when I was 19 years old. I stopped at the last second (personal reasons), and while I feel more comfortable in my male body now than I did then, I still don't identify fully as a man or a woman. The urges to transition are still there and they come and go. Some days they're really strong and other days, not so much. I don't consider myself to be a part of the gender binary. I feel like I'm somewhere in the middle. ^^ thank you this is what im getting at , a binary system is inadequate to describe humans who are anything but. This is an argument going back to the concept of "the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts". Neurons either fire or dont fire. Memories either exist or they don't. Genes are either ON or OFF. We are built on binary designs. When we go so far as to say that "humans are too complex to be binary", we're either saying that we have inadequately explored our subject, or that we decide to believe in things that aren't true. That's complete bullshit biologically speaking. Neurons fire in degrees. The quantity of neurotransmitters involved across the synapse defines how hard or softly a neuron fires. Gene expression is also something that happens in varying degrees. Memories can be half-remembered. You keep inventing these binary distinctions that simply don't exist in reality. Memories are "half remembered" because when you access them, they change, form new connections, and become different. again, binary. Im aware of the bahavior of neurons. Try this experiemnt. Stick your hand in a fire and see how long you go before neurons tell you you're being damaged. Then, see how long you can prevent your CNS from pulling your hand out of the fire. These are all degrees taht you're speaking of. Enough neurons need to fire to promote the conscious awareness of damage, e.g. pain. Enough neurons need to fire to override the neurons that you are consciously using to keep your hand in the fire. All of that behavior is still binary, as the same can be written in programming language. Gene "expression" is affected by other genes all working together. But the genes themselves are either on or off. This is all some mysticism spouted because of this "irreducible complexity" mentality at work. It didn't hold up to scrutiny in the 1500's, and it doesn't hold up now. x marines vs y zerglings. in enough multiplication, X wins. in enough multiplication, Y wins. But it's not that simple right? It also depends on the method of attack, the use of terrain, and the upgrades, etc. However, all of these are STILL not proof that the fight isn't binary. All of these things can be calculated by physical location coordinates and by the other variables which are VERY quantifiable. But your argument style would be to stop at the point of the terrain, saying that beyond this point, it can't be explainable as binary (irreducible complexity argument), and therefor it proves that success in fights in SC2 between y marines and x zerglings is on a spectrum. Using the misnomer of the spectrum is the hand waving of today's armchair scientists. Dude, how the fuck do you want to calculate somebody's gender? Well lets see they have X testosterone in their blood stream, but also Y estrogen, brain scans show a mix of what is generally seen in both genders but slightly leaning toward female (60-40), plug this into my nice algorith and ... BAM male. Easy right? If spectrums didn't exist why would questionaires in psych exams use the Strongly disagree, disagree, agree, strongly agree etc. The brain is more complicated than you want to simplify it to. A spectrum simply means that there are a range of locations to identify with that lie between male and female. Somewhat male and somewhat female (an some other stuff too, third gender, genderqueer etc.). If someone identifies as mostly female but also as a male how can you tell that person that he or she must choose?
that strongly agree to strongly disagree "spectrum choice" is STILL held to binary logic. You choose ONE over the others. That means that of all the choices, only a single one relates to you. If you really want to get into how people make choices, imagine it like a row of rods. All the rods except one are suppressed by learning and by the genetic tendency of the singular unit. Thus, we can make decisions. If everything was up in the air all the time, we wouldn't be able to move or perform meaningful tasks, stuck in an infinite loop of indecision.
On December 05 2012 12:56 Shakattak wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 12:39 packrat386 wrote:On December 05 2012 12:35 Crawdad wrote:
What is Thisistupid1 trying to argue against? He is attempting to argue that a gender spectrum (and actually the idea of a spectrum itself) is impossible. Only sith deal in absolutes .
Are you saying that is absolute?
On December 05 2012 13:20 sam!zdat wrote:
Why do people for whom this is not a personal issue feel the need to argue over definitions of a thing? That's what I can't understand.
The thinking that something another human is going through isn't a personal issue for other people is exactly why we have African atrocities. We are interconnected, and an issue for one human is definitely an issue for another human. Don't be ignorant. Is it possible that you're saying that the issues which affect other people are things we should intervene in, Unless it offends you personally?
On December 05 2012 13:25 nolook wrote:
Can someone explain how wanting to be someone (something) else is not a mental disorder by definition?
I can understand softening the adjectives to let that group of people feel better about their condition, but this can't be seriously considered "normal" in any scientific community, am I wrong? If this isn't a mental disorder, than what is? We'd have to lay off a good 2/3rds of psychologists/psychiatrists in the field.
Pretty much. We have so much social tolerance that "big is beautiful". It isn't. That kind of "beauty" is subjective, as opposed to the very objective beauty defined by shapes. On the other hand, we have people hating smokers and wanting terrible images slapped on cigarettes to put people off smoking or make them social pariahs by whipping out packets that have disgusting pictures on them. Such intolerance, yet a hamburger doesn't come with the pictures of how terrible being overweight is. And obesity affects other people too, so it's not an isolated "their problem, so its okay if they choose it" kind of thing.
Again, we normalized it, so that people are okay with it, and anyone who disagrees is ignorant and "ill taught" by society.
|
On December 05 2012 13:58 nolook wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 13:30 Blazinghand wrote:
nolook, I'd recommend you read the additional parts of the OP to get a better understanding of what this means legally for trans people and to get an understanding of what it means to be marginalized for who you are. It's probably terrible when you get marginalized for your inherent needs and wants. But I feel like there are many other people that would easily fall in this category and they never received any similar privilege. You get marginalized for peeing in women's bathroom if you're physically a guy only because it is a normal reaction that is justified and expected from hundreds of years of social interaction. DO they really need to feel "normal", just like everybody else? Are there any transgenders out there that honestly think they are completely "normal"? Even mild asperger syndrome will make a person feel different, yet they live with this mental disorder fully realizing they certainly aren't "normal". But in their case you can at least make a logical argument that doesn't sound like early XXth century sci-fi writings (wrong type of mind stuck in a foreign body etc) I don't mind expansion of rights and equal treatment, but science should stay unbiased. This presumably will be taught at a university level which is just absurd.
There's a difference between a certain level of abnormality, and specifically going out of the way to 'other' a group.
Oh, and most trans women will use the women's bathroom because going into a Men's room while LOOKING female is significantly more unsafe. Both are pretty fucking scary though, even in states where there is legal protections.
I'm not certain how exactly you can consider aspergers syndrome as fact, and deny transsexuality having a basis in science. That seems truly perplexing--is it because transsexuals seem icky?
On December 05 2012 13:59 thisisstupid1 wrote:
Pretty much. We have so much social tolerance that "big is beautiful". It isn't. That kind of "beauty" is subjective, as opposed to the very objective beauty defined by shapes. On the other hand, we have people hating smokers and wanting terrible images slapped on cigarettes to put people off smoking or make them social pariahs by whipping out packets that have disgusting pictures on them. Such intolerance, yet a hamburger doesn't come with the pictures of how terrible being overweight is. And obesity affects other people too, so it's not an isolated "their problem, so its okay if they choose it" kind of thing.
Again, we normalized it, so that people are okay with it, and anyone who disagrees is ignorant and "ill taught" by society.
Until you comprehend that the individual is not choosing to be something other than what they are--they're choosing to be who they are, who they were born as, and who they are stuck as. I highly doubt any individual would choose to suffer gender dysphoria, and transition totally sucks to go through.
To do that though, you'd need to fully comprehend the topic. Why not keep an open mind and do some more research, instead of being so quick to define the world from the armchair.
|
On December 05 2012 13:05 ninini wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 11:23 shinosai wrote:And yes, I don't feel like I have any attachments to my gender or sex. Obviously, if someone questions my gender indentity, saying that I'm trying to be a girl, for instance because of my hair, I get offended, not because I couldn't stand the thought of me being female, but because it's a insult at my intellect. It's a bit like calling someone stupid. Someone claims that you have a mental problem or confusion that you know don't exist. Well, I feel like we're really starting to communicate here. This paragraph here is exactly why we don't like to be referred to as having a disorder. It's not the same. Someone looking a bit like the opposite gender because of freedom of expression, and ppl claiming that he have a gender issue is not the same as someone actively trying to fit another gender mold and being claimed to have a gender issue. In the 2nd example it's actually true, and in this case you're forcing ppl to accept you in one mold, while in the first case if anything it's a question of rejecting gender molds. In the first case it's a question of an initial misunderstanding, something that can be cleared out by the exchange of a few words, and in the second case it's a question of disagreement, where one person claims that there is such a thing as a gender, that is different from the sex, and the other person rejecting it. Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 11:20 Shakattak wrote:On December 05 2012 11:01 thisisstupid1 wrote:On December 05 2012 10:47 Shakattak wrote:On December 05 2012 10:42 ayaz2810 wrote:On December 05 2012 10:04 Shakattak wrote:
Infact alot of the issues are derived from the fact that we are stuck in a binary way of thinking , good , bad , male female we should start changing our perceptions of other people so these problems such as guilt and other issues that society causes to trans people . Our binary way of thinking is something I would hate to live without. I can't explain why exactly, but the idea of a bunch of men wearing baggy jeans with women's blouses along with lipstick, a backwards ball cap, a purse, and various other accessories from both genders just creeps me the fuck out. I picture a big homogenous mass of people who lack any identity. I honestly cannot figure out why that prospect bugs me to no end. Maybe it's something evolutionary. I dunno. Its cultural you were socialized go think like that your whole life , if you werent taught that men and women should wear the clothes that they do and there was no social stigma about wearing what you wanted be that lipstick blouses etc then you would not care . Life is binary, in all senses. You are either alive or dead. You are either male, physically, or female. You are either asleep or awake. That isn't to say we can't allow people to choose their preference in what they want to do. A boy wants to play with dolls? Fine. He might not even be gay, just a sensitive guy, who enjoys interpersonal relationships more than dominating. Where it happens to go wrong is the point on which we assume that a sensitive guy must be gay. Have you guys even looked into the feminist agenda, the male hate complex, etc? http://scallywagandvagabond.com/2011/03/where-have-all-the-nice-guys-gone-why-you-girls-are-stuck-dating-players-and-losers/It's really unpleasant to see, but the nicest males never get what they want, and females complain even after choosing the "manlier" men, the egoistic and self centered ones who think they deserve it all without having to give any in return. This isnt new at all. This is ages old. In our post feminist society, however, the feeling of being a man is so closely tied to success with females, and to behaving in very stereotypical ways. edit: Nicol's post echos my thoughts so much more coherently than I can say it at the moment. There are tribes that the kid is born as a male or female cant remember but when they hit puberty there body undergoes natural changes that change their gender , life is anything but binary there are alot of differences and things that cause life to be not binary , its just easier to think that way . Could you give a source please. I would be interested in reading that.
http://www.usrf.org/news/010308-guevedoces.html. Have at
|
On December 05 2012 14:05 Shakattak wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 13:05 ninini wrote:On December 05 2012 11:23 shinosai wrote:And yes, I don't feel like I have any attachments to my gender or sex. Obviously, if someone questions my gender indentity, saying that I'm trying to be a girl, for instance because of my hair, I get offended, not because I couldn't stand the thought of me being female, but because it's a insult at my intellect. It's a bit like calling someone stupid. Someone claims that you have a mental problem or confusion that you know don't exist. Well, I feel like we're really starting to communicate here. This paragraph here is exactly why we don't like to be referred to as having a disorder. It's not the same. Someone looking a bit like the opposite gender because of freedom of expression, and ppl claiming that he have a gender issue is not the same as someone actively trying to fit another gender mold and being claimed to have a gender issue. In the 2nd example it's actually true, and in this case you're forcing ppl to accept you in one mold, while in the first case if anything it's a question of rejecting gender molds. In the first case it's a question of an initial misunderstanding, something that can be cleared out by the exchange of a few words, and in the second case it's a question of disagreement, where one person claims that there is such a thing as a gender, that is different from the sex, and the other person rejecting it. On December 05 2012 11:20 Shakattak wrote:On December 05 2012 11:01 thisisstupid1 wrote:On December 05 2012 10:47 Shakattak wrote:On December 05 2012 10:42 ayaz2810 wrote:On December 05 2012 10:04 Shakattak wrote:
Infact alot of the issues are derived from the fact that we are stuck in a binary way of thinking , good , bad , male female we should start changing our perceptions of other people so these problems such as guilt and other issues that society causes to trans people . Our binary way of thinking is something I would hate to live without. I can't explain why exactly, but the idea of a bunch of men wearing baggy jeans with women's blouses along with lipstick, a backwards ball cap, a purse, and various other accessories from both genders just creeps me the fuck out. I picture a big homogenous mass of people who lack any identity. I honestly cannot figure out why that prospect bugs me to no end. Maybe it's something evolutionary. I dunno. Its cultural you were socialized go think like that your whole life , if you werent taught that men and women should wear the clothes that they do and there was no social stigma about wearing what you wanted be that lipstick blouses etc then you would not care . Life is binary, in all senses. You are either alive or dead. You are either male, physically, or female. You are either asleep or awake. That isn't to say we can't allow people to choose their preference in what they want to do. A boy wants to play with dolls? Fine. He might not even be gay, just a sensitive guy, who enjoys interpersonal relationships more than dominating. Where it happens to go wrong is the point on which we assume that a sensitive guy must be gay. Have you guys even looked into the feminist agenda, the male hate complex, etc? http://scallywagandvagabond.com/2011/03/where-have-all-the-nice-guys-gone-why-you-girls-are-stuck-dating-players-and-losers/It's really unpleasant to see, but the nicest males never get what they want, and females complain even after choosing the "manlier" men, the egoistic and self centered ones who think they deserve it all without having to give any in return. This isnt new at all. This is ages old. In our post feminist society, however, the feeling of being a man is so closely tied to success with females, and to behaving in very stereotypical ways. edit: Nicol's post echos my thoughts so much more coherently than I can say it at the moment. There are tribes that the kid is born as a male or female cant remember but when they hit puberty there body undergoes natural changes that change their gender , life is anything but binary there are alot of differences and things that cause life to be not binary , its just easier to think that way . Could you give a source please. I would be interested in reading that. http://www.usrf.org/news/010308-guevedoces.html. Have at
Forgive my one liner but I can't really resist: Clearly they're all women because they were born with a vagina.
Thanks for posting that. It's really interesting.
|
On December 05 2012 13:59 thisisstupid1 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 12:33 packrat386 wrote:On December 05 2012 12:27 thisisstupid1 wrote:On December 05 2012 12:13 NicolBolas wrote:On December 05 2012 12:05 thisisstupid1 wrote:On December 05 2012 12:03 Shakattak wrote:On December 05 2012 12:01 iamahydralisk wrote:On December 05 2012 11:58 Crawdad wrote:On December 05 2012 11:53 Shakattak wrote:
Your argument also doesnt explain hermaphrodites are they strictly one or the other ? Intersex people usually identify as a specific gender, but they are born with both male and female sex characteristics, and I'm sure there are intersex people who identify as non-binary. To throw my hat into the ring... I consider myself to be intersex, at least mentally. When I was younger, I had transsexual feelings that intensified to the point that I nearly transitioned from M to F when I was 19 years old. I stopped at the last second (personal reasons), and while I feel more comfortable in my male body now than I did then, I still don't identify fully as a man or a woman. The urges to transition are still there and they come and go. Some days they're really strong and other days, not so much. I don't consider myself to be a part of the gender binary. I feel like I'm somewhere in the middle. ^^ thank you this is what im getting at , a binary system is inadequate to describe humans who are anything but. This is an argument going back to the concept of "the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts". Neurons either fire or dont fire. Memories either exist or they don't. Genes are either ON or OFF. We are built on binary designs. When we go so far as to say that "humans are too complex to be binary", we're either saying that we have inadequately explored our subject, or that we decide to believe in things that aren't true. That's complete bullshit biologically speaking. Neurons fire in degrees. The quantity of neurotransmitters involved across the synapse defines how hard or softly a neuron fires. Gene expression is also something that happens in varying degrees. Memories can be half-remembered. You keep inventing these binary distinctions that simply don't exist in reality. Memories are "half remembered" because when you access them, they change, form new connections, and become different. again, binary. Im aware of the bahavior of neurons. Try this experiemnt. Stick your hand in a fire and see how long you go before neurons tell you you're being damaged. Then, see how long you can prevent your CNS from pulling your hand out of the fire. These are all degrees taht you're speaking of. Enough neurons need to fire to promote the conscious awareness of damage, e.g. pain. Enough neurons need to fire to override the neurons that you are consciously using to keep your hand in the fire. All of that behavior is still binary, as the same can be written in programming language. Gene "expression" is affected by other genes all working together. But the genes themselves are either on or off. This is all some mysticism spouted because of this "irreducible complexity" mentality at work. It didn't hold up to scrutiny in the 1500's, and it doesn't hold up now. x marines vs y zerglings. in enough multiplication, X wins. in enough multiplication, Y wins. But it's not that simple right? It also depends on the method of attack, the use of terrain, and the upgrades, etc. However, all of these are STILL not proof that the fight isn't binary. All of these things can be calculated by physical location coordinates and by the other variables which are VERY quantifiable. But your argument style would be to stop at the point of the terrain, saying that beyond this point, it can't be explainable as binary (irreducible complexity argument), and therefor it proves that success in fights in SC2 between y marines and x zerglings is on a spectrum. Using the misnomer of the spectrum is the hand waving of today's armchair scientists. Dude, how the fuck do you want to calculate somebody's gender? Well lets see they have X testosterone in their blood stream, but also Y estrogen, brain scans show a mix of what is generally seen in both genders but slightly leaning toward female (60-40), plug this into my nice algorith and ... BAM male. Easy right? If spectrums didn't exist why would questionaires in psych exams use the Strongly disagree, disagree, agree, strongly agree etc. The brain is more complicated than you want to simplify it to. A spectrum simply means that there are a range of locations to identify with that lie between male and female. Somewhat male and somewhat female (an some other stuff too, third gender, genderqueer etc.). If someone identifies as mostly female but also as a male how can you tell that person that he or she must choose? that strongly agree to strongly disagree "spectrum choice" is STILL held to binary logic. You choose ONE over the others. That means that of all the choices, only a single one relates to you. If you really want to get into how people make choices, imagine it like a row of rods. All the rods except one are suppressed by learning and by the genetic tendency of the singular unit. Thus, we can make decisions. If everything was up in the air all the time, we wouldn't be able to move or perform meaningful tasks, stuck in an infinite loop of indecision.
Your idea of binary is simply that they are one thing and not a multitude of things. Perhaps other people can inform me if I am wrong about this, but nobody is claiming that transgendered individuals have a multitude of identities simultaneously. Th argument against gender binaries is that instead of 2 options i.e. male or female, someone can maintain an identity that is between those 2. As long as you could imagine that between male and female there are an arbitrarily large amount of "choices" then you shouldn't have any issue with the gender spectrum.
I mean think about it in the way that the color spectrum works. Nobody thinks that red (or some particular wavelength of red) is some sort of combination of gamma and radio waves, they recognize that it is some state that is between those 2 things. The issue is than the gender binary says that there are only 2 options (male and female) and nothing in between the 2.
Also I don't know how you could possibly arrive at a definition of binary in which there are more than 2 options. That's the definition of binary.
|
On December 05 2012 14:11 packrat386 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 13:59 thisisstupid1 wrote:On December 05 2012 12:33 packrat386 wrote:On December 05 2012 12:27 thisisstupid1 wrote:On December 05 2012 12:13 NicolBolas wrote:On December 05 2012 12:05 thisisstupid1 wrote:On December 05 2012 12:03 Shakattak wrote:On December 05 2012 12:01 iamahydralisk wrote:On December 05 2012 11:58 Crawdad wrote:On December 05 2012 11:53 Shakattak wrote:
Your argument also doesnt explain hermaphrodites are they strictly one or the other ? Intersex people usually identify as a specific gender, but they are born with both male and female sex characteristics, and I'm sure there are intersex people who identify as non-binary. To throw my hat into the ring... I consider myself to be intersex, at least mentally. When I was younger, I had transsexual feelings that intensified to the point that I nearly transitioned from M to F when I was 19 years old. I stopped at the last second (personal reasons), and while I feel more comfortable in my male body now than I did then, I still don't identify fully as a man or a woman. The urges to transition are still there and they come and go. Some days they're really strong and other days, not so much. I don't consider myself to be a part of the gender binary. I feel like I'm somewhere in the middle. ^^ thank you this is what im getting at , a binary system is inadequate to describe humans who are anything but. This is an argument going back to the concept of "the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts". Neurons either fire or dont fire. Memories either exist or they don't. Genes are either ON or OFF. We are built on binary designs. When we go so far as to say that "humans are too complex to be binary", we're either saying that we have inadequately explored our subject, or that we decide to believe in things that aren't true. That's complete bullshit biologically speaking. Neurons fire in degrees. The quantity of neurotransmitters involved across the synapse defines how hard or softly a neuron fires. Gene expression is also something that happens in varying degrees. Memories can be half-remembered. You keep inventing these binary distinctions that simply don't exist in reality. Memories are "half remembered" because when you access them, they change, form new connections, and become different. again, binary. Im aware of the bahavior of neurons. Try this experiemnt. Stick your hand in a fire and see how long you go before neurons tell you you're being damaged. Then, see how long you can prevent your CNS from pulling your hand out of the fire. These are all degrees taht you're speaking of. Enough neurons need to fire to promote the conscious awareness of damage, e.g. pain. Enough neurons need to fire to override the neurons that you are consciously using to keep your hand in the fire. All of that behavior is still binary, as the same can be written in programming language. Gene "expression" is affected by other genes all working together. But the genes themselves are either on or off. This is all some mysticism spouted because of this "irreducible complexity" mentality at work. It didn't hold up to scrutiny in the 1500's, and it doesn't hold up now. x marines vs y zerglings. in enough multiplication, X wins. in enough multiplication, Y wins. But it's not that simple right? It also depends on the method of attack, the use of terrain, and the upgrades, etc. However, all of these are STILL not proof that the fight isn't binary. All of these things can be calculated by physical location coordinates and by the other variables which are VERY quantifiable. But your argument style would be to stop at the point of the terrain, saying that beyond this point, it can't be explainable as binary (irreducible complexity argument), and therefor it proves that success in fights in SC2 between y marines and x zerglings is on a spectrum. Using the misnomer of the spectrum is the hand waving of today's armchair scientists. Dude, how the fuck do you want to calculate somebody's gender? Well lets see they have X testosterone in their blood stream, but also Y estrogen, brain scans show a mix of what is generally seen in both genders but slightly leaning toward female (60-40), plug this into my nice algorith and ... BAM male. Easy right? If spectrums didn't exist why would questionaires in psych exams use the Strongly disagree, disagree, agree, strongly agree etc. The brain is more complicated than you want to simplify it to. A spectrum simply means that there are a range of locations to identify with that lie between male and female. Somewhat male and somewhat female (an some other stuff too, third gender, genderqueer etc.). If someone identifies as mostly female but also as a male how can you tell that person that he or she must choose? that strongly agree to strongly disagree "spectrum choice" is STILL held to binary logic. You choose ONE over the others. That means that of all the choices, only a single one relates to you. If you really want to get into how people make choices, imagine it like a row of rods. All the rods except one are suppressed by learning and by the genetic tendency of the singular unit. Thus, we can make decisions. If everything was up in the air all the time, we wouldn't be able to move or perform meaningful tasks, stuck in an infinite loop of indecision. Your idea of binary is simply that they are one thing and not a multitude of things. Perhaps other people can inform me if I am wrong about this, but nobody is claiming that transgendered individuals have a multitude of identities simultaneously. Th argument against gender binaries is that instead of 2 options i.e. male or female, someone can maintain an identity that is between those 2. As long as you could imagine that between male and female there are an arbitrarily large amount of "choices" then you shouldn't have any issue with the gender spectrum. I mean think about it in the way that the color spectrum works. Nobody thinks that red (or some particular wavelength of red) is some sort of combination of gamma and radio waves, they recognize that it is some state that is between those 2 things. The issue is than the gender binary says that there are only 2 options (male and female) and nothing in between the 2. Also I don't know how you could possibly arrive at a definition of binary in which there are more than 2 options. That's the definition of binary.
Lawyered
|
On December 05 2012 14:05 Alay wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 13:58 nolook wrote:On December 05 2012 13:30 Blazinghand wrote:
nolook, I'd recommend you read the additional parts of the OP to get a better understanding of what this means legally for trans people and to get an understanding of what it means to be marginalized for who you are. It's probably terrible when you get marginalized for your inherent needs and wants. But I feel like there are many other people that would easily fall in this category and they never received any similar privilege. You get marginalized for peeing in women's bathroom if you're physically a guy only because it is a normal reaction that is justified and expected from hundreds of years of social interaction. DO they really need to feel "normal", just like everybody else? Are there any transgenders out there that honestly think they are completely "normal"? Even mild asperger syndrome will make a person feel different, yet they live with this mental disorder fully realizing they certainly aren't "normal". But in their case you can at least make a logical argument that doesn't sound like early XXth century sci-fi writings (wrong type of mind stuck in a foreign body etc) I don't mind expansion of rights and equal treatment, but science should stay unbiased. This presumably will be taught at a university level which is just absurd. There's a difference between a certain level of abnormality, and specifically going out of the way to 'other' a group. Oh, and most trans women will use the women's bathroom because going into a Men's room while LOOKING female is significantly more unsafe. Both are pretty fucking scary though, even in states where there is legal protections. I'm not certain how exactly you can consider aspergers syndrome as fact, and deny transsexuality having a basis in science. That seems truly perplexing--is it because transsexuals seem icky? Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 13:59 thisisstupid1 wrote:
Pretty much. We have so much social tolerance that "big is beautiful". It isn't. That kind of "beauty" is subjective, as opposed to the very objective beauty defined by shapes. On the other hand, we have people hating smokers and wanting terrible images slapped on cigarettes to put people off smoking or make them social pariahs by whipping out packets that have disgusting pictures on them. Such intolerance, yet a hamburger doesn't come with the pictures of how terrible being overweight is. And obesity affects other people too, so it's not an isolated "their problem, so its okay if they choose it" kind of thing.
Again, we normalized it, so that people are okay with it, and anyone who disagrees is ignorant and "ill taught" by society. Until you comprehend that the individual is not choosing to be something other than what they are--they're choosing to be who they are, who they were born as, and who they are stuck as. I highly doubt any individual would choose to suffer gender dysphoria, and transition totally sucks to go through. To do that though, you'd need to fully comprehend the topic. Why not keep an open mind and do some more research, instead of being so quick to define the world from the armchair.
I'm not denying transsexuality, I said that if anything asperger in many cases has less basis to be considered a mental disorder, yet it is. Doesn't it seem a bit unfounded and premature to suddenly normalize transsexuality?
|
[QUOTE]On December 05 2012 14:08 shinosai wrote:
[QUOTE]On December 05 2012 14:05 Shakattak wrote:
[QUOTE]On December 05 2012 13:05 ninini wrote:
[QUOTE]On December 05 2012 11:23 shinosai wrote:
[quote]And yes, I don't feel like I have any attachments to my gender or sex. Obviously, if someone questions my gender indentity, saying that I'm trying to be a girl, for instance because of my hair, I get offended, not because I couldn't stand the thought of me being female, but because it's a insult at my intellect. It's a bit like calling someone stupid. Someone claims that you have a mental problem or confusion that you know don't exist. [/quote]
Well, I feel like we're really starting to communicate here. This paragraph here is exactly why we don't like to be referred to as having a disorder. [/QUOTE]
It's not the same. Someone looking a bit like the opposite gender because of freedom of expression, and ppl claiming that he have a gender issue is not the same as someone actively trying to fit another gender mold and being claimed to have a gender issue. In the 2nd example it's actually true, and in this case you're forcing ppl to accept you in one mold, while in the first case if anything it's a question of rejecting gender molds.
In the first case it's a question of an initial misunderstanding, something that can be cleared out by the exchange of a few words, and in the second case it's a question of disagreement, where one person claims that there is such a thing as a gender, that is different from the sex, and the other person rejecting it.
[QUOTE]On December 05 2012 11:20 Shakattak wrote:
[QUOTE]On December 05 2012 11:01 thisisstupid1 wrote:
[QUOTE]On December 05 2012 10:47 Shakattak wrote:
[QUOTE]On December 05 2012 10:42 ayaz2810 wrote:
[QUOTE]On December 05 2012 10:04 Shakattak wrote:
Infact alot of the issues are derived from the fact that we are stuck in a binary way of thinking , good , bad , male female we should start changing our perceptions of other people so these problems such as guilt and other issues that society causes to trans people .[/QUOTE]
Our binary way of thinking is something I would hate to live without. I can't explain why exactly, but the idea of a bunch of men wearing baggy jeans with women's blouses along with lipstick, a backwards ball cap, a purse, and various other accessories from both genders just creeps me the fuck out. I picture a big homogenous mass of people who lack any identity. I honestly cannot figure out why that prospect bugs me to no end. Maybe it's something evolutionary. I dunno. [/QUOTE
Its cultural you were socialized go think like that your whole life , if you werent taught that men and women should wear the clothes that they do and there was no social stigma about wearing what you wanted be that lipstick blouses etc then you would not care . [/QUOTE]
Life is binary, in all senses. You are either alive or dead. You are either male, physically, or female. You are either asleep or awake.
That isn't to say we can't allow people to choose their preference in what they want to do. A boy wants to play with dolls? Fine. He might not even be gay, just a sensitive guy, who enjoys interpersonal relationships more than dominating. Where it happens to go wrong is the point on which we assume that a sensitive guy must be gay.
Have you guys even looked into the feminist agenda, the male hate complex, etc?
[url=http://scallywagandvagabond.com/2011/03/where-have-all-the-nice-guys-gone-why-you-girls-are-stuck-dating-players-and-losers/]http://scallywagandvagabond.com/2011/03/where-have-all-the-nice-guys-gone-why-you-girls-are-stuck-dating-players-and-losers/[/url]
It's really unpleasant to see, but the nicest males never get what they want, and females complain even after choosing the "manlier" men, the egoistic and self centered ones who think they deserve it all without having to give any in return. This isnt new at all. This is ages old.
In our post feminist society, however, the feeling of being a man is so closely tied to success with females, and to behaving in very stereotypical ways.
edit: Nicol's post echos my thoughts so much more coherently than I can say it at the moment.[/QUOTE]
There are tribes that the kid is born as a male or female cant remember but when they hit puberty there body undergoes natural changes that change their gender , life is anything but binary there are alot of differences and things that cause life to be not binary , its just easier to think that way .
[/QUOTE]
Could you give a source please. I would be interested in reading that.[/QUOTE]
[url=http://www.usrf.org/news/010308-guevedoces.html]http://www.usrf.org/news/010308-guevedoces.html[/url]. Have at[/QUOTE]
Forgive my one liner but I can't really resist: Clearly they're all women because they were born with a vagina.
Thanks for posting that. It's really interesting.
[/QUOTE]haha :3 you're funny :D
|
On December 05 2012 13:48 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 13:37 ninini wrote:On December 05 2012 13:25 nolook wrote:
Can someone explain how wanting to be someone (something) else is not a mental disorder by definition?
I can understand softening the adjectives to let that group of people feel better about their condition, but this can't be seriously considered "normal" in any scientific community, am I wrong? If this isn't a mental disorder, than what is? We'd have to lay off a good 2/3rds of psychologists/psychiatrists in the field. They claim that they don't actually want to be something else, rather their bodies were constructed the wrong way and they want to be their real self. To them, the physical and mental gender can be different, and they believe that when the mind disagrees with the structure of the body, it means that the body is wrong, and needs to be changed. I've tried really hard looking for explanations, but I still don't get it. To me it's pretty obvious that if the mind doesn't like the body, it's in the mind that the problem lies, but well that's just what I think. Are you basing this view on anything in particular, besides your personal experience? "They" have been citing studies which demonstrate that there are measurable differences between male and female brain activity. Changing a person's gender identification has been tried in past, with often tragic results. Do some research on what often happened to kids with ambiguous genitals that were arbitrarily assigned a specific gender, it is very sad. It is scientifically accepted that gender =/= sex. If you want to claim something different please back it up with more than irrelevant personal anecdotes.
Show me proof.
|
On December 05 2012 13:58 nolook wrote:
DO they really need to feel "normal", just like everybody else? Are there any transgenders out there that honestly think they are completely "normal"? Even mild asperger syndrome will make a person feel different, yet they live with this mental disorder fully realizing they certainly aren't "normal". But in their case you can at least make a logical argument that doesn't sound like early XXth century sci-fi writings (wrong type of mind stuck in a foreign body etc)
.
I doubt that there are any trans people who feel completely normal, I certainly don't. They aren't even considered normal by the APA after this change, they are considered to have gender dysphoria. Just like how Aspergers syndrome is being reclassified as an Autism SPECTRUM disorder, but I don't see anyone complaining about that.
They are just updating the decade-old, extremely dated DSM. Nothing more, nothing less.
|
On December 05 2012 14:14 nolook wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 14:05 Alay wrote:On December 05 2012 13:58 nolook wrote:On December 05 2012 13:30 Blazinghand wrote:
nolook, I'd recommend you read the additional parts of the OP to get a better understanding of what this means legally for trans people and to get an understanding of what it means to be marginalized for who you are. It's probably terrible when you get marginalized for your inherent needs and wants. But I feel like there are many other people that would easily fall in this category and they never received any similar privilege. You get marginalized for peeing in women's bathroom if you're physically a guy only because it is a normal reaction that is justified and expected from hundreds of years of social interaction. DO they really need to feel "normal", just like everybody else? Are there any transgenders out there that honestly think they are completely "normal"? Even mild asperger syndrome will make a person feel different, yet they live with this mental disorder fully realizing they certainly aren't "normal". But in their case you can at least make a logical argument that doesn't sound like early XXth century sci-fi writings (wrong type of mind stuck in a foreign body etc) I don't mind expansion of rights and equal treatment, but science should stay unbiased. This presumably will be taught at a university level which is just absurd. There's a difference between a certain level of abnormality, and specifically going out of the way to 'other' a group. Oh, and most trans women will use the women's bathroom because going into a Men's room while LOOKING female is significantly more unsafe. Both are pretty fucking scary though, even in states where there is legal protections. I'm not certain how exactly you can consider aspergers syndrome as fact, and deny transsexuality having a basis in science. That seems truly perplexing--is it because transsexuals seem icky? On December 05 2012 13:59 thisisstupid1 wrote:
Pretty much. We have so much social tolerance that "big is beautiful". It isn't. That kind of "beauty" is subjective, as opposed to the very objective beauty defined by shapes. On the other hand, we have people hating smokers and wanting terrible images slapped on cigarettes to put people off smoking or make them social pariahs by whipping out packets that have disgusting pictures on them. Such intolerance, yet a hamburger doesn't come with the pictures of how terrible being overweight is. And obesity affects other people too, so it's not an isolated "their problem, so its okay if they choose it" kind of thing.
Again, we normalized it, so that people are okay with it, and anyone who disagrees is ignorant and "ill taught" by society. Until you comprehend that the individual is not choosing to be something other than what they are--they're choosing to be who they are, who they were born as, and who they are stuck as. I highly doubt any individual would choose to suffer gender dysphoria, and transition totally sucks to go through. To do that though, you'd need to fully comprehend the topic. Why not keep an open mind and do some more research, instead of being so quick to define the world from the armchair. I'm not denying transsexuality, I said that if anything asperger in many cases has less basis to be considered a mental disorder, yet it is. Doesn't it seem a bit unfounded and premature to suddenly normalize transsexuality?
APA removed/reclassified Asperger's from the DSM in this same move (I think).
http://www.forbes.com/sites/emilywillingham/2012/12/04/just-in-aspergers-prevalence-predicted-to-fall-to-zero/
|
On December 05 2012 14:15 ninini wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 13:48 Mercy13 wrote:On December 05 2012 13:37 ninini wrote:On December 05 2012 13:25 nolook wrote:
Can someone explain how wanting to be someone (something) else is not a mental disorder by definition?
I can understand softening the adjectives to let that group of people feel better about their condition, but this can't be seriously considered "normal" in any scientific community, am I wrong? If this isn't a mental disorder, than what is? We'd have to lay off a good 2/3rds of psychologists/psychiatrists in the field. They claim that they don't actually want to be something else, rather their bodies were constructed the wrong way and they want to be their real self. To them, the physical and mental gender can be different, and they believe that when the mind disagrees with the structure of the body, it means that the body is wrong, and needs to be changed. I've tried really hard looking for explanations, but I still don't get it. To me it's pretty obvious that if the mind doesn't like the body, it's in the mind that the problem lies, but well that's just what I think. Are you basing this view on anything in particular, besides your personal experience? "They" have been citing studies which demonstrate that there are measurable differences between male and female brain activity. Changing a person's gender identification has been tried in past, with often tragic results. Do some research on what often happened to kids with ambiguous genitals that were arbitrarily assigned a specific gender, it is very sad. It is scientifically accepted that gender =/= sex. If you want to claim something different please back it up with more than irrelevant personal anecdotes. Show me proof.
Intersex studies suggest that gender and biology are not the same. Those who were intersex who were assigned a gender based on various methods (analysis that attempted to determine the persons "true sex") tended to fail. The biology would not allow the scientists to presume which gender the child fell under, and their heuristics often led to mistakes.
"Whether or not gender is binary or a continuum or a multiplicity (Fausto-Sterling, 2000), performing genital surgery on an intersex child before they are old enough to consent is highly likely to cause irreparable damage, both physically and sexually, which can lead to psychological trauma (Chase, 1998). Ironically, the protocol for intersex genital surgery was invented to specifically prevent psychosocial trauma and assist in creating a stable gender for the individual (Meyer-Bahlburg, 1998).
Intersexuality suggests that a person’s biology and environment are not the only determining factors of sex and gender. In other words, intersexuality indicates that sex and gender are neither exclusively innate nor exclusively acquired (Rosario, 2004). This implies sex and gender are either determined by a dual influence of both biology and psychology, or a third unknown factor (Rosario, 2004). The unpredictability and suggested fluidity of gender in intersexual individuals, regardless of chromosome, gonad or genital, challenges the dichotomy of sex and gender (Kitzinger, 1999). Intersexuality not only challenges the idea sex determines gender, that all males are masculine and all females are feminine, they challenge the construction of the ideologies of sex and gender (Morland, 2001). Even when sex and gender conflict, intersexuality suggests they are interwoven – neither completely socially or biologically constructed (Rosario, 2004)."
Chase, C. (1998). Hermaphrodites with Attitude: Mapping the ermgence of intersex political activism. GLQ, 4, 189-211.
Fausto-Sterling, A. (1993). The Five Sexes: Why Male and Female Are Not Enough. The Sciences. 20-24.
Fausto-Sterling (2000). The Five Sexes: Why Male and Female Are Not Enough Revisited. The Sciences. 18-23.
Meyer-Bahlburg, H. (1998). Introduction: Gender Dysphoria and Gender Change in Persons with Intersexuality. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 34, 371-373.
Rosario, V. A., (2004) The Biology of Gender and the Construction of Sex? GLQ, 10, 280-287.
Morland, I. (2001). Is intersexuality real? Textual Practice, 15, 527-547.
Kitzenger, C. (1999). Intersexuality: Deconstructing the Sex/Gender Binary. Feminism Psychology, 9, 493-498.
http://littleparacosm.livejournal.com/90783.html
|
On December 05 2012 14:24 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 14:14 nolook wrote:On December 05 2012 14:05 Alay wrote:On December 05 2012 13:58 nolook wrote:On December 05 2012 13:30 Blazinghand wrote:
nolook, I'd recommend you read the additional parts of the OP to get a better understanding of what this means legally for trans people and to get an understanding of what it means to be marginalized for who you are. It's probably terrible when you get marginalized for your inherent needs and wants. But I feel like there are many other people that would easily fall in this category and they never received any similar privilege. You get marginalized for peeing in women's bathroom if you're physically a guy only because it is a normal reaction that is justified and expected from hundreds of years of social interaction. DO they really need to feel "normal", just like everybody else? Are there any transgenders out there that honestly think they are completely "normal"? Even mild asperger syndrome will make a person feel different, yet they live with this mental disorder fully realizing they certainly aren't "normal". But in their case you can at least make a logical argument that doesn't sound like early XXth century sci-fi writings (wrong type of mind stuck in a foreign body etc) I don't mind expansion of rights and equal treatment, but science should stay unbiased. This presumably will be taught at a university level which is just absurd. There's a difference between a certain level of abnormality, and specifically going out of the way to 'other' a group. Oh, and most trans women will use the women's bathroom because going into a Men's room while LOOKING female is significantly more unsafe. Both are pretty fucking scary though, even in states where there is legal protections. I'm not certain how exactly you can consider aspergers syndrome as fact, and deny transsexuality having a basis in science. That seems truly perplexing--is it because transsexuals seem icky? On December 05 2012 13:59 thisisstupid1 wrote:
Pretty much. We have so much social tolerance that "big is beautiful". It isn't. That kind of "beauty" is subjective, as opposed to the very objective beauty defined by shapes. On the other hand, we have people hating smokers and wanting terrible images slapped on cigarettes to put people off smoking or make them social pariahs by whipping out packets that have disgusting pictures on them. Such intolerance, yet a hamburger doesn't come with the pictures of how terrible being overweight is. And obesity affects other people too, so it's not an isolated "their problem, so its okay if they choose it" kind of thing.
Again, we normalized it, so that people are okay with it, and anyone who disagrees is ignorant and "ill taught" by society. Until you comprehend that the individual is not choosing to be something other than what they are--they're choosing to be who they are, who they were born as, and who they are stuck as. I highly doubt any individual would choose to suffer gender dysphoria, and transition totally sucks to go through. To do that though, you'd need to fully comprehend the topic. Why not keep an open mind and do some more research, instead of being so quick to define the world from the armchair. I'm not denying transsexuality, I said that if anything asperger in many cases has less basis to be considered a mental disorder, yet it is. Doesn't it seem a bit unfounded and premature to suddenly normalize transsexuality? APA removed/reclassified Asperger's from the DSM in this same move (I think). http://www.forbes.com/sites/emilywillingham/2012/12/04/just-in-aspergers-prevalence-predicted-to-fall-to-zero/
You mean they will call it autism from now on? If anything, this is a step away from sparing the feelings of aspergers patients, kind of the opposite to what's being discussed here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
