On December 06 2012 03:19 TheToaster wrote: The human soul has no gender. Transgenders that argue they need to fulfill some sort of gaping hole in their self persona are completely ignorant of this fact. Changing your outward appearance has nothing to do with your true inner self. That activity simply feeds cultural norms which define gender based on societal practices. For example when a woman dresses in almost unclad attire to seem more sexually attractive. This isn't something a man would do, because dressing in unclad attire would be weird for a man. In that sense, transgenders are actually inhibiting themselves by acting like these cultural norms actually define someone's gender. When in fact gender is really an outward illusion.
Again, you are merely conflating gender expression with gender identity.
I'm not the one who conflates them, it's transgenders who conflate them. They feel the need to dress up as who they feel inside, when that simply has nothing to do with who they are as a person. This reinforces the notion that one must follow the societal illusions of gender roles to actually become the gender they want to be, when in fact they don't. It's a pointless struggle created by transgenders themselves.
There are butch/tomboyish trans women and androgynous trans women (just like there are effeminate and androgynous trans men). It's just a misrepresented, misinformed stereotype that every trans woman has a hyperfeminine gender expression.
On December 06 2012 03:19 TheToaster wrote: The human soul has no gender. Transgenders that argue they need to fulfill some sort of gaping hole in their self persona are completely ignorant of this fact. Changing your outward appearance has nothing to do with your true inner self. That activity simply feeds cultural norms which define gender based on societal practices. For example when a woman dresses in almost unclad attire to seem more sexually attractive. This isn't something a man would do, because dressing in unclad attire would be weird for a man. In that sense, transgenders are actually inhibiting themselves by acting like these cultural norms actually define someone's gender. When in fact gender is really an outward illusion.
Again, you are merely conflating gender expression with gender identity.
I'm not the one who conflates them, it's transgenders who conflate them. They feel the need to dress up as who they feel inside, when that simply has nothing to do with who they are as a person. This reinforces the notion that one must follow the societal illusions of gender roles to actually become the gender they want to be, when in fact they don't. It's a pointless struggle created by transgenders themselves.
Do you really think it's a problem that people try to express outwardly who they are on the inside? Isn't that like...the entire point of being social creatures?
On December 06 2012 03:22 sam!zdat wrote: I think the fact that people WANT to do such a prima facie strange thing as change their sex is proof enough for me that the whole things exists... if it didn't, why would we be having this conversation? If sex and gender were the same thing, there wouldn't be people who felt like their sex and gender got mixed up somehow and desired to fix it. QED.
my only question is how they know that it's their sex and gender got mixed up and not something else like a chemical imbalance or genetic abnormality that can be solved with medicine/therapy?
I know that many (not all) post-op transgender people regret the decision to have an operation and say it didn't fix the problem. obviously it's not so simple as being born with the wrong sexual organs.
Because usually the transgender person does not consider their mind to be the problem. This really seems to be more about your comfort than the comfort of the transgender person. It's really egocentric. Look, maybe sex and gender did get mixed up by some chemical imbalance, but the transgender person does not want to change who they are, anymore than you want to change who you are.
Yes, some post-op regret the decision. However, it has been reported that the surgery does reduce gender dysphoria. This is not up for debate. However, surgery does NOT resolve other problems of transsexuals, and significant post-operative care and psychotherapy is often recommended because of this. Transsexuals not only have a desire to inhabit a body of the opposite sex, but they also have to accept themselves for who they are, and deal with depression, etc. Surgery has never been stated to be a cure all, and this is why we have regulations on who can have surgery.
You don't just get to say you are transsexual, and the first thing you do is get surgery. No, first you have to be living as a female full time for at least one year, and convince a medical professional that your genitalia is causing you extreme stress. Post-op people who regret the operation USUALLY exhibit many red flags, such as: During hormone therapy, changing their minds and stopping hormone therapy. Being "unsure" if they are actually transsexual. Or pursuing the operation for the wrong reasons (a sexual fetish). Or they believe that the operation will magically fix their self image problems.
well, this may sound harsh, but what they themselves consider to be the problem is not really all that important int he discussion of what the problem really is. I might not want to admit that depression is my problem (for example), but that doesn't mean it isn't my problem. and receiving treatment is not "changing who you are". and another thing, I'm not advocating one way or another. I don't know enough about the subject to have a concrete opinion about it, that's why I'm asking questions.
No, I really think you would be "changing who you are" because you identity has already formed around this gender.
You can't remove pieces of people's consciousness like legos, it doesn't work that way. Even if you could fix the problem in the mind, my bet is it would be much easier to fix it in the body.
my identity might, to some degree, have been built on the feelings that I have. those could be influenced by depression or other mental disorders. I am still me when I receive treatment. the post-op trans hasn't changed who they are, they've just changed some aspects of their physical appearance/makeup.
the question is whether it really is a problem with the body and not just a problem with the mind. as of yet, I haven't seen enough either way to be sure (admittedly, I haven't researched it all that much).
But even if you take the rest of the body as basis and not the brain, if the brain cannot be altered, then practically does it have any relevance where the problem is?
But practically it does have relevance whether you call someone's entire identity as a mental disorder implying that they're insane, when transsexual people are normal, functional people besides having the gender identity of the opposite sex and having depression/anxiety related to their assigned sex body, regrets and discrimination.
it's probably unintentional, but calling people with mental disorders "insane" is not very nice.
I honestly don't see what you gain by calling it a disorder or not. Insurance maybe, but whatever. They are still people who are doing nothing criminal/wrong. If you want to understand them, then going about it thinking it's a disorder sets you up for failure.
Disorder, no disorder.. Whatever. It is what it is. Your body and mind are everything you are. And possibly your soul. Everything about you is a mixture of "defects", working together in creating you. As long as you are not disrupting society, who's to say you have a disorder. I have / have had friends with different disorders. ADHD, asbergers ... It's not like you go around talking about how to classify them. First and foremost they are people. We might not understand their behaviour at all times, and maybe they get on our nerves every now and then, but so do all people. I really don't see what we would gain by constantly pointing out that "something is wrong". It's not worse than what you make it. And imo it's fun when we're a bit different. I already talk to myself enough.
For those in medicine it is important to classify so that they can help these people. But to you and me it matters nothing. We, "regular" people, don't help them medically, we help by treating them as humans, first and foremost. Half of us have dicks, half of us have vaginas. Some peoples brains work a little different than most. Doesn't mean they are any less valuable or reduced in any way. If anything they are brave and very strong to be able to accept themselves. It's easy to accept others. Accepting yourself is hard to do.
Not like you count your hormones, and the days you get dominated and testosterone production stagnates, you don't consider whether or not you have a disorder that day, while the days you are dominating others you get a testosterone boost and feel goooood. And when you're drinking alcohol or taking drugs, or smoking weed, you alter your brain chemistry (temporarily or permanently), but you don't see yourself having a disorder, just because your mind works differently. You are (most likely) not so perfect and fully functioning at all times yourself, and you should not go about dissecting others' brains and what not. For they are more than the make-up of their brain. They are people, first and foremost. If you want to understand the transgendered, you must first learn to understand people, NOT the brain.
On December 06 2012 03:22 sam!zdat wrote: I think the fact that people WANT to do such a prima facie strange thing as change their sex is proof enough for me that the whole things exists... if it didn't, why would we be having this conversation? If sex and gender were the same thing, there wouldn't be people who felt like their sex and gender got mixed up somehow and desired to fix it. QED.
my only question is how they know that it's their sex and gender got mixed up and not something else like a chemical imbalance or genetic abnormality that can be solved with medicine/therapy?
I know that many (not all) post-op transgender people regret the decision to have an operation and say it didn't fix the problem. obviously it's not so simple as being born with the wrong sexual organs.
Because usually the transgender person does not consider their mind to be the problem. This really seems to be more about your comfort than the comfort of the transgender person. It's really egocentric. Look, maybe sex and gender did get mixed up by some chemical imbalance, but the transgender person does not want to change who they are, anymore than you want to change who you are.
Yes, some post-op regret the decision. However, it has been reported that the surgery does reduce gender dysphoria. This is not up for debate. However, surgery does NOT resolve other problems of transsexuals, and significant post-operative care and psychotherapy is often recommended because of this. Transsexuals not only have a desire to inhabit a body of the opposite sex, but they also have to accept themselves for who they are, and deal with depression, etc. Surgery has never been stated to be a cure all, and this is why we have regulations on who can have surgery.
You don't just get to say you are transsexual, and the first thing you do is get surgery. No, first you have to be living as a female full time for at least one year, and convince a medical professional that your genitalia is causing you extreme stress. Post-op people who regret the operation USUALLY exhibit many red flags, such as: During hormone therapy, changing their minds and stopping hormone therapy. Being "unsure" if they are actually transsexual. Or pursuing the operation for the wrong reasons (a sexual fetish). Or they believe that the operation will magically fix their self image problems.
well, this may sound harsh, but what they themselves consider to be the problem is not really all that important int he discussion of what the problem really is. I might not want to admit that depression is my problem (for example), but that doesn't mean it isn't my problem. and receiving treatment is not "changing who you are". and another thing, I'm not advocating one way or another. I don't know enough about the subject to have a concrete opinion about it, that's why I'm asking questions.
No, I really think you would be "changing who you are" because you identity has already formed around this gender.
You can't remove pieces of people's consciousness like legos, it doesn't work that way. Even if you could fix the problem in the mind, my bet is it would be much easier to fix it in the body.
my identity might, to some degree, have been built on the feelings that I have. those could be influenced by depression or other mental disorders. I am still me when I receive treatment. the post-op trans hasn't changed who they are, they've just changed some aspects of their physical appearance/makeup.
the question is whether it really is a problem with the body and not just a problem with the mind. as of yet, I haven't seen enough either way to be sure (admittedly, I haven't researched it all that much).
But even if you take the rest of the body as basis and not the brain, if the brain cannot be altered, then practically does it have any relevance where the problem is?
But practically it does have relevance whether you call someone's entire identity as a mental disorder implying that they're insane, when transsexual people are normal, functional people besides having the gender identity of the opposite sex and having depression/anxiety related to their assigned sex body, regrets and discrimination.
it's probably unintentional, but calling people with mental disorders "insane" is not very nice.
unfortunately that is what actually happens most of the time since a lot of people like to twist psychology towards their own beliefs that when they hear about "mental disorder" they instantly think of "insanity", a vague term that they think can entirely deligitimize someone, completely ignoring the exact definition / description of how that disorder manifests / how much of a handicap it actually is
On December 06 2012 04:00 TheToaster wrote:I'm not the one who conflates them, it's transgenders who conflate them. They feel the need to dress up as who they feel inside, when that simply has nothing to do with who they are as a person. This reinforces the notion that one must follow the societal illusions of gender roles to actually become the gender they want to be, when in fact they don't. It's a pointless struggle created by transgenders themselves.
I can see where you're coming from, but this isn't how it works.
Transgender people do not necessarily conform to stereotypical gender roles, nor do they necessarily feel the need to wear certain articles of clothing. Trans dykes (yes, that's a term) certainly don't, and they make up a sizeable percentage of the MtF population. Even straight trans girls can be as femme, andro, or butch as they please.
On December 06 2012 03:22 sam!zdat wrote: I think the fact that people WANT to do such a prima facie strange thing as change their sex is proof enough for me that the whole things exists... if it didn't, why would we be having this conversation? If sex and gender were the same thing, there wouldn't be people who felt like their sex and gender got mixed up somehow and desired to fix it. QED.
my only question is how they know that it's their sex and gender got mixed up and not something else like a chemical imbalance or genetic abnormality that can be solved with medicine/therapy?
I know that many (not all) post-op transgender people regret the decision to have an operation and say it didn't fix the problem. obviously it's not so simple as being born with the wrong sexual organs.
Because usually the transgender person does not consider their mind to be the problem. This really seems to be more about your comfort than the comfort of the transgender person. It's really egocentric. Look, maybe sex and gender did get mixed up by some chemical imbalance, but the transgender person does not want to change who they are, anymore than you want to change who you are.
Yes, some post-op regret the decision. However, it has been reported that the surgery does reduce gender dysphoria. This is not up for debate. However, surgery does NOT resolve other problems of transsexuals, and significant post-operative care and psychotherapy is often recommended because of this. Transsexuals not only have a desire to inhabit a body of the opposite sex, but they also have to accept themselves for who they are, and deal with depression, etc. Surgery has never been stated to be a cure all, and this is why we have regulations on who can have surgery.
You don't just get to say you are transsexual, and the first thing you do is get surgery. No, first you have to be living as a female full time for at least one year, and convince a medical professional that your genitalia is causing you extreme stress. Post-op people who regret the operation USUALLY exhibit many red flags, such as: During hormone therapy, changing their minds and stopping hormone therapy. Being "unsure" if they are actually transsexual. Or pursuing the operation for the wrong reasons (a sexual fetish). Or they believe that the operation will magically fix their self image problems.
well, this may sound harsh, but what they themselves consider to be the problem is not really all that important int he discussion of what the problem really is. I might not want to admit that depression is my problem (for example), but that doesn't mean it isn't my problem. and receiving treatment is not "changing who you are". and another thing, I'm not advocating one way or another. I don't know enough about the subject to have a concrete opinion about it, that's why I'm asking questions.
I think it is rather important. It only takes a little bit of self-reflection to see that. If you're an introverted person, and the world expects you to be extroverted, is the problem with you or other people? Look, in hospitals, patients have the right to refuse treatment. Even if it's completely absurd and clearly the wrong medical decision, there is an explicit right to choose what treatment you undergo. So, if that's the case, and we have two treatment options available (transforming ourselves into the gender we "ought" to be, or fixing our bodies) - we should be allowed to choose the one we want. Regardless of what outsiders believe the problem actually is.
I know you think there is something wrong with my mind. I don't. And I think my opinion should trump yours immediately and prima facie because I do not have a mental illness preventing me from making logical and rational decisions. Indeed, I feel there is absolutely nothing wrong with my ability to make decisions, and my ability to make arguments in this thread should make that obvious enough.
I don't know that we should allow people to receive whatever treatment they feel like receiving. some "treatments" aren't healthy (not saying that ops are unhealthy), and some aren't effective. we make decisions all the time for the patient's own good: not letting parents "pray away the cancer" of their children. now, this isn't exactly an argument against ops, just an establishment of the premise that it is sometimes okay to pursue and allow only one type of treatment.
I don't necessarily think there is anything wrong with your mind, that's why I said I don't know enough about it to make an opinion. I'm not lying when I say that I don't know enough to say either way, so please don't assume that. your arguments in this thread do speak to the fact that you are clearly intelligent and capable of rational thought, but that doesn't mean you know what is best for you medically speaking. (it doesn't mean you don't either, it just doesn't say either way).
Well, first off, I'd like to apologize for any aggressive language or assumptions. I have a tendency to write this way.
I agree with you that the patient does not always know what is best for him. But in the absence of any mental disorder that prevents him from making decisions in his best interests, he does have the right to choose or refuse treatment. And since we know for a fact that transitioning does in fact help cure dysphoria, I do not think it can ever be ethically argued that a transsexual should be denied this treatment because "the problem is in the mind."
Now, obviously, not all treatments are equal or valid. Cutting yourself, for example - not a valid medical treatment. But since this treatment is viable, if the patient does not view the mind as the problem, he should have the option to fix the body.
On December 06 2012 03:22 sam!zdat wrote: I think the fact that people WANT to do such a prima facie strange thing as change their sex is proof enough for me that the whole things exists... if it didn't, why would we be having this conversation? If sex and gender were the same thing, there wouldn't be people who felt like their sex and gender got mixed up somehow and desired to fix it. QED.
my only question is how they know that it's their sex and gender got mixed up and not something else like a chemical imbalance or genetic abnormality that can be solved with medicine/therapy?
I know that many (not all) post-op transgender people regret the decision to have an operation and say it didn't fix the problem. obviously it's not so simple as being born with the wrong sexual organs.
How do you know this? I'm going to ask for a source here.
I don't know how conclusive this is or whether you'll accept it as a source, but after a quick google search:
apparently the majority feel alright about their operations, but some definitely don't.
the first page is incredibly biased (as the URL suggests) the guardian article is based on research more than a decade old. actual (I just assume more accurate) research suggests a regret (not a reverse!) rate of around constant 1% in western countrys. What that does is, that being a 'normal' TS is much harder. In order to protect cis people, transpeople have to undergo hilarious things to be able to get hormones in some countrys (that situation has improved as far as I know, its still bad though, and probably no solution in sight)
On December 06 2012 03:28 mortonm wrote: If you needed a word for such a thing why not create a new one instead of hijacking an existing word which is synonymous to sex?
No. historically, gender primarily referred to grammar. It's never really been synonymous with sex.
edit: If I walked into a Latin class and said, "what sex is this noun?" people would look at me strange. There is no history of synonymity.
Actually you are wrong. This is part of the mythos invented by feminists.
Sometimes they will cite a paper where a man argues that gender should be used grammatically, but his paper does not reflect the historical usage of the word.
Source?
So easily found, maybe you should put some effort in yourself.
Gender (dʒe'ndəɹ), sb. Also 4 gendre. [a. OF. gen(d)re (F. genre) = Sp. género, Pg. gênero, It. genere, ad. L. gener- stem form of genus race, kind = Gr. γένος, Skr. jánas:— OAryan *genes-, f. root γεν- to produce; cf. KIN.] †1. Kind, sort, class; also, genus as opposed to species. The general gender: the common sort (of people). Obs. 13.. E.E.Allit. P. P. 434 Alle gendrez so ioyst wern ioyned wyth-inne. c 1384 CHAUSER H. Fame* 1. 18 To knowe of hir signifiaunce The gendres. 1398 TREVISA Barth. De P. K. VIII. xxix. (1495) 34I Byshynynge and lyghte ben dyuers as species and gendre, for suery shinyng is lyght, but not ayenwarde. 1602 SHAKES. Ham. IV. vii. 18 The great loue the generall gender beare him. 1604—Oth. I. iii. 326 Supplie it with one gender of Hearbes, or distract it with many. 1643 and so on.
1387–8: No mo genders been there but masculine, and femynyne, all the remnaunte been no genders but of grace, in facultie of grammar—Thomas Usk, The Testament of Love II iii (Walter William Skeat) 13.
c. 1460: Has thou oght written there of the femynyn gendere?—Towneley Mystery Plays xxx 161 Act One.
1632: Here's a woman! The soul of Hercules has got into her. She has a spirit, is more masculine Than the first gender—Shackerley Marmion, Holland's Leaguer III iv.
1658: The Psyche, or soul, of Tiresias is of the masculine gender—Thomas Browne, Hydriotaphia.
1709: Of the fair sex ... my only consolation for being of that gender has been the assurance it gave me of never being married to any one among them—Mary Wortley Montagu, Letters to Mrs Wortley lxvi 108.
1768: I may add the gender too of the person I am to govern—Laurence Sterne, A Sentimental Journey Through France and Italy.
1859: Black divinities of the feminine 'gender —Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities.
1874: It is exactly as if there were a sex in mountains, and their contours and curves and complexions were here all of the feminine gender—Henry James, 'A Chain of Italian Cities', The Atlantic Monthly 33 (February, p. 162.)
1892: She was uncertain as to his gender—Robert Grant, 'Reflections of a Married Man', Scribner's Magazine 11 (March, p. 376.)
1896: As to one's success in the work one does, surely that is not a question of gender either—Daily News 17 July. c. 1900: Our most lively impression is that the sun is there assumed to be of the feminine gender—Henry James, Essays on Literature.
On December 06 2012 04:00 TheToaster wrote:I'm not the one who conflates them, it's transgenders who conflate them. They feel the need to dress up as who they feel inside, when that simply has nothing to do with who they are as a person. This reinforces the notion that one must follow the societal illusions of gender roles to actually become the gender they want to be, when in fact they don't. It's a pointless struggle created by transgenders themselves.
I can see where you're coming from, but this isn't how it works.
Transgender people do not necessarily conform to stereotypical gender roles, nor do they necessarily feel the need to wear certain articles of clothing. Trans dykes (yes, that's a term) certainly don't, and they make up a sizeable percentage of the MtF population. Even straight trans girls can be as femme, andro, or butch as they please.
This. And to further the point: The only reason people have this silly idea of trans people being super femme is because 10-20 years ago, you had to pretend to be super femme or you would be denied treatment. If you went to a therapy appointment looking like a guy, they would assume you weren't really "serious" about being transsexual. However, how you express your gender identity, again, does not correlate with gender expression.
On December 06 2012 03:12 NicolBolas wrote: Why does it matter what it is called? What matters is that there is a distinction between "mental sexual state" and "physical sexual state".
As my comparison to furries alluded, the idea that there even is such a thing as a "mental sexual state" is as ridiculous as claiming there is a "mental species state".
Actually there is already a word for it: imagination.
Do you deny that it's possible for someone to mentally feel like a member of a different species? And if there happen to be enough people who have that mental condition, wouldn't it make sense to have a name for it?
You can invent whatever words you want, for whatever reason you want. If it catches in in common speech it might even make it into a dictionary.
I don't like when people try to redefine an existing word, contrary to how it is used in speech, and then go around smugly "correcting" people who use the word properly (the same way it always has been).
as someone who's experienced strong gender dysphoria and is a linguistics major... please, stop posting in this thread. you're completely and demonstrably wrong on all fronts. the reason I even bring up my major is because you're not even arguing about the topic at hand anymore. you're arguing about the direction of the english language in a thread about transsexuals. it's great that you're old fashioned when it comes to language and you apparently think that any sort of change in lexicon is a "degradation" of the language, but given the subject of this thread, we reeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaally don't care. If you want to debate about how words should keep their original meanings, then great, make a new thread.
also, if you're just using this "blah blah I don't like it when new things happen in my language" argument as a front to cover for your "gender and sex are exactly the same thing comment," then guess what, you're demonstrably wrong there, like pretty much every poster has shown you. In our current language usage, gender and sex are two distinctly different things, even if they're used interchangeably in conversation. You constantly repeating that "they're the same thing" with no factual backing whatsoever doesn't change that. It doesn't even matter if they meant exactly the same thing at some point in time (which is debatable). The important thing is that they don't mean the same thing NOW means your entire argument is invalid.
On December 06 2012 03:19 TheToaster wrote: The human soul has no gender. Transgenders that argue they need to fulfill some sort of gaping hole in their self persona are completely ignorant of this fact. Changing your outward appearance has nothing to do with your true inner self. That activity simply feeds cultural norms which define gender based on societal practices. For example when a woman dresses in almost unclad attire to seem more sexually attractive. This isn't something a man would do, because dressing in unclad attire would be weird for a man. In that sense, transgenders are actually inhibiting themselves by acting like these cultural norms actually define someone's gender. When in fact gender is really an outward illusion.
Again, you are merely conflating gender expression with gender identity.
I'm not the one who conflates them, it's transgenders who conflate them. They feel the need to dress up as who they feel inside, when that simply has nothing to do with who they are as a person. This reinforces the notion that one must follow the societal illusions of gender roles to actually become the gender they want to be, when in fact they don't. It's a pointless struggle created by transgenders themselves.
I think being a woman is about a lot more than simply how you dress. Also claiming that people shouldn't dress how they feel like is a very stupid thing to say, regardless of what personality traits are being discussed and however marginal they might be. But yeah, you don't operate your body to fit into a dress, well, ok, some people do that too, but that has nothing to do with anything.
As for the rest of your outward body, I'm pretty sure you like your dick. And if you ever were to have a vagina in a dream for instance, I'm pretty sure you would be relieved when you wake up, checking what's between your legs. But hey, gender doesn't matter RIGHT? Maybe you would be just fine with a different sex organ all together. It seemingly isn't a part of how you feel on the inside at all. Hey, just chop it off all together.
Idk man. Don't understand where you are coming from with this. If you claim your body matters not, or your outward appearance matters not, then, wow.
When you are still healthy, but perhaps unshaved and wear old clothes for a day or two, or a week, then that's just fine. It changes nothing about you and it causes you no distress, and perhaps you like it from time to time, BUT you know that at any point you can clean up and look decent, put on a smile and have no worries in the world. (well, I guess there are other things to worry about, but you get the idea.) But if you somehow were trapped in this "body and outer appearance" forever.. Then what? If you were never able to shave or get your ragged smelly clothes off, EVER? "Oh well, the outside appearance has nothing to do with who you are as a person, you should not care about this" ... I'm lost.
In theory perhaps you are noble. But considering we have a body and emotions and have to spend 100 friggin years on this earth.. well.. Wow, just, no. No. Theoretically I bet you could reduce existence to being a head in a jar on life support. "Doesn't matter what you are on the outside" .. Hey, what if you had the face of a rhino. FOR EVER. A big horn in the middle of your face. Doesn't matter if you're man, woman, or rhino face. The soul has no outward appearance. You'd be just fine, because you would know that this horn was not an expression of who you are on the inside, right? The importance of your specific sex organ, after all, is just a societal illusion of your gender role.
On December 06 2012 01:46 shinosai wrote: Secondly, many surgeons will opt to give you a non-sensate vagina because creating a sensate vagina is far more difficult. Now, I don't know about you, but I like being able to have orgasms. So, even though public healthcare does cover SRS surgery, it is not a very good deal for the transsexual.
I guess this is where the healthcare debate stops for me. People struggle to get medicated for the most basic of health conditions yet someone is upset about a "non-sensate" vagina. Well... use your anus or something? Who wants to pay for this?..
I'm not even talking AIDS or cancer patients, with many insurance companies you need a prior authorization to buy something as stupid and essential as a course of vancomycin for under 2000$. People are happy to get ANY help at that point, and someone is complaining about artificial vaginas here. Hell no, please keep it "cosmetic". Puts all that suffering and identity crisis into perspective.
Talking of sensitive vaginas ...
I would also like to make a joke about there being too many men with vaginas in this thread, even though I am sure that some people wont get it (and that could get me into trouble with the mods )
In this capitalistic world, if someone is willing to pay for a service that someone else is willing to sell then there is no problem. After a quick bit of google it appears that making the vagina sensitive is not much more difficult and is part of the standard process in the UK. As for whether it would be as sensitive as a natural vagina, I have no way to compare them.
On December 06 2012 03:12 NicolBolas wrote: Why does it matter what it is called? What matters is that there is a distinction between "mental sexual state" and "physical sexual state".
As my comparison to furries alluded, the idea that there even is such a thing as a "mental sexual state" is as ridiculous as claiming there is a "mental species state".
Actually there is already a word for it: imagination.
Do you deny that it's possible for someone to mentally feel like a member of a different species? And if there happen to be enough people who have that mental condition, wouldn't it make sense to have a name for it?
You can invent whatever words you want, for whatever reason you want. If it catches in in common speech it might even make it into a dictionary.
I don't like when people try to redefine an existing word, contrary to how it is used in speech, and then go around smugly "correcting" people who use the word properly (the same way it always has been).
as someone who's experienced strong gender dysphoria and is a linguistics major... please, stop posting in this thread. you're completely and demonstrably wrong on all fronts. the reason I even bring up my major is because you're not even arguing about the topic at hand anymore. you're arguing about the direction of the english language in a thread about transsexuals. it's great that you're old fashioned when it comes to language and you apparently think that any sort of change in lexicon is a "degradation" of the language, but given the subject of this thread, we reeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaally don't care. If you want to debate about how words should keep their original meanings, then great, make a new thread.
also, if you're just using this "blah blah I don't like it when new things happen in my language" argument as a front to cover for your "gender and sex are exactly the same thing comment," then guess what, you're demonstrably wrong there, like pretty much every poster has shown you. In our current language usage, gender and sex are two distinctly different things, even if they're used interchangeably in conversation. You constantly repeating that "they're the same thing" with no factual backing whatsoever doesn't change that. It doesn't even matter if they meant exactly the same thing at some point in time (which is debatable). The important thing is that they don't mean the same thing NOW means your entire argument is invalid.
I have no problem with language changing over time. For example "gay" obviously has changed meaning and I wouldn't use the word gay in its historical sense.
But the word gender has not changed. It's used the same as it always has been. The people clamoring for the acceptance of this new definition are a small minority of people in Western nations. These people often see it as a badge of pride to tell the majority of people they are wrong and only this new fabricated definition that has not caught on and probably never will is the truly correct one.
On December 06 2012 01:46 shinosai wrote: Secondly, many surgeons will opt to give you a non-sensate vagina because creating a sensate vagina is far more difficult. Now, I don't know about you, but I like being able to have orgasms. So, even though public healthcare does cover SRS surgery, it is not a very good deal for the transsexual.
I guess this is where the healthcare debate stops for me. People struggle to get medicated for the most basic of health conditions yet someone is upset about a "non-sensate" vagina. Well... use your anus or something? Who wants to pay for this?..
I'm not even talking AIDS or cancer patients, with many insurance companies you need a prior authorization to buy something as stupid and essential as a course of vancomycin for under 2000$. People are happy to get ANY help at that point, and someone is complaining about artificial vaginas here. Hell no, please keep it "cosmetic". Puts all that suffering and identity crisis into perspective.
Talking of sensitive vaginas ...
I would also like to make a joke about there being too many men with vaginas in this thread, even though I am sure that some people wont get it (and that could get me into trouble with the mods )
In this capitalistic world, if someone is willing to pay for a service that someone else is willing to sell then there is no problem. After a quick bit of google it appears that making the vagina sensitive is not much more difficult and is part of the standard process in the UK. As for whether it would be as sensitive as a natural vagina, I have no way to compare them.
Yes, it is done in the UK. However, as I pointed out earlier, not always. And you don't get to pick your surgeon. And if it is sensate, it may not necessarily look cosmetically correct. Different surgeons have different results, and I'm just saying, if you were going to have a surgery on your dick for whatever reason (or for that matter, any surgery period), you'd probably want to be pretty god damn picky, too. You might not want that surgeon that has 9% of his patients visiting for a followup due to complications.
On December 06 2012 01:46 shinosai wrote: Secondly, many surgeons will opt to give you a non-sensate vagina because creating a sensate vagina is far more difficult. Now, I don't know about you, but I like being able to have orgasms. So, even though public healthcare does cover SRS surgery, it is not a very good deal for the transsexual.
I guess this is where the healthcare debate stops for me. People struggle to get medicated for the most basic of health conditions yet someone is upset about a "non-sensate" vagina. Well... use your anus or something? Who wants to pay for this?..
I'm not even talking AIDS or cancer patients, with many insurance companies you need a prior authorization to buy something as stupid and essential as a course of vancomycin for under 2000$. People are happy to get ANY help at that point, and someone is complaining about artificial vaginas here. Hell no, please keep it "cosmetic". Puts all that suffering and identity crisis into perspective.
Talking of sensitive vaginas ...
I would also like to make a joke about there being too many men with vaginas in this thread, even though I am sure that some people wont get it (and that could get me into trouble with the mods )
In this capitalistic world, if someone is willing to pay for a service that someone else is willing to sell then there is no problem. After a quick bit of google it appears that making the vagina sensitive is not much more difficult and is part of the standard process in the UK. As for whether it would be as sensitive as a natural vagina, I have no way to compare them.
Yes, it is done in the UK. However, as I pointed out earlier, not always. And you don't get to pick your surgeon. And if it is sensate, it may not necessarily look cosmetically correct. Different surgeons have different results, and I'm just saying, if you were going to have a surgery on your dick for whatever reason (or for that matter, any surgery period), you'd probably want to be pretty god damn picky, too. You might not want that surgeon that has 9% of his patients visiting for a followup due to complications.
Be picky using your own money, I think is what he was saying.
On December 06 2012 04:30 rQvicious wrote: A man is gay and wants to be a women; he becomes a women. But instead of sleeping with men he sleeps with women. What is he?
On December 06 2012 01:46 shinosai wrote: Secondly, many surgeons will opt to give you a non-sensate vagina because creating a sensate vagina is far more difficult. Now, I don't know about you, but I like being able to have orgasms. So, even though public healthcare does cover SRS surgery, it is not a very good deal for the transsexual.
I guess this is where the healthcare debate stops for me. People struggle to get medicated for the most basic of health conditions yet someone is upset about a "non-sensate" vagina. Well... use your anus or something? Who wants to pay for this?..
I'm not even talking AIDS or cancer patients, with many insurance companies you need a prior authorization to buy something as stupid and essential as a course of vancomycin for under 2000$. People are happy to get ANY help at that point, and someone is complaining about artificial vaginas here. Hell no, please keep it "cosmetic". Puts all that suffering and identity crisis into perspective.
Talking of sensitive vaginas ...
I would also like to make a joke about there being too many men with vaginas in this thread, even though I am sure that some people wont get it (and that could get me into trouble with the mods )
In this capitalistic world, if someone is willing to pay for a service that someone else is willing to sell then there is no problem. After a quick bit of google it appears that making the vagina sensitive is not much more difficult and is part of the standard process in the UK. As for whether it would be as sensitive as a natural vagina, I have no way to compare them.
Yes, it is done in the UK. However, as I pointed out earlier, not always. And you don't get to pick your surgeon. And if it is sensate, it may not necessarily look cosmetically correct. Different surgeons have different results, and I'm just saying, if you were going to have a surgery on your dick for whatever reason (or for that matter, any surgery period), you'd probably want to be pretty god damn picky, too. You might not want that surgeon that has 9% of his patients visiting for a followup due to complications.
Be picky using your own money, I think is what he was saying.
Fair enough. As long as you use the same criteria for other kinds of surgery, as well.
EPT
)
